AN TAISCE’S complaint that Dublin City Council management had “systematically disregarded” its own planning policies by approving high-rise schemes during the boom will not be investigated further by the Department of the Environment.
A dossier submitted by An Taisce in 2009 to then minister John Gormley detailed 23 planning cases where the council management’s decisions “clearly conflicted with the [Dublin] City Development Plan and/or architectural heritage guidelines”.
During the boom, it said the council “accommodated and even encouraged development proposals grossly out of proportion to their surroundings and in breach of the development plan, including several high-rise buildings within the historic city core”.
In doing so, the council “systematically disregarded its own development plan and other guidelines by approving the majority of development in this period, with An Bord Pleanála acting as a sort of safety valve to curtail and overturn its worst excesses”.
The appeals board had reversed or amended several decisions, including approval for a 16-storey tower in the Arnotts redevelopment, an 11-storey tower to the rear of the Four Courts and a “park in the sky” on the former Carlton site.
Other cases in the dossier included the council’s decisions to approve high-rise schemes for the Jurys/Berkeley Court hotel site in Ballsbridge, the adjoining Veterinary College site and the Garda station at Harcourt Terrace.
The department wrote to city manager John Tierney in June 2010 asking “to what degree has the council adhered to the relevant policies . . . and statutory planning guidelines” in making its decisions in these cases.
In response, Mr Tierney noted that the 23 decisions referred to by An Taisce represented a “small fraction of the total number of decisions appealed [and] do not reflect the support the board has generally shown for the decisions made by Dublin City Council”.
Acknowledging that height was a controversial issue, he said the city plan in place at the time “allowed for tall buildings to be proposed for any location”, but these were only considered where they complied with standards in the plan and other objectives.
There were still “matters of judgment, opinion and interpretation involved” in any decision and Mr Tierney said any divergence between the council and An Bord Pleanála “reflects such judgment calls and the weighting of different factors” in decisions they made.
The department noted the cases highlighted by An Taisce included “some of the most high-profile and controversial development proposals” for Dublin. Nonetheless, the council “has one of the lowest rates of decision reversals by An Bord Pleanála”.
Its analysis of the complaint and response said when the board overturned any decision by the planning authority, “it is important that decision is reviewed” and its implications examined in the context of development plan policy and future decision-making.
“In relation to building heights at the time of the complaint, the department concluded that the City Development Plan 2005-2011 did not provide sufficient guidance to either developers of high buildings or to city planners in assessing high buildings proposals.”
It said: “The council has substantially clarified its heights policy in the current development plan.”
