If the promoters of the proposed Spencer Dock development had divided their site into 52 one-acre sites and applied for planning permission every few months, they would not have encountered the same level of difficulty which the current plan had encountered, the appeal hearing was told yesterday.
Addressing a number of issues relating to the development, some of which he believed might have been misrepresented, Mr Tom Phillips, a partner with Frank Benson and Associates, said that similar densities to the Spencer Dock plan already existed in parts of Dublin.
While there were a number of authorities which could grant planning permission on parts of the site, such as the Dublin Docklands Development Authority and Dublin Corporation, Mr Phillips said, the statutory development plan for the site was the Dublin City Development Plan 1999.
He argued that the zoning of part of the site for an urban park did not rule out the establishment of the National Conference Centre on that site. He quoted from the DDDA planning scheme, which he said stated: "The authority will . . . seek to locate the National Conference Centre or any other major government building initiative to the east of the Royal Canal within an urban park setting . . . Alternatively, it will seek the use of the area for public amenity space in the form of an urban park."
According to Mr Phillips, the words meant that "clearly the zoning of the site for an urban park does not override the proposal for the location of the National Conference Centre".
He also said that the inclusion of the campshires [the space between the quay roads and the river], the canal and the roads for the purpose of density calculations was fully justified. This point had led to differences of opinion last week, when opponents of the scheme objected to the inclusion of the canal open space as part of the open space figures for the development.
Mr Phillips quoted from the Dublin City Development Plan 1999, which he said defined open space as "any land, including water, whether enclosed or not, on which there are no buildings, or of which not more than 5 per cent is covered with buildings, and the remainder of which is laid out as a garden or for the purposes of recreation, or lies waste or unoccupied; it also includes school playing fields, playgrounds, urban farms and forests".
He said it was clear that the inclusion of the canal in the density calculations was justified.
He quoted from a letter from the DDDA regarding the boundary of the site, which he said was dated July 1998 and had been subsequently discussed and agreed with Dublin Corporation.
"The former authority's letter suggests the inclusion of the campshires, the canal and the roads . . . There is full justification for the areas included, based on the Dublin City Development Plan 1999," he said. But such was the quantity of open space that the whole exercise of including the canal was not vital to the plan.
"Given the surplus of open space over development plan standards, the addition of the canal water body is not even required for open space calculations by the applicant," he added.
The hearing continues.
