News that An Bord Pleanála had turned down a proposed development of 881 apartments on the site of the old Dundrum shopping centre follows an all-too-familiar pattern. A lengthy and complicated process has a project shot down due to objections and the decision of planners that rules had been contravened. Initial plans to redevelop this site go back as far as 2004, with the latest decision relating to an application process that started towards the end of 2021.
I am not qualified to give an opinion on the reasons the scheme was turned down, which ranged from height to the nature and scale of the residential plans, to flood planning and transport concerns and a view that it did not fit within planning guidelines. Reading the decision gives an insight into the complexity of factors involved.
But what is clear when we stand back is that this is another example of the planning and development system not acting in the wider national interest. There is, after all, a housing crisis. Here is a site that is ideally suited to development. It is in an urban area where, on the basis of all the national and local plans, development is desirable. National guidelines underline the vital goal of more “compact” living – developing sites near city and town centres and transport links, necessary to achieve climate goals. This site is 50m from a Luas stop, beside a host of bus services and near schools, shops and other services.
Reading Dundrum, it is clear that the local and national guidelines are not always completely aligned, or at least leave room for significant interpretation
Yet somehow the developers and planners cannot come up with a scheme to get it done. In a logical scenario, the two sides would sit down at the start – based on clear planning guidelines – drawn up after local consultation and offering appropriate rights to objection and agree what could happen. Once the developer stayed within the rules, it would happen.
Instead, the Irish system looks back to front and upside down. Developers face delay and uncertainty. Planners are trying to guard against their decisions being legally overturned. The courts rule on narrow matters of law and this is not always in line with the wider interest. The odds are stacked against progress being made, particularly in the case of complex infill sites such as Dundrum.
Reading Dundrum, it is clear that the local and national guidelines are not always completely aligned, or at least leave room for significant interpretation. There was a pre-planning meeting between the developers and the planners in late 2021 designed to scope things out. But, in the light of this, reading the planning judgment leaves you mystified about the gap between, on one side, a developer who felt their scheme was fully justified and, on the other, a planning authority who felt the exact opposite.
Difficulties in developing urban sites are common, though reasons vary. Just down the road, the site of the old Central Mental Hospital has also been through the planning hoops, held up by an objection from another developer to a scheme approved by An Bord Pleanála. A joint venture between the local authority and the Land Development Agency may finally get the vital provision of more than 800 social and affordable houses started. But with years of delay.
Two build-to-rent schemes in Blackrock and Dublin 18 proposed by Cairn Homes were turned down by An Bord Pleanála after lengthy consideration – one due to an “over-proliferation” of such schemes in the area. Cross the river to the north side of Dublin and you find the Supreme Court ruling against the planning approval for more than 1,500 apartments on the old Clonliffe College site, because enough consideration had not been given to potential damage to the adjoining lands and structures.
The Strategic Housing Development scheme introduced in 2017, designed to speed things up by allowing developers to bypass local authorities (and under which the Dundrum application was made) has been a disaster
And a scheme to redevelop an old pitch and putt course beside the Cadbury factory on the Malahide Road was turned down by An Bord Pleanála because it ruled that an assisted living element to the site did not go far enough to meet “mixed-use” guidelines (meaning that sites should comprise more than just housing), concerns about light in a minority of the apartments and a finding that the developers had failed to adequately consider the impact on Brent geese. A survey had shown no evidence that the geese – a regular feature of appeals in north Dublin – had used the site at all in recent years.
What’s in store for 2025?
This is not an argument to allow proper planning and vital environmental rules to be ignored. But if compact living is the goal of national policy, then Ireland needs to get a lot better at this. The Strategic Housing Development scheme introduced in 2017, designed to speed things up by allowing developers to bypass local authorities (and under which the Dundrum application was made) has been a disaster, spurring a host of legal challenges. At least its replacement seems better. Meanwhile, in some aspects – such as the designation of new urban development zones – the new planning act may help, though its implementation is going to take time and planning experts warn about the impact of some provisions.
The Sinn Féin housing plan, meanwhile, had sensible suggestions about just how developers and local authorities could co-operate more effectively to get redevelopments on “brownfield” sites such as the one in Dundrum planned and delivered more effectively. And the Commission on Housing has a good analysis of the particular planning and financial challenges in redeveloping these sites and how to address them.
Developments for renters, in other words, are not welcome. Local homeowners and businesses often have legitimate concerns, but the better-off use any legal tool to maintain the status quo
At the moment nobody’s interests are served – except the lawyers and planning consultants, of course. Or maybe, quietly, it all suits some people quite well. A number of the objections to rental housing schemes refer pejoratively to the creation of a “transient” community or one that is not “stable”. Developments for renters, in other words, are not welcome. Local homeowners and businesses often have legitimate concerns, but the better-off use any legal tool to maintain the status quo. And local politicians quoted in the case of Dundrum, for example, were happy to support the idea of development, but also to repeat the objections of constituents to this scheme.
A malign mind might argue that rather than this all being seen as a problem that goes to the heart of national spatial, social, economic and climate policy, a lot of people are happy enough with the way things are. And to see lack of supply keeps the value of their house on the up.