Sir, - In two recent articles in The Irish Times your Environment Correspondent, Frank McDonald, attacks An Taisce's stance on the west end of Temple Bar and its overall approach to planning in Dublin. Lest your readers be misled, it is important to set the record straight as to some of the facts.
Mr McDonald alleges (March 27th) that "the more serious a scheme is in architectural and urban design terms, the more likely it is that it will come under fire from conservationists". What could he be talking about? The only scheme appealed by An Taisce in the last five years that could in any way be described as serious is the west end. Although Frank McDonald seems determined to portray our approach as hard-line, we simply did not "decry almost every aspect of that development". We appealed reluctantly and, contrary to Mr McDonald's version, we stated that the initial brief was "exemplary" and the scheme in general good.
Contrary to what he says, we did commend the proposed Thermie heating scheme - the "startlingly progressive approach to energy and environmental matters". Contrary to what he says we did not "take strong exception" to the North-South Street. We merely suggested that a sunlight-and-shadow analysis be carried out. Only if this proved negative did we indicate we would have a problem. As regards the nine-storey tower, we did not strongly "maintain" that it would impinge on views, we stated that it might impinge but that TBP could show us otherwise by putting up balloons to the proposed height (standard practice in other countries). Nor do we want the scheme "substantially" revised. If they lower the tower we indicated that our concerns would be largely assuaged.
Frank McDonald's article of March 6th states - extraordinarily - that An Taisce failed to object to the height of the Jervis Centre. This is not so. Not alone did we lodge two lengthy objections to the height in 1995, we also have an appeal exclusively on the height at the moment.
His article states: "The city branch of An Taisce has had very little to say, in public at least, about the tenth-rate quality of (recent residential development in Dublin City); certainly it hasn't flooded An Bord Pleanala with appeals on the matter." In fact, An Taisce volunteers in Dublin; City objected to several hundred tenth-rate schemes in Dublin in the last year alone - many times more than all other environmental bodies combined. An Taisce does not aim to flood An Bord Pleanala with appeals, but in the last year we have appealed twelve schemes in Dublin City, including the Hilton Hotel, the Jervis Centre, Arnotts and proposed amendments to the Distillery scheme in Smithfield. We appealed 1-5 Green Street ("bland, mediocre Toytown"), 1-2 Burgh Quay ("overblown, overdressed, pretentious multi-tiered theme drinking barn extravaganza"), 144-150 James Street, 37-41 Castle Street, the Aisling Hotel and 89095 Capel Street, on design grounds.
Frank McDonald also implies that An Taisce gives Zoe Developments, whom he clearly considers the worst offenders, an easy ride. This is not so. For example, as regards current schemes from Zoe Developments, we appealed its Lamb Alley/Cornmarket development to An Bord Pleanala, principally for being ill-conceived "pastiche", we objected to Byrne's Lane as being "second rate, unexciting, homogenised, monolithic and single-use"; to Abbey/Jervis Streets as "second-rate, crude, generic, homogenised, unimpressive and demeaning", to Red Cow Lane (elevations lacking in public interest, unaffordable, inadequate garden, no public space, no local employment, long corridors, failure to comply with Local Agenda 21, etc) to Montpelier Hill as "mean and miserable", to North Brunswick St, North King St, Mountjoy Square and many others.
If An Taisce flooded An Bord Pleanala with appeals on the dreary schemes that deface our city, we would be wasting everyone's time. I wonder if Mr McDonald is aware that An Bord Pleanala has never (not once) overturned a decision of Dublin Corporation on design grounds only, indeed they generally ignore representations made about pure design.
An Taisce's seeks also to change attitudes in the longer-term. An Taisce has recently produced four policy documents on Temple Bar and policy documents on Docklands, HARP, Listing, Designated areas in Dublin, Urban Renewal, Grafton Street, and the Dublin City Development Plan. All take a strong line in favour of architectural flair and against the pervasive design mediocrity and low standards that now prevail.
There is a planning crisis in boomtown Dublin. If The Irish Times wishes to consider in depth either what is going on in Dublin City or what An Taisce has been doing about it, we would be thrilled to co-operate. - Yours, etc.,
Chairman,
An Taisce,
Dublin City Association,
Tailors Hall,
Back Lane,
Dublin 8.