Plans for a five-storey apartment block on one of the most prominent sites along the Grand Canal in Dublin were described yesterday as "fundamentally flawed" by the chairman of a local residents' association.
Bryan Dobson, the RTE broadcaster who heads the Longwood Avenue Residents' Association in Portobello, told an oral hearing convened by An Bord Pleanala that the building was too massive for the site and he urged the board to reject it.
Mr Dobson was appealing against a decision by Dublin Corporation to grant planning permission to Dion Properties Ltd for the proposed development on a long-time derelict site at the corner of Windsor Terrace and Clanbrassil Street Upper.
The residents' association maintained that the five-storey building - including offices, a car showroom at street level and car repair workshop to the rear as well as 38 apartments - would be at odds with the low-rise 19th century character of the area.
The association accepts that the site at a principal entry point to the historic core of Dublin deserves a landmark development, but it insists that the proposal is too tall and bulky compared to nearby two-storey houses.
In its submission, the association pointed out that the impact of the building would be aggravated by the site's elevation - the highest point along the Grand Canal; it is higher even, by 10 feet, than Christ Church Cathedral site.
Leaflets distributed by the association to generate local opposition to the scheme showed a perspective of the building in relation to Emmet Bridge, which carries Harold's Cross Road over the Grand Canal, and asked: "Do you want this eyesore on your doorstep?"
At yesterday's oral hearing Mr David Ball, a local resident and consultant engineer, said this was designed to counter drawings produced by the developers' architects, deBlacam and Meagher, which gave a distorted impression of the building's true scale.
Mr Ball said revised drawings submitted by them to An Bord Pleanala gave a more accurate perspective, confirming that the building would be significantly higher. Thus, the corporation had made its decision to grant permission on the basis of "incorrect information".
"If architects cannot draw their own buildings correctly, how can the public and the planning authorities make a judgment on its impact?" Mr Ball asked. However, the architects challenged this, saying that several of Mr Ball's own calculations were incorrect. The residents' association also opposes the scheme because of the precedent it could set for further "monolithic, high-rise buildings" on Clanbrassil Street Upper; indeed, Mr Ball noted that this was one of the dangers implicitly acknowledged by Dublin Corporation.
Mr Michael Reynolds, senior planner, agreed that the scheme would "involve a certain degree of conflict with the scale on Clanbrassil Street Upper". But as demand for space increased, "no doubt the redevelopment of the adjoining properties . . . could well arise".
The challenge in planning terms was to achieve a satisfactory balance, he said. The revised plans submitted after long discussions with the developers' architects and planning consultants were accepted by the corporation as "a satisfactory compromise" for the site. Mr Christopher McGarry, of McHugh Consultants, representing the developers, said the building had been purposely designed to "ensure a strong urban definition to the canal frontage", while stepping down towards the houses on Windsor Terrace.
Dealing with the residents' concerns about the traffic it would generate, Mr McGarry told the planning inspector, Mr Michael Dillon, that the scheme was well-placed to avail of public transport, cycling and walking, in line with Dublin's transportation strategy.
An Bord Pleanala is expected to make a decision on the appeal by September 7th.
