To An Bord Pleanala

4 May 2000

Appeal Against Grant of Planning Permission

Local Authority:  Dublin Corporation
Planning Reference No:  0293/00
Location:  Ballymun Road, Ballymun, Dublin 11 and Dublin 9
Applicant:  Ballymun Regeneration Limited

To whom it may concern,

We wish to appeal the planning permission on the following grounds:

I   Height.

Two towers are proposed, one an eleven storey and the other a nine storey.
There are currently two towers (Ceant and Pearse) about 20 yards away from the location  of the proposed ones. This close location is inappropriate because it is neither economical demolish the existing towers nor sustainable to built more in their place and represents a waste of resources. 

The 2 proposed towers would not be proper to the proposed surrounding units and future developments.

II   Density.

The housing density on Site A is 81.4 Units per Hectare (32.5 per acre) and the housing density on Site B is 156.2 Units per Hectare (62.5 per acre).
Total density for both sites is 89.5 Units per Hectare (35.8 per acre).
These densities far exceed anything found in suburban areas of Dublin and have more in common with centre city locations.

The Plot Ratio for the total site is given as 0.672. This exceeds the Department of the Environment 'Residential Densities - Guidelines for Planning Authorities' where it states plot ratios for outer suburban areas (of which Ballymun is one) should be 0.35-0.5 for areas close to public transport. Plot ratios for inner suburban areas is 0.5-1.0. Therefore the plot ratio given in the planning application is for an inner suburban area and does not take cognisance of 
the fact that Ballymun is, both locationally and demographically, suburban.

The Department of the Environment brief was to re-house the population of Ballymun at existing bedspace densities. The existing bedspace density is 115 bedspaces per acre. The bedspace density on site A will be at least 206 bedspaces per acre. At the very least, this will lead to an inequitable treatment of certain tenants compared to those in lower density sites (if there will be any) in order to balance the final total bedspace densities (if this occurs). 
At worst it indicates that Ballymun will experience the same on other sites once the precedent is set. 
The panel which selected the winning design criticised all entries including the final winning design and stated that an extra ‘40 to 50 units’ would be needed to make the development viable. No definition of viability is given in this case and no consultation took place regarding the final designs.

III   Open Spaces and Playing Grounds.

The Ballymun Regeneration Limited (BRL) do not intend to include public open spaces within the sites (Gateway EIS 2.0.2.). 
Given the extremely high density, there is a need to provide open space especially in light of: "All dwellings will have access to on-site private open spaces which, in some cases, is in the form of balconies..." ( EIS Gateway, 2.1.6.). 
The present sites are used as open space by the occupants of the houses to the west of site A, and the occupants of Ceant and Connolly towers. Site B is used by the occupants of Pearse tower and Shangan Road.
The disappearance of these open spaces will have consequences for the residents of the new units and of the surrounding areas: humans are not made to live in highly built areas.  Also, the majority of residents being poor, cannot drive to go to places where they would have to pay and play.                     

IV  The Planning Application.

The application, the planner's report and the inspector's report refer to a total area of 1.776 ha., but the two reports indicate the area for site A as being 1.458 ha. and for site B as being 0.192 ha., giving a total of 1.740 ha. This is 0.036 ha. or 0.08892 acres less than in the application. It is not clear if permission was been given to build on 1.776 ha. or 1.458ha.
The description of the development states the number of residential dwellings as being 159. However, in the breakdown of residential mix, the total is stated as 151. It is not clear if planning permission was given for 159 or 151 dwellings.
Block B, the 11 storey tower on site B, will have a subtotal of 5 units 
and a common room (EIS Gateway, Figure 2); Block C, the 9 storey tower on site A, will have a subtotal of 4 units and a shop, but no totals are indicated in Figure 2. 

Permission to demolish adjacent towers has not been sought and no E.I.A. for the demolition has been prepared. Permission to build is claimed to be predicated on the demolition of the two towers to the north of the sites. 

Site B was originally included in Phase 1 as stated in BRL's newsletter of July/August 1998, but subsequently appeared in Phase 2 as a competition site in BRL's newsletter of August 1999.
The application has been made on it's own although there are, from information available, another nine sites in Phase 2. 
The Bord in it's inspector's reports on three previous appeals in phase 1 (PL.29N.111147, PL.29N.111145 and PL.29N.111308) stated unequivocally that the applicants (BRL) were "unwise" to split the thirteen Phase 1 housing schemes into separate planning applications, and that they would be "well advised not to do so for future schemes". The advice has obviously been totally ignored by the BRL for this application.

V  Consultation. 

- Masterplan.
The consultation regarding the Masterplan turned out to be the giving of selected information in a condescending manner. 
Consultation started in September 1997 or after. The Master plan was delivered to the Minister of the Environment at the end of March 1998; some of the Fora did not exist at that time. Therefore, to claim that consultation had taken place is untrue to say the least.

- Gateway Housing.
This is a competition site with proposed 30% local authority housing. 
By nature, competition is open to any concept and design. 
To have had proper consultation would have required the thirty nine applicants to meet with residents; this has not happened.
The then Minister for the Environment stated Consultation would be required from the start: "the maximum level of community consultation and participation in the project should be provided". Clearly, the Minister's wishes have not been fulfilled.

VI  Drainage.

The capacity of the Wad River is inadequate. The BRL propose to mitigate to avoid increasing overall flows from the project area by "transferring" part of catchment #2 to catchment #1 (Gateway EIS 10.2.1.). 
The totals for catchment #2 should read: area= 43, run-off coefficient= 0.575,
aimp =20.2 (Gateway EIS 10.2.1.).
As both catchments ultimately discharge into the Wad River, this "transfer" will not mitigate anything, and rather have a serious impact (flooding) on all areas around the WadRriver and the Tolka River, and indeed in Ballymun.  

VII  Traffic and Transportation.

The public transport system is overloaded at present. Any new development will put the already inadequate bus service under severe strain. It is at times impossible to get on a bus, because the bus being full, it simply does not stop. At other times, buses are overloaded and this leads to an unsafe situation with student luggage on floors and seats.
The suggestion to provide accommodation for student requires a detailed analysis and assessment on a range of issues, public transport being one.

The 36 and 36A bus routes were discontinued in 1997. To include these in the list of buses serving Ballymun (E.I.S. Gateway, 11.2.1.) shows BRL’s level of ignorance of the present and real situation on the ground. Alternatively, this might have been a deliberate way of presenting a better picture than the real one. 
These facts surely raise questions regarding other statements and details in the E.I.S. and, if such basic and ascertainable facts cannot be presented correctly, other important and complicated matters contained in the document may have suffer the same inaccurate treatment; the drainage section has suffered the same treatment, as well as the total surface area and the total number of dwellings (see IV and VI above).

The level of traffic has grown dramatically, by threefold, in past three years and the information given in the E.I.S. is not up to date. 

VIII  Roads.

A new access road to the south of Site A is proposed by BRL to link up with Sillogue Avenue and Poppintree Industrial Estate via Sandyhill. This road will be used for rat-running by motorists and commercial vehicles up to Poppintree Industrial Estate and will present a very significant threat to pedestrians, including children, and cyclists in adjoining areas. 
A BRL consultant architects at one meeting stated that 'children will be able to play on the roads'. 
This already occurs, much to the danger of children; this is unacceptable. The solution would be to have sufficient playing space within the curtilage of the sites, and to build the roads as cul-de-sac.

IX  Car Parking Facilities.

The parking ratio is inadequate in both residential and student accommodation areas. The supervision of spaces is described as "informal", a very vague term possibly meaning there will be no supervision at all.
The twelve spaces for student accommodation will not be enough and the extra cars will spread in the residential area, which is unsatisfactory and not in the interests proper standards of development.

Conclusion.

The Ballymun Regeneration Limited are splitting the entire project and this application is one of many. It is not therefore possible to assess the overall impacts the whole development will have on the residents and their environment, and also on the environment surrounding the Wad River and the Tolka River and their numerous affluents.
The 300 bed capacity proposed on site B for students will result in an enormous number of people living in a very small area. 
The regeneration of Ballymun should be for the people of Ballymun first rather than for students who will be absent for 5 months of the year.
This application like the previous 13 is flawed regarding overall impacts, drainage, open spaces, consultation, transport, car parking, playground facilities, sustainability, height and mass in relation to existing housing along site A and the school along site B.
The sale of public land, site B (Lot 2, Plot 33) and site A (Lot , Plot 32) to private developers is highly questionable.
Given the discrepancies in the size of the area to be developed, in the number of dwellings to be built and other matters above-mention this application was flawed and we are asking the Bord to uphold our views and to withdraw the application immediately.

Yours sincerely,

_________________