Planning matters

Nothing is causing more disquiet at the moment than the planning situation in the greater Dundrum and Stillorgan areas. A huge amount of development is underway, and the height and scale of the buildings is causing real worry and fear among residents.

This is essentially a completely new phase of development for the whole area. Taking the first phase as the suburbanisation of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, this new phase is one of urbanisation, where multi-storey apartments are built instead of houses, and where intensive commercial development replaces the more modest schemes of times past.

The underlying principles of this are basically sound. They are, in summary, that we cannot allow Dublin to sprawl out across the whole of Leinster; that areas like Dundrum which are now well served with high quality public transport (LUAS) should have higher densities of housing; and that the most efficient use must be made of that most precious of resources - land.

However, the realisation of these objectives are coming about in a most undesirable way. I repeatedly made the point that the manner of how this new development knits in with the old would be the most difficult thing to achieve. Unfortunately, little regard is being had to the existing environment in considering planning applications. You cannot have, as one applicant proposed, a six-storey building overlooking a bungalow, nor can you have eight or nine storeys beside two storeys, but these are being considered.

Similarly, the wisdom of 17- and 23-storey developments is, to say the least, questionable in an outlying area of the city, when hardly any such things are happening at the heart of the city. It must always be borne in mind that Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown does not exist "on its own". It is a part of an urban continuum of Dublin.

Some of the schemes work fine. There are sites that can take high buildings without any real problem. High buildings in the heart of the industrial estates might be okay, but putting them at the edges where they are closer to existing houses is not a good idea.

One of the most common difficulties with the type of scheme proposed is so-called "landmark buildings", whereby developments comprise multiple blocks, and then a huge "landmark" tower that causes more disquiet than any other lelement of the scheme. Arguments about architectural "interest", are made in defence of this, but the general quality of the architecture is relatively poor anyway. Besides, there are so many landmarks proposed that they will soon hardly qualify as such.

It cannot go unsaid that higher densities may be desirable, but they must have proper infrastructure attached. It is not enough that they have the Luas and schools; they must also have the play facilities, football pitches, etc that go with this. As an example, it is a good 25-minute walk to a playground from the new developments in central Dundrum. Yet, it is argued, people living so close to the Luas won't need cars so much. And it is also said that this higher density is most desirable within 1km of a major public transport corridor, but no regard is had to other infrastructure that surely also should be available within such a distance.

At the heart of the problem is the gap between the professional planners who decide the issues, and the citizens of the county who have to live with the consequences. That gap is causing a real loss of confidence in the planning system, and breeding a dangerous cynicism about the process.

When all is said and done, height is the real problem. The need for higher densities is generally accepted, and while high density can be achieved with modest increases in height, the headlong rush for high buildings satisfies nobody but the developers. Perhaps rather than looking to maximise builders' profits, we should look to optimise the use of land.

So what is to be done. The above points, and many more, have been forcefully made to the Director of Planning. Some solutions that have been suggested are a cap on height simpliciter, which may not bring about a desirable outcome either, or a return to the rules in the old development plan, which it is said were more stringent. However, many developments which would cause exactly the same amount of controversy were passed under that plan. It is the interpretation of the current development plan, particularly bits about "having regard to existing residential amenity" that are causing the problem. A more conservative and sensitive approach to development would bring about a better environment, in which people could have confidence again in the planning process.

There are grave risks attaching to varying the plan, not least that more land would need to be rezoned. Most profoundly, this may put parts of the Dublin mountains under pressure - an equally undesirable outcome. One way or another, and sooner rather than later, however, a solution must be found. But it is not as simple as it seems.