ACP has granted permission for a replacement Deer Park Hotel, following appeals.
The first-party (Tetrarch) appeal against Fingal’s permission was about the refusal of permission for a new road and the extent of car parking.
My (third-party) appeal was about
- the need to do a sustainability analysis of the demolition proposal
- a request for pedestrian permeability conditions in the decision and
- support for the refusal of the road.
When An Bord (now Coimisiún) Pleanála (ACP) circulated the appeal to Tetrarch they responded with a very poor sustainability analysis. ACP granted the permission, relying on that analysis as credible when in fact it comprised a description of what an analysis would be rather than an actual analysis.
I went in the offices to look at the files and found a note in which an ACP official identified that the sustainability analysis should be circulated to other parties. It hadn’t been. This seems to have been a simple administrative oversight but should have been noticed by the inspector and other officials reading the file.
I sought a judicial review, backed up by a report from a life cycle analysis expert and after a few months, ACP conceded to having the decision quashed and remitted.
At this stage Tetrarch submitted a detailed life cycle analysis. I noted that it looked credible to me as a lay person but that ACP should ensure that it had the necessary expertise to evaluate it. I repeated my request for pedestrian permeability conditions and the refusal of the road.
The Inspector and the Commission, relying on her advice, have accepted the demolition justification report (without it would seem getting expert input.) They have agreed that the road should be deleted. They have agreed with Tetrarch to have the same level of car parking as currently there (but better sited.)
The entirety of the Inspector’s analysis on pedestrian permeability reads as follows:
“In relation to the matters raised in the third-party appeal submission relating to increased pedestrian links with the wider area, I am satisfied with the level of pedestrian permeability proposed. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, subject to conditions.”
The third party observers in the application all opposed the road. This is the second application in which it has been refused by both Fingal and ACP. (The first being the castle application.) So that element is very positive.
The pedestrian permeability issue is a missed opportunity for reassurance rather than a setback.
My focus on the demolition was on the correct sustainability analysis. I think that probably was done correctly, although it seems as if ACP didn’t apply the necessary expertise to evaluate that. Retrofit rather than demolition (in accordance with the Fingal Development Plan) is an ongoing sustainability issue. It has been won in other local applications, e.g. Somerville on Thormanby Road and Camelot on Carrickbrack Road.