Fairview Residents’ Association

Cumann Mhuintear Fionnradharc

The following is the appeal lodged on 10 December 2009 on behalf of Fairview Residents Association against the “Decision to Grant” by DCC: Plan No: 3196/09.

Re: Planning Ref.:  3196 / 09

Site at 18 Fairview Avenue/Fairview Terrace

Proposal: For Independent Living Units

Dear Sir / Madam,

Fairview Residents Association wishes to lodge an appeal against the decision of Dublin City Council (DCC) regarding the above application 3196/09. It was decided by DCC to grant permission by Order dated 13th of November 2009. The Association objected to the original application and we include our acknowledgement letter. We also include a cheque for 220 euro by way of payment for the appeal.

There is strong opposition to this development from the local community. At our AGM on 30/11/2009 and also at committee level there was a unanimous decision to appeal this decision so the views expressed below are the views our membership. This meeting was also attended by a number of County Councillors who are in support of our view that this proposed development constitutes an overdevelopment of the site in question. We understand that the Marino Residents Association is also appealing this decision.

There were also a large number of individual objections lodged against this application. It is clear that the concerns of local residents have not been adequately dealt with in the planning process by Dublin City Council or by way of conditions to The Decision to Grant Permission. It is equally clear that DCC is also ignoring the two precedent refusals by An Bord Pleanala on this site: Plan no: 5735/07 and Plan No 4544/08. Both of these previous applications were for similar densely populated multi storey residential institutions.

We submit the following Grounds of Appeal:

1. The Precedent Decisions by An Bord Pleanala have been ignored by Dublin City Council

Planning History

This current application is substantially the same proposal as 5735/07 (which was a Part V Social Housing proposal). That Decision to Grant by DCC was overturned by An Bord Pleanala on the 12^th of December 2008 for the following reasons:

“It is considered that the proposed development, by reason of its layout, scale and site coverage, would constitute overdevelopment of the site and would seriously injure the amenities of adjoining properties by reason of overlooking and overbearing appearance. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

It is considered that the proposed development by reason of its height with regard to the eaves level of the adjoining property at Number 17 Fairview Ave and by reason of it unbroken length along Fairview Terrace would be unduly obtrusive in the streetscape and would therefore seriously injure the amenities of the area and be contrary to proper planning and sustainable development of the area.”

Plan No 4544/08 was for an 80 Bedroom private nursing home providing bed spaces for 100 residents. The Decision to Grant by DCC was overturned by An Bord Pleanala on the 12th of August 2009 for the following reasons:

“Having regard to the layout, scale and site coverage, it is considered that the proposed development would constitute overdevelopment of the site and would seriously injure the amenities of the adjoining properties by reason of overlooking and over bearing appearance. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. “

We submit that as this application is substantially the same in size, structure, design, density, and layout as 5735/07 and 4544/08 this current application should also be refused. Prior to the site being cleared there stood one house with one resident living there with a long back garden. To replace this with a densely populated residential institute that practically covers the entire site is ludicrous.

2. Zoning Variation to Z2 for Marion area – Dublin City Development Plan

The Marino area which includes Fairview Terrace and Brian Terrace is now zoned Z2.

A Variation of Dublin City Development Plan 2005-2011 was adopted by DCC on the 9^th of June 2008) since the previous social housing application 5735/07

In their own words, DCC stated that this variation was to protect the Marion area from inappropriate development:

“Marino is a residential area, extending from St Declan’s Road and Croydon Terrace in the north, and southwards to Fairview Terrace and Haverty Road. …..The estate at Marino was built in the “Garden City” mode in the late 1920s, providing improved street widths, lower density housing, plenty of open spaces. It was planned with the classic suburb design of 12 houses to the acre with an orderly arrangement of houses, private gardens, public spaces and allotments. The street plan is highly symmetrical, with main streets radiating from a large circular open space, blocks of houses of different size, style, with gardens front and back.”

Purpose of the Variation according to DCC: “Despite this strong physical character, there is concern that inappropriate development is threatening to detract from its attractiveness and historic character. Pressure for development includes inappropriate extensions, dwellings in side gardens and provision for off street parking.”

The objective of a Z2 Zoning (Residential Conservation Area) is “to provide an enhanced level of protection to the unique architectural quality of the area. Residential conservation areas, delineated by Z2 zoning objective, are recognised for their distinctive character and have extensive groupings of buildings and associated open spaces which are visually important to the character of the area.”

The text of this proposal to change the zoning of Marino from Z1 to Z2 was written by the same Planning Department which has now (once again) given planning permission for a poorly designed unsuitable 3 storey over basement residential institution with high density opposite the 2 storey houses on Fairview Terrace, Marino Estate which is zoned Z2. Clearly, this decision should be overturned (again by An Bord Pleanala) as this proposed development is totally “at odds” with their own Development Plan.

Furthermore, it is stated under paragraph 14.8.0 of The Dublin City Development Plan “The land use zoning objectives and control standards show boundaries between zones. While the zoning objectives and development control standards indicate the different uses permitted in each zone, it is important to avoid abrupt transitional zonal areas. It is necessary to avoid developments which would be detrimental to the amenities of the more environmentally sensitive zone.” For a site facing a Z2 zoning particular attention should be paid to the scale and design of such a structure. The proposed building is totally out of character with the 2 storey Marino houses. Special attention must be paid to protecting the adjoining residential properties. It is also out of character with the earlier red brick Victorian houses on Fairview Avenue.

The site in question is zoned Z1: “to protect and improve residential amenities”.

Hostels are not permitted under Z1.

The current zoning of this site under The 2005 Dublin City Development Plan is Z1: “to protect, provide and improve residential amenities”.

This proposed development does not protect or improve the residential amenities of the area. A large number of residents (a high proportion of whom have lived here for many years) are elderly vulnerable people living alone. This “communal housing” with ancillary facilities is more akin to a “hostel” than a residential development. Hostels are not “permissible” development under the zoning but are only “open for consideration”. This was acknowledged by the planner in his report (Plan No: 5735/07) as follows:

“[t]he proposed development is for residential use. The units involved include communal apartments with shared facilities, which is effectively a ‘hostel’ and independent apartments, all managed by a single management company on lands zoned Z1’ To provide protect or improve residential amenity’. The proposed development of a hostel is ‘open for consideration’ as set out in the zoning matrix for zoning objective Z1.”

We submit that there is no precedent for this type of large scale institutional development in the Fairview/Marino area. The majority of houses are two-storey, owner/occupier/one-family units. It is not a suitable place for a highly concentrated 24 hour institution for people with mental health and alcohol related problems.   We quote from the letter submitted by Novas (Plan No 5735/07): “One of the commitments made by Dublin City Council is that in the North Central Area a new service will be introduced to “develop long-term supported housing, integrated with mental health and alcohol support services”. This development if it proceeds fully discharges this commitment.”

There are also 3 schools close to the site including a national school (very close by) off Windsor Avenue. This is not a suitable location for a high density 24-hour institution for people with mental/social/and alcohol related problems. We as, a community, are not against helping people with social problems but we are against the scale and density of this development and the potential impact it will have on our area. A small number of two-storey sheltered houses would be a sensible acceptable compromise.

3. Excessive Scale and Unsympathetic Substandard Design

It is our view that the excessive scale and unsympathetic design of this proposed development would seriously injure the character of the surrounding area and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. We submit that this development is disproportionate to and out of scale with the adjoining 2-storey Marino Estate and will dominate the 2 storey properties on Fairview Terrace, Brian Terrace and overshadow the rear of the properties of Windsor Avenue. We submit that the design, scale, bulk and massing of this proposed development is seriously injurious to the amenity of the area.

4. Inadequate Amenity for the Residents of the Proposed Development

We also submit that this proposed development does not adequately provide sufficient amenity within the site for the large number of occupants. The insufficient provision of private open space within the development would result in substandard residential amenity for the occupiers of the scheme. We submit that this development does not comply with basic requirements.

5. Proposed Development is seriously injurious to the Surrounding Area

It is our view that this development would not integrate successfully with the existing community and would seriously injure the amenities of the area. This proposed “hostel-like” shared accommodation is not in keeping with the existing character of the Marino / Fairview area and does not constitute “proper planning and development”. Notice must be taken of the protection of amenities and the privacy of adjoining dwellings. It will also deprive the residents on Fairview Terrace of day light to their own properties all year round.

6. Flawed Decision Making Process

Breach of Fair Procedures

We submit that these applications by Abbey Developments have not been fairly dealt with by The Planning Authority and there has been a breach of fair procedures by way of unfair bias. There were many objections to all three applications on this site. Detailed observations on valid planning grounds were made by concerned residents living on the following surrounding roads: Fairview Ave, Merville Avenue, Brian Terrace, Fairview Terrace, Fairview Strand, Windsor Avenue, Shelmartin Avenue, Melrose Avenue, Fairview Green, Brian Ave, Croyden Green, Drumbeg Court, Marino Court, and Windsor Lane. There were also objections from the two local Residents Associations (The Fairview and Marino Associations) and a number of elected representatives. These objections were not adequately dealt with by The Planning Authority.

Rule Against Bias

One of the fundamental principles of natural and constitutional justice is the rule against bias. In short, this requires that the decision-maker should be disinterested in the outcome of the decision-making process. This rule extends not only to actual bias but to any reasonable apprehension or suspicion of bias. (see Simons, Planning and Development Law (2^nd ed, 2007)  The test is objective: would a reasonable person in the circumstances have a reasonable apprehension of bias? (see Bula Ltd v. Tara Mines [2000] 4 IR 412 andJerry Beades v. Dub City Council, unreported, McKechnie J., Sept 7, 2005).  We submit that there is a conflict of interest between the Housing Function and the Planning Function of the Local Authority in an application for a residential institution as proposed. In addition to its function as a decision-maker regarding planning permission the local authority has a function in relation to providing housing units to those in need. We submit that the latter function has given rise to a conflict with the former adjudicatory role. This is a form of institutional bias. Again on this occasion (as with 5735/07) The Planning Authority has determined the application in question in favour of the applicants without due consideration of the impact in the proper planning of the area in question.

We and other objectors had reasonable grounds of suspicion that the previous application 5735/07 was pre-judged before the planning application was properly considered.  In the original application dated 16^th October 2007, the applicant stated that “the developer in conjunction with Novas and the (then) Assistant City Manager Brendan Kenny agreed to develop independent and group housing”. It was a source of concern that the above development appeared to have been agreed with the Housing Department of Dublin City Council and the proposed operator (Novas) before the planning process took place. There appeared (on the face of it) to have been an attempt to restrict the involvement of local representatives on Dublin City Council. The local county councillors seemed unaware of this application until the late stages of the planning process and this view was clearly expressed by our elected representatives at the public meeting in November 2007.

In the “Further Information Request” the letter submitted by Novas received 27/2/2008 stated “the project has been subject to extensive discussions with Dublin City Council Housing Department and The Council is supportive of the project.” This statement indicates pre-judgment of the application. At no time was the existing established community of Marino or Fairview consulted by any party for their views nor were they given any opportunity to express their concerns at the pre planning stage.

8.  Site Selection – Site not chosen for reasons of suitability

We submit that this site is not suitable for the proposed use. See “the site selection” on planning file: 5735/07 (see also planning objection received from AOS Planning Consultants (19/11/2007: paras 5.0 to 5.3)). It is clear from documents on the planning history file that the site on Fairview Ave/Fairview Terrace was chosen merely because another site purchase on North Circular Road fell through. Therefore the site in Fairview was chosen not on grounds of suitability but on grounds of availability. This badly designed structure without sufficient open space does not adequately deal with the requirements of such a high number of residents with social problems. Such a high concentration of residents with social problems in one development will not facilitate rehabilitation.

In the previous planning application 5735/07 it referred to the “site selection criteria”. It states that this site has been identified as “compatible with target resident requirements and having a capacity to support and integrate the residents with the wider community”. There was no proper consultation with the local community by Dublin City Council Housing Department or the “illusive” Novas Group. This has led to fear and apprehension among the elderly community in Marino. These elderly people are entitled to continue to enjoy the peaceful amenity of their area which currently exists. The fact that this development involves shared/clustered “hostel-like” accommodation with 24-hour staff is not in keeping with the existing character of the Marino/Fairview area. Marino is a quiet residential established area. It would be grossly unfair to the elderly people who have lived peacefully in the area for many years to be driven out by a development totally incompatible with the existing area.

The original objective and spirit of The Planning and Development Act 2000 was for “social integration” of a small percentage of social or affordable houses on a larger site so that the larger development could absorb and integrate the residents. This current proposal is not good planning: a high concentration of people with social problems in one development without provision of proper amenity within the site. This amounts to “social segregation” and not “social integration” and is against Dublin City Council’s own policy. The fact that there was no constructive prior consultation with the local community has already alienated the existing residents of the area rendering them hostile to the development which is unfair to the proposed occupants of the scheme.  The lack of adequate internal amenities for the occupants means that the impact of potential anti-social behaviour on the surrounding amenities will be heightened.

10. Poor Design

The proposed scheme is ill conceived, poorly designed and sub-standard in many respects. It proposes a high density solution in a low density neighbourhood and proposes to provide sub-standard or at the very least minimum standard apartment units. This is contrary to The Dublin City Development Plan. The scheme has been designed without vision of any kind and proposes limited amenity to its needy occupants. Its architectural expression is clumsy and incoherent. The design of the elevations neither reflects nor tries to take any cognisance of the 19th Century architecture of the houses on Fairview Avenue Lower or the 2-storey “arts and craft” design of the unique conservation area of The Marino Estate.

One of the primary concerns of local residents is that the proposed building and site is inadequate in size to accommodate the number of proposed residents and the ancillary facilities which would be required. A large number of people with varying levels of behavioural problems are expected to co-exist in this crowded facility. We submit that all aspects of this proposed building and its size are mean and uninspired in conception and execution. There is no evidence in the architect’s drawings or written submission that there are any inherent benefits in the design that will contribute to the well being or rehabilitation of the occupants. On the contrary, this design constitutes little more than a cynical shoe-horning of apartment spaces on to a site that is patently too small to accommodate the number of proposed residents and the required amenities and the contingent support services required. We consider and intend to demonstrate that the proposed facility does not adequately provide for its intended inhabitants and in many respects does not comply with the basic standards required of apartment developments. Furthermore, due to the poor design it will have a disproportionate and unacceptable effect on the surrounding properties.

11. Not in the interest of Visual Amenity - 3-Storey Over Basement vs surrounding 2-Storey houses

This development will dominate the two-storey houses in Fairview Terrace, Windsor Avenue, and Brian Terrace. The proposed building is 3 storey over basement. There is inadequate “set back” from the pavement. The building dwarfs the small two storey Marino Houses on the opposite side of Fairview Terrace. The entrances are mean perfunctory holes in the wall with no transition zone between public and private. One would imagine that an intermediate space would be required in a development of this nature. There seems to be no provision to widen the pavement to reflect the site’s new status and the greatly intensified use. It is fully expected by the existing residents that the pavement will be used for car-parking spaces as there is inadequate car parking provided for on the site (see below). Fairview Terrace is a narrow street with parking allowed on one side only and the pavement is already used by cars during busy periods. The site was described in the Planner’s Report on the history file 4129/05 as “a narrow plot facing a busy residential area. The surrounding area is residential and predominantly two-storey in character with the exception of Drumbeg Court on Fairview Avenue.” We submit that a 3-storey development will reduce the quality of life of the residents of the traditional 2-storey Marino houses on Fairview Terrace, Brian Terrace and the residents of Windsor Avenue which backs on to the site.

12. Shared Open Space/Amenity: Grossly Inadequate for the number of occupants

The shared open space in this proposed development is grossly inadequate for the needs of the occupants.  The open space provided is too small and certainly not adequate for 46 people. This small space is at basement with no direct sunlight and therefore is unlikely to be a pleasant and therapeutic place for the residents. It will most certainly be of no use as an amenity space. Novas is putting this facility forward as a rehabilitation centre the mental and physical well being of the occupants should be of the utmost importance. It should also be noted that balcony and terrace provision are also inadequate.  All of these factors are not acceptable and are not in the interest of good planning.

13. Elevations - of especially low quality and will be visually unattractive

The elevations reflect the aimless quality of the building plans. They lack any connection to the surrounding properties. The proposed building is reminiscent of a low end 1980s office development. The proposed materials are random and poorly chosen that are inappropriate for a residential development such as this. The street elevations are of especially low quality and will be visually unattractive and take away from the surrounding area. We submit that the proposal should have been rejected on this ground alone.

14. Living Unit Size Inadequate

We refer to The Dublin City Council “Draft Guidelines on achieving Liveable Sustainable New Apartment Homes for Dublin City - Draft Guidelines May 2007”. This document modifies The Development Plan 2005 -2011. These Guidelines define a wide range of minimum standards which must be observed in designing apartments. It provides that:

“Minimum standards are set regarding floor areas and mix of units, however, The Planning Authority has taken the view that a scheme that is designed entirely to the minimum standards is likely to be of minimal quality and is not acceptable.”

The Draft Guidelines further state that:

“A Housing Quality Assessment including all these criteria shall be required with all planning applications.”

[and]

“A sustainability audit report shall be required with all applications and innovative measures shall be encouraged.”

The DOE Sustainability Urban Housing Design Standards for New Apartments – Guidelines for new Apartments – Guidelines for Planning Authority (Sept 2007)” allows for minimum living space.

The Draft Guidelines also call for a minimum storage space of 3 sq m in 1 bed apartments or equivalent.

We submit that the above minimum guidelines are ignored by the developers in this application. Surely if this development is to provide permanent housing for homeless people they deserve at least the minimum standards required of developers of private residential developments.

We submit that The Planning and The Housing Authorities are failing both the proposed occupants of the development and the existing community in the surrounding area by not providing adequate accommodation standards to the proposed occupants from the housing list. Frankly, we all deserve better treatment. This is an inadequate and badly designed development and should not be permitted to go ahead.

15. Inadequate  parking allowed– no recognition of the impact on traffic

This development does not provide adequate car parking for staff. There will also be contingent visitors (i.e. relatives and friends of the occupants) /deliveries/waste collection/visits from medical practitioners/HSE/social workers etc.

There are already too many cars and not enough parking in the surrounding area of this site. The surrounding area is used by both residents and people visiting / working in the businesses on Fairview Strand. When there is a match in Croke Park we also have the significant increased traffic / parking problems in the area. It will increase the parking required on the surrounding narrow roads. On both Brian Terrace and Fairview Terrace, there is only parking on one side of the road. There are no driveways on Windsor Avenue so all residents must park on the both sides of this narrow one-way road. This proposed development will increase the volume of traffic coming and going and this will not be easily absorbed in the surrounding area. Concern was expressed by the Roads and Traffic Division in a previous application to the effect that “the access width from the development and the width of Fairview Terrace is sub-standard”. Exiting to Fairview Strand is very restricted due to one-way schemes in the Marino area. We are baffled that The Roads and Traffic Department have allowed this decision. A representative should visit at rush hour or when there is a match/concert on in Croke Park which is now a regular occurrence.  We have GAA, rugby, football, and music concerts to contend with on a regular basis.

16. Inadequate staffing levels

We submit that the proposed staffing levels for such a proposed facility are grossly inadequate. Inadequate staffing will result in a poorly managed institution which will result in serious negative implications for the local residents.

17. Not “Sustainable development” under The Planning Acts

The primary consideration under The Planning Acts in adjudicating on a planning application is the “proper planning and sustainable development of the area”. It is expressly provided under Section 34 (1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 that in making its decision in relation to an application for planning permission the planning authority (and An Bord Pleanála on appeal (S. 37)) shall be restricted to considering the proper planning and sustainable development “of the area”. “Of the area” means the local authority must consider the effect on the existing community.

Is this development sustainable going forward? Who are Novas? What is the role of The Housing Department and The HSE once this development is up and running? Who will ensure that this institution is managed properly going forward? We note that the development will not be taken in charge by Dublin City Council according to the conditions attached.

18. No Confidence in Novas – a view shared by all residents

Previously noted on the planning history files about “Novas”:

• The principle role of Novas is to provide “direct access” hostel accommodation” in Ireland
• It opened its first “wet hostel” in Bridgeland House in Limerick where staff work with heavy drinkers
• Novas has only existed in Ireland since 2005 and is an off-shoot of a movement in the UK
• There does not appear to be any established background in either institutional or property management
• Following a company search with the CRO one objector established the following: “the financial accounts filed at the CRO were qualified by the auditors to the company as ‘significant fraud was detected’”
• Novas is a thinly capitalised company with no material assets which relies entirely on one-off grant aid and nominal rental income. There appears to be no guaranteed funding in place.
• Novas did not consult with the community in Fairview/Marino on this occasion
• From public information available with regard to Novas activities in Ireland this appears to be a consistent problem with their developments
• Irish Independent (3 Sept 2007): Novas had a proposal to build a “wet hostel” in Limerick: according to Michael Lowry TD “the plan was badly handled from the start – there was no prior consultation with the residents” in that area

This does not augur well for the future. We do not have faith in Novas as an organisation to run this type of institution. We are relying on a faceless organisation (the members of which have not bothered to properly consult or inform the local community during the pre-planning process at the outset). There is no guarantee that this experimental project will be run properly. More consultation at the outset may have allayed the fears of the local community but now it is too late.

There is no trust in the developer or Novas especially given these repeated similar applications while knowing that the local community oppose the development.

19. “Fear and Apprehension” – a high percentage of elderly people in the area

A recent study of the Marino area indicates that there is a high proportion of elderly people living in the area. The study stated: “Figures taken from the 2006 Census of Population indicated that a total of 17,800 people live in the area. Of these 3,183 [circa20%] are aged 60 and over. This indicates that there is a higher concentration of older people in this locality compared to Dublin as a whole where 14% are aged 60 and over.” The higher age profile of the people living in the area is a factor that needs to be taken into account by the Planning Authority.

Due to the high percentage of elderly people living alone in the area there is a strong sense of fear and apprehension relating to this proposed development and this has been expressed by members at our AGMs.

“Fear / apprehension / opposition” from the local community was held to be a matter relevant in the decision making process by the Planning Authority (see Eircell vs Leitrim Co. Co[2000] 1 IR 479; [2000] 2 I.L.R.M. 81). So this too is a legitimate planning concern.

20. Amenity - Threat to amenity of the Properties in the Vicinity – Potential Devaluation of Properties

Matters relating to “Amenity” are a legitimate planning concern. This proposed development will adversely affect the amenity currently enjoyed by the existing residents of Marino / Fairview. There are not only concerns about health and safety but also concerns about how this development will affect the fabric of the entire area and devalue the properties. It was held by the High Court in Maher vs An Bord Pleanála [1993] 1 I.R. 439 that it was clear that depreciation in the value of properties in the vicinity of a proposed development was avalid reason for refusing planning permission. There is no doubt that this 24-hour hostel-like accommodation (which is totally out of character with the area and which on the face of it has the potential to be badly managed) would adversely affect the property values in the area.

Precedent – depreciation of surrounding properties is a planning issue

A case reported in The Irish Times (3^rd December 2007) stated that South Dublin County Council refused an application for retention to use a timber cabin in a rear garden for residential use at Abbeydale Close, Lucan and the applicant was served with an enforcement notice requiring the removal of the structure. “The Council ruled that the cabin was out of character for the area and would depreciate the value of the properties in the vicinity and would set an undesirable precedent.”

We submit that the scale and incongruous architecture of this proposed development in question (with an institutional use) is totally out of character with the Fairview/Marino residential area (predominately owner/occupier) and will substantially depreciate the value of the surrounding properties (which have already decreased substantially in value since 2007 leaving some recent buyers in negative equity already) .  It would set an undesirable precedent of high density which could over a short time change the entire fabric of the area.

21. Public Health and Safety of the existing community

The concept of proper planning and sustainable development would seem to extend to matters of public safety. Thus, it is legitimate to refuse planning where the proposed development could endanger public safety. A number of elderly people in the area have expressed genuine concern about their safety if this proposed development goes ahead.

The Planning and Development Act 2000 (Sched. 4, Para. 10) allows for public health to be taken into consideration. It is legitimate to take into account the fact that proposed development could endanger or interfere with the public health and safety of existing residents in the community particularly given the age profile of the residents.

22. Not in the interest of “The Common Good”

The “Common Good” of the existing community is also a relevant consideration on an application for planning permission (See the decision in Keane vs. An Bord Pleanála ]1998] 2 I.L.R.M. 241).

The concept of proper planning and sustainable development is not confined to the consequences of the development on the physical environment but entitles the decision-maker to take into account its impact on people (See [1998] 2 I.L.R.M. 241 at 260-261).

Surely Dublin City Council must take cognizance of its own Development Plan. In relation to Zoning Z1 “the general objectives for primarily residential areas are to provide a measure of protection from unsuitable new development or certain “bad neighbour” development that would either threaten or be incompatible with the overall residential function of the area. It is not intended to rule out development other than housing development but simply to apply a test that the new development should be compatible with or reinforce the residential function of the area as a whole.”

We submit that the proposed development is incompatible with the area. This development is not in the interests of the “common good” of the existing Marino / Fairview community or in fact the proposed occupants.

Conclusion

An Bord Pleanala have overturned two similar applications on this site. It is submitted that this new “Decision to Grant” permission should also be refused by An Bord Pleanala.

An Bord Pleanala can stand independent of all interested parties and listen to all sides. We submit that The Planning Authority has refused to address, in any meaningful way, the legitimate concerns of the local residents. It is clear that this application does not comply with proper planning and development standards and is an overdevelopment of the site in question. It does not provide adequate facilities or amenities for the large number of proposed occupants. The architecture of the proposed development is out of character with the surrounding properties.

Due to all of these facts we ask the Board to overturn this third ill-advised decision of The Planning Authority on this site and refuse permission for this development.

Yours sincerely,

Ms Pauline McArthur

Hon Sec

On Behalf of The Fairview Residents Assoc

39 Cadogan Road, Dublin 3