Permission granted for Dublin high-rise scheme

Dublin Corporation has granted planning permission for a giant skyscraper scheme at George's Quay opposite the Custom House, subject to the tallest block being reduced in height from 100 to 80 metres. If built, it would be by far the highest building in the Republic. Liberty Hall, Dublin's tallest since it was completed in 1965, is 59 metres (195 feet) high.

The highest structure in the proposed George's Quay development would outstrip it by 21 metres (69 feet). Cork County Hall, a few feet higher than Liberty Hall is the highest building in the State. Dublin Corporation said the height reduction of the tallest block, a skyscraper by Dublin standards, was required to "reduce its negative visual impact on surrounding areas and the extent of its protrusion above the existing skyline".

The other four buildings in the office, residential and retail scheme proposed by the Cosgrave Property Group for George's Quay are to be correspondingly reduced in height to retain the "dynamic tension" between the various elements of the complex.

The corporation had twice deferred a decision on the scheme, which would provide three office blocks and two apartment buildings on a vacant site behind two existing five-storey quay-front office buildings, because of concern about its exceptional height.

Since the planning application was lodged last April, there had been a vigorous debate within the corporation itself about the merits or otherwise of what was proposed, but in the end the urge to facilitate a major development triumphed over lingering doubts.

In its decision, which is subject to 12 conditions, the corporation has allowed the developers to extend the building floor plate to maintain the permissible plot ratio on the site, while ensuring that no more than 300 square metres is lost from the public domain.

Because of the scheme's proximity to Tara Street DART station, the planners have also specified that the number of office related car-parking spaces be reduced from 185 to 126, and a reduction from 179 to 90 in residential car-parking. In accordance with the revised plan, 504 cycle-parking spaces are to be provided, 184 for apartment-dwellers on the site and 320 for public use. The developers are also required to provide a second exit/entrance for the DART station at Townsend Street.

No construction work may start until the site is archaeologically resolved by digging trial trenches and boreholes in the interests of preserving or recording any archaeological material likely to be destroyed or damaged by the proposed development.

Skidmore Owings and Merrill, the US-based international architects engaged by the Cosgrave Property Group to design the scheme, must now submit revised drawings incorporating the amendments specified by the corporation's planners.

Given the massive scale of the development, even as amended, the corporation's decision is certain to be appealed to An Bord Pleanala by a number of conservation bodies which have already expressed serious reservations about its environmental impact.

They may well be joined by the Irish Pension Fund Property Unit Trust, which owns the existing building on George's Quay occupied by Price Waterhouse Coopers and says it would be "wholly or partly in the shadow of the office tower for long periods."

The Irish Georgian Society said it was not opposed to high-rise developments in the docklands. However, in the case of George's Quay, it said, the proposed complex would dominate the skyline of the city centre and cast shadows on the Custom House.

The Dublin Civic Group said the scheme would involve a massive intrusion on the established skyline and environmental quality of the city, adding that the proposed "architectural colossus" would be totally alien to Dublin. An Taisce said Cosgrave's planning application was the most important "bar none" in Dublin because it would produce the highest building in the city.

It also noted that no sunlight or shadow studies had been carried out. Several objectors expressed surprise that the corporation planners did not seek an environmental impact statement from the developers, even though the site is below the two hectare (4.8-acre) threshold specified for an EIS.