Plans by an exclusive south Dublin tennis club to erect what local objectors have described as a “colossal glowing orb” have been stalled.
This follows Dublin 6 residents lodging two separate appeals with An Coimisiún Pleanála against Dublin City Council granting planning permission to one of the oldest tennis clubs in the world, Fitzwilliam Lawn Tennis Club in Ranelagh, to install a proposed 10 metre high (33ft high) primarily white air dome or airtent to cover court number six.
The council last month granted planning permission in the face of local objections. The dome is to allow members to play tennis in bad weather conditions.
The dome will be seasonal, with the structure proposed to be erected between September 1st and April 30th annually, and removed for the remainder of the year.
READ MORE
One appeal has been lodged by Mary Ring and Colman O’Flynn with a second lodged by Ken and Caroline Cahill of Appian Way along with other residents living on Appian Way.
In their original objection to the city council, the Cahills and others stated that “erecting a 10-metre-high, synthetic PVC monolith that will act as a colossal glowing orb throughout the dark winter months is contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area”.
Aer Lingus job cuts and Ryanair’s profits plunge - what is happening in the Irish aviation sector?
Ring and O’Flynn of Leeson Park Avenue, D6 have lodged a 41-page appeal seeking to have the council grant of permission overturned.
In their appeal, Ring and O’Flynn said that “we are directly affected residents. Our appeal is not an objection to tennis, sport or Fitzwilliam Lawn Tennis Club as an institution”.
They submit that the commission “cannot safely conclude that the development was accurately notified, consistently assessed, technically demonstrated or capable of being controlled by the Council’s conditions. We respectfully request refusal”.
They state that they already experience existing floodlight and club infrastructure visibility.
They said that the commission “should consider the effect of adding a broad, approximately 10m high recurring membrane volume in that same visual and residential environment”.
They went on to say that “residents should not have to wait until after construction and operation to establish that the assumptions were wrong”.
The appeal adds that the proposal should be assessed as a three-dimensional volume, not merely as a “cover”.
In the six-page council planner’s report which recommended that planning permission be granted it stated that the proposal “is reasonable and does not negatively impact on the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties”.
