A planning appeal hearing involving a proposal for the largest urban development in the history of the State opens today.
A £1.2 billion complex at Spencer Dock in Dublin, which would include a £105 million national conference and exhibition centre, is the subject of the oral hearing before An Bord Pleanala.
Dublin Corporation has granted partial permission for the commercial and residential development, on a 51-acre site between the International Financial Services Centre and The Point.
That decision is being appealed to An Bord Pleanala by eight parties, including residents, heritage organisations and the developer itself, Spencer Dock Development Company (SDDC).
SDDC is a consortium consisting of Treasury Holdings, the docklands businessman, Mr Harry Crosbie, and CIE, which owns the largely disused site. A further 14 parties will be attending as observers.
The proposed development was designed by the American firm Kevin Roche John Dinkeloo & Associates, whose senior partner is the Irish emigre, Mr Kevin Roche. It includes 26 buildings of heights varying up to 95 metres, 36 metres higher than Liberty Hall.
The corporation granted full planning permission last August for the conference centre and one office block, but only outline planning permission for the rest of the site, which it also scaled back from six million to 4.6 million sq ft. This means the developer would have to apply for planning permission for each subsequent phase of the site's development over a 10-year period.
The corporation also outlined certain parameters to which future phases would have to conform. These include height and design considerations.
SDDC wants An Bord Pleanala to grant full planning permission for the entire scheme and to amend or delete many of the corporation's conditions.
However, community groups are strongly opposed to a large portion of the proposed development, which they say is too high and bulky and will cast shadows over their homes.
Ms Marie O'Reilly, who lives in one of a row of six 19th-century houses in Manor Street, on the edge of the site, said residents were not objecting to the conference centre, but to the ancillary development.
"The communities don't have a problem with balanced development," she said. "We're not stupid people. We know the site needs to be developed. But it should have been developed in partnership with the community.
"Hopefully An Bord Pleanala will grant permission to the conference centre complex but refuse the outline planning permission for the rest of the site, and the developers will learn that communities have to be taken on board as part of the development process."
The scheme has been compared with Canary Wharf in London, by both its supporters and detractors.
Its supporters say the landmark development would bring valuable business services and other amenities, and offer an unrivalled opportunity to acquire the work of one of the world's most eminent architects, Mr Roche.
They also point out that, in return for planning permission for let-able accommodation, the developer is offering to finance the construction and operation of the conference centre almost completely.
Mr Martin Pawley, an architectural critic commissioned by the developer to write an assessment of their proposal in The Irish Times property section last summer, said it gave Dublin "a model for tomorrow." But Mr Ciaran Cuffe, an architect and Green Party councillor who is appealing the corporation's decision, said the scheme "exemplifies the worst excesses of American corporate planning."
He said: "It represents bad urban planning. It doesn't fit into the surrounding city or take account of local communities. It looks back to the mistakes of the 1960s rather than the potential of the 21st century."
A spokesman for the developer contacted for comment said he preferred not to rehearse the situation before the oral hearing.
The hearing is expected to attract a good deal of public interest. In anticipation of this, the board has hired the ballroom in the Gresham Hotel, which accommodates several hundred people.
Today's session will deal with preliminary matters, with the full hearing scheduled to begin on February 21st and last for between two and three weeks.
The inspector hearing the appeal will be assisted by two others, one with expertise in high-rise buildings, the other in transport issues. As an indication of the quantity of material before the board, two of its staff spent an entire week photocopying documents in preparation.
The board is due to make its decision before July 18th. An aggrieved party could then seek a judicial review.