Struggle for supremacy over Dublin’s skyline continues

There is no doubt that An Bord Pleanála would have approved developer Johnny Ronan’s controversial plan for two super-tall residential towers at North Wall Quay, if it had the power to do so. But the board – which turned down the proposal last week – was boxed in by a High Court judgment that limits its ability to overrule Dublin City Council’s planning scheme for the area.

It is the latest skirmish in what looks increasingly like a struggle for supremacy between the council and the board over who controls Dublin’s skyline.

The “Waterfront South Central” proposal for 41-storey and 45-storey towers appears to have been based on a calculation by Ronan Group and its financial backers, Colony Capital, that new Urban Development and Building Heights guidelines – promulgated in December 2018 by then minister for housing and planning Eoghan Murphy – would trump the council’s planning scheme for the area.

The North Lotts and Grand Canal Docks area are designated as a strategic development zone (SDZ) and the planning scheme – adopted by elected members of Dublin City Council in 2013 and approved by An Bord Pleanála – sets a height limit of 10 storeys for the North Wall Quay site.

The Irish Times view on Gaza ceasefire: No going back

---

David McWilliams: Tyranny of short-termism contributing to housing crisis

---

Pat Leahy: Be wary when betting on the formation of the next government

---

The Irish Times view on corporate tax: Momentum for change

---

Ronan Group already had two developments under way in the SDZ – an office block for Salesforce at Spencer Place and build-to-rent (BTR) apartments alongside it – when Murphy brought in the new guidelines. In both cases, they sought to increase the number of floors. They were turned down by the council, but successfully appealed to An Bord Pleanála.

The council sought judicial reviews of these decisions and the board’s orders were quashed by the High Court. Delivering his judgment, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys asked: “Which board are we to trust? The one that approved the planning scheme or the one that departed from it? One could equally ask why not trust the city council who put together the detailed planning scheme after an extensive consultation process?”

As for claims made on An Bord Pleanála’s behalf that the council was merely a “junior partner”, whereas the board is a “national authority”, the judge observed witheringly: “Comparing the council’s decision on an individual planning application with the board’s decision on appeal would be comparing like-for-like, but comparing an overall scheme with an individual consent is not.”

The city council had already set about amending the North Lotts and Grand Canal Dock SDZ Planning Scheme in the light of Murphy’s building-height guidelines, as required by their terms. After advertising its intention to do so in March 2019, 90 submissions were received – mainly from developers, planning consultants and others advocating taller buildings.

After the revised scheme was submitted to An Bord Pleanála on May 31st, 2019, it directed that the amendments – which allowed for building heights of up to 25 storeys – be publicly advertised. This generated another batch of 29 submissions – again, mainly from property interests complaining that the council was too cautious, not ambitious enough and was “missing an opportunity” to maximise building heights in the area.

On March 10th, 2020, after considering all of the submissions and the council’s responses to them, planning board inspector Hugh Morrison concluded that the proposed amendments were in accordance with the Urban Development and Building Heights guidelines and would “ensure that the Government policy of increasing building height in appropriate locations is met”.

Twelve months later An Bord Pleanála rejected his recommendation and issued an order declining to approve the amended North Lotts and Grand Canal Docks SDZ Planning Scheme, on the basis that only “very minimal changes” had been proposed and it was “not satisfied that meaningful engagement” with submissions calling for greater heights had occurred.

The contrast between this and the board’s repeated disregard for objections by local residents to high-rise developments is stark. But at least we now know that the board regards the difference between a 10-storey building – the maximum previously permitted – and a tower of up to 25 storeys, as provided under the amended planning scheme, as “very minimal”.

For An Bord Pleanála, it appears that only the sky is the limit for high-rise buildings. It has already approved a 34-storey luxury hotel tower in Cork, saying it would “enhance” the city’s skyline, and now seems likely to grant permission for a speculative scheme of office blocks and a hotel rising to a height of 28 storeys on a four-acre site at the M50’s Junction 6, near Castleknock.

Its decision on Ronan Group’s Waterfront South Central made clear that the board was satisfied that the proposed development was of strategic or national importance and that outstanding issues – such as the high-level greenery that planning inspector Rónán O’Connor found so dubious – could all be addressed. But it was “precluded from granting permission” by Mr Justice Humphreys’ judgment.

The Court of Appeal has already upheld a High Court order quashing one of the board’s permissions, relating to adding to the height of the Salesforce tower at Spencer Place, and it is due to issue a ruling in July on an appeal against Mr Justice Humphreys’ quashing of its order approving extra floors on the nearby BTR apartment block. All sides agree that this ruling will be crucial.

• Frank McDonald is a former environment editor of The Irish Times and was among those who made submissions objecting to Waterfront South Central.