W1A-017 Howth harbour-0.txt
The Harbour is an important amenity area on the peninsula with thousands of visitors walking its piers during the summer months especially. Unfortunately, this has led to severe traffic congestion during the summer. With limited parking facilities available for visitors, Harbour Road becomes almost impossible. Eric Allen would like to see traffic prohibited along Harbour Road between busy hours, i.e. 2 - 5 p.m. on Sundays, (the busiest day) in summer months. He feels that the pedestrianisation of the area during excessively busy periods, may solve the problem. New housing developments have appeared in recent times also. "Thormanby Woods" and "Woodside" represent such recent developments. (See Plates 6 and 7)

"Thormanby Woods", off Thormanby Road, represents an "acceptable" development receiving no objections. Its location does not obscure any views and it is located far from the main road, i.e. Thormanby Road. The "Woodside" development however, was a controversial one, demolishing an old established house and gardens to build a group of modern townhouses. Despite some objections however, the development did go ahead as planned.

The harbour-front also saw development with the opening of the two restaurants, "Russells" and "Dragon Boat". A hairdresser, cafe and art shop followed mainly situated on the station end of Harbour Road.

In more recent times, Sutton Cross has seen a surge of commercial development with a moderate shopping arcade opening on either side of Howth Road. This must represent the realisation that the area could support such development considering the amount of passing trade. Now Sutton Cross represents the greatest density of commercial development on the peninsula.

"Controversy, Uproar, Apprehension"."

When one considers recent development in Howth, what comes to mind first is the degree of controversy attached to its recent planning history. The three most notable cases are those involving "Red Rock", "East Mountain", and "Howth House". Before discussing these in detail, we should look at the factors leading to the atmosphere existing in Howth in the late 1980's and early 1990's as regards development.

Howth is a public area. For thousands of Dublin residents as well as those from further afield, Howth represents an area of recreation. It has a long association with recreation and bathing, going back to the 18th Century. Any development which would effect the recreational value of Howth, is not only resisted by Howth's residents, but by its thousands of visitors.

Howth is an affluent area. It has, as residents, a large number of well educated middle and upper middle-class residents. This social group tends to have more time available to it for taking an active interest in planning conflicts and environmental issues. They also tend to be more aware of their rights regarding development in their area and have the resources to pursue such rights.

After what had happened in Sutton in the 1960's with most of its open spaces being developed for residential use, a certain air of apprehension was present in Howth. Howth represented the last bastion of large open spaces available for recreation in North East Dublin.

The "1980 Dublin City Development Plan" had given Howth a special mention highlighting its recreational importance in the eyes of the Corporation.

"Generally the policy relating to Howth is to maintain the character of the village, the outstanding natural amenity areas and attractive features of the peninsula. Future development shall be strictly related to the indicated use zones including the infilling of existing developed areas rather than further extension of these areas. Tracts of open land, including Ireland's Eye, will be preserved so as to maintain the natural scenic character of the area. Development will be strictly controlled in visually prominent areas and in existing undeveloped areas"."
(1980 Dublin City Development Plan; 2.10.6.)
Pat McCarton cited Bull Island as a "good example of Dublin Corporations capacity to appreciate and to protect scenic areas."

Howth was given to the Co. Council Planning Department in 1986, through political manoeuvering at Department of Environment level. The Howth residents did not have any say in the matter. "Even the Corporation" emphasises Eric Allen, "were opposed to giving up Howth because they had long term plans for the area and they understood Howth and had a working relationship with Howth"." The Local Authority Act in 1985, resulted in Howth becoming part of the large county area, Dublin - Fingal. Michael O'Neill stated that he felt that the importance of Howth was considered minor in the context of the county as a whole, by the Co. Council and that they did not "attach the same importance to its value as an amenity space for Dubliners"."

Thus, a resentment of the Co. Council was evident amongst Howth conservationists from the very beginning.

This resentment was to be deepened in the years to follow owing to three highly publicised planning conflicts which shook the Howth peninsula.

"The Red Rock Affair"." (See Map 3 in Appendix for location.)

The first and probably the most infamous of development proposals in Howth, was the proposed developments on Red Rock. Two separate applications, on adjoining plots in the Red Rock area, were made in the recent history of Howth.

The first "battle" goes back to 1953, when the then Minister for Local Government, Paddy Smith, decided to grant permission over the head of the Dublin Corporation, for a housing development on the 16 acre site. The scheme for up to 29 houses was never implemented and the site was sold 10 years later to Mr. Thomas O'Reilly, a Rathgar builder.

Under the 1976 Local Authority (Planning and Development) Act, all planning permission which had not previously been implemented, were invalid by November 1st, 1981. But this was extended by 12 months by the Minister for the Environment leading to a rush to develop sites whose planning permission would be revoked in 1982.

Mr. O'Reilly, through his company, Family Properties Ltd., applied for planning permission for a residential development of the 16 acre site. But so determined was Dublin City Council to prevent development in this scenic area, that it decided to revoke the 1953 ministerial permission.
Mr. O'Reilly appealed to Bord Pleanala in June 1982, but the board confirmed the Corporations's decision.
Family Properties Ltd. then exercised its right to serve a "Purchase Notice" on the Corporation, requiring it to purchase its 16 acre site, the price being decided by an arbitrator. It also claimed over two million pounds in compensation for loss of development rights.

In 1986, amidst the conflict, the site fell under the jurisdiction of the Co. Council, which had adopted the role of Howth's planning authority. The Council found itself facing a huge compensation claim from Family Properties Ltd.

The council decided to conduct discussions with the company involved to reach a suitable solution. the agreement, put forward to the elected member of Dublin County Council was compromising, to say the least.

Under the agreement, the 16 acre site was valued at a lower figure of £ 809,000. The Council agreed to purchase eight acres of the land for £ 250,000. In the 1980 Dublin City Development Plan, 8 acres of the site was zoned for residential development and 8 acres for high amenity. The County agreed to purchase the amenity-zoned land. For the other 8 acres, it agreed to grant planning permission for a residential development scheme by Mr. O'Reilly. If the board overturned the Council's decision to grant permission, the agreement stipulated that Family Properties Ltd. would receive in exchange for its 8 acre site, a Council site of equal value (£ 550,000). This marked the beginning of the compensation-avoiding compromises which would be made time and time again. An Bord Pleanala overturned the Council's decision, once again saving the scenic area from development.

In March 1989, Mr. O'Reilly agreed to hand over his 16 acres of land to the County Council in return for the £ 250,000 and an additional £ 550,000 if they failed to provide him with an alternative 8 acres.

In November 1988, a new threat to the Red Rock site manifested itself in the form of Flambeau Ltd. Two local residents, Paul Power and Aidean Crowe, purchased a 46 acre site, adjoining the O'Reilly site. Their company Flambeau, aimed to develop a residential area on the site and applied for full planning permission. The Flambeau site was zoned for amenity use in the 1980 Dublin City Development Plan. In March 1989, the Council refused planning permission for the proposed development, saying that it would be "seriously injurious to the preservation of views and prospects across the site to Baldoyle and Portmarnock"."
(Irish Times 5/3/89).
The Council also saw a danger to public safety arising from the development by: "creating a traffic hazard through the opening up of shared access to the six houses on St. Fintan's Road which is currently defined as sub-standard"."
(Irish Times 5/3/89).
By taking care to cite several particular reasons why development could not be permitted such as the risk to public safety, the Council removed any prospect of Flambeau demanding any compensation claim; which might have been sought even though the development materially contravened the development plan.

An appeal was made to Bord Pleanala by Flambeau Ltd and almost a year later, the Board finally made its decision confirming the County Council's earlier ruling. So once again, Red Rock had survived.

The amount of interest which this case had gathered in the region, was quite extra-ordinary.

Among the organisations who opposed the development of Red Rock, were the Baily Residents Association, Howth; Glencarrig Residents Association, Sutton; The Howth and Sutton Residents Association; The Strand Road Residents Association and of course, An Taisce.

An unusual factor in Bord Pleanala's decision in the Flambeau case, is recalled by Michael O'Neill; "It was decided that the environmental quality of St. Finton's Road would be taken away from the development. This is the only occasion I have ever seen the Board consider the environmental quality of a road in a planning appeal decision"."

"The McGuinness Development". (See Map 3).

The Red Rock cases acted as a "testing of the new boy" in the sense that they represented the County Council's first two important planning decisions on the peninsula. With regards to public opinion, they had fared averagely. They had bowed down to compensation threats in the Family Properties decision, but had stood firm in the Flambeau ruling.

Red Rock had also resulted in the formation of an army of pressure groups ready to defend their local area from the "evils of development"." Red Rock had seen these mobilise in the form of protest marches. The publicity which the conflict had achieved had resulted in conversation being on a growing number of local residents.

In June 1989, permission was sought by a local builder, Michael Hayes, for the demolition of a cottage situated on the East Mountain and for its replacement with a new residence. It later emerged that Mr. Hayes was "fronting" for Mr. Gerry McGuinness, the founder of the "Sunday World" newspaper. The application plans revealed that the proposed "replacement" residence for the cottage, consisted of a "ranch-style luxury house"," (Irish Times 15th September, 1989), containing an "open-air swimming pool"." Nonetheless, the development received planning permission in mid August. This decision was unusual especially with regards to the County Council Planning Officers'decision. Ms. Grainne Mallon, who dealt with the application, decided that no "material contravention" of the 1980 Dublin City Development Plan would exist if permission was given. Considering that the only residential development which would not constitute a "material contravention" would be a "replacement" of the existing structure, it seems inconceivable that such a "ranch-style luxury home" could have been deemed a "replacement" residence for a humble cottage. Public outrage followed. A public protest walk to the East Mountain and the formation of an East Mountain Action Group, conveyed the public opinion to the Co. Council's decision, to allow development of the unspoilt corner of Howth. Ms. Mallon's decision to grant permission, was severely criticised by many. Michael O'Neill calls the ruling a "disgraceful decision, which evaded and avoided many of the procedure built into the development plan process"." He suggest that the mandatory newspaper advertisement to inform the public of the development, did not comply with the 1977 Planning Regulations. It did not give the name of the applicant, the location of the land, the address of the structure or the nature and extent of the development.
