There was an application to build an “amusement centre” – really a slot machine hall – in Dolphin’s Barn, back in mid-2024. I put in an objection and the council rejected the plan.
But now the developer is back appealing it to An Bord Pleanála.
Below is my rebuttal of their appeal, which builds on my previous objection and responds to the points made by the developer who is appealing it. You can read their appeal here.
If you’d like to put in your own submission, you can do so here. Or drop me a message on michael@pidgeon.ie and I’ll add you the the list of people who agree with my submission. The deadline for submissions is the 31st of October 2024.
A chara,
I am writing to strongly object in totality to the application for a gambling establishment at 394 South Circular Road (DCC ref: WEB1913/24, ABP-320989-24).
This application was rightly rejected by Dubin City Council and I am requesting that the board uphold that rejection.
In Appendix 1, I have attached my previous observation on this case. In brief, it argues that this application is attempting to designate a gambling establishment as “an amusement centre”, and thus be subject to fewer planning tests and conditions. When the tests and conditions in the city development plan are correctly applied, the application should clearly be rejected.
Separate to that initial observation, I wish to directly address each of the three grounds of appeal made by the applicant in their letter to the board (from Farry Town Planning, 4th October 2024). The applicant says they are appealing on four grounds, but only list three.
Responses to points made by applicant in appeal:
(i) Residential Amenity
The first point made by the applicant appears blind to the negative impact on residential amenity that a gambling establishment would have in a residential area. The issue is not and never has been one of overlooking or the works to the building structure, but instead its intended use.
The city development plan contains (in policy CCUV14) a presumption against businesses such as “adult shops, betting shops and gaming arcades in proximity to residential areas and places of worship” – this presumption is there because of the obvious negative impact such businesses have on a residential area.
The applicant then goes on to cite as precedent a previous board decision which found that an amusement centre was permissible on Parnell Street in Dublin. This is an unconvincing and misleading comparison.
Parnell Street is primarily commercial street in the core city centre. This section of the South Circular Road at Dolphin’s Barn is clearly not. The street in this application is overwhelmingly residential and not in the core city centre.
The applicant attempts to muddy the waters by referring to the Dolphin’s Barn as in “the Capital City of country”, where as the Board case they cite specifically makes its decision on the basis that “Parnell Street is a commercial city centre street”. Simply being in the capital does not make all streets the same: the residential South Circular Road is clearly substantively different from the commercial Parnell Street.
Indeed, this distinction is reflected in the sites’ separate zoning. The Parnell Street site in the case cited by the applicant is zoned Z5: City Centre. This site is zoned Z4: District Centres, and is surrounded on all sides by Z1: Residential Neighbourhoods.
If a presumption against these kinds of businesses in residential areas is to mean anything at all, it should apply to this application.
(ii) The Amenities of the Area
The applicant argues that the phrase “Amusement centres will not be permitted in residential areas” does not apply in this case, as the site lies within a Z4 District Centre zoning.
This misses the point. The term “residential area” does not exclusively refer to lands which are zoned solely for residential – if that was the case, the development plan would directly say that such sites are not permitted in a given zoning, rather than referring to an “area”.
A “residential area” is a deliberately looser term which judges the primary character of an area – something which is wider than a small terrace of shops. This is a specific terrace of commercial units on an otherwise overwhelmingly residential street, which is in turn surrounded by other residential streets – a “residential area” by any standard.
Furthermore, the original planning decision rightly accepts that this is not just an application for an amusement centre (where there might be video games etc) – instead this is an application for a gambling establishment with slot/poker machines. The whole paragraph in the council’s planning assessment is worth quoting:
“It is understood that the Amusement-With-Prize and Amusement-Only (‘AO’) machines are essentially slot machines which are also typical of gaming arcades. It is therefore considered Policy CCUV14 is relevant which states that there ‘will be a presumption against adult shops, betting shops and gaming arcades in proximity to residential areas, places of public worship and schools and similarly, there will be a presumption against an excessive concentration of such uses having regard to the existing presence of such retail outlets in an area’.”
This point is not referenced or contested in the appeal and is a key factor in the council’s rejection. As a gambling business, it is analogous to the various businesses listed under the development plan’s policy CCUV14 – which has a presumption against betting shops and gaming arcades.
This presumption not only applies directly to residential areas, but also to areas “in proximity to residential areas”. So even if the applicant’s contention that this site is not a residential area is accepted, it is still in no doubt “in proximity” to a residential area.
Further, the applicant does not address the fact that the site is in close proximity to places of worship, which are grounds to reject. Several such sites are listed in my original observation (see appendix).
(iii) The Concentration of Amusement Centres
The applicant seeks to overturn the decision on the basis that the planning officer does not attempt to quantify the number of amusement centres in the area.
The reason for this is obvious: overconcentration is not the core ground by which this planning application was refused – it was its presence in and proximity to residential areas. The references to overconcentration in the planning officer’s report are in quotation of the wider purpose that policies CCUV14 and Section 15.14.10 have. The applicant is criticising the planner’s report for not quantifying a claim it does not make. It’s an irrelevant ground for appeal.
Conclusion
The original planning report from Dublin City Council rightly rejected this proposal on the grounds that it was in and in the proximity of a residential area. It further found that the application contained gambling elements beyond those that would be found in a typical amusement centre.
The application was rightly rejected on these grounds – I am asking the board to uphold that decision.
I would also ask the board to consider that my observation is supported by other residents (listed in Appendix 2).
Is mise,
Cllr. Michael Pidgeon
Photo courtesy of Jonathan Cutrer. CC BY-NC 2.0.