Planning observation: Developers sought permission to amend their planning permission. This is fairly standard and totally fine. In this case, it was largely to accommodate and ESB substation.

But what’s not right is that their plan was to cut space from the market space and the artist’s studio. Here’s my planning observation:

I amwriting to object to planning application at Newmarket (3672/19) – specifically the provisions which relate to (a) reducing the number of spaces for artists and (b) reducing the size of the proposed market structure. These provisions, in our view, contravene the policies and objectives of Dublin City’s development plan.

A. Reduction in spaces for artists

The development plan rightly calls for cultural space and infrastructure as both objectives and policies of the city council. There are a range of relevant objectives and points from CHC23 to 37 and CHCO 20 to 25.

For example:

· CHC24 calls for “quality cultural infrastructure” to underpin a culturally vibrant Dublin.

· CHC25 calls for supports to artists in the form of “quality workspaces.

· CHC28 calls “a supply of workspaces for artists in the city” and further states that work space is a key element in all multiuse developments in the city.”

· CHC34 emphasises the need for cultural facilities “at neighbourhood level” – something which is otherwise lacking in the Tenters.

As such, it is inappropriate that artistic spaces are the first to be reduced as part of these changes and the proposal should be rejected.

B. Reduction in space for market

The loss of previous markets was keenly felt by local residents. The area not only has clear demand for a market, but also a long-standing history of markets at this site. The provision of a market space (albeit a very small one) was clearly a key part in this application being successful previously. It would set a bad precedent for that space (along with artist’s spaces) being first for the chop when changes need to be made.

In terms of the development plan, there is clear policy support for the development of markets:

· CEE18 recognises their general economic importance, also recognising “that markets, indoor and outdoor, food and other products, have major economic potential, including as key tourist attractions and supports for start-up enterprises”

· RD7 states that the policy of Dublin City Council is “to facilitate indoor and outdoor markets both in the city centre and throughout the city, and to promote the clustering of complementary uses that add character and vitality to an area.”


The application proposes increasing the total floorspace of the development from 9,540 sq m to 9,728 sq m. Yet both of the sections which are of community concern (and potentially less profit to the developer) see reductions in their size.

It is reasonable that a project of this size may require some alterations following further works – it is not reasonable that the burden of those alterations come almost exclusively at the expense of the community-related spaces, both of which are prioritised in the city development plan.