COMHAIRLE CONTAE ÁTHA CLIATH THEAS
SOUTH DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL
MEETING OF LUCAN AREA COMMITTEE
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
MOTION NO. 15
MOTION: Councillor G. O'Connell
As a follow up to my previous motions and questions on the matter, with reference to the:- Planning permission granted on 31st October 1989 by An Bord Pleanála under Register Reference 88A/666 and PL/6/5/78396 for the construction of 91 houses at Riversdale, Lucan Road, Palmerston, Co. Dublin, which included at Condition No. 9 of the Grant of Planning Permission stated inter alia:
The walls at the rear of the proposed houses numbers 2 to 24 and along the western boundary of the site shall be retained at their existing heights and shall, prior to the construction of any of the houses hereby permitted, be repaired, made good and improved, where necessary, with walling that matches the said walls..
The above condition relates to several boundary walls of various dwellings constructed on the lands.
In 1999 the Council issued High Court proceedings under Section 27 of the Local Government (Planning & Development) Act 1976 against Caslan Developments in respect of the outstanding works to be carried out in order to bring the estate up to taking in charge standards. The proceedings included the non-compliance with Condition No 9.
An adjournment of the case was sought by the developer and this was agreed to by the Council in order to allow negotiations to be carried out. After several further adjournments, the case was adjourned generally with liberty to re-enter in February 2000.
Given the above history and the fact that the residents concerned had every reason to believe that the Council were looking after their interests especially in the taking of legal action and that additionally the wall forms part of the boundary of the Watertown Public Park which is in the control of this Council, this Area Committee now calls on the Manager responsible to have a safety inspection of the wall carried out without delay and a report brought to (the June meeting) to include proposals for it to “be prepared, made good and improved, where necessary, with walling that matches the said walls”
REPORT:
As outlined in the Report to the Lucan Area Committee on 23rd November 2010 the Council does not accept any responsibility in respect of this wall arising from Planning Permission granted in 1988 and that a proper tie in between the old and new wall should have been carried out by the Developer when constructing the new wall. The Architects Department have reported on two recent occasions that the wall does not warrant any action under the Dangerous Structures Legislation. However, as requested a further safety inspection of the wall was undertaken and set out below is a report on the findings:
At the rear of no 2 Riversdale Grove, part of the boundary wall is constructed with concrete blocks and faced with a brick finish. It butts up to the original stone wall. Over the years some of the stone has become unstuck or has been removed at the bottom of the wall. The area at the bottom of the wall has since been blocked off with galvanised sheeting fixed close to the wall. There are also small gaps in the stone work above the galvanised sheeting.
The top of the original stone wall is capped in what is generally known as cock and hen type capping. Further along the wall some of this capping is missing.
All along the top half of the wall there is a lot of vegetation and weeds growing between the mortar joints of the old stone wall. If this colonisation is allowed to continue it may result in the breakdown of the masonry bond causing the stone work to become destabilised. During the inspection it was noted that domestic garden climbing plants were growing over the top of the wall from the Riversdale Grove rear gardens. There was also evidence of green waste dumping directly behind the rear boundary of no 2 Riversdale Grove, i.e. dead potted plants, bamboo cuttings, rose bushes, grass cuttings etc. At the time of inspection the wall posed no immediate danger to the public at large.
Recommendation: Ideally the missing and loose stone should be reinstated. Weed growth should be removed along the wall, also efforts should be made to prevent local dumping at the rear of the wall.
Accordingly, no further action is considered necessary on the part of the Council.