The Paceville masterplan is a promising document, focusing on the need to improve the public urban realm, that is however crippled by a lack of social research, the Chamber of Architects said today.

The masterplan, issued three weeks ago, has run into strong opposition from residents, some of whom will see their homes expropriated to make way for public spaces. Plans for land reclamation have also raised controversy.

The Chamber said the drawing up of a masterplan is in itself a positive initiative.

"Independently of the content or approach, it is commendable that a draft Development Framework has been proposed which sets out a strategy for growth and for the regeneration of the area, plans staged improvements over time, reflects a change in the way urban planning and development ought to be studied, and future planning undertaken," it said.

"Nevertheless," it said, "it is important that the planning exercise undertaken provides the sufficient level of detail and analysis required, and is carried out in tandem with other serious national planning issues such as transport and infrastructural requirements." 

It said the focus on improvements in the public urban realm is absolutely correct. The extension of pedestrianised areas, and of shared surface treatment areas, is also a step in the right direction, even if more study is required to understand the impact on existing activities. The provision of open landscaped public spaces is laudable and the concept of preserving and giving more value to the heritage assets in the area is certainly a sound one.

The exercise seems to have degenerated into a justification of previously-determined development volumes, in previously determined locations.

But, it added, the plan also has serious flaws.

"The exercise seems to have degenerated into a justification of previously-determined development volumes, in previously determined locations.

“The quantum of development proposed at Paceville is accommodated but never challenged. Consequently, the “iconic skyline” is taken as an assumed desiderata. The urban design principles which are promoted in the document are of top quality, but the same principles seem to be contradicted by the scale of development proposed – which is never justified."

The chamber noted that there is reference, for example, to community facilities under the impressive heading of “social sustainability”, but nowhere is there any indication of what facilities would be provided.

The document refers to “preserving the inheritance of local traditions” but makes no mention of what these traditions are.  

"The Development Framework proposes extensive expropriation of private land and property – assets that many people’s lives, homes, business and investments have been built upon, on the basis of the current legal frameworks. The document becomes highly discriminatory, focusing primarily on business interests that are already public – whilst not considering possible future developments of a similar or smaller scale elsewhere," the chamber complained.

 It said it has submitted its formal response (attached in pdf below) to the Planning Authority as part of the ongoing public consultation process.