Far too many development projects coming before An Bord Pleanála are badly designed and show "scant regard" for location, including a "particular lack of concern" for architectural heritage, according to the board's chairman.
John O'Connor said this applied especially to new housing schemes where proposed apartment blocks were "banged up against each other" with "too much emphasis on the car and car parking" and not enough on residential amenities.
Although the appeals board favoured higher residential densities in urban areas, he said these should not come at the expense of existing neighbours and future occupants of new apartments - particularly if they were single-aspect and north-facing.
Mr O'Connor said the board was either refusing permission for such schemes or suggesting to developers they should be redesigned according to certain ground rules. This had been done in several cases, and resulted in much better solutions.
The board's chairman said it was obvious that many of the schemes put forward to avail of tax incentives were being "rushed" and that adequate design resources were not being employed. "Architects say they could have done a better job if they had more time."
Though he did not identify specific examples, Mr O'Connor said many of these tax-driven proposals involved the "unnecessary demolition of older buildings" that formed part of a streetscape and made an "essential contribution" to the character of a town.
The board would also be taking "a very hard look at high-rise developments and not just nodding them through" in the absence of a firm framework; its approval for a 32-storey tower near Heuston Station in Dublin "should not be taken as a free-for-all".
Turning to one-off houses in the countryside, Mr O'Connor said the board's rate of approval had "increased somewhat" on foot of the Government's revised guidelines. However, the number of appeals involved was small, at just 429.
A high proportion of these cases (48 per cent) were located in areas under strong urban influence, with only 16 per cent being in weak rural areas.
Drainage and settlement policies were the main reasons for refusal, as well as traffic hazard and landscape issues.
The board again expressed concern about the proliferation of septic tanks, especially in areas with a high density of one-off houses, and welcomed a proposed amendment of the planning regulations to require soil suitability tests as part of a planning application.
