Planning Notices

Re: Planning Notices

Postby Tuborg » Wed May 13, 2009 11:35 pm

CologneMike wrote:7 A/B Catherine Place

09123

Carr Associates Architects / Knocklong Property Developments Ltd

Planning permission is being sought for the elevational changes and associated plan amendments to the proposed development previously approved under P.03/403, including the revised layout of the fourth floor and all associated siteworks. This application includes for the retention of the demolition of the existing stone wall along the rear laneway of Hartstonge Mews and the proposed reconstruction of same using the salvage stone.


This seems to be an infill development.

I’ve no problems with a contemporary design appearing here, just not happy the window proportions to those of the neighbouring buildings.

Here an account of No 8 (NIAH)


According to the planning records, permission was granted for the original appplication (03403) on 30/03/2004, while the current application was submitted on 24/04/2009.

I was under the impression that planning permission expires after 5 years if it has not been acted upon? If this is the case, should the applicant not have to re-apply for permission or at least apply for retention? All that they seem to be proposing here are merely modifications to the original plans!:confused:

As for the proposal itself. The window arrangement is indeed a disaster, why cant they just respect the window line of the adjacent buildings?

Also that central glazed area looks like it contains a fair amount of pvc panelling?:rolleyes:
Tuborg
Senior Member
 
Posts: 753
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 3:07 am

Re: Planning Notices

Postby CologneMike » Fri May 29, 2009 10:47 pm

34-41 Catherine Street ~ Catherine Street Courtyard

Construct six floors of commercial accommodation consisting of; offices, retail at street level, 3 levels of basement car parking 110 car parking spaces and associated site works in connection with the proposed development.

This includes the demolition of numbers 34,35,36,37,38,39,40 & 41 Catherine Street along with the buildings to the rear of these properties including the former Limerick Leader facilities.

The facades of 35, 36 & 37 (35 & 37 are proposed protected structures) will be retained and restored to their original state.

Architects: Murray O'Laoire Architects

Application Status: Refused

Previous Post


Image

Image

Image

Single objector halts €40m city plan (Irish Examiner)

By Jimmy Woulfe Mid-West Correspondent

Friday, May 29, 2009

A SOLE objector has succeeded in halting a massive €40 million commercial and retail development in Limerick city centre which would have given work to 600 people.

An Bord Pleanála yesterday overturned a decision of Limerick City Council last November to grant permission to a business consortium, Catherine Street Partnership to develop a huge area along Catherine Street, Glentworth Street and Mallow Street.

The development proposed to include five floors with 55,000sq ft of commercial space, 5,500sq ft of offices, and 5,000 sq ft retail on the ground floor.

The plan also included parking for 110 cars.

An Bord Pleanála knocked the plan following an objection by a businessman who owns property in the area.

A spokesman for the promoters said a series of meetings took place between the consortium and the businessman, but they could not reach agreement.

Although An Bord Pleanála’s own inspector approved the development, the board upheld the objection due to concerns for the heritage of the area.

The spokesman for the consortium said: "This is very disappointing news for us and, we believe, for Limerick.

"This was an important job generating development project fully in keeping with the city council’s own ambitions for urban renewal in this part of the city.

"It would have completely lifted the area around the site which has become a focus for anti-social behaviour of different types, including prostitution and drug taking.

"We were extremely diligent with regard to our heritage responsibilities and even at this stage feel that we could satisfy An Bord Pleanala and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, on any heritage concerns they may have."

Limerick Chamber of Commerce chief executive, Maria Kelly said a development like that proposed would have been a positive addition to the city centre.

She said: "Clearly people have a right to object. Any development which can bring life to any part of the city, giving employment, has to be welcomed. I know we have to have a balance with the aesthetic."

Meanwhile, appellant Michael Duffy who owned adjacent buildings which are let as apartments and a creche/montessori, was concerned about the serious traffic impact during the construction phase, along with the continued negative impact on his properties, including noise disturbance and the excavation of a car park which will make the creche unusable.


These kids attending the Montessori Creche need future prospects too. The state of degeneration facing these old buildings on Catherine Street could finish them off now. :(
User avatar
CologneMike
Old Master
 
Posts: 1146
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:24 pm

Re: Planning Notices

Postby Tuborg » Sat May 30, 2009 12:19 am

CologneMike wrote:
34-41 Catherine Street ~ Catherine Street Courtyard

Construct six floors of commercial accommodation consisting of; offices, retail at street level, 3 levels of basement car parking 110 car parking spaces and associated site works in connection with the proposed development.

This includes the demolition of numbers 34,35,36,37,38,39,40 & 41 Catherine Street along with the buildings to the rear of these properties including the former Limerick Leader facilities.

The facades of 35, 36 & 37 (35 & 37 are proposed protected structures) will be retained and restored to their original state.

Architects: Murray O'Laoire Architects

Application Status: Refused



This is extremely disappointing news! I thought this was a decent enough proposal which could have been further improved by retaining No's 35,36 & 37 in their entirity and knocking a floor off the new building to the rear.

It turns out that the office building was reduced by a floor anyway in the subsequent further information response. It also looks like significant (and badly needed) public realm works would have taken place as part of the project!

According to the report, the board had issues with the facade retention of No's 35,36, 37 and also with what they term "an innapropriate design intervention in the streetscape".

ABP Order

The proposed development, which would entail demolition of most of the fabric of the historic buildings No’s 34-41 Catherine Street, would be an inappropriate design intervention in the streetscape at this location, seriously injurious to the amenities of the Architectural Conservation Area. Therefore, the proposed development would conflict with the provisions of the development plan, seriously injure the amenities of property in the vicinity and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

The Board did not agree with the Inspector’s assessment that the development would not damage the character of the Architectural Conservation Area and neither did the Board consider that the conservation value of the buildings lies only in the facades, especially in the case of No’s 35-37 Catherine Street. The Board also noted the provisions of Section 57(10)(b) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000.



I hope the people behind this project have another go at it because the current condition of that site is nothing short of a disgrace! Michael Duffy will be delighted though, despite his pathetic, "nimby" objection being rubbished!:rolleyes:

Clearly, the full retention of No's 35-37 and a significant reduction in the bulk of any new building is required if redevelopment is to go ahead here!
Tuborg
Senior Member
 
Posts: 753
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 3:07 am

Re: Planning Notices

Postby CologneMike » Sun May 31, 2009 12:06 pm

34-41 Catherine Street

The buildings in question . . . . . . .
Attachments
34_41_CatherineStreet.jpg
34_41_CatherineStreet.jpg (58.76 KiB) Viewed 6038 times
User avatar
CologneMike
Old Master
 
Posts: 1146
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:24 pm

Re: Planning Notices

Postby jimg » Sun May 31, 2009 2:04 pm

Tuborg wrote:Clearly, the full retention of No's 35-37 and a significant reduction in the bulk of any new building is required if redevelopment is to go ahead here!

Would that be a bad outcome? Despite the run down appearance, I've always found some charm in that stretch of Catherine Street. A small amount of work and some improvements to the public domain, like wider footpaths would do wonders.
[ATTACH]9664[/ATTACH]
Attachments
catherine st limerick.jpg
catherine st limerick.jpg (54.87 KiB) Viewed 6032 times
jimg
Member
 
Posts: 480
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:07 pm
Location: Zürich

Re: Planning Notices

Postby dave123 » Sun May 31, 2009 11:56 pm

Catherine street is a charming street, its seems like its stuck in the 70s but in a good way. I think this street has great potential, if they redeveloped that vast majority of the pockets inflils and refurbish the old georgian buildings that still exist on the street.

I heard that they were plans to build a high rise on the Eircom site or Esb site. This is one of the best potentious sites in the city centre! the ESB site could well tower to 22-25 facing the river and Riverpoint and tapering down to 10-12 story's facing towards Henry street. Something like the Riverpoint does on Mungret street in that fashion. It could be a very interesting spot altogether.
dave123
Senior Member
 
Posts: 511
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 11:54 am
Location: Co. Dublin

Re: Planning Notices

Postby dave123 » Sun May 31, 2009 11:59 pm

Tuborg wrote:This is extremely disappointing news! I thought this was a decent enough proposal which could have been further improved by retaining No's 35,36 & 37 in their entirity and knocking a floor off the new building to the rear.

It turns out that the office building was reduced by a floor anyway in the subsequent further information response. It also looks like significant (and badly needed) public realm works would have taken place as part of the project!

According to the report, the board had issues with the facade retention of No's 35,36, 37 and also with what they term "an innapropriate design intervention in the streetscape".



I hope the people behind this project have another go at it because the current condition of that site is nothing short of a disgrace! Michael Duffy will be delighted though, despite his pathetic, "nimby" objection being rubbished!:rolleyes:

Clearly, the full retention of No's 35-37 and a significant reduction in the bulk of any new building is required if redevelopment is to go ahead here!


Are reptiles running the planning office,it seems every new applicant in the city centre is been refused lately. Yet they are proposing a cinema out in Singland, great:rolleyes:

Seriously this kind of planning just wreck's my head, it has me scratcing it.
dave123
Senior Member
 
Posts: 511
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 11:54 am
Location: Co. Dublin

Re: Planning Notices

Postby CologneMike » Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:50 pm

jimg wrote:Would that be a bad outcome?


Jimg I would fear so. If they are left in their present state then they could all end up with a similar fate as those on Cecil Street did below (post from May 2007). I personally would favour their integration into a modern office complex. The three levels of underground car parking would accommodate the widening of the footpaths on Catherine Street too.

Above all in my opinion this development should raise the appreciation of the superior Georgian stock that surrounds the rest of the block (Mallow / O’Connell / Glentworth Streets). Landlords just using these Georgian buildings as “bed sits” would never invest the kind of money to restore these buidings to their former glory, as they would not see a return on their investment from doing so. Investing €40 million here on an office development could transform the rest of the block.

Georgian buildings in grave danger -1bn remedy sought (Limerick Post) May 2007

The future of some 500 Georgian houses in Limerick is under threat, unless a concerted drive is set in motion to conserve this valuable heritage asset.

Limerick’s Georgian quarter has suffered under-investment and neglect, including dilapidated and sub-divided buildings and planning constraints.

Dick Tobin, senior planner with Limerick City Council, revealed there are 500 Georgian houses in the city that may not have a long future, due to very shaky foundations.


Image Image

If you take the demolition of 26 and 27 Cecil Street and construction of the three-storey Dominican Biblical Centre. It shows in the inspectors report how shaky some of the Georgian buildings have been allowed to come.

Dilapidation Report by Arup Consulting Engineers

No. 26

  • Vacant with the exception of basement and ground floor.
  • Dry lined internally.
  • Cracking to wall junctions and substantial falls in floors and bulges in walls.
  • Windows and doors substantially off square.
  • Extensive cracking to external elevations with brickwork in very poor condition.
  • Significant settlement to party wall and chimney.
No. 27

  • Vacant (for some time).
  • Wall ties/restraints installed some 10 years ago.
  • Extremely poor condition throughout.
  • Very significant and substantial cracking, bulging and deterioration of walls and especially brickwork.
  • Very significant falls in floors.
  • Wall junctions debonded.
  • Windows and doors are very substantially off square.
  • Extensive infestation and rot in all timbers - heads, lintols, joists, floor and stairs.
  • Substantial settlement of party wall and chimney.

Many opposing views in the Report by Dúchas, An Taisce, Irish Georgian Society, Limerick Civic Trust and so on. It is a worthwhile read and it sends Dick Tobin’s message home that time is not on our side with our Georgian terraced heritage!

Images Limerick.com and Elliot Maguire Landers Architects

Image
User avatar
CologneMike
Old Master
 
Posts: 1146
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:24 pm

Re: Planning Notices

Postby gunter » Tue Jun 02, 2009 12:18 am

CologneMike wrote:
. . . . they ( the Catherine St. houses) could all end up with a similar fate as those on Cecil Street . . . . I personally would favour their integration into a modern office complex.


There's an argument that the Dominican Biblical Centre solution, in proposing a decent contemporary building, rather than the compromise solution of facade retention, is the better route to go.

Personally I think there's usually a range of other solutions that seldom get a look in, but that's probably a discussion for another day.

What we shouldn't do is slip back into is the mind-set that was common-place in the 60s and 70s, the belief that historic building stock always survives on borrowed time, has invariably exceeded anticipated life expectancy, and was always either ''gerry-built'' in the first place, or indeed, ''riddled with dry rot''.

All buildings are subject to maintenance and will deteriorate if they don't get it.

Directly opposite that Dominican Biblical Centre on the corner of Cecil St. and Dominick St. is a case in point; the 1980s Social Welfare Office building.

Image

While I wouldn't personally put this building in the same category as a terrace of Georgian houses [I'm almost certain that it scooped an architectural award at the time, but can't find an actual reference to it], on the side elevation we can see more settlement in the brickwork than you'd see in a typical Georgian terrace! . . . or perhaps it was hit by a truck?

Image
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1924
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Planning Notices

Postby KeepAnEyeOnBob » Tue Jun 02, 2009 7:47 pm

Although personally I find such blunt styles very ugly, I can see that building being better regarded in other more "airy" situations rather than hemmed in at the corner there. While one might consider having a focal point at that corner as you look up Cecil Street, the monstrous entrance to this building, being in shadow as it mostly is on that side, is not the focal point that one wants to see.
KeepAnEyeOnBob
Member
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 2:11 pm
Location: Limerick

Re: Planning Notices

Postby Tuborg » Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:49 pm

jimg wrote:Would that be a bad outcome? Despite the run down appearance, I've always found some charm in that stretch of Catherine Street. A small amount of work and some improvements to the public domain, like wider footpaths would do wonders.


Not at all. I was merely pointing out the conditions under which a redevelopment of this site would most likely proceed! I have always favoured the full retention of those three buildings!

For some reason though, the retention of period buildings, as part of a larger development project, rarely seems to be a popular option in this country! Just take the opera centre as a local example,

In this case, the Catherine Street Partnership claim that the interiors of No's 35-37 are of no architectural value. However, a more likely reason for their proposed demolition might be that they offer less favourable commercial floorspace!:(
Tuborg
Senior Member
 
Posts: 753
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 3:07 am

Re: Planning Notices

Postby Dan Sullivan » Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:16 pm

CologneMike wrote:Image

Image

Image



These kids attending the Montessori Creche need future prospects too. The state of degeneration facing these old buildings on Catherine Street could finish them off now. :(


It is a pity about this development, we had a good hard look at it and reckoned it was the sort of infill development that the city needs in order to sustain the Georgian areas. We have to work out some means to make the Georgian housing usable beyond the retention of the façades and that has to mean scaling the areas behind the streetscape. We thought this would act as proof that off street density could be increased and encourage people to look at the city centre more. I would hope they can come back with a new application.
Dan Sullivan
 

Re: Planning Notices

Postby CologneMike » Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:14 pm

Dan Sullivan wrote:It is a pity about this development, we had a good hard look at it and reckoned it was the sort of infill development that the city needs in order to sustain the Georgian areas. We have to work out some means to make the Georgian housing usable beyond the retention of the façades and that has to mean scaling the areas behind the streetscape. We thought this would act as proof that off street density could be increased and encourage people to look at the city centre more. I would hope they can come back with a new application.


Strangely enough and just diagonally across the road, An Bord Pleanála gave the green light to an even more high density development just three years ago (image below).

Though the façade of the Henry Street side of this development is somewhat disappointing but when flagship tenants like the Department of Foreign Affairs (Irish Aid) move in to the central part of the complex, it will lead to a positive spin-off for the Georgian buildings on Mallow, O’Connell and Hartstonge Streets (e.g. see former County Council Buildings).

It appears to me that the Catherine Street proposal is of a higher standard than what went up across the road. The fact that An Bord Pleanála’s own inspector approved the development but the board upheld the objection due to concerns for the heritage of the area. I fear pragmatism and thus heritage lost out here. :(

Hartstonge Gate ~ River Stone House posts 2098, 2099, 895, 848.

Image
User avatar
CologneMike
Old Master
 
Posts: 1146
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:24 pm

Re: Planning Notices

Postby dave123 » Tue Jun 23, 2009 9:37 am

Why did they not let it go ahead. I think this development is what Catherine Street needed.
dave123
Senior Member
 
Posts: 511
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 11:54 am
Location: Co. Dublin

Re: Planning Notices

Postby Tuborg » Fri Jun 26, 2009 12:14 am

36-39 Nicholas Street, King's Island, Limerick. (08/33)

Construction of office buildings incorporating ground floor gallery/café, offices to upper levels and all associated site works.

Case reference: PL30 .232088

Case type: Planning Appeal

Decision: Grant permission with revised conditions

Date Signed: 16/06/2009


Permission has been granted by ABP despite a recommendation of refusal by the planning inspector. It's the second time in a matter of weeks here that ABP have gone against the recommendation of its inspector!

11 conditions have been laid down, including the removal of 1 floor.

Link
Attachments
Nicholas St..jpg
Nicholas St..jpg (46.24 KiB) Viewed 6239 times
Tuborg
Senior Member
 
Posts: 753
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 3:07 am

Re: Planning Notices

Postby CologneMike » Sun Jul 05, 2009 12:08 pm

"Cecil House", 6 Lower Cecil Street (08/543)

Permission refused by the City Council.

Appealed to An Bord Pleanala by the developer.

Case is due to be decided by 17-08-2009

ImageImageImage

Permission for development which will consist of the demolition of an existing 3 storey office building and to construct a new five storey office building.


The Manager’s order (City Council) giving the reasons for refusing permission.

The proposed development on a restricted city centre site adjacent to buildings of architectural merit as identified on the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (Oifig an Phoist and St Michael’s Sporting Club) is considered by virtue of its size, scale and bulk to constitute over development of the site.

Furthermore its poor quality design would detract from the existing streetscape thus seriously detracting from the setting of the adjoining buildings.


Lower Cecil Street has indeed a unique streetscape, albeit all kinds of everything!

Previous Posts 1350, 1372
Attachments
CecilStreet6.jpg
CecilStreet6.jpg (30 KiB) Viewed 5931 times
User avatar
CologneMike
Old Master
 
Posts: 1146
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:24 pm

Re: Planning Notices

Postby Tuborg » Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:48 pm

CologneMike wrote:"Cecil House", 6 Lower Cecil Street (08/543)

Permission refused by the City Council.

Appealed to An Bord Pleanala by the developer.

Case is due to be decided by 17-08-2009



Theres not much to say about this proposal, only that it's a pretty terrible concoction of architectural styles. The Council were correct to turn it down and I'm sure An Board Pleanala will do the same.

Maybe if the developer could acquire the neighbouring building (Ladbrokes), it would give them the opportunity to come up with a more appropriate design?

The stone fronted ground floor of the existing Cecil House is probably worthy of preservation too!
Tuborg
Senior Member
 
Posts: 753
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 3:07 am

Re: Planning Notices

Postby CologneMike » Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:31 pm

Tuborg wrote:Maybe if the developer could acquire the neighbouring building (Ladbrokes), it would give them the opportunity to come up with a more appropriate design?


I agree.

The city council stress that height is a major issue for this side of Lower Cecil Street. Therefore it is interestingly to see from the Henry Street perspective that two failed planning permissions on either side of Butler’s five/six storey office block were in fact too high?

By the way I take Butler’s Post Office development will remain unfinished (moth-balled) for the present till the banking sector gets their house in order or has there been some activity recently?

See also planning 08210
Attachments
hanging_gardens2.jpg
hanging_gardens2.jpg (54.16 KiB) Viewed 5899 times
User avatar
CologneMike
Old Master
 
Posts: 1146
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:24 pm

Re: Planning Notices

Postby Tuborg » Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:16 pm

CologneMike wrote:I agree.

The city council stress that height is a major issue for this side of Lower Cecil Street. Therefore it is interestingly to see from the Henry Street perspective that two failed planning permissions on either side of Butler’s five/six storey office block were in fact too high?


Personally I think that office block behind the old GPO is at least a floor too high but thats all academic now. As regards the application on the Glentworth Street corner, I think I would have been more concerned about the poor quality design rather than anything else. I reckon a well designed four storey structure would work fine here!


CologneMike wrote:By the way I take Butler’s Post Office development will remain unfinished (moth-balled) for the present till the banking sector gets their house in order or has there been some activity recently?


Nah, its been idle for nearly 2 months at this stage and they were taking it pretty slowly before that aswell so theres a lot to do even when it starts up again!

It's a pity really, I was looking forward to seeing the finished product.
Tuborg
Senior Member
 
Posts: 753
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 3:07 am

Re: Planning Notices

Postby gunter » Wed Jul 08, 2009 10:27 am

Tuborg wrote:36-39 Nicholas Street, King's Island, Limerick. (08/33)

ABP permission granted for the construction of office buildings incorporating ground floor gallery/café, offices to upper levels and all associated site works.


Image

To me, this case illustrates what happens to highly sensitive redevelopment sites in the absence of a strong planning vision.

This is a corner site on the city's medieval high street, diagonally opposite the cathedral. The site incorporates the two and a half storey remains of a late medieval party wall (including 1st floor carved fireplace). It would be hard to envisage a site with greater redevelopment sensitivities.

However, none of these sensitivities appear to have informed the design of the proposed office block (café? on ground floor) which offers the same glass box aesthetic to the streetscape that one imagines it would have anyway, had the site been located anywhere else.

What was the planning response?

The Limerick City planner initially expressed concern about ''no account being taken of the gradient of the street (St. Peter's St.), the scale and bulk of the design and the inappropriate glass box design'', yet nine month later, as the Bord Pleanála inspector's report stated, virtually the same design proposal was granted permission.

The ABP inspector then went on to citicise the 'scale, bulk and design' of the proposed development, but ''. . . more so in relation to the small scale fabric of the surrounding area rather than the impact on the nearby protected structure . . .'', and recommended refusal.

Taking up the theme of 'scale, bulk and design', the Bord rejected their inspector's recommendation to refuse and granted permission, but with the omission of a full storey and a block to the rear.

So the development will still be a glass box, but now it will be a squat glass box!

Instead of Limerick City Council leading from the front and demanding an architectural response that re-imagines Nicholas St./ Mary Street in the scale and status of it's once great medieval main street, the city will get anonymous scaled down office park in-fill so as not to visibly obtrude in the eroded streetscape of anonymous truncated two storey houses that inhabit the corpse of it's civic heritage.

There isn't even a condition requiring a plaque commiserating with Limerick on the loss of it's civic spine?
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1924
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Planning Notices

Postby Tuborg » Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:45 pm

230654: The Crescent, Dooradoyle, Limerick. (08/46)

Retail store, landscaped street, multi-storey car park, 9 no.mixed use unit, extension of existing basement car park, temporary car park areas, and all associated works.

Decision: Refuse permission

Date Signed: 24/07/2009


Simple common sense has prevailed here. All in all, a much needed vote of confidence for city centre trading with 2 extremely positive decisions handed down in recent days!:)
Tuborg
Senior Member
 
Posts: 753
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 3:07 am

Re: Planning Notices

Postby Tuborg » Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:49 pm

Incidentally, the application for modifications to St. Nessan's road was also turned down.

230655: St. Nessan's Road and Dooradoyle Road, Dooradoyle, Limerick (08/47)

Replacement of roundabout with signalised cross road junction, and all associated works.

Decision: Refuse permission

Date Signed: 24/07/2009
Tuborg
Senior Member
 
Posts: 753
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 3:07 am

Re: Planning Notices

Postby dave123 » Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:56 am

What's with all the refusing good applicants??


The Crescent is one centre I would like to see extended and there is no reason why that slot of wasteland shouldn't be redevoloped. Limerick can hold an Opera centre and a crescent. The Extended crescent means more shoppers from the Cork Catchment will shop here.


The Development that is proposed at the centre is nothing exstensive or over bearing.
Either way, the Crescent will be within the city limits in the next year or two.

I can see Dooradoyle been added to the city boundary fairly soon.
dave123
Senior Member
 
Posts: 511
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 11:54 am
Location: Co. Dublin

Re: Planning Notices

Postby bonzer1again » Fri Jul 31, 2009 11:11 am

The Crescent is one centre I would like to see extended and there is no reason why that slot of wasteland shouldn't be redevoloped. Limerick can hold an Opera centre and a crescent. The Extended crescent means more shoppers from the Cork Catchment will shop here


I think the question should be, Can Limerick city centre survive an Extended Crescent,Coonagh Cross, Childers Road, Parkway Retail park, Parkway shopping centre, Jetland centre with retail units, Delta Retail Park, City East Retail Park and Castetroy Shopping centre?

I think that is more the question...maybe Limerick could have survived an extended Crescent if all the other centres, based in Co.Limerick hadn't been given the go ahead..it appears to me that the extended crescent would have been the straw that broke the camels back for the city retailers.....and because of that I believe that the decision was correct to refuse permission.
bonzer1again
Member
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Planning Notices

Postby Tuborg » Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:30 pm

A few more planning updates.....

CologneMike wrote:"Cecil House", 6 Lower Cecil Street (08/543)

Permission refused by the City Council.

Appealed to An Bord Pleanala by the developer.


This case has now been Refused by An Bord Pleanala.

09123

Knocklong Property Developments Ltd

Planning permission is being sought for the elevational changes and associated plan amendments to the proposed development previously approved under P.03/403, including the revised layout of the fourth floor and all associated siteworks. This application includes for the retention of the demolition of the existing stone wall along the rear laneway of Hartstonge Mews and the proposed reconstruction of same using the salvage stone.

7 A/B Catherine Place, Limerick

CONDITIONAL on 21/07/2009


I passed this site today and was surprised to find that the block-work was already up to first floor level. According to the Manager's Order, the previous application (03403) was given a planning extension until March 1st 2010:confused:.

Further information received on 29/06/2009 has included a re-design of the window arrangement and modifications to the roof structure. These changes have now been approved by the Council.

09143

Permission for change of use of existing retail outlet to cafe and permission for signage on front elevation including all ancillary site works

74A Little Catherine Street, Limerick



Another cafe for the Thomas Street/Little Catherine Street area. The site in question is a small, vacant shop unit next to Carlton Coffee.

Just across the street, a change of use is proposed for the upper levels of the Thomas Street centre which has been empty since it was completed last Autumn.

09169

Permission for change of use at the Thomas Street Centre formerly known as no's 44,45,46 and 47 Thomas Street (no. 47 Thomas Street formerly known as No. 1 Catherine Street) and no's 2,3,4 and 5 Catherine Street. This application includes for the change of use of the first floor of the existing development from offices and retail (Class 3 & 1) to medical/health services (Class 8) and change of use for 2nd,3rd,4th and 5th floor offices (Class 3) to medical/health services (Class 8), for the development previously granted planning permission under planning reference 08/84

Decision Due Date: 27/08/2009

Tuborg
Senior Member
 
Posts: 753
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 3:07 am

PreviousNext

Return to Ireland