One Berkley court -132m Tower

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby gunter » Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:49 am

jimg, you've good points there. I too hate the way some shops & cafes in the Ballsbridge / Leeson Street area don't bother to open at the weekend, or even after 5.30pm on weekdays, as they obviously make so much money at weekday lunch time.

I also hate the term 'village', but the centre of Ballsbridge, the area around the junctions of Shelbourne Road, Angelsea Road, Herbert Park, Elgin Road, the RDS, the bridge, the river, the U.S. embassy etc. this area has a scale and a character which might be a bit short of urban, but is still satisfying. One of my problems with this whole development is that I don't see the satisfactory boundary, or alternatively, the satisfactory transition, between this Ballsbridge and this new 'urban quarter' Ballsbridge.

If the logic of this decision is that the new 'urban quarter' is just going to be dropped in afterwards like the way that Los Angeles, (which famously used to be all suburbs and no city), eventually got a dense urban core, then that could work, if there is a fully worked out vision for how the new urban core is going to be contained, and if the relationships between the new urban core and the pre-existing terraces are satisfactory.

In my opinion, a lot of the relationships are not satisfactory. The proposal for Lansdown Road, even reduced from 11 to 9 storeys, is particularly poor, and I would not be at all confident that the new urban core is going to be contained.

Permitting this development in the absence of a comprehensive overall vision, how can DCC refuse landmark structures, and everything that goes with that, on apparently equally deserving corners sites throughout Ballsbridge and elsewhere, when they've handed this one to Dunne on a plate?

I imagined that there might be some real ingenuity shown in the planning conditions that would take the high architectural ambitions of the scheme and bond them with a bit of civic responsibility to get us to a well planned and exciting place by the back door, but maybe that will happen yet with ABP.

Or am I being delusional?
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby jdivision » Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:50 am

gunter wrote:
I also hate the term 'village', but the centre of Ballsbridge, the area around the junctions of Shelbourne Road, Angelsea Road, Herbert Park, Elgin Road, the RDS, the bridge, the river, the U.S. embassy etc. this area has a scale and a character which might be a bit short of urban, but is still satisfying.


For whom? ballsbridge is suffering as an office location because there's nothing there. I know a number of companies that relocated because their staff was sick of the lack of facilities in Ballsbridge. The idea of Ballsbridge as a village is a joke.
jdivision
Senior Member
 
Posts: 802
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:34 pm

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby goneill » Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:56 am

Which companies were those jdivision? And what facilities were lacking compared with, for example, the IFSC, Citywest, Sandyford Industrial Estate?

If the tower would look so good, why didn't the applicant make views of it from Baggot Street Bridge, or the Waterloo Road/Pembroke Road junction available in any of his numerous press releases or the public exhibition? I assume such views were included with the actual application or requested as AI, but they seem very shy about them. I don't count the night-time view.

Most of the buildings in the vicinity of this site are Protected Structures. I think it is extra-ordinary that the council, which routinely rejects the most minor works to these buildings thinks nothing of plonking a 137m "icon" on their doorsteps. Whatever happened to the protection of the setting of PSs? The point about the setback, height and trees on Lansdowne Road, above, was well made.

The claim that the provision of very large apartments will encourage family living in apartments is, I suggest, unproven. (By families, I mean traditional 2 parent, 2.4 kid groups, not elderly bachelors.) A survey of other local large apartments like those at St Anne's, Ardoyne House, and Hazeldene, would show that there are few children living there. The fact is that in Ireland, which is still a very sparsly populated country, anyone with children, rich enough to afford a 200 sq m apartment in Ballsbridge, would prefer to live in Rathmines or Clonskeagh or anywhere that had a garden. The same is true even in Manhatten. In Dublin, the council has belatedly realised that you don't even house poor people in high-rise.

Some of us who live around here think its actually quite pleasant, particularly at weekends. Few of the shops and restaurants on Upper Baggot Street close (though some do) . I don't expect it would improve our quality of life to have a Dundrum style traffic jam outside the door 365 days a year. The retail element of this scheme is actually the third most objectionable element. Why would this area "need" that? Surely the council would be better trying to consolidate retail and wholesale activity in the inner city. Retail streets like Dorset Steet, Capel Street, George's Street/Camden Street would be good places to start. Instead, the council's policies enourages indigenous business migration to the M50, and its replacement with "town centres" full of British High Street chainstores.

There is also something a little bit surprising about the huge degree of support alleged for the project. I doubt if major infrastructural projects like Croke Park and Lansdowne Road which were resisted by locals, but which presumably had thousands of supporters among those sports' members, attracted more than a handful of letters of support. Maybe I'm wrong, but I cannot imagine what prompted so many hundreds of people to write in supporting this scheme.

It's a pity this website is beginning to be seen by lazy jounalists as the voice of architects in ireland, and one which saves them the bother of actually researching something. There is little to indicate that there is more than a handful of professional planners and architects contributing, with many of the rest consisting of disaffected students.
goneill
Member
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:36 pm

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby jdivision » Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:06 pm

goneill wrote:Which companies were those jdivision? And what facilities were lacking compared with, for example, the IFSC, Citywest, Sandyford Industrial Estate?.


CBRE is one of them, I won't name the rest. If you talk to office agents around town they will also confirm that Ballsbridge is no longer being seen as CBD territory

goneill wrote:If the tower would look so good, why didn't the applicant make views of it from Baggot Street Bridge, or the Waterloo Road/Pembroke Road junction available in any of his numerous press releases or the public exhibition? I assume such views were included with the actual application or requested as AI, but they seem very shy about them. I don't count the night-time view.

At what point did I discuss the tower? I was mainly talking about the retail and leisure element, all of which was approved.

goneill wrote: Surely the council would be better trying to consolidate retail and wholesale activity in the inner city. Retail streets like Dorset Steet, Capel Street, George's Street/Camden Street would be good places to start. Instead, the council's policies enourages indigenous business migration to the M50, and its replacement with "town centres" full of British High Street chainstores.


That's your opinion. If you read the objections there are very few complaints made about the retail. Far more are in favour of it.

goneill wrote:There is also something a little bit surprising about the huge degree of support alleged for the project. I doubt if major infrastructural projects like Croke Park and Lansdowne Road which were resisted by locals, but which presumably had thousands of supporters among those sports' members, attracted more than a handful of letters of support. Maybe I'm wrong, but I cannot imagine what prompted so many hundreds of people to write in supporting this scheme.
.


Most of them are mates of Dunners or his wife or people who have something to gain from it being given the go-ahead. Builders, mech eng contractors etc.
jdivision
Senior Member
 
Posts: 802
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:34 pm

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby gunter » Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:13 pm

jdivision wrote:For whom? ballsbridge is suffering as an office location because there's nothing there. I know a number of companies that relocated because their staff was sick of the lack of facilities in Ballsbridge. The idea of Ballsbridge as a village is a joke.


So if Ballsbridge is a failed office location, and it's not a 'village', how would you define the character of Ballsbridge?

goneill, [INDENT]I have been more than surprised by the muted response to this decision, judging by the heat generated when the development was announced, I was expecting fireworks with the decision issued. Some of this may be due to the drip feed manner in which the info has been coming out. Up to last night, the planners report didn't seem to be up on the web site. I suppose it's pretty hard to have an autopsy without a corpse.[/INDENT]
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby goneill » Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:25 pm

None of my other comments were in response to your e-mail, jdivision, just the first paragraph.
You didn't say which facilities were missing here compared to the other areas I mentioned. Is CBRE the estate agents which moved from the corner of Shelboune Road to Burlington Road, a distance of about 900m? Hardly moving out? I think there may be more objections to the retail contained in the appeals.
goneill
Member
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:36 pm

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby goneill » Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:36 pm

Incidentally, this is what CBRE have to say about the first building I looked at in their current portfolio:

"The IONA Building enjoys a suberb location on Shelbourne Road in Ballsbridge. This location,in the heart of Dublin's Embassy District offers staff easy access to all city centre ameneties via the DART at Landsdowne Road and numerous bus routes that pass along Northumberland Road. Numerous quality restaurants,pubs and International Hotels are located in the area. The property is located close to beautiful Herbert Park, which provides an oasis of calmin the heart of the city centre district."
goneill
Member
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:36 pm

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby donal 0 » Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:40 pm

I live in the centre of this so called village, have done for last 8 years. In my opinion Ballsbridge is a no more than an office district with a residential element. Neither of the two shops even reach the standard of convenience store, both mainly exist to serve the office workers, its just lucky that locals can buy a paper in the morning. The existence of the RDS and Lansdowne is the only reason that 4 (3 if you consider Mary Macs and Cullens to be the one...) pubs can survive in the area. I think its nice that the area quietens down after 6pm, though doubtless others would disagree. My grandmother talks about how there used to be a butchers (maybe 2, i never listen!) in the block where the Spar is. These days local facilities like that dont exist, nor do they in Donnybrook. Its either Ranelagh, Sandymount or Ringsend. This is obviously due to the low density residential nature of the area. Whether or not the development of the block, all parts not just Jurys, would change this is in question. Ranelagh has survived as a suburban village because of its lack of offices, as has Sandymount. Maybe a load of new residences will change the balance of power away from the offices and back to residents, on the other hand maybe the whole block should just be made into offices and the existing residents will survive travelling to the shops.

In answer to Jimg, the area is not an idyllic suburban village, it is more like a rural enclave (with offices!) where the residents have to travel for supplies.

I think it is very possible that the new urban quarter would become an entity of its own, with little interaction between it and the existing area. There would be little reason for existing residents to wander down its streets, unless they want a specific cappucino from a specific cafe. Other than to visit Herbert Park, there would be little reason for the new residents to interact with the existing locale, without a supermarket they will also be travelling to shop. The RDS and Lansdowne will keep the existing pubs going, there will still be an influx of office workers each day, who will cause a mini rush hour through the new development as they walk to and from the DART.
I'm not against the development per se, I think the 37 storey tower is magnificent and would love to see it built, but i'm not sure it will bring all the social benefits to Ballsbridge that the developers want us to think it will.
donal 0
Member
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:25 pm

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby CC105 » Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:45 pm

[quote="goneill"]

Goneill -I doubt if standing on baggot street bridge you could see any tall building on the Jurys site - defo not one of this height, one of the main pictures released was looking down baggot street towards Jurys!


The current site is covered in useless buildings and I am struggling to think of any large buildings in Ballsbridge worth protecting -Maybe the RDS

They may prefer to live in Clonskeagh but the whole point is that the city cannot accomodate this wanting to live in 3 -4 bed semi's.

Some of us who live around here think its actually quite pleasant, particularly at weekends.

I am sure you do, but no city can declare a village when it is less than 2 miles from the city centre.

Get a grip -anybody can have an opinion and that is what this site reflects.
CC105
Member
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:41 pm

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby goneill » Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:20 pm

"Goneill -I doubt if standing on baggot street bridge you could see any tall building on the Jurys site - defo not one of this height, one of the main pictures released was looking down baggot street towards Jurys!"

Which one was the one "looking down Baggot Street" ? Could I see it again, because I have genuinely missed it if it is on this thread or at the exhibtion. Why did they use a view looking doen Baggot Street, if, as you suggest ,the tower would not be visible from the bridge.

"The current site is covered in useless buildings and I am struggling to think of any large buildings in Ballsbridge worth protecting -Maybe the RDS"

Some people think the US embassey is quite good, though it may be technically in Washington DC, not Ballsbridge. The original Jury's building, the Intercontinental as it was called, was actually quite a good 1960s building, but I agree it's not woth saving now. Howver I didn't mention "large" in the context of Protected Structures. Pretty well all the houses on Pembroke Road, Raglan Road, Wellington Road, Northumberland Road, Lansdowne Road Clyde Road, Elgin Road, are PSs. So too, I presume, is Ballsbridge town hall, and quite possibly the terraces containing the Post Office, Sherry FitzGerald, Rolys, Mary Mac's and the houses on Pembroke Road oposite the US embasy and Ballsbridge Terrace

"They may prefer to live in Clonskeagh but the whole point is that the city cannot accomodate this wanting to live in 3 -4 bed semi's."

So how is the developer going to force families to live in this high rise?

Some of us who live around here think its actually quite pleasant, particularly at weekends.

"I am sure you do, but no city can declare a village when it is less than 2 miles from the city centre."
There are plenty of urban quarters with village-like qualities.

"Get a grip -anybody can have an opinion and that is what this site reflects."

You are abolutely right.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by CC105 : Today at 11:51 AM
goneill
Member
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:36 pm

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby gunter » Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:33 pm

CC105 wrote:
The current site is covered in useless buildings and I am struggling to think of any large buildings in Ballsbridge worth protecting -Maybe the RDS

I am sure you do, but no city can declare a village when it is less than 2 miles from the city centre.


I don't think anyone is advocating that the two hotels, or even less so the jumble of blocks on Shelbourne Road, are worth keeping as architecture.

The concept of the 'urban village', meaning an inner, or outer district of a city, distinct from the main core, but having both an umbilical link to the parent core, and many of the attributes of a urban centre in it's own right, is very common in many of the most 'livable' cities worldwide. Where the 'Urban Village' ideal works best is where the particular character of the district is clearly identified and imaginatively worked into the proposals for intensification of the district. That's the bit that doesn't seem to happen here.

The Local Area Plans never seem to be imaginative enough to, either get the locals engaged with them, or visionary enough to get the developers interested, so they just end up being more background noise to the ensuing faction fight that is the planning process in this country.
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby Rory W » Fri Mar 14, 2008 2:04 pm

Urban villages do indeed exist - Ranelagh, Sandymount, Phibsborough and drumcondra to name but a few - Ballsbridge? No, a nice cluster of restaurants etc around the bridge but that's about it. The Corner where this development is situated is well in need of redevelopment and the sort of site permeabilty and footfall that having a decent retail presence on site offers means that the development won't be just another souless office canyon ala IFSC1.

And if I could afford it I'd gladly bring up my kids in a decent sized apartment with all the services on site in Ballsbridge rather than the burbs of Clonskeagh
Rory W
Old Master
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Drogheda & Blackrock

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby gunter » Fri Mar 14, 2008 2:38 pm

Rory W wrote:The Corner where this development is situated is well in need of redevelopment and the sort of site permeabilty and footfall that having a decent retail presence on site offers means that the development won't be just another souless office canyon ala IFSC1.


I don't disagree with that, but why can't we have all of that and a responsible relationship to Lansdowne Road, and a defined boundary (even if only aspirational at present) within the city block dividing the part that is new 'urban quarter' from the bit towards the the bridge that looks like it will never be urban quarter scale, and a clear statement from DCC that they are persuaded, despite the absense of any specific zoning objective or adopted visionary master plan, that this site is suitably blessed with attributes to host the new Ballsbridge urban quarter, and if you happen to own a half acre site on an adjascent corner, you're out of luck, no precedent can be taken beyond these boundaries.

If we had that, I be a bit more comfortable with this.
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby CC105 » Fri Mar 14, 2008 2:57 pm

Fair enough on the urban villages, I just dont want people claiming that prime (almost)city centre areas are the same as country villages that rightly need protection from large developments.

I think this thread contains a shot of the building looking down from baggot street. See page 3 on this thread.
CC105
Member
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:41 pm

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby goneill » Fri Mar 14, 2008 3:01 pm

I don't disagree with that either, but I think the buildings should respect the vistas approaching the site, particularly heading east on Pembroke Road and south on Northumberland Road. I think that the retail element, if any, should be of the local nature, i.e to serve those people living and working on site, but not bring additional shoppers to the area. That would dilute the viability of the city centre and lower the quality of life in the area. (see Dundrum). And I still don't think families will buy into this - it will just become a retirement home for the very rich, or temporary accomodation for embassy workers. Those of my relations with children, who live in city apartments (SF and NY) are either in the process of buying a single storey house with yard in central SF, (c. $650,000) or own a weekend house in Connecticut. They are lucky but I don't think anyone actually aspires to bringing up children only in a city apartment.

To clarify something I said earlier: I don't have a problem with students, disaffected or otherwise, expressing their opinions. I just wish so-called journalists wouldn't quote anonymous sources of unknown skill levels, as if they were the voice of the entire planning/architectural profession.
goneill
Member
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:36 pm

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby goneill » Fri Mar 14, 2008 3:30 pm

CC105
The view on page three is not taken on Baggot Street. It is from Pembroke Road (which runs in an "L" shape from the US embassy to Searsons). The viewpoint is a little difficult to make out, because it is taken at night., That should immediately make you suspicious. The view is probably from the corner of Raglan Road, but what about from the corners of Wellington Road, and Waterloo Road?
goneill
Member
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:36 pm

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby gunter » Sat Mar 15, 2008 12:03 am

Having just spent a perfectly good Friday evening reading through the 33 page planners report on this thing, I have a new found admiration for those poor bastards in the planning office. The sheer volume of bullshit that they must have to wade through day after day has got to be outlawed under some EU charter. Is it any wonder they sometimes come out with stuff that tells you black is white. After three or four days reading this stuff non stop, anyone could be forgiven for taking a polar flip.

Inevitably the bulk of this type of report consists of a regurgitation of previously stated facts, and it's often difficult to tell when the applicants are talking and when it's the planner's opinion we're reading.

As far as new stuff goes, there is a total gem on page 23:

The report states that:[INDENT]The Development Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities stress the need for balanced and nuanced judgements on planning applications. Regarding refusals arising from development plans the following is set out: 'A statement of objectives in a development plan should not be regarded as imposing a blanket prohibition on particular classes of development and does not relieve the planning authority of responsibility for considering the merits or otherwise of particular applications . . . A reason for refusal must, as far as possible, bring out the reasonableness of applying the provisions of the plan in the particular case. Accordingly, caution should be exercised when refusing permission on the grounds that the proposed development would materially contravene the development plan. Where such a reason is given it must be clearly shown that the policies/objectives of the plan would be breached in a significant way. (para 7.15)
[/INDENT]
Why were we not told about this document. This is like finding out on your death bed, after a blameless life, that there was an 11th commandment which declared that the other 10 were just suggestions really.

Under the 'Impacts on Urban Landscape Character' heading, the report informs us that 'a detailed and persuasive Urban Character Impact Study is submitted and that this study includes the advise that 'different people will perceive issues relating to impact on urban character differently, depending on whether they have a conservative or innovative outlook'. So if you aren't taken in by this thing, it's because you don't have an innovative outlook!
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby JoePublic » Sat Mar 15, 2008 1:51 am

gunter wrote:So if you aren't taken in by this thing, it's because you don't have an innovative outlook!


Sounds about right :D
JoePublic
Member
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 4:26 pm

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby CC105 » Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:03 pm

Heard Mr Dunne on RTE 1 this morning giving over a fair amount of time to this development.

Some items covered by him:

The existing hotels do not cover the interest payments but his companies other projects are generating enough cashflow to cover this project.

A full development of 1400 apartments would be the most finacially viable method to develop the site but he states that his vision is for a mixed development.

First residents 2012 - - - projected cost for residential is 1500 euro per square foot hence he recons that average apartment would cost 2 million euro!!! a lot higher than the 850K mentioned earlier:eek:

Best get saving;)
CC105
Member
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:41 pm

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby gunter » Sat Mar 15, 2008 7:48 pm

I only heard a bit of the Dunne interview with Marian and it seemed like it was largely human interest, rags to riches stuff. I did hear him say, as a starting point to the discussion on his proposal, that the Jurys site is the centre of Ballsbridge, and it seemed to be his contention that the justification for what he was proposing was grounded in that contention. I don't agree with him there. It's pretty clear to me that the stretch between the embassy and the RDS, the location of the convergence of several streets, the intersection with the river, that's the centre of Ballsbridge, so he's a couple of hundred metres off the mark there.

All the glowing stuff in the presentation, which is gobbled up and repeated in the planners report, all of that stuff would still apply if the development was 30% smaller. You can achieve excellent urban scale with 5 - 6 storey development, and a quality landmark structure with something 15 to 20 storeys high.

As I said before, this development isn't a million miles away from being brilliant, the mix is good, the design is ambitious, the new streets are a massive public gain, it just that the overall scale is excessive.

It's because the overall scale is excessive, that the relationships to the rest of the area are so jarring. At the end of the day these buildings aren't opera houses, they're not civic buildings, they're just more of what the area has already, apartments, embassies, offices. The justification for mega-scale isn't there and if it's allowed, it's going to create an imbalance and a precedent that is the opposite of good planning, in my opinion.
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby jdivision » Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:47 pm

So the scheme should be lower in height than what's there already?
jdivision
Senior Member
 
Posts: 802
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:34 pm

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby gunter » Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:47 pm

jdivision wrote:So the scheme should be lower in height than what's there already?


I don't think it's relevant what the height of the existing hotels structures are. The applicants don't make a big deal out of the hotel precedent, probably because they would have to acknowledge the other precedents set by the existing structures; the retention of the original botanic gardens boundaries, trees etc.

I believe that this site should be developed to a good urban scale, I'm just pointing out that it doesn't have to be 8 to 10 storeys, with a 30+ landmark feature to achieve good urban scale.

You could take this scheme, stick in down on Spencer Dock, and there wouldn't be a problem. The problem is that this scheme doesn't take context into account to the extent that it should.

They are not stupid people in DCC, they know that this scheme contravenes a couple of dozen policy objectives of the Development Plan, so the rational for waving this through must have to do with something else. If there's a bigger picture, let's see what the bigger picture is.

The omission of Block A and the office block, is done in such a strange way that it looks to me like a piece or choreography.

The planner's report goes out of it's way to explain how the planning authority could grant planning permission to the office content, even though the zoning objective appeared to preclude it. The report goes out of it's way to explain that the the planning authority considers the office content, at 25%, to be generally acceptible.

The same applies to the tower (block A). The report is glowing in it's praise of the landmark tower. I think the only criticisms were that the winter garden feature seemed a bit shallow, there were a few too many single aspect apartments, and that the overall scale 'tended towards the excessive'. If this was the assessment, there is actually no reason to refuse permission for it! A couple of well worded conditions could have tweaked it a bit and trimmed it down a fraction.

To me, the report reads like they've tried to write the script for a two act play. They want it all, but they feel they should leave something for Bord Pleanala to deliver, in the second act.
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby PVC King » Sun Mar 16, 2008 10:16 am

gunter wrote: If this was the assessment, there is actually no reason to refuse permission for it! A couple of well worded conditions could have tweaked it a bit and trimmed it down a fraction.

To me, the report reads like they've tried to write the script for a two act play. They want it all, but they feel they should leave something for Bord Pleanala to deliver, in the second act.



That is always the way the larger cases work; as was put to us by our planning lecturer who was no stranger to planning battles it works something along the lines of a developer wants an 8 story building so he applies for 14 storeys the planning authority gives 12 and the bord give 8. That way the local authority look pro development by giving close to the full consent and make the local representatives look great as they have to spend their own money taking it to the Bord.

The oral hearing on this will be great entertainment!
PVC King
 

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby gunter » Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:43 pm

It almost reassuring pvc to know that everything is so well ordered. These guys should be put in charge of the weather and sport.

Recently, though, I have found Bord Pleanala to be a bit unpredictable. If they get the ABP inspector who did the report on the recent Pearse Street / Sandwith St. TCD block, they could end up getting everthing they applied for, including the two floors of B,C & D that DCC took off them!

In a case, a couple of years ago, I took my own €200 and had a go at one of these major urban centre applications. I was in favour of the overall scheme, but there were 5 or 6 aspects that I believed should have been addressed differently. It turned out there were no other appeals, or possibly just one other third party, saying something about there being not much community gain, or somerthing.

The ABP inspector acknowledged the appeals in one sentence and then went off on a total rant, condemning the entire scheme from top to bottom. Not surprisingly the Bord threw out his report, proably called the Eastern Health Board to take the guy away, and rubber stamped the scheme after taking off one of the blocks that nobody had objected to.

I'd have got better value out of my €200 if I'd have rolled it up a set fire to it.
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower

Postby jdivision » Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:54 pm

gunter wrote:I don't think it's relevant what the height of the existing hotels structures are. The applicants don't make a big deal out of the hotel precedent, probably because they would have to acknowledge the other precedents set by the existing structures; the retention of the original botanic gardens boundaries, trees etc.
.


Of course it is, except for Shelbourne Road the buildings all around it are high too: Carrisbrook House, Lansdowne House, Hume House
jdivision
Senior Member
 
Posts: 802
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:34 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Ireland



cron