Carlisle Pier

Carlisle Pier

Postby LOB » Wed May 19, 2010 2:06 pm

I see that ABP have decided that the demolition is not exempted development.
http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/RL2672.htm
LOB
Member
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2000 12:00 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Carlisle Pier

Postby Paul Clerkin » Thu May 20, 2010 2:25 pm

So what are the chances of the Harbour authorities being forced to rebuilt the old part of it?
User avatar
Paul Clerkin
Old Master
 
Posts: 5427
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 1999 1:00 am
Location: Monaghan

Re: Carlisle Pier

Postby Canus » Thu May 20, 2010 5:27 pm

Bord Pleanala as expected ruled that demolition was unauthorised.

The Reference was taken to An Bord Pleanala by Ciaran Cuffe TD in October 2009 following failure of Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council to address complaints made in September 2009, that the demolition was unauthorised. The main basis of complaint was that an amendment to the 2008 Planning and Development regulations reduced the size threshold, under which structures could be demolished without planning permission to 100 sq. metres

The Dun Laogharie Harbour Company proceeded to demolish the 19th. railway station on the pier in September 2009, despite legal complaints that it was unauthorised development. The complaints specifically citing the Planning and Development Regulations 2008, to requiring that planning permission be required for demolition of all "business premises" building over 100 square metres. The Harbour Company on the basis of advise from their Solicitors Mason Hayes and Curran and planning consultants MacCabe Durney Barnes claimed that planing permission was not required. The Council by its inaction colluded in this unauthorised development.

The decision by An Bord Plenala puts in question the competence of both the Harbour Board under the chairmanship of Sean Costelloe, the position of Gerry Dunne Chief Executive, and the professional advice being obtained by the Harbour Company as a State body. Equally impugned are the senior management of Dun Laoghaire Rathdown Co Co who allowed a major unauthorised demolition of a landmark building to occur without planning permission and in disregard of legal complaints to the council.

The Harbour Company and the Local authority must now take action to reinstate the original part of the Carlisle Pier Railway Station, as the focal point for public benefit and recreational activity in the harbour area.

When Public Bodies fail in in legal responsibility, resignations or dismissals should be the consequence.

Given that solicitors and planning consultants for Harbour Company claimed that demilition was exempted, their professional indemnity insurance should now cover cost of rebuilding 19th. C Railway Station.

There is now a specific requirement to address the recovery of costs from the professional indemnity insurance of the advisers to the Harbour Company.
Canus
Member
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 5:43 pm

Re: Carlisle Pier

Postby PVC King » Thu May 20, 2010 5:57 pm

I hope for the advisors sake that they weren't covered by Quinn Direct who said to be quite slow in getting the cheque out from time to time.

I could understand this happening in 2005 to deliver something like the Liebskind or even STW proposal; but why would you do any site preparation work in 2009?

Just goes to show expressing an interpretation of fact in any legal grey area is lethal; when one reads an SC's 'reasoned opinion' you very rarely see advice to actually do anything concrete.
PVC King
 

Re: Carlisle Pier

Postby gunter » Thu May 20, 2010 6:13 pm

Canus wrote: The Harbour Company and the Local authority must now take action to reinstate the original part of the Carlisle Pier Railway Station, as the focal point for public benefit and recreational activity in the harbour area.


In theory, the unauthorized development consisted of the demolition of the entire structure, not just the concealed Victorian structure underneath, therefore the strict legal remedy would be the reconstruction of the outer shell [i.e 'the building'], if they wanted to be pig-headed about it.

I'd be inclined to explore some compromises that might be more in the public interest before waving legal writs around the place, much as it would give satisfaction to give a local authority a good kicking.
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1922
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Carlisle Pier

Postby Tayto » Thu May 20, 2010 6:42 pm

Canus wrote:.........When Public Bodies fail in in legal responsibility, resignations or dismissals should be the consequence..........


That's some high horse you're on there.
Did you ever hear of the high and mighty High Court? I think the accused are entitled to pay a visit there before they are executed by the mob.

Canus wrote:......... claimed that planing permission was not required...................demilition was exempted, their professional indemnity insurance should now cover cost of rebuilding 19th. C Railway Station.

There is now a specific requirement to address the recovery of costs from the professional indemnity insurance of the advisers to the Harbour Company.


The case appears relatively complex and revolved around definitions and language, in both english and french, (see the BP planner's report) and the decision was based upon interpretation of specific words.

Given your lack of care with words above, perhaps you might consider appreciating the complexity of legal language and legal interpretations before demanding the dismissal of people from their jobs.

On second thoughts, if it is that you happen to be from Cork, den you'd know boy, dat de ting about de demilition is dat de divil is in de detail.:D
Tayto
Member
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 7:00 pm

Re: Carlisle Pier

Postby PVC King » Thu May 20, 2010 6:54 pm

Spending money clearing a high profile site when the construction PMI index is in the 30's is to my mind a sackable offence.

I agree with you that there is more to this than a simple answer based on the guidance; but anyone with any smarts could see that this site was not going to be developed anytime soon; particularly given the architectural competition would give objectors free license to crucify any spec build standard proposal making its development value as a site significantly diminished.

Why do you need a Dun Laoghaire Harbour Board anyway, even in a bull market?
PVC King
 

Re: Carlisle Pier

Postby onq » Thu May 20, 2010 8:36 pm

From
S.I. No. 600 of 2001.
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, 2001

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/si/0600.html

SCHEDULE 2
Article 6
Part 1
Exempted Development — General

Column 1 Description of Development

Class 24

The carrying out by any harbour authority of development of the following description—

(a) works authorised by a harbour works order in pursuance of section 134 of the Harbours Act, 1946 ( No. 9 of 1946 ), which consist of the construction, reconstruction, extension or removal of docks, graving docks, quays, wharves, jetties, piers, embankments, break-waters, roads, viaducts, tram-ways, railways or aerodromes (but not the construction or erection of sheds, transit sheds, transhipment sheds, silos, stores and other structures or the reconstruction or alteration of such excepted structures so as materially to affect the design or external appearance thereof), or

(b) the cleaning, scouring, deepening, improving or dredging of the harbour or the approaches thereto or the removal of any obstruction within the limits of the harbour, and the use of land for the disposal of dredged material in accordance with an objective in a development plan for the area in which the land is situated.


Column 2 Conditions and Limitations - None


AND

From S.I. 235 of 2008
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 2008.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2008/en/si/0235.html

Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 is amended by the substitution of Class 50 with the following


CLASS 50

=======================

Column 1 Description of Development

(a) The demolition of a building, or buildings, within the curtilage of—

(i) a house,
(ii) an industrial building,
(iii) a business premises, or
(iv) a farmyard complex.


(b) The demolition of part of a habitable house in connection with the provision of an extension or porch in accordance with Class 1 or 7, respectively, of this Part of this Schedule or in accordance with a permission for an extension or porch under the Act.

=======================

Column 2 Conditions and Limitations

1. No such building or buildings shall abut on another building in separate ownership.

2.The cumulative floor area of any such building, or buildings, shall not exceed:

(a) in the case of a building, or buildings within the curtilage of a house, 40 square metres, and
(b) in all other cases, 100 square metres.


3. No such demolition shall be carried out to facilitate development of any class prescribed for the purposes of section 176 of the Act.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Might as well have the references.

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Carlisle Pier

Postby Paul Clerkin » Thu Feb 02, 2012 5:07 pm

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nlireland/6775496591/

National Library shot of inside of Carlisle Pier terminal 23 August 1928
User avatar
Paul Clerkin
Old Master
 
Posts: 5427
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 1999 1:00 am
Location: Monaghan

Re: Carlisle Pier

Postby Paul Clerkin » Thu Feb 16, 2012 6:18 pm

401259_273374129401145_100001856790210_643236_113720835_n.jpg


The railway shed, before the ferry terminal was constructed in front.
User avatar
Paul Clerkin
Old Master
 
Posts: 5427
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 1999 1:00 am
Location: Monaghan

Re: Carlisle Pier

Postby Paul Clerkin » Mon Apr 22, 2013 6:00 pm

View from inside the railway station looking out at Dun Laoghaire

0426.jpg
User avatar
Paul Clerkin
Old Master
 
Posts: 5427
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 1999 1:00 am
Location: Monaghan


Return to Irish Planning Matters



cron