Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby Rusty Cogs » Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:06 am

lightswitch wrote:Hey Rusty, If the court decides that the decison is to be reviewed, i.e. finds in favour of Spencer Dock, what does this mean, i.e review by "the commercial court deals with the decision"?

Does this mean that the proposed canal/island scheme could be blocked by Treasury?
..hence stall the entire new master plan process?

Also as a side; I note that DDDA hasnt yet published any information re: revising the exixting master plan on its website, seems to me that they are in a hurry to revise thier master plan to force this "island of atlantis" on Dublin,

Lets hope this island with its blind virture and wisdom dissapears under the water together with the Lost Island of Atlantis...


Re the Commercial Court, I wondered about that too. Someone with more knowledge of planning law would have to comment. The funny thing is, the canal is due to cross Treasury land also, so the DDDA will have to do a deal with them too. Again, I imagine, along the lines of, 'we'll increase building height in the 2008 development plan for you, if you let us build our canal (and Island)'.

The master plan gets reviewed every five years so we are due one in 2008 although I understand it won't be finalised until the end of the year.

TBH, I think their website is a load of sloblock, they have not updated their planning application (s25) database in about a year now, so we've no idea what's in the pipeline on that front.
Rusty Cogs
Member
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 5:10 pm

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby jdivision » Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:20 pm

The Carroll deal stuff came out in the court case with Sean Dunne so I expect that it may have to wait til that case is concluded before moving to the commercial court if the review finds in Treasury's favour - and in fairness it kind of has to. Yet more incompetence from the DDDA.But hey, they've a whole new area of Dublin to look forward to developing.
jdivision
Senior Member
 
Posts: 802
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:34 pm

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby cagey » Sat Jun 14, 2008 3:16 am

The lack of a water supply (other than grey) sets this "Canal" apart from normal canals. "

There is a clean water supply for any building proposed for the area via the water mains .......

If the 'new' canal is connected to the Liffey then there is no need to build a whole canal system merely to take future builds 'grey' water. It would simply be piped into the Liffey directly.....

They don't need to build a canal for grey water, they could simply culvert that underground. They don't need to build a canal to for the extension, the former will pre-date the latter.


I think you know that no "canal" maintains its level directly from a mains water supply? Enough said.

Please Rusty Cogs, read again posts 103 (http://www.pleanala.ie/ord/205/D205632.DOC), 142 and 143.

2) on 1/4/08, Mr Maloney himself confirmed that the reservoir (sorry 'canal') will be used for grey water treatment (reed treatment bed system).


They most certainly need a Grey water treatment facility (a reed bed ?). Not just a small plant but "Six hours storage must be provided based on a five year return period storm." ... I am sure the architects in here can tell us how big that needs to be. (20 X 1200 Square Mtrs ?).

Surely you dont think the DDDA intend to pack up their jobs and go away quietly in 2013?

The DDDA would be landlords not just levy takers in the case of buildings on the Campshires. They claim on their web site to own (with a bit of sharing) the Campshires .

I missed that meeting due to not being able to get back to Dublin in time (SIGH!!!!!) ... sorry all.
I hope Lightswitch was there.

One of the meetings I was at, I asked "How on earth can the DDDA be independent when its income (levy based) is derived from developers?" ... that was 5 years ago and I still do not have an adequate explanation and the latest posts show that at least it is very difficult for the DDDA to be objective.

Verey informative that post 197 ... ty Rusty Cogs.
cagey
Member
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:28 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby gunter » Tue Jun 17, 2008 10:08 pm

Can somebody turn on lightswitch. It's been a week since the information meeting and we've not got any information!

On a related matter, has anyone seen the Spencer Dock Development Co.'s (Ronan & Barrett) plan for the 'Woolstore' and the 'LMS Building', both 'Protected Structures' (Reg. no. 2871/08, lodged 19 May)?

Image
Scanned drawing showing the proposed office block above and behind the two storey, red brick, LMS building (former C.I.E. goods depot)

Image
Scanned drawing showing the existing front elevation of the LMS Building.

Image
Scanned drawing of the proposed office block with the protected 'Woolstore' warehouse in the foreground and the curved corner of the LMS building on the Quay front to the left.

Image
Existing view of the 'Woolstore' warehouse.

The architects are Henry J Lyons and the design approach appears to be 'Skylon Hotel meets Erno Goldfinger'

The scanned planning documents don't seem to include a cover letter, or anything to explain the design rational, beyond two short paragraphs at the end of the conservation report by heavy weight conservation architect, David Slattery, which touch on the issue of the juxtaposition of the new and old, but you sense the presence of industrial strength rubber gloves..

Slattery states: 'The LMS Building and the former Woolstore read strongly and individually and if anything this new backdrop to the rear emphasises the strength of the elevational impact they make.'

'It's as if the contrast between the new and utterly modern facades with their high level of glazing succeeds in emphasising the solidity and three dimensional quality of the two Protected Structures.'

I think for 'utterly modern' we can read 1960s, but more bafflingly, the report goes on to suggest that the proposed eight storey constructivist block, hanging over the protected roofs of the protected structures ' . . provides them with an immediate backdrop and removes the incongruity of their current setting with adjoining buildings on the site immediately west towering over the LMS building and dwarfing it's appearance'!

This would be a swipe at the 'Pricewaterhouse-Coopers' building.

Image

As far as I can tell the western elbow of the 'Island canal' is routed between the front of the 'Woolstore' and the side of the redbrick hotel on the North Wall, where it doesn't look like there's a whole lot of space.

Surprisingly the Planning drawings make no reference to the canal which must surely have some impact on the development if it goes ahead. The absence of any reference to the canal leaves you to wonder whether they've considered whether fire engine access will end up being by barge.
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby ctesiphon » Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:59 am

Who needs fire engines when you can just dip the end of your hose in a grey water canal? (This is not a euphemism, btw.)

gunter wrote:As far as I can tell the western elbow of the 'Island canal' is routed between the front of the 'Woolstore' and the side of the redbrick hotel on the North Wall, where it doesn't look like there's a whole lot of space


On which subject, Reg. Ref. 2839/08. It seems someone has applied to DCC for PP for a site that's 'in the way' of the canal- on the inside of the north-west corner. And let's not forget the developments currently under construction in the area- isn't there something underway on the Brooks Thomas site?
User avatar
ctesiphon
Old Master
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby Rusty Cogs » Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:48 am

Up up and away !!!

From today's IT

The easing of the height restriction will allow three banks and several other major companies to move ahead with plans to relocate to the north docklands where developers have been waiting for the planning concessions, writes Jack Fagan .

A NEW planning scheme and masterplan for the Dublin docklands, due to be unveiled next week, is to recommend that the maximum height for new buildings at the North Lotts, Grand Canal Harbour and Grand Canal Docks should be increased from seven to 20 storeys. Parts of the City Quay area are also expected to benefit from the changes.

The easing of the height restriction will immediately allow three banks and several other major companies to move ahead with plans to relocate to the north docklands where developers have been waiting for the planning concessions.

Most of the high-rise and high density office blocks will be at North Lotts where the landowners include Liam Carroll, Treasury Holdings and Sean Dunne. The two largest sites at Grand Canal Harbour in the south docks are owned by Treasury Holdings and Sean Kelly who bought the former Bolands Mills about three years ago. The Kilsaran-owned cement site at Grand Canal Harbour will also benefit.

The first beneficiary in the busy north docks area will be Carroll who owns the seven-acre Brooks Thomas site next to Treasury's Spencer Dock.

He has agreed to develop a building of 32,515sq m (350,000sq ft) for Anglo Irish Bank and another one of 5,574sq m (60,000sq ft) for solicitors O'Donnell Sweeney.

AIB Capital Markets is also in discussions with Carroll to rent a new high density office building on the site with a floor area of around 37,160sq m (400,000sq ft).

The third bank involved, Bank of Ireland, is also in "exclusive discussions" with him to occupy a planned new 51,095sq m (550,000sq ft) back office at the rear of the Brooks Thomas site on Mayor Street.

Carroll has attracted the three banks by offering artificially low rents for the first five years in the expectation that they will be reviewed to open market value at the first review.

Without the change of maximum heights from seven to 20 storeys it is doubtful if he could have accommodated the three banks as well as other clients.

Treasury also has large tracts of land in the area, including the former Tedcastles site and Spencer Dock, and they will obviously be hoping to attract other high profile tenants including KPMG, Deloitte, Citco Group, Arthur Cox and the IDA.

Although Treasury has lodged a planning application with Dublin City Council for a 33-storey, 400-bedroom hotel alongside the proposed National Conference Centre in Spencer Dock, the decision by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority to limit heights to 20 storeys will make it all the more difficult for the developer to fulfil its ambitions.

The docklands has become the prime location for large new office blocks in the city over the past five years. Since 2002, it has accounted for almost one-third of overall office take-up in the Dublin market.

Paul Maloney, chief executive of the DDDA, says their success has clearly demonstrated how they can continue to attract major headquarter buildings.

The new masterplan, which has been approved by the council and board of the DDDA, will provide for the expenditure of €4 billion in a public private partnership on vital improvements in infrastructure to accommodate major commercial and residential developments in the run up to 2020.

The transport facilities will include a new Luas service, rapid transit bus services, four new bridges, and an interconnector underground station.

The enhanced infrastructure will be required to service the increased office and residential densities to be allowed in designated areas of the docklands, Maloney said.

He added that this would be accompanied by a massive investment in the community through jobs, housing, schools, and arts and culture including three new theatres.
Rusty Cogs
Member
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 5:10 pm

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby Rusty Cogs » Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:07 am

[quote=" And let's not forget the developments currently under construction in the area- isn't there something underway on the Brooks Thomas site?[/QUOTE"]

That's Liamo's development discussed in the IT article above, however, he has left a strip of land at the back (north side) where the canal would go. So the DDDA and Liam C are in 'agreement' to get their canal and 20 story offices respectively while Treasury are applying for their PP directly to DCC. The DDDA are objecting to Treasury's plans (you can see this through ctesiphon's link) possibly as the proposed building does sit where the canal would run. The DDDA will have their work cut out to appease Liam C, Treasury and the local residents if they want to push this canal thing through.
Rusty Cogs
Member
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 5:10 pm

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby Paul Clerkin » Tue Jun 24, 2008 2:16 am

Launch of Docklands Authority's Draft Master Plan for 2008 to 2013

The Dublin Docklands Development Authority will launch the public
consultation phase of its new draft Master Plan on Wednesday, June 25,
2008, at 11.30am.

The launch will include a briefing from the Docklands Authority's Chief
Executive, Paul Maloney, on the key aspects of the draft Master Plan, which
provides a framework to guide the development and regeneration of the
Docklands area into the future.

We would like to invite you, or a representative, to attend the briefing in
the former offices of the Docklands Authority, Custom House Quay (opposite
Jurys Inn) where the draft Master Plan will be on public display.

Event: Launch of Docklands Authority's Draft Master Plan

Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Time: 11.30am

Location: Docklands Authority former offices, Custom House Quay, Dublin 1
User avatar
Paul Clerkin
Old Master
 
Posts: 5418
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 1999 1:00 am
Location: Monaghan

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby cagey » Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:49 am

Paul Clerkin wrote:Launch of Docklands Authority's Draft Master Plan for 2008 to 2013


So finally we find out if the DDDA suggest we lose our Campshires for a "Canal". The scene below is taken from the middle of where the Liffey Island Extension is proposed, or is it only proposed?

Campshires ruined over our collective "Corpus Mortis"??? John Gormley, Tara, Ringsend, but no strike three please.
Attachments
liffeyboats05.jpg
liffeyboats05.jpg (71.28 KiB) Viewed 5340 times
cagey
Member
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:28 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby lightswitch » Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:43 am

Guys. lightswitch is back on!

Sorry for not coming back sooner, however I was on holidays.. on the subject of the North Lotts Residents Associations briefing with DDDA,

First of all I would like to point out that all present were very pleased to have this engagement with the DDDA.

Also the members of DDDA who attended were extremely professional, well prepared and happy to exchange in direct open dialogue with the community. To be fair to them, I was impressed with their approach and willingness to discuss and listen to the fears and concerns of the local residents, so credit where it is due! Well done on this front.

It was absolutely clear that DDDA are proceeding with their plan to develop the campshires and proceed with building into the liffey. When pressed with a direct question from the floor the DDDA speaker (sorry wasn’t taking notes on names) responded that the "motivation and vision" to proceed with this plan is to "engage the campshire", apparently to date the public has not been using the space adequately, the speaker recognised that this was largely due to the hard finish and lack of planting employed, however he stated they learned from this and felt this plan would correct this (I would also suggest it is more probable that this is due to the fact that the area is under development and also by virtue of the fact that there are no access crossing points across to the other side)

Upon further engagement the (resident) stated that he was honestly not convinced; that the plan to develop the campshires will achieve this vision, building into the river will not engage public recreation of the area, it simply doesn’t make sense (whatever public recreation is defined, as in this instance).

Nor do I personally agree that this plan would engage the public and the campshire, it just doesn’t compute. I would suggest that the real motivation and and vision is much more short term, it’s the balance sheet. Its not about public recreational engagement. Its about returning the campshire back to commerce, albeit a new format.

But lets be honest about this...

If it was about public recreational engagement I suggest to the DDDA, try a new feasibility plan, perhaps pedestrianise the entire north lotts campshire? Creat a green area with rich planting, developing the areas as a usable public space. This could be achieved by diverting port traffic at the Point Depot/ East Link via east wall road/sheriff st, indeed build another bloody tunnel if you have too... This would demonstrate some real vision toward engaging the campshire and the city can still retain our heritage and open vista, campshires AND ALSO build high rise. So long as long as its not in the river?

...just my opinion anyway, lets see what the coming weeks will bring?
lightswitch
Member
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:26 pm

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby cagey » Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:33 am

lightswitch wrote:Guys. lightswitch is back on!
......
...just my opinion anyway, lets see what the coming weeks will bring?


References to the "Liffey Island" are difficult to come across in the new DDDA 2008 plan but 'tho hidden there is no problem knowing what that "Canal" is for.

http://www.dublindocklands.ie/files/business/docs/Environmental%20Report%202008%20Section%208.pdf


The part to notice I quote:
"...Although located in direct proximity to the Ringsend wastewater treatment plant, development under
the Poolbeg Planning Scheme and other Planning Schemes in the Docklands Area may have to
provide local wastewater infrastructure until such time as capacity becomes available at regional level.
The Master Plan acknowledges that temporary treatment facilities may be required to serve short to
medium term needs (S.5.2.2). This issue will be addressed in the relevant Planning Schemes and accompanying EISs.
If adequate wastewater capacity at regional level is unavailable at the time of the roll out of further
development in the Docklands Area e.g. should the Authority decide to extend the North Lotts , Grand
Canal Docks and Custom House Docks Planning Scheme Areas, local wastewater treatment may be
required for development in these areas. This will be addressed in the relevant Planning Schemes and
accompanying Environmental Impact Statements, in agreement with Dublin City Council...."


They call it "Mitigation". Isn't that supposed to happen after they have been found guilty and want a reduced punishment?

http://www.dublindocklands.ie/files/business/docs/Environmental%20Report%202008%20Section%206.pdf

".....Until such time as water supply and wastewater infrastructure at regional level becomes
available, [I]mitigation
at local Docklands level will be essential....."[/I]


Lightswitch, I would especially like to have a comment from you re the above please.

I like (no way) the DDDA childish tables and final assesment I quote:
6.6 DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED
There were no technical or data diffi culties encountered in compiling the required information to assess
the Master Plan Alternatives.
cagey
Member
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:28 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby Rory W » Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:44 pm

lightswitch wrote: the "motivation and vision" to proceed with this plan is to "engage the campshire", apparently to date the public has not been using the space adequately, the speaker recognised that this was largely due to the hard finish and lack of planting employed, however he stated they learned from this and felt this plan would correct this (I would also suggest it is more probable that this is due to the fact that the area is under development and also by virtue of the fact that there are no access crossing points across to the other side)


Absolutely - the DDDA say that it is under utilised - so to amend this they want to build over and privatise the space??? What genius thought this up

The fact that there is bugger all between Spencer Dock and the point may be part of the problem (but it's being built their now) and hence people may start using the north campshires.

The DDDA don't have a leg to stand on if this is their argument
Rory W
Old Master
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Drogheda & Blackrock

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby cagey » Sat Jun 28, 2008 2:18 am

http://www.dublindocklands.ie/files/business/docs/Environmental%20Report%202008%20Section%208.pdf

Above I have provided a full link. It seems some of you made little sense of the link I gave .... sorry ... me too.
If you dont get all the way there with the link above ... Arrow forward to Section 8.6 Material Assets.
When I save the link it seems to change

Below is why the DDDA need rent more than levy ... dont forget they claim to own the Campshires and would get rent, business ground rent, and levy from same.

http://www.dublindocklands.ie/files/business/docs/Draft%20Master%20Plan%202008%20Section%208.pdf (fast fwd to pages 8.2.3 also pages 8.2.5 )

The following is a broad breakdown of estimated expenditure over the next fi ve years to 2013:
Public Sector Expenditure: €1.7bn
Private Sector Expenditure: €2.8bn


Policy IM2
Rigorously assess new Authority-funded development to ensure best value
for money.


Policy IM5
Examine the potential for new sources and methods of funding.


In other words "Empire building" and to hell with the Liffey views and Dubliners' views.
cagey
Member
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:28 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby gunter » Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:20 am

lightswitch wrote:Guys. lightswitch is back on!

It was absolutely clear that DDDA are proceeding with their plan to develop the campshires and proceed with building into the liffey. When pressed with a direct question from the floor the DDDA speaker (sorry wasn’t taking notes on names) responded that the "motivation and vision" to proceed with this plan is to "engage the campshire"



The guy actually said this?

Then after they get 'engaged', what happens? There're going to marry this thing aren't they? This is going to be like some sick inter-species B-movie. There going to start procreating, twenty storey, little monsters all over the place!

I've read through most of cagey's links to the DDDA development plan and I can't find very many explicit reference to the 'Island'!

The one that stands out is on p. 106, under the heading 8.7 Cultural Heritage:

'Although the impact of the Master Plan 2008 on cultural heritage is largely positive, the proposed Amended North Lotts Planning Scheme will potentially impact negatively on the quay wall at North Wall. This is a protected Structure and a recorded National Monument. The extension into the River Liffey is to be supported on piles allowing the historic wall to remain in place without significant intervention.'

This is a pathetic passage that willfully misrepresents the impact of the proposal. The campshire is not just a protected wall, it's a place, an amenity resource. Shame on whatever spineless weasel wrote that paragraph.

Apart from that and even allowing for any carefully chosen double speak, there not a lot of phrases you could use to justify the campshire build over.

Some sample phrases from DDDA documents:

6.1.2. Aims of the Urban Design Framework (Design, scale and Use)

'. . . development along the River Liffey shall have regard to the coherent built form that has developed along the corridor, while allowing for appropriate variations that are legible in the wider context'.

Maybe that last bit is the Trojan horse, depending on who gets to define 'appropriate', 'legible' and how wide is your 'context'?

6.2.1. Context, (Urban Form)

'The River Liffey forms the central spine of the Docklands and Dublin City . . which also offers one of Dublin's most attractive amenity spaces, an all important 'node' linking the city's markers from Heuston Station, the Four Courts, Liberty Hall, and the Custom House, that can be experienced as a central open space floating through the city'.

Maybe you could argue that the fact that the've stopped at the Custom House could be interpreted as some sort of 'get out clause'!
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby Rusty Cogs » Sun Jun 29, 2008 11:28 pm

From the Sindo

If ambitious plans go ahead, the IFSC may be turned into a ‘mini Manhattan’, writes Ronald Quinlan

Sunday June 29 2008

THREE of the biggest beasts in Ireland’s property industry have been drawn into an all-out war over ambitious plans by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA) to create a ‘mini Manhattan’ in the heart of the IFSC.

Separate claims by high-flying property magnates Johnny Ronan and Sean Dunne of a secret deal given to publicity-shy developer Liam Carroll have now landed the DDDA in the High Court.

The separate cases, which are being taken by Ronan’s Spencer Dock Developments and Dunne’s Mountbrook Homes respectively, centre on the Authority’s agreement last year allowing Carroll to ignore the 2002 North Lotts Planning Scheme, and to pursue a new plan with the DDDA.

That plan allows Carroll to build more office blocks on the site owned by his company, North Quay Investments, changes the location of a garden area, and removes the requirement for him to build a new east-west road across the site.

In return for these concessions, Carroll agreed to cede a strip of land to the DDDA, which it plans to excavate for the construction of a new canal within the IFSC.

The Authority has further plans to obtain two additional strips of land owned by another of Johnny Ronan’s companies, Real Estate Opportunities (REO), on either side of Carroll’s site for the canal project through the execution of a compulsory purchase order.

Should it proceed, the construction of the new canal would see Carroll’s site bounded on all sides by water, transforming it into what industry sources are describing as a ‘mini Manhattan’.

Carroll is understood to be in the process of securing AIB and solicitors O’Donnell Sweeney Eversheds as tenants for the site.

Both Ronan and Dunne are strongly opposed to the proposals, with lawyers for both arguing that the confidential agreement reached between the DDDA and Liam Carroll on May 31 last year has the potential to cause significant damage to their development interests in the IFSC.

Sean Dunne, for his part, believes details of the confidential agreement should have been disclosed to him as a landowner adjoining Liam Carroll’s North Lotts site.

The Mountbrook Homes supremo claims the permission given to Carroll to build to a greater density than the 2002 development plan permitted will lead to a situation where his own planned apartments will look out on to office blocks rather than a garden area, while access to his site will be restricted.

Ronan’s Spencer Dock Developments, meanwhile, are arguing that they have been put at a distinct competitive disadvantage in their dealings with the DDDA as a result of its decision to reach a confidential agreement with Liam Carroll.

In an affidavit submitted by Spencer Dock Developments to the High Court, the company describes the Authority’s move as “astonishing”, adding that it “makes a mockery” of the process of consultation with interested developers.

Turning to the specific issue of the planning permission given to Liam Carroll on the North Lotts site, the affidavit sworn by director John Bruder claims Carroll was effectively given certainty, which allowed him to gain competitive advantage over other developers in terms of negotiating with prospective tenants in the IFSC.

The affidavit further alleges in angry terms: “It is now abundantly clear that the Applicant (Spencer Dock Developments) and all those working on its behalf were at all times wasting their time: the DDDA had a predetermined idea of how the lands should be developed and in the face of all our representations, the DDDA never budged in a material way.

“Now that I know about the agreement between NQIL and the DDDA, I understand why the DDDA did not budge,” it continues.

If there is much frustration on the part of Johnny Ronan and his fellow directors, Sean Dunne would appear to be equally frustrated by events.

The Sunday Independent understands the Mountbrook Homes chief has, in tandem with his High Court case against the DDDA, already requested further information from the Authority about any arrangements it may be planning to enter into with the media-averse developer.

Eyebrows were already raised in property circles when Carroll let a planning permission he had been given by Dublin City Council in 2002 for a site next to the DDDA’s planned U2 Tower on Sir John Rogerson’s Quay lapse.

There was speculation that Carroll decided not to proceed with the site to mollify the DDDA, who sources believe would have been unhappy to see the U2 Tower having to compete with a parallel development.

Asked by the Sunday Independent if the Authority had reached any agreement with Mr Carroll that he would not proceed with developing the Sir John Rogerson’s Quay site, a spokesman for the DDDA gave a categoric denial.

The spokesman said: “The Authority wishes to categorically state that no verbal or written agreement was ever sought or given in relation to Liam Carroll losing his planning permission on Sir John Rogerson’s Quay.

“This planning permission was not renewed by Dublin City Council. There is, therefore, absolutely no linkage between this site and the North Lotts area, or any other area, in which Liam Carroll is developing,” he said.

Dunne’s case against the DDDA is the latest episode in his long-running struggle against Carroll.

Back in 2005, the two crossed paths as Dunne fought to gain control of the Jury’s Doyle Hotel (JDH) Group at the height of the speculative grab for land in the Ballsbridge area of Dublin 4.

With tensions running high, Carroll emerged as the potential kingmaker at a crucial juncture in the struggle for JDH, with an eight per cent shareholding under his belt.

At one point, it is understood he promised to sell those shares to Dunne, before then selling them to the Doyle family instead.
Rusty Cogs
Member
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 5:10 pm

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby cagey » Mon Jun 30, 2008 1:42 am

I've read through most of cagey's links to the DDDA development plan and I can't find very many explicit reference to the 'Island'!


That is because I cannot find any reference to the "Island" after hours of reading. That makes me wonder why?

A look at that 2008 draft plan shows two very scary things. First is the DDDA proposed enormous expansion of its territory. More empire building. Wake up East Wall unless you want your own "Canal" and "Island".

The second and most scary is the sneaky changing of zones from zone 9 to zone 14 for that Island part of the Campshires. Isn't it time to try and stop the DDDA from spending any more public money on trying to fool us so they can destroy the campshires?

Below are excerps from their difficult to read map. Please note the Zone 14 out over the Zone 9 Campshires and Zone 11 river, and there is no "CANAL" (nothing going past the wool store)!!!!
http://www.dublindocklands.ie/files/business/docs/07209_zoning%20objectives_low%20res.jpg
Attachments
zonechange01.jpg
zonechange01.jpg (93.58 KiB) Viewed 5096 times
cagey
Member
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:28 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby gunter » Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:28 am

cagey: I take your point, if the heavy blue line denotes Z14, why isn't there a dark green Z9 graphic outlining the 'Canal' and making it a defined recreational amenity?

What are the steps and deadlines for objecting to the change of zoning on this draft Development Plan do you know?

I feel really foolish for giving these people the benefit of the doubt a few weeks ago. If they're coming out with nonsense about 'engaging the campshires' that's deceit and manipulation by jargon.
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby ctesiphon » Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:54 pm

gunter wrote:What are the steps and deadlines for objecting to the change of zoning on this draft Development Plan do you know?


Pretty sure the deadline is September; the procedure is just to send in a letter, but note the lack of an appeal structure as you get with PPs.
User avatar
ctesiphon
Old Master
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby gunter » Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:40 am

Here's another interesting phrase buried deep in the new draft DDDA Development Plan:

Under 'Mitigation' / 8.8 Landscape / Design Master Plan, policy 30 (page 107)

'Create an urban design and architectural panal to evaluate new development and proposals within the Docklands Area, including an evaluation of the impact of new development on city views'.

Who gets to hand pick that little group?
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby reddy » Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:12 am

gunter wrote:Here's another interesting phrase buried deep in the new draft DDDA Development Plan:

Under 'Mitigation' / 8.8 Landscape / Design Master Plan, policy 30 (page 107)

'Create an urban design and architectural panel to evaluate new development and proposals within the Docklands Area, including an evaluation of the impact of new development on city views'.

Who gets to hand pick that little group?


doesn't the city council have one of these as well. I think its called the urban design advisory panel or something similar. They review the strategic projects in the planning system every couple of months.

I can't remember exactly who's on the panel but it includes Ken Shuttleworth and a couple of others with a fair amount of experience.

Presumably it cant really be a bad thing??
reddy
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 11:03 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby lightswitch » Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:58 am

Maybe this is abit off the wall, but do you guys feel strongly enough about this discussion to form an action group/ commitee?

Im suggesting a public pressure group to discuss and address the concerns as voiced in this mail thread, perhaps engage with various other local community groups/parties and representatives?

Just a thought....
lightswitch
Member
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:26 pm

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby cagey » Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:04 pm

Ok lightswitch ....
...form an action group...?

I agree, it is time to become active. I will get back to you on this.
All those of you reading this thread please post if you disagree with the rape of the Campshires. The more voices the better.

How about the following in that DDDA draft plan?

8.7 CULTURAL HERITAGE .....
Although the impact of the Master Plan 2008 on cultural heritage is largely positive, the proposed
Amended North Lotts Planning Scheme will potentially impact negatively on the quay wall at North
Wall. This is a Protected Structure and a recorded archaeological monument. The extension into the
River Liffey is to be supported on piles allowing the historic wall to remain in place without signifi cant
intervention. Nevertheless a specifi c policy in relation to the protection of archaeological material insitu
is considered appropriate.
It is proposed to compensate for this impact by the creation of additional positive impacts elsewhere
in the Docklands Area.


Not good enough... what about impacting negatively ...on the view? .. on the river as an amenity? ... on the Campshires as an amenity?
Where is the EIS??
the creation of additional positive impacts elsewhere

Nothing elsewhere would do ... what kind of suggestion is that? Hands off our national monument and beautiful Liffey views.
cagey
Member
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:28 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby gunter » Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:30 am

reddy wrote:doesn't the city council have one of these as well. I think its called the urban design advisory panel or something similar. They review the strategic projects in the planning system every couple of months.

I can't remember exactly who's on the panel but it includes Ken Shuttleworth and a couple of others with a fair amount of experience.

Presumably it cant really be a bad thing??


I didn't mean to suggest that an Urban Design / Architectural panel would be a bad thing, just that for something like the campshire proposal to get past such a panel, the DDDA would have to be pretty careful who got nominated to be on the panel.

The way I read it, this panel hasn't been appointed yet. In the circumstances, it would be hard to believe that the DDDA, having invested so much effort in laying the foundations for this scheme, would then take the risk of having some 'Advisory Panel' shoot it out of the water at their first meeting.

If the Sindo article, posted by Rusty Cogs, is anything to go by, there are Machiavellian layers to this thing that would put a bit of panel packing in the halfpenny place.

I hadn't realized that DCC had a similar panel, they must keep them sedated on drips in a windowless room!
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby cagey » Mon Jul 07, 2008 1:47 am

As regards the DDDA Draft plan and other Blogs see
http://buckplanning.blogspot.com/search?q=DDDa
The closing date for submissions is September 12th.


I have read the Q&A session the DDDA had with local residents.
At first glance it seems the residents are regarding as "fait accompli" the acceptance of the 2008 DDDA plan.

Personally, if I heard of just one 20 storey block just south of my 2 storey dwelling I would be ....... !!!
Well put it like this, Rossport would seem like a tea-party.

I would need to know exactly where any such block was about to be placed and I would be up in arms against any "Draft" plan that did not specify the exact area where the current planning regulations re building height were to be altered. I would most definitely not want to swop an amentity like the Campshires for a daft canal. And, I would not want any authority with such daft ideas to exist beyond the statutory 2013, never mind the expansion of their influence.

I think the DDDA are hoping that lack of info will make it easier for their Grand Plan to be acceptable ...... W R O N G.
cagey
Member
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:28 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Buildings on stilts in the Liffey

Postby cagey » Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:34 am

I have just been reading the DDDA objection letter to that PP application on Mayor and New Wapping streets (the building in the path of the "Canal").
How two faced can the DDDA be?... I let you all decide for yourselves .... your comments please.

http://www.dublincity.ie/AnitePublicDocs/00231655.pdf and arrow forward to top of Page two ... I hope this URL works.

The objection letter excerpt is under "Assessment . height"
Attachments
Objection DDDA.jpg
Objection DDDA.jpg (57.59 KiB) Viewed 4780 times
cagey
Member
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:28 am
Location: Dublin

PreviousNext

Return to Ireland