lightswitch wrote:Maybe this is a bit 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....
cagey wrote:As regards the DDDA Draft plan and other Blogs see
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.
Rusty Cogs wrote:So you've read the Q&A session with the DDDA and the local residents ? Then you'll know that your fears about the canal being used for grey water were unfounded ?
sustainable urban rainwater drainage facility
Maybe I was a bit vague, sorry ctesiphon.ctesiphon wrote:That letter is not factually incorrect- it described the existing conditions under the current DDDA planning scheme for that area.
gunter wrote:What's required here is good planning and decent architecture with a couple of new gems thrown in, if possible, not radical intervention of a potentially very crude type.
reddy wrote:.......Iâ€™ve heard some real reservations before about the impact on the city of bringing traffic underground, but sure its worth throwing out there.
Dublin docklands agency faces massive compensation claim - FRANK McDONALD, Environment Editor
DUBLIN DOCKLANDS Development Authority (DDDA) faces the possibility of a multimillion euro compensation claim from developer Liam Carroll following a High Court judgment yesterday, according to a well-placed source.
Upholding a legal challenge by rival developer SeÃ¡n Dunne, Ms Justice Mary Finlay Geoghegan quashed the DDDA's fast-track planning permission for a â‚¬200 million development project by Mr Carroll on the former Brooks Thomas site at North Wall Quay.
The judge's ruling renders the authority's approval for this scheme - intended as a new headquarters for Anglo Irish Bank - null and void. Work carried out on the site by Mr Carroll's company, North Quay Investments Ltd (NQI), now constitutes "unauthorised development".
Deals done by NQI with Anglo Irish as well as with AIB Capital Markets and solicitors O'Donnell Sweeney to pre-let other office space on the site were now "dead in the water" as they were also made on foot of the same planning approval granted by the DDDA, the source said.
Since the authority has no power to grant retrospective permission, or retention, it seems unlikely that the development work under way on the former Brooks Thomas site can be legitimised - unless the DDDA was successful in an appeal to the Supreme Court.
In her judgment, Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan found that there was "a direct relationship" between the decision to grant approval under section 25 of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority Act 1997 and the company ceding part of the site to the DDDA for public space.
The effect of a section 25 approval under the 1997 Act is to exempt a development from the normal planning process, under which a planning application would be made to a local authority and then be open to public objections and possibly appeals to An Bord PleanÃ¡la.
The judge said the nature of a confidential agreement reached in May 2007 between the DDDA and Mr Carroll's company before the exemption was issued in July 2007 gave rise to a "reasonable apprehension of bias" by the DDDA in reaching its decision.
The Treasury Holdings-led Spencer Dock consortium also took a High Court action contesting the DDDA's deal with Mr Carroll's company. Another casualty of yesterday's High Court judgment could be the DDDA's plans to create a high-rise quarter jutting out into the river Liffey along North Wall Quay, east of Spencer Dock. This scheme would have been facilitated by NQI's ceding of land, free of charge.
Â© 2008 The Irish Times
Steamroller for sale- one careless owner. Contact the DDDA for details.
gunter wrote:Luke Gardiner did land himself a nice apartment in the Custom House after all
Rory W wrote:Pedantry alert - not Luke Gardner but John Beresford
I'm not equating 'public goods' with 'public interest' . . . to the latter I would give a very wide berth. Past experience (no details, sorry) hasn't filled me with confidence that the public knows best what it needs or wants.