developments in cork
- This topic has 2,179 replies, 124 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
@POM wrote:
You must consider that the Board themselves are professional planning associates – an inspector report is to provide an evaluation of the scenario and offer a recommendation, not a decision. Often you will see many inspectors include a section detailling recommended conditions should the Bord wish to grant the scheme in spite of their own inclination. Quite frankly, I think the Bord have made a number of wise decisions over the years – had the inspectors rule been implemented we woulld probably be years behind. A good example is the one you cite yourself about St. Colmans, thank Heavens the inspector’s recommendation was turned down!
😮 I agree 99% POM, my concern is that the Inspector is the person that looks at the files / submissions , visits the site etc. where as the Board sit in an office in Dublin and feel free to overturn weeks of work on the inspectors behalf.. I feel a high profile case such as St. Colmans is one thing, but day in, day out decisions are quite another??
And this is my last batch of images for the day…
…a number of you have queried recently as to the progress of the Eglinton Street and Cornmarket Street projects by O’Flynn Construction and Rockfell Investments respectively.
Below find images of the current site progression.
1. Eglinton Street
Developer: O’Flynn Construction
Architects: Wilson Architecture
Contractor: PJ Hegarty & Sons Limited
Image 1 – views south toward the South-East corner, the location of the 17-storey tower. Image 2 – views north-east, views of Cork’s Northern Ridge can be seen in the background, as well as the warehousing sites fronting Albert Quay in possession of Howard Holdings and Ascon, set for future redevelopment thus completing this portion of the quayside.2. Cornmarket Street
Developer: Rockfell Investments
Architects: Frank Ennis & Associates
Contractor: Munster Joinery
*Renderings of either completed scheme may be found throughout this thread – simply utilise the ‘Search’ feature on the toolbar at the top of the page.*
@lexington wrote:
Just walked by this area this other day and decided take a look at the county hall since I hadn’t seen it with the renovations. I have to say I was impressed, it’s definitely got a much more fresh and modern look.
This victoria mills phase 2 however, makes the first look like the world’s greatest masterpiece. I know this forum is to be kept civilised but the only description I can give is: “Worst pile of generic crap ever!! 😡 “
The other student flats going up next to it are OK though, although I’m getting sick of all the wooden stuff going up everywhere.Great that eglinton street is now progressing. I didn’t need to see the pictures though since I can see the site from my window. :D. Should be great once the tower starts to rise.
😮 Cork City Council are now set to offer a prime river-facing site at Kyrl’s Quay through agents Hamilton Osbourne King. The former “Philips” site is located facing the northern channel of the River Lee at Kyrl’s Quay, just across Kyrl’s Lane from the recently acquired RH Parker site of 0.5acres by Murrayforde Developments. Undoubtedly Murrayforde will be among the interested parties seeking the acquisition of this latest site.
The combination of both mentioned sites offer a wonderful redevelopment opportunity for any prospective developer who attains the chance to provide a mixed-scheme of retail and commercial accommodation – with some elements rising to mask the North Main Street multi-storey car-park to the south. Taking point from some of the Kyrl’s Quay Redevelopment Design Competition entries – pedestrian links over the quayside road may offer elevated walkways or platforms at the river’s edge – while upper levels between the sites may arch over Kyrl’s Lane, or even, subject to discussion with Cork City Council provide a cul-de-sac and subsequent public amenity space with gardens, timber-decking and so on.
O’Flynn Construction Development Levy ChallengeThis week, the Commercial Court overturned An Bord Pleanala’s decision to amend development levies imposed by Cork City Council on O’Flynn Construction’s Eglinton Street project. The levies amount to €1.8m in contributions associated with the contest on charges to basement car-parking floorspace. The decision by the court is questionable, as to is the imposition of such levies by Cork City Council in the first instance. There are currently a number of other cases currently in appeal to contest such development charges, including the likes of the Precinct Investments’ proposal for the Gresham Metropole Hotel/St. Patrick’s Quay. The argument made by many supporters of such levy imposition include that of the fact many developers nowadays charge for residential parking spaces at basement level – but what does such policy and its long-term consequences really imply?
The scenario reminds me of one of the most famous cases thought to students of US Commercial Law – that of the Williams vs. Walker-Thomas Furniture Company, 1963. The details of this case are protracted and complicated – but in basic, simplified form, it concerned the sale of numerous household items by the Walker-Thomas Furniture Company (via credit) to Mr. Williams over a series of 14 contracts. Each contract collateralized the goods associated with preceding contracts – so that, in the event Mrs. Williams defaulted on her repayments, all household goods purchased under the contracts could be repossessed. Mrs. Williams, a single mother of 7 children and of poor economic background, depended on the credit facility to allow her attain such essential household goods – she had been in contract with WTFCo since 1957. Following her failure to make repayments, the WTFCo repossessed all items involved – Mrs. Williams subsequently challenged the action in court. However, under District of Columbia law, the furniture company was found to have the reserved right to enact such contracts. The court found in favour of the WTFCo. – however on appeal, the decision was referred to the High Court where legislation was amended on the basis that such contracts were considered to be unfair and took advantage of persons with similar economic backgrounds like Mrs. Williams. As a result, DC law prohibited the provision of such credit agreements for future trading situations. Though this ruling may have seemed “fair” at the – and indeed, Mrs. Williams did benefit substantially from the ultimate outcome, chaos ensued. Without credit facilities provided under such aforementioned contracts – other persons, dependent on credit facilities to attain essential household goods were now unable to attain them. Concurrently, demand for cheaper goods increased, and with such demand, prices also rose so that further individuals were cut off from attaining essential goods and an entire segment of the community was now less well off. Therefore, as one party may benefit, broader elements of a society may feel the ripple effect of such actions.
How this relates to the O’Flynn Construction case would seem to be that, although levy imposition may seem to benefit one party (Cork City Council) and justified in their eyes (and subsequently the Commercial Court’s eyes), strategically it opens up implications were society may be left worse off in the long-run – with the only real benefit being the short-term gain (cash injection) to Cork City Council. The ruling implies that the provision of basement car-parking should be levied versus, say, surface car-parking. Surface car-parking is recognised (especially in urban areas) as being (and increasingly so under current market conditions) less economically beneficial and a blot on the urban landscape – it often restricts a development’s capacity to contribute to the urban grain. Furthermore, where developers do charge for basement car-parking, the imposition of additional levies (essentially a tax) will, as with most public tax impositions, not be paid by the corporation – but by the market (i.e. the consumer). To this end, such development contribution taxes, as being imposed by Cork City Council on basement car-parking floor areas, propose to act as a negative skew to society in the long-run. The council and Commercial Court should remember that in their ruling, it is not ultimately the developer who is left with the burden of such contributions, but the consumer (i.e. the public). Where a market cannot absorb such additional expense, options by developers possibly include surface car-parking provision rather than neater basement facilities (an option even Cork City Council itself has recognised as being preferable and better in terms of urban development – this is exemplified in Cork City Council’s North Docklands Local Area Plan 2005, but then again, maybe they have their eye on those levies?)
Lex, it will be interesting to see what they will do with the 2 lanes leading down the sides of Paul Street Shopping centre, especially the one down the side of Bully’s Restaurant.
I really can’t see how the lane can possibley be improved as one side is the entire side wall of the shopping centre.
@lexington wrote:
:
O’Flynn Construction Development Levy Challenge
I read that O’Flynns were teaming up with other developers to challenge the problem. Does this problem happen with other local authorities elsewhere do ya know??
@ewankennedy wrote:
I read that O’Flynns were teaming up with other developers to challenge the problem. Does this problem happen with other local authorities elsewhere do ya know??
😮
Lex, I remember you posted on this matter in the past, am I correct in my recollection that O’Flynn Construction applied for planning on this site with a car parking provision that went against the City Development Plan (too many) and were refused by planner Evelyn Mitchell.
O’Flynns then protested and demanded a meeting with the planners and the City Manager stating in their view that a development of this nature could not proceed without the required car parking provision.
Evelyn Mitchell was promoted to the Docklands Authority; Ronnie McDowell was assigned to handle the case and granted permission….and now O’Flynn’s are crying foul on planning contribution levies?
A little of wanting your cake and eat it as well in my opinion.I am inclined to agree with Kite in relation to City Centre sites where the local authority must provide all the services themselves in the form of parks, roads, lighting water and waste water services.
In relation to large new planned towns such as the one proposed for Blarney or Adamstown there may be an argument that developers are providing most of the infrastructure themselves such as parks, schools, water mains, roads, train stations etc.
There is a debate in the UK on this in relation to reforming section 106 of the 1990 Town & Country Planning Act http://www.bllaw.co.uk/content/our_services/planning/news/n940_4.pdf
I quite like section 106 as there is a healthy trade off between planners securing planning gain for the area and developers only being asked to contribute proportionally to what additional strain is placed upon the locality / regional infrastructure. In many cases developers are not happy with what they are asked to contribute and may make a first party appeal to the Secretary of State where they on balance tend to receive a fair hearing.
kite wrote:😮
Lex, I remember you posted on this matter in the past, am I correct in my recollection that O’]kite – 550 basement car-parking spaces are provided at basement level, this capacity is designed to allocate at least 1 space per unit (up over 200) in line with City Development plan guidelines. Furthermore, capacity is provided for the office and retail elements (among which bulk/comparison goods are included) – these had been agreed in principle as par pre-planning discussions which had been 18 months in the making. Parking space also accounted for accommodation associated with O’Flynn Construction’s No.6 Lapps Quay office scheme nearby (which currently has no parking provision of its own). All-in-all 550 is quite a reasonable and understandable provision given the extent and nature of uses linked to the development. Without the accommodation, the potential exists for undesirable and dangerous curb-side parking in an already heavily trafficked area. The parking provision is therefore designed to attract parked vehicles away from congesting the street – accordingly, the provision of basement car-parking is now subdivided in crresponding sections, a point clarified with Cork City Council who had been assessing the proposal initially without particular consideration to the impacts linked to the ancillary project elements. In the initial assessment, it was proposed to reduce parking numbers more in line with the volume of residential units – failing to consider the impacts the ancillary elements would have on congestion (elements which were and are to be provided in line with Cork City Council’s own planning guidelines for ground-floor uses).
Furthermore, the nature of the debacle relates not simply to this development – but has also been applied to other developments across the city such as the one I previously mentioned by Precinct Investments at St. Patrick’s Quay where 61 apartments were to be provided along with 40 + new hotel beds. Basement car-parking here amount to just over 80-spaces across 4 split basement levels – a similar levy was imposed. Its not so much a case of parking numbers being taxed, but more so the function.
The requested DCL (Development Contribution Levy) in the Eglinton Street case amounted to €4,316,208 and was calculated by the inclusion of both basement parking levels as well as covered parking areas in the Gross Floor Area. The term “gross floor space” is defined in Article 3 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 as “The area ascertained by the internal measurement of the floor space on each floor of a building (including internal walls and partitions), disregarding any floor space provided for the parking of vehicles by persons occupying or using the building or buildings where such floor space is incidental to the primary purpose of the building”.
The project’s reckonable gross floor area is 34,956 m sq (36,406 less 1450 m sq.) instead of the inclusion of parking areas which amounts to 61,215 m sq., (62,665 less 1450 m sq.) – therefore the appropriate contribution amount should be correctly summed to € 2,385,74.00.
@lexington wrote:
kite – 550 basement car-parking spaces are provided at basement level, this capacity is designed to allocate at least 1 space per unit (up over 200) in line with City Development plan guidelines. Furthermore, capacity is provided for the office and retail elements (among which bulk/comparison goods are included) – these had been agreed in principle as par pre-planning discussions of up to 18 months in the making. Parking space is also accounted for accommodation associated with O’Flynn Construction’s No.6 Lapps Quay office scheme nearby (which currently has no parking provision of its own). All-in-all 550 is quite a reasonable and understandable provision given the extent and nature of uses linked to the development. Without the accommodation potential exists for undesirable and dangerous curb-side parking in an already heavily trafficked area. The parking provision is therefore designed to attract park vehicles away from congesting the street – thus, the provision is now subdivided in related sections, a point clarified with Cork City Council who had been assessing the proposal initially without particular consideration for the impacts linked to ancillary project elements. In the initial assessment, it was proposed to reduce parking numbers more in line with the volume of residential units – failing to consider the impacts the ancillary elements on congestion (elements which were and are to be provided in line with Cork City Council’s own planning guidelines for ground-floor uses).
Furthermore, the nature of the debacle relates not simply to this development – but has also been applied to other developments across the city such as the one I previously mentioned by Precinct Investments at St. Patrick’s Quay where 61 apartments were to provided in line with 40 + new hotel beds. Basement car-parking here amount to just over 80-spaces across 4 split basement levels – a similar levy was imposed. Its not so much a case of parking numbers being taxed, but more so the function.
The requested DCL (Development Contribution Levy) in the Eglinton Street case amounted to €4,316,208 and was calculated by the inclusion of both basement parking levels as well as covered parking areas in the Gross Floor Area. The term “gross floor space†is defined in Article 3 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 as “The area ascertained by the internal measurement of the floor space on each floor of a building (including internal walls and partitions), disregarding any floor space provided for the parking of vehicles by persons occupying or using the building or buildings where such floor space is incidental to the primary purpose of the building”.
The project’s reckonable gross floor area is 34,956 m sq (36,406 less 1450 m sq.) instead of the inclusion of parking areas which amounts to 61,215 m sq., (62,665 less 1450 m sq.) – therefore the appropriate contribution amount should be correctly summed to € 2,385,74.00.
😎 Don’t get me wrong Lex, I am not batting for either side on this issue.
I fully support the provision of adequate car parking for any development because as you say on street parking is neither feasible nor appropriate in most parts of Cork.
The City Manager imposes different criteria for different developments (depending I suppose on who is doing the asking) i.e. little or no car parking in developments such as the student blocks (students don’t drive cars according to City Hall management!!)
When (if) Mr. Gavin moves to Dublin to a less stressful life (until the posse catches up again) some developers will hang out the bunting… some others may be hanging something quite different??Why is it some applications are subjected to round after round of further information requets and others pass by unnoticed? See images of Jacob’s Mills currently being redeveloped. This building more than many in the area requires sensitive treatment and is on one of my favourite quaysides of Cork. What is with the roof? To my mind the continued dereliction of the building would be preferable to the use of cheap and/or ugly materials.
@d_d_dallas wrote:
Why is it some applications are subjected to round after round of further information requets and others pass by unnoticed? See images of Jacob’s Mills currently being redeveloped. This building more than many in the area requires sensitive treatment and is on one of my favourite quaysides of Cork. What is with the roof? To my mind the continued dereliction of the building would be preferable to the use of cheap and/or ugly materials.
😡 Thank you, thank you d_d_dallas, i thought i was the only person (as per my earlier post) to notice the ugly, cheap, crap cow shed type roof on this landmark building, a copy of the shite the same owners are putting on what was a top class hotel in the city (Kingsley Hotel extention) maybe with a new Director of Planning services in Cork we will not have to tolerate this utter lower case planning?
The Jacob’s roof looks totally out of sync with the rest of the quay and looks cheap with a tin-sheeting type material. This is destined to be a luxury boutique hotel, I’ll wait to the see the finished product before commenting further. It is interesting the this and the Kingsley extensions were both designed by Murray O’Loaire Associates, both built by the same construction company and both owned by the same individual. I pass the Kingsley everyday on the way home and I still can’t get over how the aparthotel was approved without some sort of enchanced treatment. Are they planning on matching the paintwork at the Kingsley?
Dallas you also raise an interesting point, how is it that schemes like the one proposed for Water Street are knocked and hassled the whole way through planning, then brought to appeal which its been in or rather will be in for over a year and will probably come out a lesser proposal at the end of it all, while other schemes like those mentioned whizz through without the same degree of grief.
@POM wrote:
The Jacob’s roof looks totally out of sync with the rest of the quay and looks cheap with a tin-sheeting type material. This is destined to be a luxury boutique hotel, I’ll wait to the see the finished product before commenting further. It is interesting the this and the Kingsley extensions were both designed by Murray O’Loaire Associates, both built by the same construction company and both owned by the same individual. I pass the Kingsley everyday on the way home and I still can’t get over how the aparthotel was approved without some sort of enchanced treatment. Are they planning on matching the paintwork at the Kingsley?
Dallas you also raise an interesting point, how is it that schemes like the one proposed for Water Street are knocked and hassled the whole way through planning, then brought to appeal which its been in or rather will be in for over a year and will probably come out a lesser proposal at the end of it all, while other schemes like those mentioned whizz through without the same degree of grief.
There’s far too much focus on building height and not enough focus on the materials and looks of the building. The roof on that is a complete disgrace. And let I add that it took them at least 12 months just to get to the stage where they are at now.
@Micko wrote:
There’s far too much focus on building height and not enough focus on the materials and looks of the building. The roof on that is a complete disgrace. And let I add that it took them at least 12 months just to get to the stage where they are at now.
🙁 Unfortunately you will not see much progress on this site for the next few months as the owners other development (Kingsley Hotel) has a major EU delegation booked in for the 15th September so it’s all hands on deck here to ensure completion before that date.
@kite wrote:
🙁 Unfortunately you will not see much progress on this site for the next few months as the owners other development (Kingsley Hotel) has a major EU delegation booked in for the 15th September so it’s all hands on deck here to ensure completion before that date.
It was my understanding work was put to a temporary halt in light of a forthcoming application to change the site’s use to a hotel instead of apartments and restaurant. Until that application has been lodged and granted it is pointless to proceed with work.
@POM wrote:
It was my understanding work was put to a temporary halt in light of a forthcoming application to change the site’s use to a hotel instead of apartments and restaurant. Until that application has been lodged and granted it is pointless to proceed with work.
Maybe a bit of both POM?, at all costs Tom McCarthy and Tom Kelly want the Kingsley ready for the EU delegations visit on 15th Sept.
A slightly more desirable deadline:
Title: Glounthaune to Midleton Railway – Construction Stage
Published by: Iarnrod Eireann-Irish Rail
Publication date: 25-May-2006
Application Deadline:
Notice Deadline Date: 26-Jun-2006
Notice Deadline time: 12:00
Notice Type: Tender
Has Documents: No
Abstract: Iarnr
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
