developments in cork
- This topic has 2,179 replies, 124 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 10 months ago by
brainscan.
- AuthorPosts
- May 26, 2006 at 12:30 pm #759473
Anonymous
InactiveMidleton line Railway Order process underway by Corporate Communications
Iarnród Éireann has said that advertisements are to appear in local and national newspapers from today (Friday 26th May) to commence the Railway Order process for the restoration of rail services on the Cork-Midleton rail line.
An integral part of the Transport 21 investment programme, the upgrade and restoration of the ten kilometre Glounthaune to Midleton line will enable Iarnród Éireann to begin commuter services between Cork and Midleton.
Services proposed on the route would be initially peak services every 30 minutes between Midleton and Cork, with the potential to expand to every 15 minutes as demand increases. Off-peak services would operate hourly, and all services would be operated by commuter railcars. It is envisaged that the line would reopen in 2008.
The project proposes:
– upgrading track on the disused Glounthaune to Midleton line, through provision of a single track with a passing loop at Carrigtwohill
– providing a new signalling system
– provision of two new stations at Midleton and Carrigtwohill, including car parking facilities, lifts and footbridges
– the replacement of five level crossings with four new overbridges and one underbridge, including overbridges on the Cork-Glounthaune section of line
– other infrastructure work including bridge, boundary and drainage works
The Railway Order process, the equivalent of a planning permission process for a rail scheme of this type, provides for a Public Inquiry to be established to establish the final scope of the project, and rule on Compulsory Purchase Order powers for Iarnród Éireann.
Full details of the project will be on display in seven locations in Cork, Carrigtwohill and Midleton (see below) to allow the public and interested parties to study the plans and make submissions if they wish. Information will also be available on line at http://www.irishrail.ie/midletonproject .
The Midleton line works are part of a wider programme of investment to expand Cork area commuter services. New stations are also planned at Dunkettle on the Cork-Cobh/Midleton line; and Blarney and Blackpool/Kilbarry on the Cork-Mallow line.
The Cork commuter area investment plan is endorsed by national, regional and local planning, such as the Cork Area Strategic Plan (CASP), Strategic Rail Review and Special Local Area Plans, as well as Transport 21.
A spokesperson for Iarnród Éireann said “ the development of the Midleton line is an integral part of a framework for land use, transportation, social and environmental policies in the Cork region which sees Cork take the lead in sustainable planning in this country. This will deliver a system which will benefit generations to come in Cork and in the Munster region. There has been tremendous public support for this major investment, and we would encourage the community and interested parties to avail of the opportunity to see the plans for the Midleton line in any of the seven locations, or online.â€
GLOUNTHAUNE TO MIDLETON LINE FAQs
Q. WHEN WILL THE GLOUNTHAUNE TO MIDLETON LINE BE IN USE AGAIN?
A. It is expected that trains will be running to Midleton before the end of 2008.
Q. WHAT KIND OF TRAINS WILL RUN AND HOW OFTEN?
A. The same kind of trains will run on the Cork to Midleton line as run on the Cork to Cobh line today. i.e. two-car commuter railcars. It is intended to commence the service by running trains half-hourly for the morning and evening peak demand periods and hourly during the day and off-peak. Services can expand further in response to demand.
Q. WILL THERE BE DISRUPTION TO EXISTING SERVICES WHILE NEW TRACK AND OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT ARE BEING BUILT?
A. There will be unavoidable disruption to existing road traffic in the vicinity of the existing railway line and two stations during the construction phase of the works at limited times during the development of the project. Iarnród Éireann will endeavour to minimise this, but the full extent of disruption will be confirmed following the public inquiry and detailed design work.
Q. WHAT IS THE RAILWAY ORDER AND PUBLIC INQUIRY?
A. The Railway Order is the equivalent of a planning permission process for railway line, stations and elimination of level crossings.
It also covers Compulsory Purchase Order powers for Iarnród Éireann and gives Iarnród Éireann full operating rights over the new railway.
Under the Railway Order, Iarnród Éireann will be displaying the full plans for the Project at various different locations for a period of 28 days. This is to allow all interested parties to view the plans.
Any interested party then has the opportunity up to 14 days after the end of the display period to submit any views they have on the project to the Minister for Transport.
All submissions, including the original plans, are then the subject of a public inquiry, chaired by an Inspector appointed by the Minister for Transport. The Inspector shall submit to the Minister a report in writing of the findings of the inquiry and any recommendations he/she considers appropriate having regard to the inquiry.
The Minister will rule on the final scope of the project and CPO powers for Iarnród Éireann.
Q. WILL THERE BE COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDERS?
A. Under the Iarnród Eireann proposal, there will be certain areas of land required not currently in the ownership of the company. This includes land to facilitate the project which may be permanently acquired; land over which rights including rights of way may be acquired; public or private rights of way which may be extinguished; public or private rights of way which may be temporarily interrupted; and land of which temporary possession may be taken. All affected landowners will be contacted directly by Iarnród Éireann to advise them of the scope of impact proposed on their property.
Q. DOES THE GLOUNTHAUNE TO MIDLETON RAILWAY PROJECT HAVE A WIDER SCOPE?
A. The project is part of wider infrastructure plans required for the growth of the Commuter rail service for the County and will include new stations at Dunkettle, Blackpool and Blarney and various other works such as signalling and station upgrades.
Q. WHAT IS THE TIMESCALE ENVISAGED FOR THE PROJECT?
A. Assuming the Public Inquiry takes place in late summer 2006, detailed design and tender of the works are envisaged to take place up to the end of 2006, with construction taking place from early 2007 to late 2008.
Q. WHAT ARE THE COSTS ENVISAGED FOR THE PROJECT?
A. The final costs will be determined by the ruling of the Minister following the Public Inquiry, detailed design work and any inflationary pressures up to the signing of contracts.
Q. WILL THE GLOUNTHAUNE TO MIDLETON LINE BE EXTENDED TO YOUGHAL AGAIN?
A. Although there is no plan to re-use this line from Midleton to Youghal in the short to medium term; the County Planners have reserved the existing railway reserve for the potential reuse of the railway.
Q. WHERE CAN I FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THE GLOUNTHAUNE TO MIDLETON LINE PROJECT?
The full Railway Order documentation, including:
– Plans of the Route
– Alignment Plans
– Structure Plans
– Draft legal order and schedules to the order
– Environmental Impact Statement, in full and summary form
are on display from 26th May to 6th July 2006 at the following locations:
Cork City Council, Planning and Development Directorate, Navigation House, Albert Quay, Cork
Cork Central Library, Grand Parade, Cork
Cork County Council, Corporate Affairs Department, 14th Floor, County Hall, Cork
Midleton Town Council, Pearse Memorial Chambers, Youghal Road, Midleton, County Cork
Midleton Public Library, Main Street, Midleton, County Cork
Carrigtwohill Community Centre, Main Street, Carrigtwohill, County Cork
Iarnród Éireann Travel Centre, Kent Railway Station, Lower Glanmire Road, Cork
Information will also be displayed shortly in pdf format at: http://www.irishrail.ie/midletonproject
Full copies of the documentation are also available to purchase from the Iarnród Éireann Travel Centre in Kent Railway Station, Cork; and the Project Office, Inchicore Works, Dublin 8.
The Project office can also be contacted for those seeking information on the project at: 021-455 7255 and 01-7034228 or midletonproject@irishrail.ie
Very good news
May 26, 2006 at 2:05 pm #759474POM
ParticipantGreat to hear a little bit of progress on the Midelton line. Now if we could just get an application in planning for Horgans Quay we’d be on a roll!
On the matter of Water Street, I am aware that everytime the decision date is put back we give out and I know the whole rather it be delayed than refused idea but all the same the numerous and continual review and delay in the decision here must be frustrating to even the most patient developer and architect. It is disappointing. I simply hope the outcome is beneficial to all those involved and to Cork.
May 26, 2006 at 3:43 pm #759475THE_Chris
Participant@Radioactiveman wrote:
originally posted by paddyinthehouse
Original shopfront image originally posted by DevinAn Taisce have appealled to ABP against the decision by CCC to grant permission for the retention of a new shopfront on Oliver Plunkett Street, Cork. The shopfront belongs to the new Butlers Chocolate store/cafe adjacent to the GPO. The ‘original’ Buckley Bros. shopfront used vitrolite- a material which is no longer produced. See ‘vitrolite shopfronts’ thread for more.
Thats so stupid I dont even know where to begin.
– the replacement of five level crossings with four new overbridges and one underbridge, including overbridges on the Cork-Glounthaune section of line
Hmmm. Just wondering why they need to replace the Cork-Glounthaune ones. Didnt think they were too bad?
May 26, 2006 at 3:45 pm #759476Anonymous
Inactive@THE_Chris wrote:
Thats so stupid I dont even know where to begin.
What are you referring to? The allowance of the shopfront to be retained or the appeal against it?
May 26, 2006 at 4:55 pm #759477Pug
ParticipantIt seems very very late or a token gesture by An Taisce to be appealing to ABP. They must see that particular shopfront all the time so why now so long after its done?
and What is a ‘retention’ request anyway? Is is simply that someone builds something they are not supposed to and goes back after for planning permission?
Either give permission at the time of planning or dont. And if someone builds something other than they were permitted to then fine them and put a black mark next to their name for their next planning permission request. Very simple.
May 26, 2006 at 4:58 pm #759478THE_Chris
Participant@phil wrote:
What are you referring to? The allowance of the shopfront to be retained or the appeal against it?
I think the shopfront should be left with the nice new frontage rather than harking back to the 1950s with that godawful green patchwork 🙂
May 26, 2006 at 5:16 pm #759479Anonymous
InactiveI suppose this is going to be a matter of taste, but I am quite a fan of vitrolite shop fronts. Whilst the Buckley’s one was not in great condition, it could have been refurbished. I also think that the new shopfront is more guilty of harking back than what it replaced, with its lettering etc. Alot of those Butler’s shopfronts are pure rubbish in my opinion. I assume that An Taisce are bringing it further to try and make a point. I don’t realistically see them having to reinstate the Buckley’s front, but I think anything that raises awareness of the importance of mid 20th century architectural heritage is a good thing.
May 26, 2006 at 6:17 pm #759480GrahamH
ParticipantThe appeal could be viewed as a token gesture, but it’s the store’s own fault for having ploughed ahead with the development before even getting permission. What do they expect?
A pair of dodgy repro sash windows doesn’t make up for it.May 26, 2006 at 8:45 pm #759481jungle
Participant@THE_Chris wrote:
Hmmm. Just wondering why they need to replace the Cork-Glounthaune ones. Didnt think they were too bad?
Level crossings are undesirable from a safety perspective. What may be more relevant here is that once Midleton is opened, there will be 8 trains per hour passing over the track between Cork and Glounethaune at peak hours. On a busy road this could be a problem for traffic management.
That said, I can’t think of any particularly busy road that crosses the railway line at a level crossing. Does anyone know which level crossing between Cork and Glounethaune will be replaced with a bridge? Presumably, the Cork-Cobh line will be shut for a while during construction work.
May 26, 2006 at 9:02 pm #759482Anonymous
InactiveHopefully weekend closures which was the way the new bridges were put on during the DART capacity enhenancement works in Dublin; which if phased would only affect either of the two lines at any given weekend
May 26, 2006 at 9:25 pm #759483THE_Chris
Participant@jungle wrote:
Level crossings are undesirable from a safety perspective. What may be more relevant here is that once Midleton is opened, there will be 8 trains per hour passing over the track between Cork and Glounethaune at peak hours. On a busy road this could be a problem for traffic management.
That said, I can’t think of any particularly busy road that crosses the railway line at a level crossing. Does anyone know which level crossing between Cork and Glounethaune will be replaced with a bridge? Presumably, the Cork-Cobh line will be shut for a while during construction work.
Well I travel along it regularly enough, and I cant think of any either. All of the major roads are overbridges. The only level crossings along the routes are housing access near the station. I guess they could be putting one bridge in where the main entrance into that small estate thing is near the station. Serves about 20 houses.
Perhaps they’re updating some though :confused: Didnt think any of them were falling down.
May 26, 2006 at 9:52 pm #759484lexington
Participant@Graham Hickey wrote:
The appeal could be viewed as a token gesture, but it’s the store’s own fault for having ploughed ahead with the development before even getting permission. What do they expect?
A pair of dodgy repro sash windows doesn’t make up for it.From the planning report (related to the application under appeal):
The background to this application is that the applicants had pre-planning discussions regarding a new shopfront for 30 Oliver Plunkett Street and it was generally agreed that as the existing frontage was in extremely poor condition and in view of the fact that the material was no longer available and unsuitable for the corporate image of the new tenant, it was agreed that a new shopfront and design would be provided. The background to this is set out in the Planning File T.P. 05/29330 which also records the original shopfront.
However a permission issued which was considered unsuitable for the applicants and inappropriate for their proposals. At a meeting on the 17th June 2005, the position was clarified and it was explained that there was a serious commercial imperative in that the owner wished to retire and the sale of the property was dependant on the development proceeding.
In the particular circumstances the Director of Planning agreed that the development would proceed and that a Planning application for retention of the completed development should be made.
On recent inspection, it was noted that the new development has been completed to a very high standard and the new shop has added substantially to the appearance of the street. I consider the finished result to be quite acceptable and in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
May 27, 2006 at 11:57 am #759485Anonymous
InactiveThe background to this application is that the applicants had pre-planning discussions regarding a new shopfront for 30 Oliver Plunkett Street and it was generally agreed that as the existing frontage was in extremely poor condition and in view of the fact that the material was no longer available and unsuitable for the corporate image of the new tenant, it was agreed that a new shopfront and design would be provided. The background to this is set out in the Planning File T.P. 05/29330 which also records the original shopfront.
This quote basically sums up our attitude to architectural heritage in this country. It seems that features which may be of value are only deemed in that way so long as they are commercially viable. Nothing is deemed to be of any intrinsic value in and of itself anymore. Nothing is allowed to stand the test of time so that future generations can appreciate them. If the above is taken further it could be argued that McDonalds should be allowed to rip apart whatever building they have purchased because it doesn’t suit their ‘corporate image’.
May 27, 2006 at 2:07 pm #759486kite
Participant@lexington wrote:
From the planning report (related to the application under appeal):
The background to this application is that the applicants had pre-planning discussions regarding a new shopfront for 30 Oliver Plunkett Street and it was generally agreed that as the existing frontage was in extremely poor condition and in view of the fact that the material was no longer available and unsuitable for the corporate image of the new tenant, it was agreed that a new shopfront and design would be provided. The background to this is set out in the Planning File T.P. 05/29330 which also records the original shopfront.
However a permission issued which was considered unsuitable for the applicants and inappropriate for their proposals. At a meeting on the 17th June 2005, the position was clarified and it was explained that there was a serious commercial imperative in that the owner wished to retire and the sale of the property was dependant on the development proceeding.
In the particular circumstances the Director of Planning agreed that the development would proceed and that a Planning application for retention of the completed development should be made.
On recent inspection, it was noted that the new development has been completed to a very high standard and the new shop has added substantially to the appearance of the street. I consider the finished result to be quite acceptable and in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
😡 I fully agree with phil (post 1973), in cities and towns that I am familiar with, Bath, York, St. Tropez plus I am sure many others, allow the likes of McDonalds either tiny signs on the front of their shops, or go so far as to limit them to a sticker in the window. If they don’t like it they are told lump it (they always “like” it!!!)
The type of planning outlined above by Lex belongs more in the likes of Zimbabwe or some other 3rd world despot nation. If some companies insist on gaudy vulgar signs they should go to shopping malls and not destroy high profile streets
Any wonder some are highly suspicious of planning in Cork.May 27, 2006 at 11:08 pm #759487Anonymous
InactiveOn the theme of other cities regulating signage I visited Dresden in 1992 and was struck by the McDonalds signage at a premises in the centre of the City and just how controlled it was in what was a very emerging state at the time.
I was very disapointed to see the Buckley Bros signage go as this type of once common shopfront gets scarcer on a national level every passing day. I can understand the owner wishing to sell out but what dissapoints me is that the agents didn’t wait to find a less generic tenant as this part of the City surely would be regarded as almost as prime as it gets and prove extremely attractive to anumber of potential oocupiers.
An Taisce are right to take this appeal as a very unique piece of Cork’s architectural heritage has been sacrificed to facilitate a generic chain that imatates Thorntons badly. 🙁
May 28, 2006 at 1:36 am #759488phatman
Participant@Thomond Park wrote:
On the theme of other cities regulating signage I visited Dresden in 1992 and was struck by the McDonalds signage at a premises in the centre of the City and just how controlled it was in what was a very emerging state at the time.
I was very disapointed to see the Buckley Bros signage go as this type of once common shopfront gets scarcer on a national level every passing day. I can understand the owner wishing to sell out but what dissapoints me is that the agents didn’t wait to find a less generic tenant as this part of the City surely would be regarded as almost as prime as it gets and prove extremely attractive to anumber of potential oocupiers.
An Taisce are right to take this appeal as a very unique piece of Cork’s architectural heritage has been sacrificed to facilitate a generic chain that imatates Thorntons badly. 🙁
Em, I kinda appreciate your sentiment, but to me the old shop front was just another shabby part of a shabby street in general. I think Oliver Plunkett Street, along with North Main Street, retains the feel of a street in a country town, or the city back in the 80’s. Alot more effort could be made.
May 28, 2006 at 2:58 am #759489A-ha
Participant@phatman wrote:
Em, I kinda appreciate your sentiment, but to me the old shop front was just another shabby part of a shabby street in general. I think Oliver Plunkett Street, along with North Main Street, retains the feel of a street in a country town, or the city back in the 80’s. Alot more effort could be made.
I agree, I’m surprised that manky green signage stayed for as long as it did. I don’t know how anyone can say that they will miss it. It’s so vile and as said by phatman, a reminder of the city back in the 80’s, which weren’t really the most spectacular years of Cork’s history.
Also, I read a piece today saying that Panorama Holidays are to begin charter flights to Sharm El Sheikh in Egypt, supposedly by the end of December in time for the winter sun season. These flights will be the first ever flights from Cork to Egypt.
May 28, 2006 at 11:35 am #759490kite
Participant@phatman wrote:
Em, I kinda appreciate your sentiment, but to me the old shop front was just another shabby part of a shabby street in general. I think Oliver Plunkett Street, along with North Main Street, retains the feel of a street in a country town, or the city back in the 80’s. Alot more effort could be made.
😉
Don’t get me wrong, I think the new shopfront is a huge improvement on the Buckley’s one. I used the example of McDonalds as an example of good planning practice in not allowing multinationals, developers etc dictate to city planners.
If I am reading Lex’s post correctly ??… The planning department of CCC issued a grant of planning with conditions, the company cried foul and the Director of Planning then recommended that they alter the shop without planning and then apply for retention??
This is not what one could describe as best practice in planning.
A slippery slope perhaps?May 29, 2006 at 3:00 pm #759491Ebeck
ParticipantA little leftfield maybe, I wondered if anything could be done to bring the Viaduct back into use ( not as a bridge!). It is a great looking structure and acts as a gateway to West Cork.
Could a restaurant / museum / art gallery go on top. Just stick a pair of lifts on the stone piers on either side of the dual carriageway, enclose the top in glass and Bob’s your uncle……a beautiful attraction to draw the public and tourists in. There’s plenty of space for parking. I’m only half joking.May 29, 2006 at 4:00 pm #759492Radioactiveman
ParticipantI’d rather see the viaduct carrying trains to west cork again but nonetheless, i’m intrigued by this idea. It certainly deserves to be cleaned and floodlit to act as a real gateway.
On a totally unrelated topic…. the man who brought us the Glucksman Gallery, Prof. Gerry Wrixon has announced he is standing down as President of UCC from next January. Now, whatever your views on academic restructuring (yawn) you’ve got to hand it to the guy… he pushed the Glucksman idea against some fairly tough criticism and he deserves serious credit for that!
In fact, under his tenure the architecture of d’ college has changed significantly. Think of the BioSciences building, the Pharmacy building, the extension to the Student Centre and the Boole complex, the new Mardyke Bridge, the plans for the new IT building and the impressive brookfield medical centre. - AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

