burge_eye
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
@Mob79 wrote:
There’s an interior architecture course in cork IT, not interior decoration.
What do they teach?
They’re affiliated with the British institute of Architectural Technologists but apart from that I’m in the dark.
Perhaps it’s a masonic thing? A secret Architectural society……where do I sign?
Enough zoned land for 366,000 housing units
rte.ie February 11, 2005 12:57
New house guarantee registrations for the first nine months of 2004 totalled 45,979, an increase of 7.6% over the first nine months of the previous year, according to the September Housing Statistics Bulletin from the Department of the Environment.
The number of mortgage approvals for the September 2004 quarter grew by 33.4% from the September 2003 quarter, the department figures show.
Details of the national inventory of zoned residential land indicate that there is adequate zoned serviced land to provide over 366,000 housing units. This would equate to about five years supply at current rates of output and has the potential to provide accommodation for about one million people.
Total output of Social and Affordable housing amounted to almost 5,000 units for the first nine months of last year. Of these, 181 units were acquired with a further 1,801 units currently being built, and 2,681 at the proposal stage.
The Department also said that new house prices for the September quarter increased by 10.6% nationally and by 9.9% in Dublin compared to the same time the previous year. Second hand house prices rose by 10% nationally and by 9.1% in Dublin
@honeyhive wrote:
Does anybody know anything about Part V affordable housing scheme??? I’ve applied heard nothing, has anybody got an affordable house/apartment under this scheme with Dublin City Council??? Anybody know if the requirement that up to 20% of all private developments have to be made available as affordable/social housing is been enforced ? Do you know if it is the Dept of the Environment duty to ensure that this law is complied with or the Councils??? Any help appreciated!
I’m sorry, but do you mean you’ve applied for an apartment and heard nothing; or that you’ve submitted a planning permission for a scheme?
Regardless, the requirement for Part V compliance varies between Councils. You are expected to have demonstrated compliance with the Part V regs before work commences on site. You have to show knowledge of the requirement, and a proposal (see below) for Planning Permission and, if you haven’t agreed a solution prior to Grant, it will be included in your Conditions (although DLRCC are getting strict on the actually inclusion of S&A units for the Planning Application) Agreement is by one of 3 approaches :
1. The inclusion of S&A apartments in the scheme. It varies between Councils but this can be either 20% of the toal gross floor area or 20% of the No. of proposed units (20% of the area is a REAL pain as the S&A floor areas are so low and you will get penalised for, eg large penthouses etc.) OR
2. The inclusion of the above on a different site owned by the applicant OR
3. The Payment of a contribution, the value of which is agreed with the Council.
The recent norm, certainly last year, was for the third option to be employed. In high-end apartment schemes you will find that the Council is much more likely to take a contribution than enforce the Part V regs due, amongst other reasons, to the high management fees associated with these apartment developments.
Anyway, if it’s an apartment you’re after, I suggest you talk to the Housing Officer of the relevant Council.
As the applicant, you can obtain a copy of all objections at a minimal cost, if any at all. The submissions should be date stamped and may also have a letter of acknowledgment. As Wexfordplanner says, the regs are strict.
There’s an aerial photo of the Ballincollig Town Centre dev. in today’s Times (sorry, I don’t have access to a scanner). I guess it’s an old photo, as the centre is due to open in October, but it gives a good idea of its scale.
Today’s Times
A letter has been sent to the Ministers of Justice and Finance stating that unless the project is stalled, pending consultations with the community, court proceedings will be initiated on behalf of an unnamed local woman.
Hard to see what form these will take – did this project bypass planning?
@Rory W wrote:
Boo hoo I feel so sorry for them – my god they may have to suffer a provincial bus – imagine that, they might have to mix with commuters
I may be an awful fascist but anyway; when you get sent to prison you relinquish certain rights. You could argue, for example, that your family pay the price too. To use an age old cliche, it isn’t a holiday camp. As RoryW says, if law abiding (or at least, those who haven’t been caught yet) people and their families have to use the goddamn bus then….
What I can’t really understand are the watered down arguments of the people living near the proposed site. Their new “neighbours” fall into 2 categories; those who get to leave at 5pm and those who don’t. The ones who get to leave – and those who visit – will probably bring custom to the area. They only have to worry about the rest when the gate’s left open…. Let’s stop beating about the bush, the real problem – as it would be for me, frankly – is the loss of re-sale value to their houses. I don’t blame them but, at the same time, I don’t know what they’ll be able to do about it.
@jackwade wrote:
Any more info on the tower burge_eye? I assume its residential. Where did you get this article from?
Today’s Irish Times. no more info than that I’m afraid.
26 trains a day both directions so Diaspora makes a good point
Interesting place to live tho – Park West one side, Wheatfield Prison on the other. Between a crock and a hard place? (sorry)
@KarenS wrote:
Am I reading this correctly: 8,000 people in 25 acres or 320 per acre?
Where will they all park?
It doesn’t mention parking funnily enough, though I’d imagine a very big basement will be dug. The article is a little unclear but my reading of it is that the 1723 units will be on the 25 acre site (69 per acre is not hugely excessive, disregarding the area used up by other uses) with the further 550 being on adjacent lands.
A mate of mine in Benoy’s in England worked on Newbridge – there’s some great CGI’s at http://www.henryjlyons.com. Retail section. there’s also some good images of Ballymun
@Lotts wrote:
Is this really going to be restored? I heard from an eyewitness that the broken portico was getting thrown into truck – ie : not carefully placed numbered and wrapped. Cast iron and glass is not the most robust material to be throwing about. More needless damage was caused in taking it away and it looked like it was being skipped rather than phase one of a sensitive restoration.
Can anyone verify?New signage put up overnight. Looks like they put at least 5 minutes thought into it.
lexington wrote:*UPDATES*an appeal with ABP has been lodged by the residents of Sundays Well against O’Callaghan Properties redevelopment of the Jurys Hotel site which was, after substantial revision, granted planning by CCCQUOTE]
reading ABP’s web site, there’s 4 appeals in now. Do you know if there was a1st party appeal lodged by OCP?
@nikmead wrote:
The first wing opened around 1864. Listed buildings, buildings of historical interest and existing buildings can use “alternative approaches” base on “principles” contained in the document (Part B). This new wing opened in 2002 but I bet that’s how they argued their point. Someone signs it off at the end of the day giving an “opinion” of compliance with the building regulations. Note that the building “regulations” are in the box before all the “guidance” document. Part B is where it says if the width is greater than 1800mm it should have a handrail in the middle. But thats “guidance”. The regulations say “A building shall be so designed and constructed that there are adequate means of escape in case of fire from the building to a place of safety outside the building , capable of being safely and efficiently used.”
In MY opinion it isn’t safe in a stampede of people running for their lives to the door but I’M not the one who signed it off especially as the “guidance” recommends that 1/3 of the people in an “assembly & recreation” building will go out the door they came in.
Anyway. P.I. Insurance. Who cares if it looks good?
AND with all that marble- how in the hell is it going to go on fire? Maybe they got away with it because everything is safer than Class 0.
OH and if they have a fire certificate, which they must, that means that the building control authority said they agree that it’s safe.Fair enough. Stuck record but how’d they bypass Part K? Same way – an opinon of compliance?
@sw101 wrote:
i assume all is fine and dandy with the stairs in question until some old bat breaks a hip on the way to the bottom, at speed.
a large stairwell like that need not be rendered hideous by landings and rails. that’s your job burge. stop trying to dodge the issue. i don’t envy you the task though.
I thought it was pretty clear that I’m not trying to dodge the issue – quite the opposite – I WANT to break the rules – I’m trying to find out how to go about it!!
@sw101 wrote:
is their an alternative means to getting up to that level? as in another stairwell. i always thought the regs were designed to accomodate disabled persons, even if they have to use a secondary route (even thought it’s not ideal), rather than apply the regs to limit fully ambulant persons.
The Part M regs require a lift in a building of this size and use so the requirement for an ambulant stair is void, although it’s obviously polite to provide one if you can.
Part B requires a stair wider than 1.8m to have handrails at no more than 1.8m apart. OK, you could argue that it isn’t a fire stair although if you’re at the top of it, you’re gonna use it. And judging by the fact that B&F’s escape to the side is circular, I don’t put much faith in their exit strategy either!
Anyway, Part K takes over at that point with it’s requirement that no flight have more than 16 risers, full stop.
Of course you can write and apply for a relaxation but I guess you’d have to state that, in your opinion, the stair was safe. um, risky.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz I know but dammit it’s bugging me.
B&F, though, have a thing about being a bit lax – I may be wrong but I think they were replaced on the charlotte quay job due to slightly eccentric room planning rendering the scheme undo-able
@sw101 wrote:
do you have a photo/sketch/dwg to illustrate where they went wrong? i was in there when it reopened but can’t recall the one you mention.
Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a fabulous space that would have been less impressive had they followed the TGD. I want to do the same – purely selfish!!
@sw101 wrote:
in real life, i’d examine the dates of the implementation of the relevant regs, then examine the date planning was granted, you may find that one was before the other. in my own office, we had an application to be granted a week before the part m regs were revised, but were thrown out on a ridiculous technicality (they sent it back for paying too high a fee, if you can believe that). subsequently the whole scheme had to be revised to comply with the new requirements.
It’s Parts B and K that bother me. I can only assume that B&F have taken the Guidance notes as simply that and are hoping for the best. I doubt a solicitor would see it that way. Anyway, I’m off to the NG to fall down the stairs and spend the cash on a holiday.
