ctesiphon

Slightly off-topic, but if the ‘Tram Domination Pack’ 😀 is designed to be a “Unique medium creating an impact on both passengers and pedestrians alike”, shouldn’t it require planning permission as it features in the public domain? As a cyclist/pedestrian, I see enough advertising as it is, 😡 and I believe plans to ‘adorn’ the exterior of Luas carriages with ads were recently dropped.

@Graham Hickey wrote:

The opportunity for a major new facade to the Iveagh Gardens is fantastic though – presumably this will consume in its entirety the substantial, almost derelict service space between the rear of the complex and the Iveagh wall. It seems the new auditorium will have to be placed horizontally along here, parallel to the front block if it’s to minimise consumption of the gardens…
And will the trees and general scrub be cleared away here to reveal views of the gardens? Perhaps for the best given some unsavoury tales of ‘activities’ in this area, but it would a shame to lose the mature winding walk along here all the same, allbeit admittedly in poor condition at this stage.

As far as I remember, there’s a clause in the lease for the Iveagh Gardens that prevents development from encroaching on the bulk, if not all, of the gardens. It was a (convenient) hindrance when the UCD authorities were looking to expand on the site in the 1950s/1960s.

Can’t think what else the Butler building would be used for, though. I’ve been on the ground floor and in the basement (once painted a crappy mural on the wall of the canteen) and the facilities are spartan, to put it diplomatically. And where will the new entrance go? To be formal and ceremonial, it would have to go through the existing main concert hall.

Lastly, I presume this won’t impact on Ireland’s last intact purpose-built Real Tennis court- it’s the redbrick building with its gable facing Earlsfort Terrace, afaik. A curious remnant that has been subject to various plans in recent years, but has withstood them all thus far.

What stories have you heard about the gardens, Graham? I can possibly guess, but haven’t heard any myself.

Agreed. The idea of the bikes appeals to me in principle (though no vandal-proofing can prevent them being thrown into the canals or even having their wheels kicked in), but alarm bells started ringing when I heard about the public realm improvements. Seems like removing one form of clutter only to replace it with another form.
Does anyone know if there will be an advertising aspect to the new maps, signposts etc.? Presumably JC Decaux will need to make something from this arrangement.

Jeez PDLL. Lighten up. I don’t see you coming up with the answers. Cheap points scoring? Hobby horse riding? Sure. Never miss a chance for those, do you?

There are many potential reasons for the lack of replies to this. PDLL’s diagnoses would be one possibility, but what others?
Members simply don’t know? That would be the main one, I’d have thought. It’s quite a detailed question, somewhat beyond the capabilities of many members, I’d imagine. Not only that, but who’d like to give advice that could see you out of pocket?
In addition, as I said on another Irish Planning sub-forum thread recently, some people might be resentful of their professional opinion being sought for free, seeing this as a discussion forum rather than an advice forum. As I’ve said a number of times elsewhere, site appraisals are a planning consultant’s bread and butter. (I know you’re thinking of going this route, John. Well worth it.)
Or maybe members are just tired of threads turning into meta-analyses of the one-off debate? Can’t just express an opinion on a single question without having someone jumping down your neck (this goes for both sides, PDLL, before you take offence).

To answer the question with any conviction would require familiarity with the local development plan, familiarity with the Meath Co Co planning dept., and familiarity with similar cases in Meath and elsewhere. Hands up who has this readily to hand? Not me.

That’s why I communicated my (non-professional) opinions to John via private message, PDLL, which consisted of my feelings that it might be slightly easier to get PP if there is an existing non-habitable dwelling on site (I’m presuming its non-habitability here) and if the potential purchaser can demonstrate their intention to live and work in the area. (Extract below.)

I sawv your post earlier, but I must confess it’s a bit beyond my experience. One thing I’d say is that the chances of getting a dwelling onto a site should be better if there is a pre-existing building there. It shows a history of occupancy on the site, which you don’t get with virgin farmland.
Regarding the fact that you’re a ‘blow in’, I really don’t know. I’d say it would help if you could show or prove that you intent to live there full time, and the fact that your current home isn’t too far away is a good thing- better to be coming from a local estate than from Dublin or Cork. And if you work not too far away, so much the better.

In essence, I think this case is probably beyond the scope of a discussion thread, John, and requires a consultant’s opinion or a long chat with MCC. I’m not sure if anyone else agrees with me. Maybe they’re all just being vindictive like PDLL says?:rolleyes:

To add to Lex’s bit, from my limited experience:
Meetings can either be official ‘Pre-planning Consultations’ or can be more informal. PPC’s must be documented and put on the file, but the informal ones not so. The content is generally different too. In an informal one things can be mentioned and discussed, but generally don’t amount to a commitment by either party. If either party wants things recorded, they’d do well to request a PPC in advance. In practice, many smaller meetings can take place that aren’t worth noting- in some cases a quick 2 minute phone call or somesuch.

However, I have sympathy with third parties in many cases, because this gives the impression that ‘off the record’ promises or commitments were made by the planning authority or the developer, whether they be details about S&A housing, compromises on open space, quid pro quos re car parking and public transport financial contributions.

To illustrate- I worked as a planning consultant on a project a while back where a large terraced house in Dublin was being converted from flats and bedsits into student accommodation. Not being pre-’63, the usual provisions applied. The architects tried to get as many units as possible into the building but DCC told them it was a non-runner. The second revision (third design) finally met with mimimum space requirements, conservation needs, etc. However, very little detail of these discussions was ever recorded formally. When it came time to submit the PApp, the local residents’ association picked up on our wording in the cover letter about meetings, and complained in their objection that a deal had been done between developer and DCC, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Between DCC and ourselves, we managed to make a weak scheme much better by prevailing on the architect and developer/client, and probably prevented it from being thrown out by DCC at the first hurdle.

But I did sympathise with the local resident’s assoc. I think, for the avoidance of doubt, all meetings should be recorded on the planning file. On the other hand, this belief is grounded in theory. In practice, what over-worked planner has the time or inclination to minute and sign off on a call that consists of:

Dev: How would you feel about us using PVC for the balconies?
Pl: Absolutely not. Your plans indicated steel and glass and we’d like you to stick with that.
Dev: But…
Pl: Sorry, that’s it I’m afraid.

All of which isn’t to say that the occasional underhand dealing doesn’t take place – we’d be naive to think otherwise – but many cases have a simple explanation.

@Devin wrote:

Bah! I want to see that now, but I don’t seem to have the right software (what do you open it in?).

When I click the link it opens automatically in Real Player.

Are those houses in Waterford- the coast road heading west out of Tramore? They look quite familiar to me. Though as Aidan says, they could be anywhere.

Except Northern Ireland, obviously.:)

Aidan-
There are Regional Authorities, but they have no legislative backing. Each authority has Regional Planning Guidelines, but they tend to be cited only where it suits developers in their applications, and because they aren’t legally binding it’s difficult for the local authority to use them to refuse an application. One change I’d like to see is these Regional Planning Guidelines becoming binding and the Authorities becoming proper authorities with full planning powers.

My own feelings are that it’s a mix of size and politics- the smaller the area the more likely it is that the decision maker will be known to the applicant. One of the reasons larger authorities are perceived to be better is that they have both the necessary distance from their clients and the back up of a balanced and reasonably well staffed department.

You are correct.

There is a thing called a ‘default permission’ but it’s complicated.

It’s in the 2000 Act and the 2001 Regulations, both available on http://www.irishstatutebook.ie .

Funny you should post a link to a site that mentions Castleboro, gorton, as that was my reflex thought when I saw this thread at first. However, Castleboro was designed very firmly in the classical style, rather than the Tudor flavoured affair illustrated above. Castleboro has been described by Maurice Craig as something like ‘the most imposing ruin in all of Ireland,’ and the few pictures I’ve seen would back this up. A description and illustrations are included in Bence-Jones’s A Guide to Irish Country Houses of the house in its pre-ruinous state.
In about 1998 or so, a former colleague of mine did a dissertation on it, its architect Daniel Robertson and the question of an architect working simultaneously on two buildings in radically different styles- classical and gothic. His classical example was Castleboro but I can’t remember what his gothic one was.

However, this is all slightly off topic, as the building above isn’t the one described in the page to which you linked, gorton, to the best of my knowledge.

6th- cold you be more specific with the location? I’ve just been looking at a half-inch to 1 mile map of Wexford which shows Rathnure and Clonroche. Castleboro is mentioned by name, so perhaps this house would be too? I only have the Discovery Series #77 of Wexford, whereas Rathnure is on sheet #69. I’d imagine if you had an accurate location you could check sheet #69- Discovery is pretty detailed on this kind of thing. And then when you get the name, something like Bence-Jones would be a good place to start. Unfortunately the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage has not yet published a survey of Co Wexford.

Lastly, there was a book published around 10 years ago on Wexford country houses, both occupied and ruinous. I don’t remember the title, but I’m sure Wexford libraries and perhaps even the NLI in Dublin would have a copy. There is a good chance this building would be included.

Best of luck.

But if it’s the truth, why can’t you say it now?;) I guess you want to eat lunch in your town for some time to come.

Can anyone give a quick list of some of the, eh, more ‘notable’ elements of Mr Gallagher’s legacy? I know about Molesworth St. but there must be plenty more, and my copy of The Destruction of Dublin is out on loan.

@iloveCORK2 wrote:

Some fotos of how the campus redevelopment when finished.. dont know when.. is meant to look. u can see the new realigned fosters avenue on the left

Thanks for those pics, ilC2. Well, thanks I think.:( Do you know are they the most up to date?

A few quick observations (from memory, the pics disappear when the ‘Reply’ box is open):
They don’t seem to show that UCD now owns the Phillips site in Clonskeagh. I wonder would this affect the Engineering extension indicated on the plan?
The semi-urban footpath from the N11 to the Library, alongside the lake, doesn’t look to be even half as dense as I seem to remember it from a design I saw a year ago.
The main N11 entrance also doesn’t seem to have been redesigned in the manner I remember from that plan. Pedestrians were supposed to get priority and cars were going to go underground.
There’s a new building currently nearing completion at the Owenstown gate that doesn’t seem to be indicated on this (though the realigned Foster Ave might be throwing my perception off).
Are car parks (finally) going underground?

What bothers me most is that it just seems to be turning UCD into the equivalent of the Sandyford Industrial Estate for third-level education. Open ground? Let’s build on it! Roads Roads Roads!!! I’m aware that the legend says something like ‘potential sites’ for future buildings, but you know the way with these things…

As past experience has shown, there’s only one chance to get this right.