-Donnacha-
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
I would agree with some of PDLL’s points:
There is an aspiration of many Irish people to live in one off housing and simply criticising this rather than offering constructive alternatives is not going to change things.
As I’m practicing for the Driving Test at the moment I’ve driven through a lot of housing estates – they really are pretty awful.
I seem to remember a thread earlier which was started but not really continued which was dedicated to better designed housing estates etc. If noone else revives it I probably will at some stage.@Kennie wrote:
And what I say is, DON’T KNOCK PRAXITELES. Without her efforts, our lives in the last while would have been shorn of much beauty. The sort of beauty that even episcopal emissaries can’t get at with a pneumatic drill. I say this with immense serenity in the face of some ungenerous carping of late.
Is there no right of reply in the land FOSCC?
It is disappointing that Praxiteles, whose postings are usually laced with razor sharp invective, should gratefully accept protection from a blunt instrument like Kennie.
The closure of the sugar factory has made no difference to the traffic.
I’d be very surprised if it has. The factory is only closed since January, and the beet season runs/ran from Sept to December. East Cork being one of the main sugar beet producing regions in the country, and all that.
obviously Aidan has never driven up through mayfield down through ballyvolane to get onto the Blackpool bypass.
Not alone have I driven it, I’ve driven it in a truck. I already pointed to this being the major problem in a previous post (Yesterday -06:38). Yes its a pain, but the closure of the sugar factory will take a lot of traffic off that route for the worst part of the year. And yes, the NRR needs to get built in the near future, but it wouldn’t be my first priority for Cork right now.
You mean, would I spend money on public transport where the vast majority of the public actually live?
Funnily enough, yes I would.
In any case, the NRR would benefit the southside a lot more than the northside, given that its main function would be to take non local traffic off the South Link and route it around the north of the city, freeing up the commuter hell that is the South Link. The biggest benficiary on the north side would be, as jungle pointed out, in reducing the traffic that clogs up the Ballyvolane area. The CASP makes very clear the intention to develop new population centres along the railway line to the north of the city, in time, those (in the Monard/Rathpeacon/Blarney area) will necessitate new road infrastructure on the scale of the NRR, but in the interim, I’d prefer to see those new developments grow around the railway first, while at the same time addressing the public transport problems in the city centre..
Have to agree with Lex, – it will be required in the medium term – 2015 on, but if the Dunkettle interchange could be dealt with properly (and KRR, BandonRd and Sarsfield RD), its not an immediate priority. In any case, the NRR would only work as advertised if the zoning and planning situation would be rigorously adhered to, and development at junctions along its length prevented. Much better off giving the Mallow-Midleton commuter rail time to bed in and have some effect before building completely new roads.
Two light rail loops, between the railway station and Bishopstown, and te South Mall out to Douglas, would a much better way of spending the money.
I doubt there is sufficient political pressure to push such an act through the legislature. I’m surprised it happened in the U.K. – how old is the act?
To Hutton and StephenC:
Considering that this flow of newbies started a week ago, it suggests that something has occurred somewhere to cause it rather than simply people using Google searches.
Perhaps these people should be asked where they heard of this forum from and if it is from somewhere online – a website or forum, then Paul might ask that these people not be referred on.Gees A Boyle, after all the work that the RIAI is doing to bring architecture to the people…
To answer jwt:
Without seeing the building it is difficult to comment. Also it depends on how attached to the old building you are.
Generally speaking it is cheaper to knock it and start again, if it is in bad condition. Especially if floor to ceiling heights are low; if you are thinking of putting in underfloor heating, if you’d prefer larger windows etc.
Also you’ll never be able to get similar insulation values if you stick to the old building.So if money is the main criterion, then knock it.
As there is an existing building on site, then the granting of permission is quite likely – so in this case simply apply to demolish and replace and a refusal is not really going to negatively affect the site. Alternatively, if Planners can be spoken to, arrange a pre-planning with the planner and tell him/her that you’d like to demolish and replace.If you are in any way considering to retain the building then you’ll probably have to get an architect involved – depending on how sensitively you’d like the extension to be. Even before you submit to planning it should be possible to get a proposal retaining the old building and another for a new build and get costs done by a Q.S. You could then compare and see which option is best for you.
I was thinking last night regarding “flying freeholds” etc. I suspect that in fact if the soffits of your house extend over the notional line of your neighbour then it is YOUR soffit. It is not the same story as a branch which would grow over the line, or the same situation where you build a soffit over the neighbour (which would be trespass). Rather it is the situation that you inherit from the Corporation.
Here’s a quote (with some background to give context) regarding easements. It’s a little more complicated than I remembered -as it is in fact tied to the easement of support. Basically you have to argue that there is a threat to the structural integrity of your property if it is not properly protected by your neighbour.
Property Law 2nd Edition Paul Coughlan:
pg241:
“Secondly there are negative easements which give the dominant owner the right to prevent the servient owner from doing certain things on his own land. A common example of this type is an easement of light whereby the servient owner cannot erect anything on his land which would interfere with the flow of light to the dominant tenement. As pointed out by Lord Denning M.R. in Phipps v. Pears, the courts are wary about extending the category of negative easements. Here the plaintiff unsuccessfully claimed a right of shelter from the weather in respect of the flank wall of a house which had been exposed to the elements when a neighbouring house was demolished In the view of the English Court of Appeal, such a right would unduly restrict the alleged servient owner in the enjoyment of his property. An analogy with easements of support was rejected because, as pointed out by Lord Denning M.R., such an easement is partially positive insofar as it entails the exertion of force as against the servient land. While accepting that there is no separate easement of protection from the weather, the Supreme Court in Treacy v. Dublin Corporation [1993] 1 IR 305 added that in certain cases such protection may be inextricably linked to an easement of support. Here the defendants sought to demolish premises which supported those belonging to the plaintiff. The court pointed out that replacing such support with buttressing would be inadequate because exposure of the flank wall to the elements would, within a short space of time interfere with structural integrity.”@Luzarches wrote:
Oswald,
Go away and read ‘The Spirit of the Liturgy’ by the current holy father and then come back and tell is that beautiful Cobh cathedral needs to be mutilated like every other great church in Ireland at the service of a bankrupt liturgical ethos.
The great churches of Europe tell the story of their history. We see how the church evolved as a place of worship. Liturgy, philosophy and science change over time and reflect the spirit of the age. It is idolatry to insist that a church should remain as designed by the original architect and should not be allowed to change when the liturgy changes
If the soffits overhang the neighbours property then they are probably his.
I remember talk of “flying freeholds” – basically what one owns when one owns an apartment – i.e. you own a freehold which is up in the air somewhere – so it might be possible to argue that you are in fact the owner of the soffits. (This is just musing – and probably not backed up by fact – but what the hell).
If they are his he can do what he likes with them BUT there is a very common easement called a “Right to Support”. Basically this was where a terrace of houses are built, relying on each other for support and one guy knocks his down. The neighbours are entitled to be supported if he knocks it down.
In Ireland this has been extended to include a “Right not to be damaged” – (can’t remember exactly how it is called – I could look it up if pushed). Basically where a guy knocks down a house in a terrace, he must not only support, but must PROTECT the neighbour from water damage etc. on the now exposed wall.
Applied to your property, you should have an easement basicaly entitling you to have watertight details.Furthermore he is not able to extend his building over the property line. As a matter of interest, I once objected to a development for that reason – that the neighbour was trespassing on my client’s property with his soffit (to the extent of 10cm – but still a trespass) . The Planning Authority refused retention because the legal matters were not sorted out. (Yes I was rather proud of my sneakiness 🙂 )
Not too sure about the Fire Regs aspect.
Drogheda? Sure this aint Dubai? The first one looks good, as long as they use transperant glass ond NOT reflective/mirrored which looks shite (Refer to the quinn direct building in Blacchardstown). The second proposal looks like it came straight from the dubai skyscraper parts bin.
GregF wrote:With the passing away of C J Haughey, it must be noted that he had a great interest in the arts and architecture and was somewhat of an impetus in the prevention of Temple Bar succumbing to the developers plans of putting a giant bus terminus in its place. I remember he took Queen Beautrix of the Netherlands around Temple Bar at the time or there abouts Dublin was European City of Culture.
Despite his notoriety, scullduggery, embezzlement, lies, overspending, hampering, etc, etc, his Devaleraesque rejection of the Anglo Irish Agreement, contraception, divorce etc etc…. which stunted the social modernisation of the country for years…]The Bibliotheque Nationale and the Lourve were others from Mitterands series of ‘Grand Projects’. Mitterand personally chose Perraults Design himself in the compitition for the state library. In fairness to Charlie, he did help architecture in the public realm here. What kind of an architectural legacy will Ahern’s term be associated with? An unbuilt bertie bowl and rows of monotonous semi-d’s stretching as far as the eye can see.
Looks like a little version of Ground Zero. My guess is that either it will be rejected out of hand or forced to lop off about 20 stories.
the only way to develop a counter balance is to run a train from galway to cork, via shannon
The three cities you mention, combined, could well function as counterweights to Dublin. And yes, they need better links between them. But ‘the only way’ is an exageration. In any case, I’m not sure that the traffic between these cities would justify such investment even in the medium term (Cork-Limerick by train is quite straightforward now, for example). The ability of cities to ‘work together’ is limited in any case though. Its not a team sport.
More likely, and more productive from a national perspective would be if each were to focus on areas of specialisation, and be planned accordingly. But I’m less than convinced that in a small country with a (thankfully) primate city, we can ever have the population to have more than two cities with the density of services and commercial activity to act as self supporting European centres. If you go any further, you risk falling into the dispersionist trap of the NSS.
The Cork region as a whole does have the potential to function as a counter weight. The county as a whole will have a population approaching half a million at this census. Its hardly inconsequential in a country of 4.3mill. Only cities of substantial size already can hope to accrete the functionality to become self generating in a modern context. The only way that will happen, even given the existing population level, is with the provision of proper strategic planning and lead infrastructure. It will never approach the size of Dublin (I hope), but it could well take some of the population growth and take the pressure off services in the capital .
Interestingly, the report forecasts that Cork (city and county) could see its housing completion rate peak on 10,000 units (up from approx. 8,500 units in 2005), representing over 11.5% of the forecasted national completion total
Is that all? At the last census, Cork had around 12% of the national population – if the city region is becoming a counterbalance to Dublin, and is obtaining critical mass in its own right, you’d expect to see a higher proportion of completions than that.
Is it true to say that much of the Cork region is only really starting to grow in terms of population now? I know the growth rate is ahead of the projections in the CASP, but the scale of development only seems to have ramped up in the last year.
Werdna Limited (Applicant)
Werdna Limited (Appellant)
05/29379
Case is due to be decided by 06-06-2006
