publicrealm
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@jdivision wrote:
To my mind there was never an issue of the residents funding the public park, but I’m open to correction on this, the “park” which is a green space which already exists was to be taken in charge by the local authority. A condition of planning that people be allowed walk through an estate that has been taken in charge to use public transport is not unreasonable, I submit. .
The gate is at the end of the spine road which leads in from the Milltown Road – just about as far as possible from the LUAS station! It really is a longer bloody route.
There was never any proposal to take any of the estate in charge – on the contrary it was explicutly stated that it would not be taken in charge. To add insult the Board actually required the Management company to maintain the ‘Public Park’ at its own expense (including installation of benches and lighting) and for the hours of public parks generally, “in perpetuity”.
The residents raised absolutely no issue about the creation of a publically funded park – I’m sure many would welcome it as a relief from their Management Company charges – but the council ruled this out.
@ctesiphon wrote:
publicrealm-
Which route on public roads is the one to which you refer? Last year I worked on an appeal to ABP against a scheme in your vicinity (not the one recently in the courts over the access issue). The application used access to Luas through MSA as grounds for seeking higher density, whereas permission hadn’t even been sought from the management company, never mind given. They got a grant which ABP overturned.:)
In our appeal, we stated that it was something like 17 minutes walk on public roads to the Luas from the site in question, unlike the 10 minutes if MSA were to be used (so the density was too high according to the 1999 RDGs). I got the info from my client, who claimed to have timed it. Was she lying to me?PS I once got moved along in Mount St Anne’s for playing frisbee, and I was with a resident. Maybe not gated, but a long way from being public.
The public route to the LUAS (from the entrance to MSA) is along the Milltown Road (footpath), under the 9 arch bridge and right up the hill to the Milltown stop. Intuitively you would think it longer than the more ‘direct’ route through MSA but in fact it is shorter (I think by the order of about 100m – I cannot remember the exact detail – it was measured as pert of the case against the Board’s decision to make the MSA residents fund a public park and access to the LUAS). The reason for this is that the access gate within MSA provides a very indirect route – instead of a straight line it involves two long sides of a triangle. Anyway this is not the issue in the MSA Court case – the land is privately owned and simply cannot be appropriated for the public in the way attempted by the Board
Incidentally the Board folded their case on Wednesday – agreed to drop the two conditions and pay all the costs of the residents of MSA (will certainly be in the 100’s of thousands. How’s that for value for the public – the Board knew what it was doing was illegal and went all the way to the wire! Sure it only taxpayer’s money).
.
You are correct about it not being a public place. However generally there is no problem for strollers or people using the parkland to sun themselves, etc. Playing of sport is discouraged – otherwise the parkland would likely become a football/scateboard fixture) although being moved on for frisbee playing is a bit extreme.I know that people instinctively feel that this is somehow wrong – but if you want a public park then it should be funded by the public – not by the annual management levy of the owners who own it and maintain it. And – if your frisbee/skateboard injures someone – who is liable for the cost of compensation?
Perhaps the issue of setback should have been addressed in the RFI. However you have no case against the Planning Authority in this regard.
You have two viable options:
Build out your permission, without the workspace, and submit a new application for the set back workspace. This is the best option and, provided it is not appealed, you could have your permission within 8 weeks of submission – in good time to integrate with the main construction.
Appeal to the Board (you have adequate grounds), in which case the matter is considered again from the beginning – thus you run the risk that the Board may refuse the entire permission. You will also incur a delay of at least 18 weeks, during which time you may not commence construction.
As for the additional ‘expense’ – is this not a relatively minor irritation in the context of the value of your Planning Permission?
@a boyle wrote:
It is gated where it matters : access to the luas line is for residents only . the rest of milltown has to walk around .
It is true that while the public can enter the privately owned and maintained estate and gardens they cannot use the privately installed gate, from the back of the development, to the LUAS line.
This is perfectly reasonable in my view.
If you care to measure the distance to the Milltown Station from the entrance to Mount St Anne’s you will find that the public route (by the public footpath) is shorter than going via the private grounds of Mount St Annes (although this fact is not particularly relevant).
@Frank Taylor wrote:
Is Mount St Annes a gated development?
I guess if a new street is added in the style of the rest of the town it might go unnoticed. Maybe DIngle is like this?
Do streets need to be planned? Surely the old streets in Irish towns were the result of organic development rather than centralised guidelines?
Mount St Annes is not a gated development. The estate is privately maintained with very extensive central parkland containing several mature trees – worth a visit .
Cruises Street in Limerick – about 10/15 years old now?
I never liked it – but at the time I suppose the city council was grateful for any development.
It’s probably not quite what you are looking for but the O’Mahony Pike development at Mount St Anne’s in Milltown has a number of internal streets.
One in particular (Leading from Milltown Road to the LUAS line) is not bad – 4/5 storey apartments on one side with 2/3 storey houses on the other, and small side streets running off.
The side streets themselves are quite good and there is a coherent feel to the place.
Elegant AND practical. 53 Upper Richmond Street, Dublin. AFAIK both a Protected Structure and in a Conservation Area.
Bate that?
[ATTACH]2406[/ATTACH]
@goosewing grey wrote:
i was involved with a large controversial project a couple of years back which was appealed by a full-time inspector (who did not even live in the same county as the development) on conservation grounds
the developers solicitor wrote to ABP outlining the situation and the potential conflict of interest. the appeal was withdrawn
perhaps you could ask ABP for a copy of the code of conduct for inspectors – im not sure if its different for contract staff
I hope it wasn’t the Trim Castle business?
Quite a number of planning consultants do occasional work for the Board.
- The Board is impartial and, in my view, will not be influenced by the name at the bottom of the report]If the report is as disingenuous and poorly argued as you say then that makes your job much easier, and also reduces the potential impact of your opponents report. Win Win in my view 🙂
The Clare example (Cahercon Pier):
First a Clare Champion Article:
Minutes of Ballymagash Meeting (see Item 9):
http://www.clare.ie/Aboutus/Docs/January06mins.pdf
And more uplifting stuff from a local website:
Ctesiphon wrote ‘
Maybe search this site for “Mespil / PVC” posts by Devin, and for “Gore-Grimes / Protected Structure” by me? Sorry I don’t have time to do this just now.Keep us posted on the results, thanks.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the post ctesiphon – I’m already chasing the Gore Grimes article (or ‘Grimey’ as he preferred to be called 😀 )
Will also look up the other lead on the factory building and the Clare example.
Have trawled through Devin’s pvc posts (hard going – so very very depressing) and intend to look a the Ormond Quay example across from the DCC Planning Department.
Also the sad deriliction and pvc’ing of Beresfort Place.
The general reason for the uniformity is that every developer seeks to comply with the various ‘planning schemes’ which apply to the docklands area – because compliance with the ‘scheme’ ensures a much quicker planning decision (a compliant proposal is effectively decided by the DDDA in 8-12 weeks – without any rights of third party appeal).
The ‘planning schemes’ vary but in general are restrictive with regard to height.
`Thanks djm
Now that you have pointed it out Gardiner Street is obvious – just didn’t occur to me – my student friend will visit today.
It looks very promising on paper (have just confirmed protected status of structures from Dev Plan Map and that many structures appear not to have an associated planning file – although many have)
Thanks for the post – I will post pics of anything of interest.:)
A slightly on topic question – has anyone ever encountered a Retail Impact Statement that found the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the vitality/viability of the adjacent retail centre?
Just wondering..
There may be a chance of getting some height into the Custom House Docks area if the Dublin Exchange building (currently on the market) is redeveloped – but it will have to overcome the old planning scheme restrictions for the area (about 18-20 m as far as I can recall 🙁 )
@a boyle wrote:
i know it is not very helpfull, but just look you know , like everywhere!
I know, know – but I need a couple of examples to direct him to – I can’t suggest a walkabout because he has limited time – and doesn’t have enough local knowledge- so I am trying to give him a couple (well maybe 6) addresses so he can photograph them and then check their planning history.
Another possible example might be a protected structure which was deleted from the register by our esteemed Councillors (doffs hat) for no obvious reason (and which might subsequently have been ‘redeveloped’.)
Any takers?
Thomond Park wrote:F.I. seems to be the norm in all projects these days regardless of size]It is absolutely the norm and it would have been extraordinary if a request for further information had not issued in such a complex project. What I find depressing is the tabloidisation of the Irish Times: “Developers insist plans for Lansdowne still on target “ is a pejorative headline. The reality is that, if anything, the project is ahead of schedule – with a complex RFI responded to very rapidly. Yet the headline suggests the opposite – ‘yet another public infrastructure fiasco – despite what the developers say’. (But we in the IT know better). They don’t even know the basics of planning.
Bring back Douglas Gageby and Kevin Myers!
😡Sadly the proposal, although couched as an extension, is effectively a demolition.
In this regard the statutory notices were quite misleading as the claimed a small amount of demolition. In reality there is a tiny amount of retention and everything of value is being bulldozed. I was aware of this but chose not to pursue it.
I don’t blame the owner but I am genuinely astonished that his professional advisors (and architects in particular) would not point out that what he had bought was worth far more than what is proposed (although the proposal is well designed).
It is very sad. I didn’t object second time round because I felt that the new owner has certain rights and I had already alerted DCC (in an objection to the first application – with a separate copy to the Conservation Officer) of the obvious architectural and cultural significence of the structure. I had asked that it be added to the record of Protected Structures.
DCC has failed here (perhaps I have too but it is tiring and expensive to pursue these horrors).
Not a good outcome and I’m a bit depressed as I have just been reading the PVC windows thread.
Must get out more.:(
Beolight
A. Your neighbour is not entitled to a view. If your proposed extension seriously overlooks her garden then you may have an issue – but this is unrelated to the view.
B. Thomond Park is correct with regard to sunlight/daylight – you could get an expert report proving that your proposal has no impact. However it is very difficult to diminish sunlight/daylight to a degree which falls below the relevent BRE standard. This is because the entitlement to sunlight/daylight is based on a minimum standard.
As you live in an estate it is possible that your neighbour has no established right to daylight (which right only accrues after 20 years enjoyment – has the house been there for 20 years?).
I would not bother with a report – just submit your application – or, if you want some comfort – seek a pre-planning meeting and explain the issue to the planners.
If you want to go ahead then Dermot O’Connell, 32 Whitebeam Road, Clonskeagh, Dublin is a well regarded consultant.
(I’m not entirely sure about the No. 32 – I will check tomorrow and repost if wrong.)
I checked and his house number is 33 (not 32 as above).
