publicrealm
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@jdivision wrote:
This apartment appears to be on sale at the moment through Lisney. It’s bigger than I expected.
http://www.lisney.com/subnav.aspx?tabid=1&tabindex=1&inc=resProperty&ID=3253s’not it – the one for sale is a lower floor (and looks very dark and dingy – but then what would you expect for only €700k?)
It certainly looks good but I imagine that the heavy mature trees would block a great deal of sunlight/daylight from the squar(ish) block on the right??
How likely is it that this will be built in that way?
@Thomond Park wrote:
I take a different view]http://www.panpeninsula.com/site/pp_main.php[/url]
To add insult to injury the above is developed by an Irish company
A very interesting link Thomond Park. You can open the floor plans from it – the higher level ‘Premier’ (Premium?)apartments have over 1,770 sq m floor area and all the higher levels have enormous (by Oirish standards) floor space.
Well done to Ballymore Homes.
(A pity about the ‘beautiful people’ shown in the ‘skylounge’ images – isn’t that lady Vampirella? 😉
I took the address of the building from your post No. 12 above?
Reading back over the thread maybe it is the Thomas Street/Francis Street building?
Perhaps I should have directed my comment more at Kite? But you (Devin) – did say apropos 79 Francis St – “Everything around there seems to get granted. Not going to repeat comments I made elsewhere about the area planner, but there is an extremely facilitatory attidude towards development.” Post No. 23.
From Post Nos 12 and 13:
Devin:Here are the Grand Canal Street (Hogan Place) buildings before & after. Seeing as they were mostly unoccupied and in poor condition and located in a prime commercial area it was always going to be complete demolition or else this. I’m surprised even the trouble was taken to keep the fronts in this case. (Better buildings in Dublin have been completely demolished.)
In situations like these you are not retaining the buildings as such; rather you are retaining the brick fa
I quite like the College Green affair.
As a matter of interest (Kite and Devin) what material planning grounds should the DCC planner have used to refuse the (in my view horrible) Grand Canal Street frankenstein?
I have just read through the entire thread and found it very interesting.
I think that common sense will often dictate where facade retention (or pastiche) is appropriate. I do not see either term as pejorative.
The issue of ‘experts’ designing for experts interests me i.e. the idea that the preference of the general public is not important (except as something which should be changed – presumably by (re)education?).
Do I perceive a ‘collegiality’ in the forum – a (cosy?) consensus? An assumed superiority even? (or is it just that I’m from the northside) 😀
@publicrealm wrote:
.
The issue of facadism is an interesting one – has there ever been an illustrated thread on this (if not could someone please start one – I do not have the local knowledge). .
Apologies – have just found the ‘Search’ button! And located an excellent thread entitled ‘Pastiche – The Final Solution?’ by Graham Hickey, which appears to deal with the issue fully.:o
@phil wrote:
I personally would have preferred for them to have been either completely demolished or refurbished. .
Based on the before and after pics posted by Devin I would tend to agree that demolition or reconstruction would have been preferable. Certainly in my view the terrace looked better in its derilict state than after.
The new windows also give the whole edifice a very ‘plastic’ appearance. 🙁 In any event the terrace didn’t appear to be anything special – a high quality modern building might have added to the streetscape.The issue of facadism is an interesting one – has there ever been an illustrated thread on this (if not could someone please start one – I do not have the local knowledge). As a planner I believe it is sometimes appropriate – but that it needs to be justified – not just a lazy or knee-jerk option.
I generally find transportation matters very difficult to understand. In this case however I used to use the Green Line Luas but have given up at peak times due to overcrowding. I still use it off peak when it is fine.
My usual station is Milltown (behind Alexandra College). By the time the tram gets there at peak times it is usually not possible to squeeze on to the first one. Sometimes you will but more often not – and sometimes you will wait for more than two trams before finding a sardine gap. I used to go out of town (wrong direction for me) as far as Dundrum and beyond, in order to get onto a tram.
If another series of stations is added further out this will obviously move the choke point further out. Presumably then more people will do as I do – and rejoin the peak time car commuting fraternity.
This doesn’t appear to me to be rocket science? Why must I pay for this farce and for the inevitable failure and reconstruction to follow? How come the ‘experts’ are ignoring reality? :confused:
Many thanks for that info.
I have just quickly scanned the FOE guide to the norn iron system and it seems quite informative and well put together.
Can be downloaded at http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/action_guides/ni_planning_guide.pdf
‘Someone’ should do a similar guide to the Republic’s system.
Maggie,
You will probably find something of interest if you trawl through the various Bord Pleanála cases on the issue at the attached link – http://www.pleanala.ie/data1/searchlisting.asp?casetype=PA&caseno=&description=railings+protected+structure&descriptiontype=and&descriptionnot=&lodgeddaystart=0&lodgedmonthstart=0&lodgedyearstart=0&lodgeddayend=0&lodgedmonthend=0&lodgedyearend=0&signtype=all&signeddaystart=0&signedmonthstart=0&signedyearstart=0&signeddayend=0&signedmonthend=0&signedyearend=0&county=&parties=&search.x=28&search.y=8
Best of luck 🙂
Thanks for both of those Stephen C and Maggie.:)
I will follow up in the next day or so and post any results.
Yes is pretty well the answer to all of the questions about the contravention procedure.
Your rights of appeal are not affected by the procedure – ie you are still entitled to appeal to the board or to seek judicial review of the decision etc. It is still simply a decision by the local authority.
If a grant is in contravention of the Plan (and the LA have not invoked the Material Contravention procedure) you may appeal to the Board and point this out and they will determine the matter.
Even if the local authority uses the Masterial Contravention procedure remember that the elected member’s view that something to be in accordance with good planning and sustainable development may not be shared by the Board or by the Courts.
@billy no mates wrote:
Thanks for that, what happens in a case where the granting of permission would contravene one or two sections of the town development plan? Can the Planning officials just go ahead and grant permission or would the elected representatives have to give the go ahead for this to happen?
This is covered by the ‘material contravention’ procedure of the 2000 act (s.34 (6)).
The intention to consider granting permission in contravention of the Development Plan must be advertised in a newspaper circulating in the area and the part/s of the Development Plan which may be contravened must be specified in that notice. At least 4 weeks must be allowed for submissions and the decision is a reserved function of the elected members.
So you have nothing to fear 😉
In some cases the elected members make the decision but 99% of the time it is the planners and they are bound largely by the provisions of the relevant plans.
John,
I would disagree – as would An Bord Pleanála (in some cases at least 😉 ) see par 4.4 (b) of rlinked Board Inspector’s report.
John,
As far as I am aware it is not defined but I would suggest that ‘total area’ is the same as ‘total floor area’ i.e. the area ascertained by the internal measurements (as for ‘gross floor area’ above) but including any areas set aside for ancillary/incidental parking.
If that figure suits your purposes I would just run with it. If you have any doubts you can seek a section 5 declaration – whereby the planners will tell you whether your proposal is or is not exempted?
The local authority is entitled to one shot only when it comes to requests for further information, so it seems strange that this appears to be more than that?
The RFI must issue within 8 weeks of the application lodgement. If that is the case then the list of items seems normal enough.
Otherwise they are not entitled (although they may seek ‘clarification’ of further information submitted – but this must be confined to the matters raised in the original RFI).
@Radioactiveman wrote:
But the question arises — what is a highrise building??
CSD supporters would propose to ban all “highrises” over three storey. Now, I don’t know many people who would catagorise a four storey building as highrise!! Utterly ridiculous!!As far as I can recall the 1999 DEGW study of Dublin suggests that ‘highrise’ is anything in excess of 50m – which probably equates with about 17 storeys?
I read somewhere that Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown is about to commission its own highrise study – which seems strange – soon we may have studies for every townland, without regard to the visual impact on adjoining ones?
In any event i would have thought that Cork was a prime example of where such a study is required.
