publicrealm
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Has any building heights study been commissioned for Cork – like has been done for Dublin?
If not then it might be a useful proposal and could take the ‘members’ out of the mix?
Yes,
in the example you give the application would be invalid. However validation is an administrative function of the Planning Authority, usually completed within the five weeks following submission of the application.
Unless they note the difference between the plans and the statutory notices, or someone points this out to them, the matter could slip through (unlikely but possible).
Perhaps more important is the fact that any subsequent development could be considered to be unauthorised if it had not been flagged in the statutory notices. In other words – despite appearing on the drawings and despite being granted pp, – there would be a questionmark over the planning status of the windows in the gable wall.
@popt_art wrote:
how droll!
surely it would’ve been more efficient to post an image, rather than make people download a word.doc?
atb!
It would have been more efficient but I am technically illiterate and couldn’t figure out how to do that.
I just tried opening it there and I see what you mean. Also having Broadband made me lazy. Sorry 🙁
@DGF wrote:
One of my pet hates is the destruction of High Street and Clanbrassil Street during the ill-fated attempt to build the now abandoned ‘inner tangent’. The failure to rebuild both sides of these streets with suitably scaled developments (higher than the prevalant 3-4 stories) means that the sense of enclosre that used to mark the character of the area is totally lost.
One of the most depressing streets in Dublin has to be Mount Street from Merrion Square to the canal (can’t remember if this is upper or lower) – some of the worst examples of speculative office buildings all collected together in one place.
Spot on DGF – two of my pet hates also. (It’s Mount Street Lower) and I frequently attend meetings in one of the office blocks – dreadful, cheerless, lifeless and sad buildings.
I cannot remember the original Clanbrassil Street but the current Street is as you describe it, with very little definition and lifeless frontage. It’s an astonishing let down after passing St Patrick’s Cathedral and the Ivy Buildings.:(
Well that’s it then – I am completely overwhelmed and exposed by your superior debating skills.
Cunningly you have also seen through my base motivation in posting on the topic (?) and my hatred, nay – loathing- of An Taisce (?). I fully understand why you don’t wish to identify the base inaccuracies in my post – such trivial details really in the context of an adult debate!
I shall have to change my name – O the shame.:(
And never to hear from you again? Alas. 😀
@javi wrote:
Anyway many thanks for the reference, Can I find this book in Richview UCD library?
The Richview catalogue (and the main UCD one) is available and searchable online at UCD
Gross Floor area is defined in the Planning and Development Regulations 2001
In Article 3 “gross floor space†is defined as “the area ascertained by internal measurement on each floor …disregarding any floor space provided for the parking of vehicles occupying or using the building or buildings where such floor space is incidental to the primary purpose of the buildingâ€.
So basically the internal measurements i.e. from the internal face of the wall of the building, including any internal partitions.
Fair enough Thomond Park,,
I agree with you regarding the important work they do.
I also agree that they have many eminently qualified members who do ‘trojan work’ (as they say around Thomond Park). And I know and respect many of their head office people. But I never claimed or implied otherwise.
I stand by my comments about their weaknesses – as I stated I have personally served as Hon Planning Officer at County and City level and am very familiar with the organisation and with its strengths and weaknesses..
And very supportive of it – but it is important to recognise weaknesses where they exist if the organisation is to survive. And I believe their survival is in some doubt, regrettably.
I’m not sure about the modern stuff – perhaps Dublin City Council could help – but the earlier stuff is well covered in Murray Fraser’s book “John Bull’s other Homes, State Housing and British Policy in Ireland, 1883-1922”, Liverpool University Press, 1996.
Er..
these may be examples of something all right, Thomond Park, but are they in any way connected with my request to Devin to justify his statement about my wild inaccuracies? or are they related to something else?
Sorry if I missed something!
Hi John,
If you do not wish to employ any of the eminent professionals (who presumably work when not swinging their handbags around this forum :rolleyes: ) you could do a quick diy assessment?
If Meath has a decent planning registry (in the county offices) you might be able to view recent decisions in the locality of your site – most authorities now have a fairly decent online reference system (called GIS) which will let you target the area in question – otherwise use their maps. If any cases are similar to what you propose then pull the file and study the planner’s report. This will summarise the policy relating to the issue and will give you a good idea of what to expect.
If any cases are appealed to the board you can note the Bord’s reg. ref. and read the Inspector’s report online
http://www.pleanala.ie/main1.html Also – a mix of ‘rural’ ‘house’ and ‘meath’ searchwords on the Board site will bring up some results. Try experimenting with other mixes – including the relevant townland.For more than that you do need to use a planning consultant – but at least you will have some idea of whether it is worth the expense.
(My preference, for what it’s worth, would be to restore the existing – or at least incorporate it into the new – for that you do need an architect (but for heaven’s sake don’t let him/her near the planning issue 😀 )
Billy,
It is standard practice for the developer or agent to discuss in advance with the local authority and to agree that a condition to be inserted requiring that delivery of S&A housing be agreed prior to commencement of development. This does not disadvantage the local authority in any way.
The Regulations allow for a wide variety of ways of satisfying the requirements – and the developer is perfectly within his rights to negotiate within the permitted options.
Devin wrote:SSsiiigghhhh! Replying to threads about An Taisce is like cleaning up after a kiddie’s party! – that’s why I didn’t bother the first time.Publicrealm’s post is full of wild office-floor gossip opinions about An Taisce. I’m not even going to bother correcting, but suffice to say it is full of inaccuracies.
Devin,
As for my ‘wild inaccuracies and office floor gossip about An Taisce ‘ – I recently spent a number of years as Honorary Planning Officer for An Taisce, at both County and City level. I speak from experience.
And you?
(Your move – you could always try spamming the thread again?):p
No violence yet?
The reporters on the various evening channels were clearly disappointed. If things don’t hot up they will have to reset all the headlines and pompous articles about our inevitable doom from binging.;)
Hmmm.
I tend to agree with Thomond Park on the LUAS capacity issue.
I was a frequent user of the green line from Milltown to Stephens Green but have given up using it in the mornings – it is quite usual to have to wait for a second/third tram due to inadequate capacity and is just not dependable enough – you might be in for 0850 or 0900 – ten minutes is a lot at that time of the morning. I drive now and use the LUAS off peak – hardly what was intended. The addition of more stations – such as Glencairn and Cherrywood, will mean it fills earlier and the problem moves further out.
Also – with regard to the gates at Glencairn – I am glad to hear they are not to be moved – I too was under the opposite impression and also wondered about the adjacent towerhouse (a National Monument). Glencairn house has already been stripped of its context by the sale of most of its attendant land – a very poor and short term decision.
Lastly the proposed stop at Glencairn has already spawned a very poor application with an inappropriate density (of circa 186 per ha) with a ‘feature’ 17 storey element. Happily refused by the Board (not by DLR CoCo – obviously).
Thomond Park
Yes – I do intend to do that (plus a few other things!)
I have attached a few images (at least I think I have:o ) and would be interested in views as to whether the building has any architectural merit?
Checked the application today.
It is described as an application for extension and refurbishment.
Again stated that the house is not of architectural importance.
The proposed ‘extension’ is on all sides (n.s.e.and w.) of the existing house, which is effectively being demolished, with the interior being completely redesigned:( .
Closing date for submissions/observations April 6th.
