Radioactiveman
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
@rodger wrote:
Hi Rm.Catherine Clancy did object to Dennehys Cross and the objection is counter signed by Labour TD.Kathleen Lynch,
Just as a matter of interest is this there constituency?How do you feel about this?
See post above rodger… try not to get too smart about it ]Rear[/B] of new Pharmacy building during construction.
@lexington wrote:
Yes – maybe I’m just naive, but I was hoping for something with a little more flair. Still an improvement.
Labour Councillor Catherine Clancy did lodge an objection against Dennehy’s Cross – Cllr. Clancy resides in Blackpool. Another Labour Cllr., Michael Ahern also lodged objections to the said proposal.I take your point about the porto-cabin, but i suppose it was a compromise between flair and function.
You’re right about Cllr Clancy’s submission re. Dennehy’s Cross. Apologies to rodger. 🙂
I appreciate your comments rodger, but…
@rodger wrote:
RM.It is everybodies right to firstly object and then appeal a local authority descision.This should be done in an enlightened manner.You are right local polticians should represent the views of their constituents.
Agreed.
@rodger wrote:
Why then have Kathleen lynch TD Labour party ,and Cllr.Catherine Clancy Labour objected to the Development by that company at Dennehys Cross.Makes very little sense.
Thay have NOT objected to this development. Nobody has ever suggested they did. I think you may be confusing this with another Frinailla development, i.e. Lady’s Well at Watercourse Road. Not only are the above two people public representatives for that area, they are also local residents.
@rodger wrote:
All they are doing is stalling jobs, financial contributions,s & a housing,and the revitalisation of our city.
Whether you agree with ANY objector or not, I’m certain that nobody goes out with the intention of doing the above. To suggest so is ridiculous.
@rodger wrote:
Eight months ago these units would have cost about 275,000 euro now the average price in the area is up to 375,000 euro,thats an increase of 12,000,000 euros which joe public the voter has to pick up.
I’d love to see the statistics behind these claims, but nevertheless, it is not “joe public the voter” who picks up these supposed cost increases. It is the buyer who does so. If your reasoning is correct, then developers must be delighted when they see an objection coming..more money for them.
@rodger wrote:
Does anyone know if these are the only developments that they have objected to?
One other thing is if people are so up in arms about some of the proposed projects in our City how come so few appeal?Because they rely on their local representatives to do the job the tax-payers pay them to do, and represent them in these matters. I presume politicians would not make such submissions unless it was popular to do so. Of course, popularity does not make it right. 🙂
@lexington wrote:
I was simply curious as to how you attributed the resultant scheme at CitySquare – my belief is that the input of objectors was assessed and planning directors determined the best outcome with respect to their understanding of the strategic development of the area.
I agree with you 100 % Lexington. It is the planners who will determine the validity or otherwise of a particular submission and make decisions accordingly with the development of the area as a whole in mind. My point being that for this to happen, submissions must be made by locals and local representatives. I think (I hope at least) that planners know enough about CSD etc. to make informed decisions about their objections.
People might rightly argue that these objections and appeals are slowing down development. But they are entitled to their say and is it up to ABP and CCC to ensure that all submissions are dealt with in a timely manner.Have you seen the portocabin lex?
PS was on Oliver Plunkett Street today. The “pedestrianisation” is a total joke- cars everywhere. Joe Gavin was on the paper today saying that they will start enforcing it next week!! Thats ridiculous since it has bee pedestrianised since monday!! Have they never heard of bollards in CIty Hall??? :confused:
I’m saying that from the outside looking in, had the first “draft” of this development been granted permission we would be in a worse position than we are in now. If you get my drift.
i.e. The final draft is a compromise between the “monolithic” and frankly awful proposals in the first planning application and what some local residents and representatives would argue for (which of course is often a ridiculously low density, suburban, faux-antique mess). I’m not saying its a perfect system, but i think its ridiculous to suggest that any negative input from locals should be disregarded just because they are not developers or architects.
And certainly, I think public representatives are of course likely to make submissions representing the views of constituents– that is their job- to represent their constituents views. I note that Kathleen Lynch has admitted her disappointment that the Board did not back up their own Inspector, but she has also accepted that it is the decision of the Board and she will respect that decision.
Due process is all locals and local representatives want- it is not their fault that CCC and ABP are so underfunded that they cannot deal with applications and appeals in a more timely manner.
Sorry for the rant- but I do feel there is a part of this thread which would prefer if the city was carved up between CCC and developers and residents should have no input at all.
On an unrelated topic, I saw the new Bus Eireann office/porto cabin in Patrick Street today. Its not bad looking – bit tank-like but should stand the test of time, rain and drunk people. A great improvement on the old portocabin.@ewankennedy wrote:
I saw that Frinailla invited Kathleen lynch to have some input into their discussions on material finishes to Ladywell despite her having objected. Interesting move i’d say.
With all these serial objectors and talk of them lately wasnt there suppose to be legislation put forward to limit serial objectors?? What happened to that??
I think that’s a bit harsh on Deputy Lynch. As an elected representative, it is her job to represent the views of her constituents– just like any other elected representative. Therefore, it is not a great surprise that she makes a large number of submissions on proposed developments in her constituency (both negative AND positive).
That is all they are- submissions. If the planners believe there is no basis to the submission (or any submission) they can just ignore them and grant permision. There may be a number of crank, serial submitters out there, but it is surely up to the planners to make the final decision.
Kathleen Lynch’s submission on the Frinailla project has meant that what has now been green-lit is many times better in terms of architectural standards than the “monolithic” monstrosity which was first proposed.@alpha wrote:
i could do that. i only bought a pair of binoculars 2 weeks ago. i never knew that it could be seen from the city centre but i haven’t been to cork in a very long time. i went there when i was a wee lad.
From Patrick Street it should just be a 15 min walk to the main gates at UCC. You’ll get two for the price of one there- step inside the gates and have a good look at the award-winning Glucksman Gallery. Then look west from around about the main gates and you should see most of the County Hall. (A further 5 min walk west would provide even better views). Enjoy!!!
What with the imminent pedestrianisation of Oliver Plunkett St. and surrounding streets, I wonder will the metal poles be replaced with proper lights as originally planned. We’ve waited long enough for them I think.
Planning was granted in 2003 for the demolition of “The Shed” and the construction of a new covered stand with changing rooms, meeting rooms, toilets and offices also included.
I’ll try to bring you some images of the proposed development later.The “old” Shed
@jungle wrote:
And while they’re at it, could they remove the horrible orange paint they’ve put near the ladders. If anyone other than the city council had done it, it would have been criticised as an act of vandalism.
It is supposed to be a safety measure and makes perfect sense. When on the river itself, whether in a boat or swimming, it was impossible to make out the ladders against a dark limestone wall. Painting the ladder would not have been sufficient.
Its a good idea and was implemented well and should save lives.@lexington wrote:
‘Cork in midst of one of the most exciting phases of its history’
Hear, Hear.
Work on the “Webworks” building on Albert Quay is continuing apace. It will provide c 4650 sqr m of office facilities for technology companies and is being developed by CCC and Enterprise Ireland. Here are two recent construction images.
In relation to the recent decision by ABP to grant permission for Frinailla’s Lady’s Well development, it is interesting to read the reports of ABP inspector (David Dunne) which very strongly reccomended refusal for both parts of the development. In the end, the Board decided against these reports on the advice of Cork City Council Director of Services.ABP Report Lady’s Well Part 1
ABP Report Lady’s Well Part 2
Finally, it looks as if CCC have finally gotten around to cleaning the quay walls in the city centre- a job which has needed tackling for years. Workers are on site on Pope’s Quay, adjacent to North Gate Bridge. The small piece they’ve already completed looks great- all shiny and new 🙂This is the best I can do for now I’m a fraid. The 3 blocks of the Frinailla development are highlighted in red. It is bordered by Watercourse Road, Bleasby Street and Houses on Chapel Lane. With Allinetts lane and Hillgrove lane running through the site.
<img src="http://img493.imageshack.us/img493/2351/blackpoolmap1ng.th.gif" border="0" alt="Free Image Hosting at http://www.ImageShack.us” />Adequate parking facilities are provided under ground- running under the entire length of the developement. Will cater for c. 250 cars.
The development itself is certainly out of character with the surroounding area, although you may argue that this is a good thing. It is bold and brash and is, in effect a fresh start for this badly neglected site. The locale itself has been on the up lately though, so this development will be fitting into an area which has already had a lot of work done on it in terms of new apartment blocks,etc. Further out from the City, the massive Blackpool SC and RP is nearing completion.
In terms of maintaining the scale, massing and design of the buildings surrounding this development, it is a failure. As a new start and something to replace what is a terribly delapidated site, it can only be a winner. Only time will tell how this development takes shape. 🙂Its interesting to note that the ABP report (due to be made available in the next few days) will show that the inspector involved reccomended upholding the third-party appeal and therefore refusing permission for this development! It was only through the intervention of the Director of Services that The Board decided to go against its own inspector and grant permission.
Importantly, this means that Frinailla’s Lady’s Well project has gone through both CCC and ABP without ANY report reccomending permission be granted. Both reports reccomended refusal! It is only through intervention at levels above that of the planner/inspector that this development recieved permission. Curious to say the least! It seems the powers that be are smiling on Frinailla and rejecting the advice of their own planners and inspectors!<img src="http://img488.imageshack.us/img488/7786/ladyswell23ef.th.jpg" border="0" alt="Free Image Hosting at http://www.ImageShack.us” /> <img src="http://img488.imageshack.us/img488/8965/ladyswell19ow.th.jpg" border="0" alt="Free Image Hosting at http://www.ImageShack.us” />
Glad to see this long planning procedure has finally come to an end. For anyone interested, below is a summary of the whole process:
Most of the given conditions are standard. ABP has however requested the removal of a central block of apartments to the rear of the central plaza building (large 5-storey structure in Lexington’s image above). The space created is to be added to the open space in the development and is to landscaped accordingly.
Therefore, some apartments will be lost to the development.Frinailla’s Lady’s Well
Frinailla originally applied for this development on Watercourse Road in Blackpool in August of 2003. That scheme was submitted as three individual planning applications. At that time, the whole development was proposed as a mixed-use development with c.250 residential units, a large number of commercial units (totalling 3379m2), a crèche/childcare facility, and a private gym for residents use.
The whole development stretched from Murphy’s Brewery Corner to the Garda Station on Watercourse Road taking in Coral SeaFood, McSweeney Meats, Trotters Secondhand store and The 147 snooker Club, as well as a large number of buildings to the rear.
The original development called for a maximum 9 storey range of buildings over basement car parking finished in a mixture of materials including frosted glass, metal meshing and ‘pelicolour’ cladding.
Fears were raised at local and City Council level and further information on this development was submitted on the 18th November 2003. This further information served to reduce the highest buildings proposed from 9 storey to seven storey but did little to improve the design problems.
This first set of applications was refused permission by CCC on the 18th December 2003 and all three were appealed to An Bord Pleanala (28.205801, 28.205802 and 28.205803 respectively).
In the appeal to ABP Frinailla offered to reduce their development to six storeys, should ABP see fit. This was in order to satisfy resident’s concerns over excess height. However, the development was turned down by ABP on the 20/07/2004. Reasons such as scale, height and character within the existing streetscape were all cited as reasons for refusal.On the 6th October 2004, Frinailla ltd. applied to Cork City Council to demolish all of the buildings on the site in two separate applications (04/28865 and 04/28866). This was to facilitate sub-surface investigations. These applications were accompanied by no plans for redevelopment and were refused by CCC on those grounds. These decisions were also appealed to An Bord Pleanala in December of 2004 but withdrawn when the most recent applications were also before ABP (see below).
A month before CCC’s decision on the above demolition applications, Frinailla applied to CCC for the latest round of developments on the 19th November 2004. This time the application came in two parts (04/29029 and 04/29030).
Overall, the development sought was a mixed use, residential/commercial/public one ranging from one to five stories in height. It contained: 153 residential units, 510 m sq of office space, a bank of 267 m sq, seven retail units totalling 635.5 m sq, a public library (966 m sq), crèche (504 m sq), Medical Centre (282 sq m) and a convenience retail unit (529 m sq).
The development also proposed a public plaza opening onto Watercourse Road and the retention of a warehouse building at the edge of the site. It was intended to renovate this building and make it the head office of Frinailla Ltd.
Again, it could have been argued that the development was out of character with the area in terms of height, finishing, etc., however in my view, the new development was much better than that submitted the previous year (see pictures above). This being said, CCC planners had previously stated that 4 storey was the maximum they would consider at this site.
Questions were also raised about the feasibility of a Public Library at this location, especially considering there was had been no attempt made to involve Cork City Library Service in the planning of it.
Further information was submitted on the 4th March 2005, this time photomontages were included. The developers argued convincingly that the 5-storey element proposed would help to define the public plaza and public library space. However, in the same submission, the developers withdrew the option of a library (referring to a statement by the City Librarian confirming that the relocation of St. Mary’s Road Library was not an immediate priority) and replace it in their plans with further retail, a gym and further apartments.The planner dealing with the application recommended refusal on the grounds of: visual obstruction, inappropriate height, scale and massing, character, overlooking and a breach of the Cork City Development Plan by allowing excess retail in an area which is neither city centre nor a ‘neighbourhood centre’.
At this point, it is reported that the Senior Planner and City Manager intervened and requested the planner to draw up appropriate conditions to grant permission. This was done, and the development was given the go-ahead by CCC, albeit with the 5-storey element reduced to 4-storey.
This decision to grant was appealed to ABP by Kathleen Lynch TD, amongst others, who had made submissions from the beginning of this process. Originally, a decision from ABP was due in late August. This was delayed until 13th October, and this was further delayed until today due to ABP workloads.@ewankennedy wrote:
Just a question…has anyone noticed a sort of white residue staining across the redbrick facades of Camden wharf? What is that and how did it get there? it looks awful!!!!! Driving toward Blackpool I saw the Sean muillean apartment complex, i think by the same architect and also redbrick, stained with the white residue as well but not to the same extent. It seems only on those 2 buildings and its rotten!!!
I brought up the same point ages ago in the old thread I think. I’ve got no knowledge of construction, etc. but was told that its all to do with the mortar that’s used and that its natural and will go away, etc.,etc.
That doesn’t detract from the fact that it looks crap and happens to every red-brick building in the city. Camden wharf is a particularly obvious example.@Saucy Jack wrote:
Merchants Quay was another opportunity lost on a massive scale for Cork in such a prominent position and the problem with “build something instead of nothing at all” policy. Driving down the city’s quays all it offers is the massive neon backlight signage of “Dunnes Stores”.Remember Ambrose Kelly is’nt an architect.
Look, I don’t think you’d find anyone willing to give MQ a design award but if you look at the history of development in this city and consider the feeling that was prevalent at the time it was designed and built, one could argue that the success of Merchants Quay (at least in a commercial sense) served as a real catalyst for the city.
I believe in the medium-term that a redevelopment of the centre, along with the quay front itself is on the cards, which is most welcome but i do think that maybe, just maybe the loss of the old quay might have been worth it in terms of the example it gave for the city as a whole.
I’m not saying another MQ is acceptable. The people of Cork now will not accept poor architecture- thats an indication of how far we’ve come. But, taken in context, the old quay would not have survived to this day without total redevelopment anyway- it was always going to be replaced. What we;ve got can and should be improved upon. One of the main problems is not the shopping centre, but the quayside, footpaths, public lighting etc, It all needs a lift and hopefully that’s something OCP and CCC can work on together in the near future.
Lexington… I’ll await you’re news on Frinailla’s Lady’s Well. I’ve been following this for a while and what ever way it goes, it’ll be an interesting one. Thanks.
I dont’t know about “nothing but praise” but the article in question is broadly fair. A regular reader of this thread and The Times will be aware of the authors views on most of the projects mentioned. Some of which I’d strongly agree with, others I wouldn’t but he did seem to focus on the negative, forgetting many of the better buildings in Cork and in the planning process. I guess, though, thats what the article was about!
It’s easy to knock projects (I do it myself occasionally) but its much harder to make a case for what we should be doing! After all, everyone’s tastes are different. Incidently, the author may be mistaken in part of his article dealing with the future development of Lavitts Quay- from what I hear, the hotel is out the window.
Tommy Barker writing in the Irish Examiner suggests that the decision on Frinailla’s Watercourse Road Development will be made this week. The suspense is killing me :p@lexington wrote:
The results of the Government’s City Neighbourhood Awards are out – and Cork has had another fruitful year scooping 3 prime awards.
Congratulations are due to Cork City Council and Saint Patrick’s Street traders –
St. Patrick’s Street was named Best Street in Ireland, for the 2nd year running.
And whats that we see slap-bang in the middle of the picture of St. Patrick street ? – Ireland’s Best Street!!!
– Why its Bus Eireann’s sh**ty little porto cabin which they promised would be gone ages ago.
Is there any real timeframe for its removal? I know various people have said an alternative is being designed, but in fairness, how long does it take to design, build and install a small, reasonably attractive kiosk?
Some interesting images from Cork County Council of the demolition works ongoing at the former Irish Steel (ISPAT) site at Haulbowline, Co. Cork:BEFORE
<img src="http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/7365/before3cp.th.jpg" border="0" alt="Free Image Hosting at http://www.ImageShack.us” />AFTER
<img src="http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/9725/after2ks.th.jpg" border="0" alt="Free Image Hosting at http://www.ImageShack.us” />At the end of July a contract was awarded by Cork County Council to consultants White Young Green to carry out a ground investigation on the steelworks site. This involved the digging of trial pits and the sinking of boreholes (some off-shore) by sub-contractor Glovers, with numerous samples being sent away for analysis. The site works were completed at the end of September, though some water samples are still being drawn from boreholes. The consultants will now review and analyse the data and prepare a report of their findings. This will begin the process of assessing the possibilities for re-development of the site.
The Department of Environment, Heritage & Local Government contracted, in mid August, to sell the steelworks buildings and remaining plant and machinery to Hammond Lane Metal Company. Their sub-contractor Eastwoods commenced the demolition of the buildings at the south end of the island, comprising the former rolling mill and shipping building. This work is now well advanced, and the first shipment of scrap metal is being accumulated. Buildings at the north end of the island, comprising the former melting shop, caster and service bay are being cleaned by the contractors and a large quantity of dust is being collected in big bags and stored under cover pending safe disposal. No demolition will be carried out on these buildings until the cleaning is complete. The baghouse where furnace dust was filtered will be the last major building to be cleaned and dismantled.
A programme of dust monitoring was implemented prior to the start of demolition. This has shown that dust deposition in four locations on and around Haulbowline island has been well within guidelines. In addition, two high-tech dust monitors installed adjacent to the steelworks on the Naval Base are being used for early identification of periods of unusual dispersal of fine (PM-10) particulates. There have been several occasions when, as a result of increasing wind speed and PM-10 levels, the contractor has been asked to cease work and await more favourable conditions. This approach ensures that air quality standards are not breached.
@Pug wrote:
Has the Watercourse Road Frinailla plans been pushed out again?
I know this doesn’t help, but I can’t seem to find any definitive answer either. I think this decision has been delayed long enough. Can we have a decision ABP??
~~UPDATE~~
My sources tell me that the decision has been put back for at least a further two weeks.
![http://img493.imageshack.us/img493/2351/blackpoolmap1ng.th.gif"](http://img493.imageshack.us/img493/2351/blackpoolmap1ng.th.gif"){kind=link}
![http://img488.imageshack.us/img488/7786/ladyswell23ef.th.jpg"](http://img488.imageshack.us/img488/7786/ladyswell23ef.th.jpg"){kind=link}
![http://img488.imageshack.us/img488/8965/ladyswell19ow.th.jpg"](http://img488.imageshack.us/img488/8965/ladyswell19ow.th.jpg"){kind=link}
![http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/7365/before3cp.th.jpg"](http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/7365/before3cp.th.jpg"){kind=link}
![http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/9725/after2ks.th.jpg"](http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/9725/after2ks.th.jpg"){kind=link}