Radioactiveman

Does anyone know what the eventual decision was by ABP on Frinailla’s Lady’s Well development?

Regarding the “High-rise” ban- no good can come of it! This is a badly thought out motion and really was appealling to the lowest common denominator (NIMBY) residents groups.

A few questions which people may be able to answer:

1. Who owns the houses immediatly before the traffic lights outside UCC main gaites- on the left as you head out of town, one of them is called “Finbarr House”. They are beautiful structures but are in a woeful state of repair. The gardens of at least two have been used for years by Main-drainage workers i believe. Anybody know who is responsible for these?
2. When can we now expect a submission for the Academy St. development? Will it be delayed to consult with Dunnes re the neighbouring development?
3. Since CCC have saved themselves the trouble of putting up Christmas Lights on Patrick Street this year (they’re still up from last year) will there be a move to improve on last year’s pretty underwhelming display?

@Radioactiveman wrote:

Anybody any news on Frinailla’s Lady’s Well which was on appeal to ABP?
Decision was due yesterday.

I’m answering my own question here, but FYI, An Bord Pleanala’s decision on Frinailla’s Lady’s Well has been put back to November 2nd.

€100m project will ‘set scale’ for quays

The Irish Times

A new €100 million residential development on one of Cork’s quays will set the scale for future development of the city’s docklands, an An Bord Pleanála oral hearing was told yesterday. Hugh Murray of Murray O’Laoire, lead architect of the project, said it was essential that the Water Street development by Werdna Ltd on Cork’s north docklands was the correct height. “This project is going to set the scale for all future developments. I feel passionately that if we set it too low, we will make a mistake for the rest of the waterfront in the city,” Mr Murray told the hearing chaired by An Bord Pleanála inspector David Dunne. Werdna Ltd is appealing two conditions attached by Cork City Council to a revised 304-apartment proposal for Water Street submitted after the council refused permission for a 400-apartment complex.

I have to say, I don’t think Water Street is the best we can do as regards “setting the scale” for future developments in the Docklands. CCC clearly has no great problem in giving permissin for tall buildings- as evidenced by their green light for the Eglington Street development and the willingness of other developers to submit towers as part of their plans (e.g. Crows Nest).
What CCC have always said, and I agree with them on this one, is that these very tall buildigs should be landmark buildings. Murray O’Laoire cannot argue that this is a landmark building solely because of its height alone – a landmark building should be distinctive and sould stand on its own.
To be tall a building must be landmark and to be landmark a building has to be more than tall!!

Those Dunnes images look very promising. The St. Patrick Street facade is really nice and I’m glad to see that the existing facades aren’t dwarfed by new development to the rear. I did think the application called for retention of 103, 104 and 105 facades so its odd that 105 seems to be altered in the image. Nevertheless, with 102 and 105 matching it does serve to round off the development nicely.
I’d agree with lexington regarding bowling green street. Nice simple idea but let down by a very blocky top storey. Something that is easily remedied though!
Although this might seem a strange thing to say, I think what will make or break this development is its treatment of William Street and Bowling Green street. I’d love to see some images of those. In particular street level. These streets should be pedestrianised and ‘free standing’ shops should be catered for here. If you go for the dual door approach of merchants quay, the street access will be closed off in favour of doors to the shopping mall itself- result is the lane remains empty.
What is tenancy going to be like here?
Is Dunnes taking the whole thing or will they be merely an anchor tenant of a shopping mall type development?

The above is water trough on Douglas Street in Cork City.
I’m looking to form as complete a list as possible of all such troughs in the city.
Anybody have any ideas?

Dunnes have a massive site on St. Patrick Street, a lot of which is going to waste. Its good to see that plans are emerging which will utilise fully this space and further buffer Cork’s main street from the effects of ou-of-town shopping malls.
However i’d have two main worries:
1. That proper use would be made of Bowling Green and William O’Brien Street- French Church street would be a good example of the type of development required here. Merchant’s Quay ‘Backs to the street’ philosophy needs to be avoided at all costs. In fairness, from what i can gather, this is in hand.

2. I’d hate to see the St. Patrick’s Street facades with the new development sitting on its shoulders- in other words, the six-storey proposed should be built back far enough to maintain the building heights on the street.

Other than these two issues, I cant see this development doing anything but good for Pana 🙂

Wow, I never realised that Dennehy’s Cross site was so big.
The development looks nice. Not too tall, and that pointed edge on the southern elevation looks great.
I’d be a little concerned about what looks like an alleyway on the western elevation but other than that i like it.

Me liking something Frinailla does – now there’s one for the books. 😀

Following on from the succesful appeal to ABP regarding AIB’s Watercourse Road branch, the report has become available specifying the reasoning behind the refusal.
The successful appealent argued that the proposed development was alien to the area of mostly 19th century buildings, it would detract from the open space at the junction of Watercourse Road and O’Connell Street, more consideration should be taken considering the site is of historical significance (Seamus Murphy had his workshops there) and that there is severe drainage issues.

The ABP inspector supported the assertion that the new building would be alien to the area, while arguing that the existing building was of little value and should also be removed. The inspector noted that this is an oppurtunity “to provide a building, which would harmonise with the character of the area.”
The removal of a landscaped area in front of the existing bank was also seen by the inspector as a reason to refuse: “an area of attractive landscaping, containing trees and shrubs behind a metal fence, deemed to be an area for anti social behaviour and a gathering ground for litter by the applicant, would be lost. This I feel would be unfortunate. More preferable, in my view, would be to incorporate this area into an approach to the entrance to the bank premises. The area, which faces south and represents a sun trap against the gable to the public house, could be offered to the Council as a public amenity, sitting out area.”

This is an idea which no doubt will find a lot of favour with local residents. Especially if Seamus Murphy could be honoured by some appropriate plaque or sculpture in this area.

At the end of the day the appeal was upheld for one reason:
“The site of the bank premises occupies a prominent corner site at the junction of Watercourse Road and O’Connell Street in the Blackpool area of Cork City. Whilst it is an objective in the Cork City Development Plan 2004 to encourage the renewal of the Blackpool area, it is considered that the proposed single storey / two storey contemporary flat roof design of the bank premises would detract from the predominantly two to three storey design and traditional character of other residential and commercial properties in the area. In addition, the proposed bank premises would also result in the loss of an attractive area of soft landscaping and taken together, it is considered that the proposed bank premises would seriously injure the visual amenities of the area.”

I have to say, having watched this planning process with interest, I was shocked that ABP upheld the appeal. While the reasons given are valid enough, they seem to indicate a much softer side of ABP 🙂

I wonder will the same approach be taken when dealing with Frinailla’s Lady’s Well Proposal down the street?

An Bord Pleanala have refused Allied Irish Bank permission to demolish their existing branch at the junction of Watercourse Road and O’Connell Street in Blackpool and replace it with a new branch building.
The development had previously been granted permission by CCC on 3rd May this year but was appealled to ABP by Kathleen Lynch TD on the 25th May.
The design by BCG Architects was contemporary and would have replaced a building which is showing its age. 17 staff parking places and an ATM facility was also included. Third party submissions to CCC were concerned with the severe alteration to the building line at Watercourse Road, as the proposed building would encroach onto what is now open (although privately -owned) space; Drainage issues were also a concern to local residents.
The proposed design was two-storey stepping down to single storey at the corner of the two boundary streets and was clad in sanded limestone with polished limestone highlights. The CCC report concluded that the development “meets the challenges of the site in an inventive manner and satisfies the objectives of the Development Plan in relation to high quality design.”

This is unfortunate, I’d agree with CCC on this one, the design was simple, imaginative and would have fitted the area, while at the same time giving it a deservedly modern boost. I am as yet unaware of the reasoning behind ABP’s refusal but will be interested to find out. I’ll need a lot of convincing.