Large Appartment Block Planned For Barnhill Road Dalkey

patrickbrophy18

A relatively large apartment block is in the planning stages (i.e. no decision has been made) for Barnhill Road, Dalkey. The blocks are between 5 and 6 stories high and are being planned next to a road which is barely able to accommodate the current traffic flows. A Facebook group has been set up here protesting against the development and understandably so. The plans can be found at this address. Given that the only people standing to benefit from this development are the would-be residents and Pegasus themselves, I am completely reserved about it.

CatFromHue

Wow 57 units, and space for 74 cars, using such a small road is going to make it fairly hairy getting about up there.

Aard

Tbh it looks like quite a novel scheme. The added population would be great for Dalkey businesses.

ted1

Here is the site http://onview.ie/upload/PDF/562479/e46232c0_857c73db_b04c4036_0d816f5f.pdf

Doesnt sound like a bad project. Lots of parking for a development in the dart line. Local shops will like the added buisness. 6 stories isn't very high particurly if they keep the trees as they will blend in/ be hiding

Also the plans read like a nursing home. cant imagine Wild parties and the like
Reading up further on it and it's a development for those in later life.
So those with cars wont really use them so traffic will be a minimum.
Those living there will more than likely trade down from large family homes thus freeing up the homes for young families.
The facebook page is set up by a disgrunteled neighbour who is using an image of dalkey castle to suggest that it's in the village when really it's a few hundred meters outside the village .

All in. All I really can't see any issue with the development.

Patrick do you live next door because your normally on for development I vagurly recall you wanting to bypass dalkey with a motorway and wanting a Lidl in the village

patrickbrophy18

ted1 wrote: »

So those with cars wont really use them so traffic will be a minimum.

I can't see how traffic will be a minimum considering the significant surge in the amount of residential units from the road. Unless the DLRCOCO have plans to widen Barnhill Road to an acceptable width, this development as it stands will be kind of like the cart before the horse. Let's not forget that large portions of Barnhill Road have no footpath as the provision of such would encroach on the space (or lack there of) for the buses using it.

ted1 wrote: »

The facebook page is set up by a disgrunteled neighbour who is using an image of dalkey castle to suggest that it's in the village when really it's a few hundred meters outside the village .

A lot of Dalkey related group pages use pictures such as the castle as it is publicly identifiable. I don't think the intention of the page is trying to give the false impression that the Pegasus development is being planned for the village itself. Perhaps, a picture of Dalkey Manor would have sufficed.

ted1 wrote: »

Patrick do you live next door because your normally on for development I vagurly recall you wanting to bypass dalkey with a motorway and wanting a Lidl in the village

I don't live next door to the site. I live a good half a mile away.

On to your next point about me being "on for development". Of course, I think that Dalkey needs a more long term strategic based development. In other words, I would like to the area more streamlined to the general public so that it doesn't just cater for a subset of that public.

As for the part of the comment relating to me "wanting to bypass Dalkey with a motorway". You are referring to an observation that I have made a few times about the narrow nature of some of Dalkey's roads namely, Barnhill Road and Dalkey Avenue. Given that they are the main arterial routes for traffic from the west and south respectively, their width is inadequate for their purpose.

Most motorways are a whopping six lanes wide with three lanes per direction which would certainly involve ruining the area considerably which I would strongly object to. Conversely, the type of job underway at Pottery Road in terms of road width and lane specification should be a template for road improvements on the likes of Barnhill Road and Dalkey Avenue. Hardly a motorway but, one which provides ample space for pedestrians, cyclists and buses as well as the private transport status quo.

ted1

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I can't see how traffic will be a minimum considering the significant surge in the amount of residential units from the road. .

As I said the development is for later life living. There is a similar one on shankill and sandycove village. Very few of the residents actually use their car. So traffic will be at a minimum. Go stand outside the entrances and count the cars going in and out. You won't get to a high number.
It just smacks of NIMBY

the groutch

ted1 wrote: »

It just smacks of NIMBY

wouldn't be the first (or last) time for Dalkey residents.

Larbre34

As a professional planner, I'd be happy to be associated with that proposal (although im not). Its a high quality design on an infill site.

The number of traffic movements generated wont make a material difference. Construction traffic may be a temporary issue, but they can be compelled to use one way for access and egress.

People may get used to the fact that idle land in high demand areas is going to be reused, in one form or another.

And forget Facebook pages, just make your objections to the Council, and try and make sure it has a basis in planning terms, not just 'dont like it, dont want it', because if there are precedents and it complies with the development plan, it will be granted.

Aard

If it's refused it'll likely be on technicalities, like drainage or something. Height etc is unlikely to be an issue.

ted1

Check out the interactive Map here: http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/future-proof/new-use-it-or-lose-it-rule-to-speed-up-home-building-31032808.html

Dlrcoco has identified it as suitable for development of 69 homes. As latter life people dont have kids living with them, I don't see them having issues with squeezing a few extra in

schemingbohemia

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Let's not forget that large portions of Barnhill Road have no footpath as the provision of such would encroach on the space (or lack there of) for the buses using it.

There is a tiny proportion of Barnhill Road that doesn't have footpath and that's only on one side, you really shouldn't make things up as it diminishes your other points - though I don't agree with those either!

This is a good project as pointed out by Larbre, it's infilling a site and will bring extra people into the shops in Dalkey and the Centra on Barnhill Road. Of course, during building there will be a lot of additional traffic but it's easy enough to bypass the road. I'm delighted to see it and will look forward to welcoming my new neighbours.

Awaaf

I haven't had a chance to look at this development. However, I think Dalkey is ideal for this sort of development given the amenities close at hand for the residents. It also might free up some under occupied houses locally which would help in some way with demand for such property with knockon properties freed up down the chain.

patrickbrophy18

ted1 wrote: »

Doesnt sound like a bad project. Lots of parking for a development in the dart line. Local shops will like the added buisness. 6 stories isn't very high particurly if they keep the trees as they will blend in/ be hiding

At 6 stories, it makes the development along similar proportions to the "so-called" soulless developments in Carrackmines and Dundrum which you have slated many times. The big difference is that the latter benefits the greater public instead of a modest number of residents.

schemingbohemia wrote: »

There is a tiny proportion of Barnhill Road that doesn't have footpath and that's only on one side, you really shouldn't make things up as it diminishes your other points - though I don't agree with those either!

Having measured it with Google Earth, 170 meters of the 650 meter section of Barnhill Road between Centra and the Squareabout lacks a footpath along the eastbound section. That's still a large portion especially, with the pinch point (4.7 meter wide) and blind turn along said portion. Between the railway bridge and Centra, the width of Barnhill Road is between 6.30 (at the very most) and 4.7 (barely suitable for two-way car flow let alone buses).

Between the railway bridge and the Squareabout, the road is of acceptable width from a kerb to kerb perspective. However, on street parking creates a pinch point making it extremely hazardous.

schemingbohemia wrote: »

This is a good project as pointed out by Larbre, it's infilling a site and will bring extra people into the shops in Dalkey and the Centra on Barnhill Road. Of course, during building there will be a lot of additional traffic but it's easy enough to bypass the road. I'm delighted to see it and will look forward to welcoming my new neighbours.

If the site is such a good land fill, why are they making such a limited use of it and not using it to it's full potential?

There are tonnes of other uses for the site such as a hotel, a small commercial outlet (like Glenageary or Killiney Shopping Centers) or other streamlined services that actually benefit the greater public.

Aard

Hotel or shopping centre generate far more traffic than residential, traffic apparently being your biggest issue with the proposed development.

patrickbrophy18

Aard wrote: »

Hotel or shopping centre generate far more traffic than residential, traffic apparently being your biggest issue with the proposed development.

It's not that I have an issue with traffic, I have an issue with the road and it's unacceptable width. I'll highlight a part of one of my previous posts:

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I can't see how traffic will be a minimum considering the significant surge in the amount of residential units from the road. Unless the DLRCOCO have plans to widen Barnhill Road to an acceptable width, this development as it stands will be kind of like the cart before the horse.

I have an issue with any development along Barnhill Road if there was a long term plan to widen the road itself.

Aard

So Party A cannot develop his land unless the council CPO's land from Party B to widen the road? Is that what you mean?

ted1

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

At 6 stories, it makes the development along similar proportions to the "so-called" soulless developments in Carrackmines and Dundrum which you have slated many times. The big difference is that the latter benefits the greater public instead of a modest number

There's a huge difference this is infilling into a site in a largely residential established area. These are designed for elderly couples or elderly single people. They are not forming the basis of the area?

How many cars journeys do you think there will be daily you really need to look at the market that these places cater for. Traffic is not going to change as a result of this. This places are the new breed of nursing homes.

It's private land why do you think it should cater to the greater public ? Do you provide picnic tables in your garden for the public to use?
The residents of these places tend to diwn size from larger homes. This frees up family homes in the area and hence benefits the community.

patrickbrophy18

Aard wrote: »

So Party A cannot develop his land unless the council CPO's land from Party B to widen the road? Is that what you mean?

Yes and yes. Unfortunately, years of nonstrategic planning and slapdash development has culminated in a very hazardous road that is unsuitable for all road users. As such, any chance the council has to retrospectively reserve land for widening should be taken. For example, when houses along it change hands, some of their grounds would be reclaimed. Ultimately, the desired result would be that the land from the collective reclaims would be used to widen the road. I'm NOT saying to dual carriageway standard. I am saying that it should be more like what they did with Pottery Road, a road with ample space for buses, cyclists, cars and pedestrians. Look at how Rochestown Avenue was planned. There are still large parcels of land reserved for when Rochestown Avenue is transformed into a QBC.

ted1

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Yes and yes. Unfortunately, years of nonstrategic planning and slapdash development has culminated in a very hazardous road that is unsuitable for all road users. As such, any chance the council has to retrospectively reserve land for widening should be taken. For example, when houses along it change hands, some of their grounds would be reclaimed. Ultimately, the desired result would be that the land from the collective reclaims would be used to widen the road. I'm NOT saying to dual carriageway standard. I am saying that it should be more like what they did with Pottery Road, a road with ample space for buses, cyclists, cars and pedestrians. Look at how Rochestown Avenue was planned. There are still large parcels of land reserved for when Rochestown Avenue is transformed into a QBC.

There's no need to widen the road. It's grand the way it is.
There's also a footpath the entire length of the road.

Pottery road has, 2 large pharmaceutical factories on it, 1 lidl, 1 large car dealership , one of the largest commercial linens in the county along with numerous other industrial units.
It's a link road that feeds on to the N11 and the M50. Avondale road is a link road without the industrial units.

There is no demand to enhance pottery road. Who uses it and where does their journey originate and terminate

Aard

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Yes and yes.

That's not a route I'd like to go down with regard to property rights. Who gets to say when a road is wide enough? What if the CPO doesn't go through? Your suggestion of putting a lien on that part of a site which is to be CPO'ed until the property is sold gets a bit strained when you consider that a property might not be sold for decades. What if the council is taken to court over property devaluation due to an "at some point in the future" CPO?

I'm not sure that that idea is well thought out.

wowy

I think it's a great idea; these are exactly the type of developments that are required in communities to facilitate downsizers to stay in the area. (Not going to address OP's suggestion of uses that benefit the greater public, as he's obviously not familiar with the purpose of land use zoning. As for his open-ended CPO proposal; just no.)

I wanted to know more about the developer so had a quick look at the application. Some interesting details were outlined about the consultation that they did in advance:

- 2 day public exhibition in Dalkey in December (to which all residents within 1.5km had been invited) - attended by 196 with 33 feedback forms;
- 1-to-1 meetings with 32 properties in direct proximity of the site; 16 meetings occured;
- 40 DLR Councillors were invited to the Exhibition - 6 attended (I'd say if the exhibition was at election time, more would have shown up).

The developer did more than enough to get their proposals out to affected locals good-and-early, but there didn't seem to be much of an uptake? Perhaps most people are happy enough with the proposal?

Closing date for observations is Thursday 5th; as of today a single objection has been registered and uploaded (I'm sure more will be lodged, just the delay in processing them and uploading them). The reasons for objection in the current observation are not particularly substantial (the road issue (she highlights how difficult it already is for her to reverse out of her drive....that's her problem for reversing from a minor road to a major road); design ("the visual impact of a modern 5/6 storey building....rearing over a small 1-2 storey rather old world village is too horrible to contemplate"); disturbance to roads during construction; and change to demographic profile of Dalkey ("We are already one of the oldest populations in Dublin and need to lower the age profile, if anything, to ensure a healthy social mix") and smack of elitism and NIMBYism.

What I find interesting about all of this is that it makes me believe that a lot of people tend not to be too bothered to engage in a process (planning or anything really) at times when they can make meaningful impact (pre-Consultation), but at the last minute will kick up a stink and try to make as much noise (i.e. that facebook page) or put in objections that could only be considered to be partially relevant (i.e. the roads*). It was the same with the Caffe Nero issue (albeit that managed to get a lot more people to object to it, but mostly on vexatious reasons). As I said about Caffe Nero, I hope this gets planning permission.

*On the roads; I suggest the OP tries walking from Carrickmines Wood on Brennanstown Road to the N11 via Cornelscourt Hill Road. Roads narrower than Barnhill Road didn't stop development there, so I don't think that any perceived problems with Barnhill Road will be enough for the Council to refuse.

patrickbrophy18

Aard wrote: »

That's not a route I'd like to go down with regard to property rights. Who gets to say when a road is wide enough?

No-one. I'm just going by common sense. Barnhill Road has become the main arterial route going west from Dalkey Village. The 59 bus as well as the southbound Aircoach route pass through it on a regular basis. I've often seen buses pulling into the mouth of side roads to let on coming buses through. This is far from ideal. Plus, if a road like Barnhill Road was being planned today, it certainly wouldn't have a footpath on one side only, blind corners and negative clearance for buses.

It would likely be about 14.5 meters wide (7.25 per direction) consisting of the following:

• 2 meters for a pedestrian path
• 2 meters for a cycle track
• 3.25 meters for buses, cars and trucks

Aard wrote: »

What if the CPO doesn't go through?

This is purely a hypothetical scenario. It wouldn't be a CPO. However, future property sales along Barnhill Road would require the council to take some of the land. So, a split sale would go through whereby the private resident would pay some of the overall price based on the cubit footage of land relative to the original cubic footage while the council would pay the difference. But again, hypothetical situation which will more than likely never happen. There's probably a hell of a lot more to it that meets the eye (buy:))!

Aard wrote: »

Your suggestion of putting a lien on that part of a site which is to be CPO'ed until the property is sold gets a bit strained when you consider that a property might not be sold for decades.

Fair enough. However, I would be thinking long-term perhaps, 30-40 years. In the interim, we'll probably have hover cars, bike and buses negating the need for ground level acquisitions. It is 2015 after all!:D.

Aard wrote: »

What if the council is taken to court over property devaluation due to an "at some point in the future" CPO?

Assuming the property buyers know what they are purchasing and have done their research, this shouldn't come to pass.

Aard wrote: »

I'm not sure that that idea is well thought out.

Here is something I prepared in Google Earth over a number of months here and there while I was bored (board...get it?;)):



Maybe, I am jumping the gun!:cool:

It will 99.999% likely never happen. Let me know what y'all think!

Aard

I admire your enthusiasm though I would suggest that you keep your designs from having too much CPO'ing. Tbh it looks like the daydreaming of a 1970s traffic engineer! Very road oriented. There's no harm in Barnhill Road being very traffic calmed, perhaps just needs to be done more formally.

schemingbohemia

Why would Barnhill Road ever need to be a QBC? That's just silly. The rest of your post is just NIMBYISM. As to your point about buses having to pull in, there's 1 59 and 1 Aircoach per hour, the amount of times they actually go down Barnhill Road at the same time is minimal, you're totally clutching at straws. Barnhill Road works fine, i'd rather there wasn't on-street parking between the village and the railway bridge but it doesn't cause too much of an issue.

pedronomix

Judging by some of the comments I take it that most of the posters on this topic here have not actually read and studied the 764 page planning submission. The site is bounded on its two longest boundaries by the bungalows in Old Quarry and The Rise. Six stories over 60 ft tall just 60 odd feet from the garden walls of the existing single story homes. That DLRCC stand to rake in at least €500K in levies is indeed a concern. Dalkey already has the highest resident age profile in urban Ireland.

There is no pent up demand for apartments in Dalkey with some of CastlePark residence yet to even sell. The high service charge business model of Pegasus would make living there beyond the means of most older people currently living in the older 3/4 bed semis in the area. Most of the resistance is from locals over the age of 50!!

Take a look at Facebook page "Dalkey says no to PegasusLife 6 storey apartments"

ted1

the facebook page needs to be renamed to "one Individual called Peter Fsomething says no to PegasusLife 6 storey apartments" he does not represent the people of Dalkey.

As for the place on castle park. That is a different type of development, and can't be used as comparasion. This development is a retirement village.
does castepark offer:
a wellness suite
resident's dining area
gym
reflection and relaxation rooms
physical therapy/care suites
resident's lounge
space for parking and charging of mobility scooters
its clear to see that this is very very different.




It will free up large houses in the area and may actually reduce the average age. an elderly couple or indicidual moving out of a large house makes way for a young family to move in.

now you seem to be concerened about the high price. I believe 500k for a place and 7k fees per anumn is what the facebook page suggests.

TBH those numbers dont look to bad. an elderly couple say in their mid 60s could sell the 4 bed family home they are living in for say €650k. Interest only on a €500k place would be 20,000. So they could live comfortable in a serviced apartment with excellent facilities that will meet their needs as they get on in life. They will also have plenty of cash to enjoy their later years.

Plenty of places have had apartments built beside existing developments. just take a walk around Honey Park and you'll see ho in intergrates with the old and new.


Edit: the planes are for 6 * no. four storey blocks in two terraces with a recessed fifth floor level

where do you get teh 6th floor? there car park is in a basement. so above ground is only 4 floors+ one recessed.

pedronomix

Fair point on the FB page, however 80+ people have joined and well over 100 locals attended meetings in Killiney Castle and in Dalkey last night. Many of them being older do not use FB, but their views have been posted when aired. It is purely the sole information point for interested parties, political too if they wish!

Interesting that you forget or perhaps never knew that the original permission for Castlepark had a block for elder living but there was no demand and they got change of use!! It is also a handy beard for getting around the Social and Affordable!! €500K is well above the average apartment price in Dalkey at present.

I note you did not comment on the population age imbalance that already exists in Dalkey and is increasing. Nor on the massively out of proportion scale of the development to it's surrounding, the impact on the neighbouring families or the clear traffic hazards. What about the attempt to have regulation sight lines reduced due to the "low" traffic speeds on Barnhill Rd, or did you not read that bit either?

Devastated to learn that 60+ is actually elderly and all the time I have been deluding myself that it is the new 40s!

I am sorry that our effort does not meet with your approval.

pedronomix

The "underground" parking to the north elevation backing on to Old Quarry (lowest point of the site) is actually above ground. Total 6 levels at this point above ground, QED!

ted1

pedronomix wrote: »

€500K is well above the average apartment price in Dalkey at present..

these are not standard apartments. look at the extra facilities i have high lighted

pedronomix wrote: »

I note you did not comment on the population age imbalance that already exists in Dalkey and is increasing. ..

I did comment, I said that by providing the retirement village that large family homes are going to be made available for younger families to move in to.

pedronomix wrote: »

Nor on the massively out of proportion scale of the development to it's surrounding, the impact on the neighbouring families or the clear traffic hazards. What about the attempt to have regulation sight lines reduced due to the "low" traffic speeds on Barnhill Rd, or did you not read that bit either?
.

its not a massive development. becuase of the nature of the residents, there will be very little additional traffic

pedronomix wrote: »

I am sorry that our effort does not meet with your approval.

i'm sorry that it does not meet with your approval. it seems like a well planned development.

Larbre34

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Yes and yes. Unfortunately, years of nonstrategic planning and slapdash development has culminated in a very hazardous road that is unsuitable for all road users. As such, any chance the council has to retrospectively reserve land for widening should be taken. For example, when houses along it change hands, some of their grounds would be reclaimed. Ultimately, the desired result would be that the land from the collective reclaims would be used to widen the road. I'm NOT saying to dual carriageway standard. I am saying that it should be more like what they did with Pottery Road, a road with ample space for buses, cyclists, cars and pedestrians. Look at how Rochestown Avenue was planned. There are still large parcels of land reserved for when Rochestown Avenue is transformed into a QBC.

Thats not the way its done. If there is an option to achieve some road widening, the Council condition the developer to deliver some or all of the new road layout as part of their build. Dun Laoghaire Golf Course is a nearby example. CPOs dont come into play unless public funding is in place to deliver a whole road. Speculative land buying has almost died out, because it can tie up assets for years without any progress.

The NTA have taken Rochestown Avenue off their QBC objectives, so no improvement of that road is likely for a long time, except near the Rehab hospital where the expansion there might have to include a road improvement. In any case, Pottery Road will be a fine alternative route when its finished.

Larbre34

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Here is something I prepared in Google Earth over a number of months here and there while I was bored (board...get it?;)):



Maybe, I am jumping the gun!:cool:

It will 99.999% likely never happen. Let me know what y'all think!

I think you should move to America. Or Moscow.

patrickbrophy18

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Why would Barnhill Road ever need to be a QBC? That's just silly.

It's the same reason why Upper Glenageary Road was widened and that is to prepare for future demand. The same thing goes for Dalkey Avenue which pretty much makes Dalkey a cul de sac and non commuting destination.

schemingbohemia wrote: »

The rest of your post is just NIMBYISM.

I'm far from being a NIMBY. For example, I didn't object to the extension of Centra or SuperValu. Nor did I object to Starbucks (before and while it was open) or Caffe Nero. I think that the whole "ideal" of keeping Dalkey exclusive is absolute nonsense as Dalkey should be streamlined where possible. Moreover, the concept of "local trade for local business" often mooted by the denizens of the area is something I find deplorable as it smacks of NIMBY.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that Dalkey should play a far more prominent role in the future as a coastal town.

schemingbohemia wrote: »

As to your point about buses having to pull in, there's 1 59 and 1 Aircoach per hour, the amount of times they actually go down Barnhill Road at the same time is minimal, you're totally clutching at straws.

No I amn't. I just think that retaining the width of a road incapable of comfortably accommodating the two-way flow of buses and other larger vehicles is guided purely by sentiment. Plus, the current width doesn't lend itself to increases in frequency if and when they might be needed.

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Barnhill Road works fine, i'd rather there wasn't on-street parking between the village and the railway bridge but it doesn't cause too much of an issue.

Fair enough. Though I would say double-yellow lines between Centra and the Squareabout would be a good start.

Now, having said all of that and read through the responses again, you, ted1, Larbre34 and Aard have raised a very valid point in that the age profile will more than likely make no difference to traffic. So, I'll buy that. To a lesser extent, I can kind of see the point of it freeing up existing residents for younger families. This point was a tad tenuous but, I feel much more enlightened.

Larbre34 wrote: »

I think you should move to America. Or Moscow.

If that isn't a sense of humor, it comes off as a very hostile! Then again, I have launched hostile comments your way. How about a truce?:D

Larbre34

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

If that isn't a sense of humor, it comes off as a very hostile! Then again, I have launched hostile comments your way. How about a truce?:D

I'm certainly not being hostile. I'm suggesting with reasonable seriousness that if that's your idea of progressive design, you should live somewhere its appreciated and where you will find examples of it.

patrickbrophy18

Larbre34 wrote: »

I'm certainly not being hostile. I'm suggesting with reasonable seriousness that if that's your idea of progressive design, you should live somewhere its appreciated and where you will find examples of it.

I think I'll stay put in the Emerald Isle. What is the issue with American or Moscow road designs anyway?

Back on topic, it will be interesting to see how the apartment block plans pan out from a decision perspective.

I still don't understand the need then for 74 parking spaces if traffic is likely to be minimal as many posters here put it. Staff might make up a small fraction of that amount. What about the rest?

From reading the 493 page document which also makes the point on minimal traffic levels, I think it is quite presumptuous, not to mention ageist, to base low levels of traffic on the "age profile". Unless they are planning on regulating how many people go in and out which would be highly unethical. That would make it more like a prison.

Aard

It might be of interest to you that traffic generation is generally caused by the availability of car parking at one's destination rather than their home. If this is a building primarily for older people, it is unlikely that there will be any rush hour congestion unlike a regular housing estate.

ted1

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I think I'll stay put in the Emerald Isle. What is the issue with American or Moscow road designs anyway?

Back on topic, it will be interesting to see how the apartment block plans pan out from a decision perspective.

I still don't understand the need then for 74 parking spaces if traffic is likely to be minimal as many posters here put it. Staff might make up a small fraction of that amount. What about the rest?

From reading the 493 page document which also makes the point on minimal traffic levels, I think it is quite presumptuous, not to mention ageist, to base low levels of traffic on the "age profile". Unless they are planning on regulating how many people go in and out which would be highly unethical. That would make it more like a prison.

Some people like to have a car even if they don't use them. The planning actual stipulates that they are using stackers. We have them in work. To get the top car out you have to move the lower one . It just about works in work because security have the email and phone number attached to each reg and people only have to move their car once. I can't imagine it working in a residential unit where cars are in regular use.

Later life people don't travel to work daily. That removes journey, your losing the plot if you think saying that out loud is ageist.

As regards staff, there are staff units available ( I Persume the three bed + another ) so that reduces traffic further.

pedronomix

Don't forget all the bicycle spaces and parking/charging stations for mobility scooters. The Dalkey Senior "Wacky" Street Racing Festival could be a huge event for the town. They do need lots of parking as people are generally very diligent about visiting their elderly parents with the grand-kids etc.

ted1

Actually just had a thought, it works out as 1.3 spaces per dwelling which if memory serves me right is what is set out in the county development plan.

Labre, as a planner does that sound right?


********************************************* from http://www.dlrcoco.ie/Meetings/2014/DDPETWAPR14.pdf
Table 16.3 of the County Development Plan sets the following minimum car parking standards for residential developments:
Residential Dwelling
1 space per 1-bed unit and per 2 bed unit
2 spaces per 3+ bed unit (depending on design and location)
Apartments, Flats, Sheltered housing
1 space per 1-bed unit,
1.5 spaces per 2-bed unit,
2 spaces per 3+ bed unit (depending on design and location)
**********************************************************

Larbre34

Yes, although most of my own work is commercial, those dev plan guidelines each County has are the first point of reference. Apartment/sheltered housing would be the mark. They may have got away with less spaces if they were closer to the Dart, but the proposal seems sufficient.

pedronomix

Over 30 objections lodged by today's 4pm deadline, apparently. No local Dalkey love for the project, the promoter has been exposed for being cute, or worse, with selective data and methodologies. this one will run for a very long time

Larbre34

"pedronomix wrote: »

this one will run for a very long time

Not really, 8 weeks for a decision, 4 weeks appeal window, 18 weeks max for bord pleanála to decide. Most developments will have that factored in to their project timeline. Cant imagine anyone wanting to fund a judicial review of a low environmental impact development like this.

pedronomix

if you assume only planning law is at play, you are probably correct. A judicial review of a planning based appeal is unlikely to end well.
There are other avenues open in this case, just not those within the remit of planners. A nice little case would take years to get though Circuit/High/Appeals courts.

ted1

pedronomix wrote: »

Over 30 objections lodged by today's 4pm deadline, apparently. No local Dalkey love for the project, the promoter has been exposed for being cute, or worse, with selective data and methodologies. this one will run for a very long time

If there all like the first lady who objected because she ilegally reverses out if her drive I can't see them carry much weight.

pedronomix

Objections published now stands at 38 including one from An Taisce.

Ted you should get on to the Road Safety Authority and advise them of their error in omitting this offence http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-of-the-road-eng.pdf Page 53/54 refers

Larbre34

pedronomix wrote: »

if you assume only planning law is at play, you are probably correct. A judicial review of a planning based appeal is unlikely to end well.
There are other avenues open in this case, just not those within the remit of planners. A nice little case would take years to get though Circuit/High/Appeals courts.

Im intrigued as to what other avenues you believe might be open in this regard? Do you believe there is insufficient interest in the site by the applicant? Do you believe there is undue influence or some element of deception or fraud? I know you cant answer that in this place, but I can tell you that because of the behaviour of parties on both sides of the process, there is a long history of vexatious cases in Ireland and the Courts take a very dim view of them.

pedronomix

Larbre34 wrote: »

Im intrigued as to what other avenues you believe might be open in this regard? Do you believe there is insufficient interest in the site by the applicant? Do you believe there is undue influence or some element of deception or fraud? I know you cant answer that in this place, but I can tell you that because of the behaviour of parties on both sides of the process, there is a long history of vexatious cases in Ireland and the Courts take a very dim view of them.

This is not something I am prepared to share on here but it is not a vexatious type of litigation, expensive and pointless. I know of no undue influence/deception/fraud other than inaccuracies and omissions contained in the application... these will be teased out and adjudicated upon in the planning process.

The validity of my plan does not hinge on what you or some others seem to think are the options available. Lateral thinking and good in depth research are at the heart of innovation. The answer is hidden in plain sight in the application document

pedronomix

Just spotted the Dept of Arts Heritage and Gaeltachta have submitted an awkward one too. Will this Horse ever fly?

pedronomix

I particularly like this one, it could be a very long time before I need to initiate my own option!


: PIJnfl!r1p Department
Planning Application Reference Number :015X
"Later Living Development" at Dalkey Manor, Barnhill Road, Dalkey,
County Dublin
Equal Status Acts 2000-2012 Objection
Dear Sirs,
We refer to the above planning application and can confirm that we have been retained to act
on behalf of a number of residents of Old Quarry, Dalkey Avenue, Dalkey, County Dublin,
and in that regard please now find enclosed herewith our cheque in the sum of €20.00 in
respect of your objection fee.
We note the contents of the planning application lodged with yourselves on 29 January 2015
for a "later living" development at Dalkey Manor, Barnhill Road, Dalkey, County Dublin and
must advise that the development sought is illegal and contrary to Sections 3 and 6 of the
Equal Statu$ Act 2000.
In those circumstances, Counsel has advised that any such permission granted on foot of the
current application would be ultra varies and subject to judicial review in the High Court In
those circumstances we believe you have no option but to refuse this application.
Sections 3 of the Equal Status Act 2000 confirm that it is illegal to discriminate on the
grounds of age (Sections 3 (1) (a) and 3 (2) (f)). Section 6 (1) clarifies: -'
"6 -( 1) a person shall not discriminate in-
(a) disposing of any estate or interest in premises"
l This is exactly the case here.
1
"
~ image:

---

'.'. ---- '''''

---

._m, .-. ' ""--'---. --.
..
However, Section 6 (5) set out an exception to this general principle: -
"6- (5) where any premises or accommodation are reserved for the use of persons in a
particular category of persons for a religious purpose or as a refuge, nursing home, retirement
home, home for persons with a disability or hostel for homeless persons or for a similar
purpose, a refusal to dispose of the premises or provide accommodation to a person who is
not in that category does not, for that reason alone, constitute discrimination".
Thus, in the immediate case the applicant has to show that the development is a "retirement
home" and therefore comes within the scope of the above exception. There is no definition of
"retirement home" within the legislation, however, at no stage have the applicants attempted
to contend that the proposed development is a "retirement home".
It appears the developers are a UK company, and the UK equality legislation with respect to
the disposal of property specifically excludes the age ground. They have merely transposed
their model to this country without taking account of the difference in legislation.
At all stages in their application they stress that the development is a "later living"
development and not a retirement home.
Most tellingly at page 3 of their Transportation Report, the applicants confirm that the
development does not fall under the current development plan, and further that the number of
parking spaces sought are those in respect of a standard private residential apartment
development and not a retirement home development.
Page 3 states: -
"The residential development consists of 57 No. Later Living Apartments, housing
approximately 90 No. persons.
As part of consultations with the Transportation Department of DLRCC during the course of
the preparation of this planning application, it was noted that this type of development is not
specifically covered in the current Development Plan. Therefore, in this report the proposed
development has been assessed against a standard private residential apartment development
and a Retirement Home Classification.
It is proposed to provide 74 No. car park spaces which equates to 1.30 per residential unit.
This is in accordance with the Dun Laoghaire Rathdown Development Plan which requires a
maximum of 1 space per I-bed apartment and 1.5 spaces per 2-bed apartment (maximum 82
spaces in this case). On the other hand, the parking provision for care homes/elderly person's
homes within the Dun Laoghaire Rathdown Development Plan is one space per 4 residents,
which would equate in this case to a requirement of 22 No. car spaces and would clearly be
insufficient. "
Therefore, even on the applicants own submission only 22 car park spaces can be granted if
this development is to comply with the Development Plan as a retirement home. image:

---

4>
.
Indeed all through the Planning Report it is stressed that this is a "Later Living" development,
and therefore not one recognised by the Equal Status Act under Irish law. For example at
page 10 of the Planning Report it is emphasised twice at Section 6.0 that the instant
application is a "later living" development.
Again, at page 16 of the Planning Report it is stated that the "... proposed development is not
a nursing or care home.. . "
There are numerous other examples and indeed the title of the development is referred to as a
"later living "development.
In summary therefore please note that the proposed development is not lawful under the
provisions of the Equal Status Acts and therefore you as planning authority have no power to
grant same. In the event that planning permission is granted we will of course take our clients
further instructions however please note that we will be relying on the contents of this letter
should any further application be required in order to fix you with the costs of same.
Yours faithfully,
lW-o
DARAGH M. KEANE
SOLICITORS image:

ted1

I'm afraid the above won't fly, there are plenty of similar places around the country already, Ballygihen in sandycove is for over 55s.
http://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/15-ballygihen-sandycove-co-dublin/1835480

In any case, while it targets later living it's only descrimunstion if they prevent a younger person from buying.
Your grasping at straws.

As for reversing into a main road : see 25.2. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/si/0294.html#zzsi294y1964a25

schemingbohemia

I love it, threats of legal action to deliberately drag the whole process out! Definitely not NIMBYISM at all, oh no.

schemingbohemia

Interesting to see here http://www.environ.ie/en/residentiallandavailabilitysurvey/
that this site is one of only 3 in Dalkey that is available for residential development.

What type of development would meet your criteria for this site pedronomix?