Liam Cosgrave Land Knocklyon

Jfkm7146

Huge plot of land left behind by former Taoiseach Liam Cosgrave in Knocklyon. Valued at €70million. I have heard from someone that Mr Cosgrave stated in his will that his land could only be used for Sports and Recreation purposes... anyone know if any truth in this?

€70million would price it at €4.375 million per acre, or almost 300% more than Regency paid for the Scholarstown Road land.

I would expect €30-€40million as financing is still tight for developers.

I haven't heard anything mentioned about the land only being used for sports and recreational purposes, and I would doubt it personally. He's been sitting on 16 acres of land living in a small bungalow for decades, if he was interested in it being used for those purposes he would have more than likely done something about it.

I believe his daughter is still living there, though I have seen surveyors on the land...surveying.

Allinall

Jfkm7146 wrote: »

Huge plot of land left behind by former Taoiseach Liam Cosgrave in Knocklyon. Valued at €70million. I have heard from someone that Mr Cosgrave stated in his will that his land could only be used for Sports and Recreation purposes... anyone know if any truth in this?

Why not start by asking “someone”?

CeilingFly

Circa €30m, zoned residential.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/cosgraves-former-home-could-fetch-up-to-30m-36652221.html

Tabnabs

An interesting update on this land.

The bodies of an estimated 60 people from the Bronze Age have been found during an archaeological dig on land in Templeogue where former Taoiseach Liam Cosgrave lived.

The land, which is earmarked for housing development, is also believed to have evidence of Iron Age occupation and a ring fort and is being looked on as a very significant historical find.

Last week Independent.ie reported how the excavations being carried out on the land were a mystery to locals since work began last October.

South Dublin County Council would not comment on the dig, and local councillors could not get answers to their questions on the project.

But sources have now revealed that the site, on the Scholarstown Road close to Knocklyon, is of major significance.

“It is believed this was a Bronze Age burial site, and that people from the Iron Age used the site as a shrine or place of some sort of place of gathering,” the source said.

Evidence of a ring fort was also uncovered by archaeologists, the source added.

The Bronze Age in Ireland lasted from about 2000BC to 500BC. The Iron Age followed, lasting until around 400AD.

Former Fine Gael leader and Taoiseach Liam Cosgrave lived in a humble bungalow called Beech Park on the 16 acres of prime residential zoned land until his death in 2017 at the age of 97.

Last year it was reported that property developers Ardstone Capital were understood to have entered into exclusive talks with property agents JLL with a view to acquiring the potentially lucrative site for around €32m.

Property industry sources estimate the grounds of Mr Cosgrave's former home could accommodate about 200 houses.

Reacting to the news that the site is believed to be a large Bronze Age burial site, local Independent councillor Deirdre O’Donovan said it was an exciting development.

“This is so exciting, and my main thoughts now are how do we preserve this,” she told Independent.ie.

“As a community this is very important and is something the people of Knocklyon will really value. It has a massive educational and heritage importance,” she added.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/sixty-bodies-from-bronze-age-found-on-taoiseach-liam-cosgraves-former-land-37770727.html

marvin80

Be interesting to see if this will be preserved somehow or if they drive on with the development of houses

Edgware

No doubt the NIMBYs are warming up for a campaign

Grassey

Edgware wrote:

No doubt the NIMBYs are warming up for a campaign

No tourism sites here. Sure Orlagh roundabout can't handle any more traffic kinda thing?

Edgware

Edgware wrote: »

No doubt the NIMBYs are warming up for a campaign

NIMBYS would be delighted to have some heritage/historical/public amenity rather than a couple of hundred homes, no?

That said, the NTA absolutely should oppose any development of the site that has vehicular access directly to Scholarstown Road. It's bad planning, and bad development to allow large developments to open directly on to the main access route for the m50. Scholarstown Road will eventually become dual carriageway and it's already screwed because of the school / Orlagh / Knocklyon Gate

Big Nasty

Grassey wrote: »

No tourism sites here. Sure Orlagh roundabout can't handle any more traffic kinda thing?

Not a thing wrong with that roundabout since it has been finished IMO.

Big Nasty

Big Nasty wrote: »

Not a thing wrong with that roundabout since it has been finished IMO.

Maybe the fact that it has vastly exaggerated turning angles? That it turned it from a semi-2lane roundabout to a single lane roundabout?

Synode

Big Nasty wrote: »

Not a thing wrong with that roundabout since it has been finished IMO.

You mustn't use it so. It causes terrible traffic for people approaching it from the East or West

Big Nasty

I traverse it regularly. Was messy and slow during renovation for sure. I find it fine now and certainly with no more delays than previously but seems a lot safer for both pedestrians and cyclists.

It physically allows fewer cars through it than pre-'upgrade', how can it not be causing more delays than previously?

It's not a big issue as traffic is abysmal anyway, but it is a laughably poor design for a roundabout less than 500m from M50 access and one that's traversed by HGVs and buses.

I went back and had a look at the original proposal (see attached) and it was in the intervening year updated to what we see now (also attached).

I had a look at the DCC response to submissions on the proposal and it was full of gems like

3. The removal of the grass verge will make the pathway more dangerous for pedestrians by bring them closer to the carriageway.

DCC Response: The Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets (DMURS) states: When carrying out traffic calming works on existing streets, the first priority of authorities should be to narrow existing carriageways where they exceed the standard listed below.

"I didn't even bother to read the submission"

2. How will the new design effect Orlagh roundabout
efficiency?

DCC Response: The raised apron on the inside of the roundabout will slow traffic inside the roundabout but still maintaining current capacity. Also the narrowing of approaches and raised platforms at the crossings on each arm will further reduce the speed of vehicles entering the roundabout.

"We're going to reduce the width, the number of lanes and make all cars slow to a crawl but maintain current capacity" (I have no issue with slowing cars on approach, it's just laughable to claim both things)

10. Notes the new traffic island at Knocklyon/ Scholarstown Road junction dangerous resulting in many accidents
11. HGV drivers have to block two lanes in order to turn on the Knocklyon road from Scholarstown Road which causes a significant back log of traffic in the area.

DCC Response: 10. Submission noted. Scheme was designed to the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets & NTA National Cycle Manual specification.
11. Submission noted. Scheme was designed to the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets & NTA National Cycle Manual specification.

"Computer says no"

2. Concerned regarding the shared cycling and pedestrian space. Believes pedestrian traffic in the area will overcrowded the shared surface, forcing cyclists onto road carriageway.

DCC Response: 2. Under the scheme SDCC will be increasing the width of
the existing facilities which will increase the capacity of shared surface. The facility should be adequate for both cyclists and pedestrians, however mature and more experienced cyclists can use the carriageway as the road will be traffic calmed.

"We don't expect cyclists to actually use the shared cycle/path since it's only 3.3m wide and is 'designed' to provide 2way pedestrian and bicycle traffic within 3.3m"

1. Peak morning times it's nearly impossible to get out of Orlagh estate due to the heavy volume of traffic.

DCC Response: SDCC will be recommending the inclusion of a raised apron on the inside of the roundabout will slow traffic inside the roundabout but still maintaining current capacity Also the narrowing of approaches and raised platforms at the crossings on each arm will further reduce the speed of vehicles entering the roundabout. These measures should aid vehicles existing Orlagh estate.

"I don't understand what heavy traffic is, perhaps slowing this 'heavy traffic' down even further will help people unable to enter the junction because it's already full"

It goes on and on.



There's plenty of space for 2 lane on approach from M50/Scholarstown Road, and space for 2 lanes around the roundabout - all without in any way sacrificing the pedestrian and cycling facilities that were installed.

vkus6mt3y8zg2q

Planning permission sought for over 600 apartments on this site now. Dont know how the local roads can take it but doesnt seem to matter these days, will just be built anyway. Knocklyon and surrounding area has gone to the dogs over last few years. Never had many amenities anyway but now there is just a huge amount of new house and apartments being built and not much else

Tabnabs

The traffic is an absolute nightmare in the area and the Council have a vested interest in granting permission for more and more residential units. SDCC really are the worst crowd and entirely unaccountable.

AndrewJRenko

Tabnabs wrote: »

. SDCC really are the worst crowd and entirely unaccountable.

Except for the election next month that allows the people in the area to elect the Councillors that set the policies for the next five years, within the restrictions set by (the elected) national Government.

Tabnabs

You've clearly never had any dealings with the Council staff? They make up the rules and if you don't like it, you, and your local representative, can do nothing about it.

They come up with an idea, "traffic management" they brand it, and spend big money and take a lot of time to carry our the job, and at huge inconvenience to the public they are meant to serve. If that really doesn't work and there are unintended consequences, then, well, they had the authority to do the work and it's not really their responsibility if it didn't quite go to plan. And if you start asking informed or technical questions, the line of communication dries up very quickly.

I've had this with SDCC and DLRCC. It's authority without responsibility and it's very frustrating for the people who have to live with the consequences.

AndrewJRenko

I haven't had many dealings with SDCC, but for many people "entirely unaccountable" roughly translates as 'they won't do what I want them to do'. I've seen the fuss and drama kicked up by some residents around the Scholarstown roundabout, despite the improvement seen within weeks in numbers of cyclists and pedestrians using it. Some people seem to miss the fact that we can't keep doing what we're doing - things have to change.

.......

Tabnabs wrote: »

The traffic is an absolute nightmare in the area and the Council have a vested interest in granting permission for more and more residential units. SDCC really are the worst crowd and entirely unaccountable.

Couldnt agree more.

Unbelievable how the council continuously approves planning for more and more housing with absolutely no thought into infrastructure.

The best I can say for the current proposal is at least they are planning higher density housing than usual.

But that is going to have a marked negative impact on traffic. Which is already brutal.

And the local representatives are rubbish. Deirdre O Donovan ran as an independent then announced AFTER she was elected that she was switching allegiance to FF (wise move to only announce that AFTER she was elected!). She then followed on by blocking anyone who expressed horror at her switcheroo on social media proving that not only can she not be trusted but she is only interested in listening to a very narrow viewpoint. She has been spectacularly useless (as have the rest of them) on the issues in the area regarding bad planning and traffic for years now anyway.

seamus

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Except for the election next month that allows the people in the area to elect the Councillors that set the policies for the next five years, within the restrictions set by (the elected) national Government.

To be fair, while I do feel that the staff on the ground do a great job of the maintenance bit, planning has remained a mess through the last boom and into the recession and out again. Continuously allowing private developers to build properties with very little space allowed for amenities and neighbourhood centres.

Even where plans allow for or require facilities, these come along years, sometimes decades, after the original development has been built and occupied. A secondary school in Knocklyon took 25 years to get built, which is about 20 years after it was actually needed. It was oversubscribed from day one and remains so 19 years later. It's one example, but it's a typical example of the SDCC planning process.

This is a very old school way of thinking - when developers might have built and been unsure what they will sell - but nobody's had difficulty selling in SDCC in 40 years.

I'm not sure how much the councillors actually have any input into this.

In Knocklyon for example, developers have been allowed to build (and are still building) two large developments. Access to the M50 from both of these developments has been over capacity for 15 years, but they're doing it anyway, with no consideration given either to upgrading the roads, or improving sustainable interconnects.

One is 317 units, the other is ~290 units.

If the planners were considering the impacts overall, they would require the developers of these properties to fund the upgrade of local roads and other facilities and perform proper impact analyses on the local area. And require that local amenities are built before homes, rather than tacked on as afterthought five years after the builder has made his profit.

Tabnabs

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I haven't had many dealings with SDCC, but for many people "entirely unaccountable" roughly translates as 'they won't do what I want them to do'. I've seen the fuss and drama kicked up by some residents around the Scholarstown roundabout, despite the improvement seen within weeks in numbers of cyclists and pedestrians using it. Some people seem to miss the fact that we can't keep doing what we're doing - things have to change.

There's the traffic light sequence change due to the possibility that pedestrians could be injured, that now sees vehicles queuing and blocking traffic on a major urban motorway whilst only cms from cars, trucks and buses driving at 100kp/h. But sure, what happens on that road isn't an issue for the Council, it's outside their jurisdiction, even if they did cause the issue.

The road widening at Killinniny, all that extra tarmac and road markings for no reason, literally no additional lanes, and it doesn't make life any easier for getting in or out of the football club grounds. A vanity project with no benefit, but plenty of cost.

All the new houses being built, where are the new schools, the additional roads, the additional Gardai, the additional Fire Services, the additional parklands, the additional hospital beds.

Some headings will no doubt be claimed as outside their jurisdiction, but they are happy to fill the fields with more houses, collect the LPT and service charges and shrug their shoulders at the implications of life for the residents. That lack of responsibility again...

AndrewJRenko

Tabnabs wrote: »

There's the traffic light sequence change due to the possibility that pedestrians could be injured, that now sees vehicles queuing and blocking traffic on a major urban motorway whilst only cms from cars, trucks and buses driving at 100kp/h. But sure, what happens on that road isn't an issue for the Council, it's outside their jurisdiction, even if they did cause the issue.

The road widening at Killinniny, all that extra tarmac and road markings for no reason, literally no additional lanes, and it doesn't make life any easier for getting in or out of the football club grounds. A vanity project with no benefit, but plenty of cost.

All the new houses being built, where are the new schools, the additional roads, the additional Gardai, the additional Fire Services, the additional parklands, the additional hospital beds.

Some headings will no doubt be claimed as outside their jurisdiction, but they are happy to fill the fields with more houses, collect the LPT and service charges and shrug their shoulders at the implications of life for the residents. That lack of responsibility again...

It's not so much a 'claimed lack of jurisdiction'. It's just a matter of law that local authorities have no role in providing hospitals or schools or transport services. These are all matters for central government. You're beating up the Council for stuff they have no authority and no budget.

And who decided that we need more fire stations? You don't get a new fire station for each new estate.

.......

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's not so much a 'claimed lack of jurisdiction'. It's just a matter of law that local authorities have no role in providing hospitals or schools or transport services. These are all matters for central government. You're beating up the Council for stuff they have no authority and no budget.

And who decided that we need more fire stations? You don't get a new fire station for each new estate.

Well then they should NOT be approving more housing.

AndrewJRenko

....... wrote: »

Well then they should NOT be approving more housing.

Have you noticed what the biggest problem facing our country for the last five years is?

It's housing - the lack of it.

.......

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have you noticed what the biggest problem facing our country for the last five years is?

It's housing - the lack of it.

Then build it in places that are not already full and lacking in infrastructure.

This is simple stuff.

AndrewJRenko

....... wrote: »

Then build it in places that are not already full and lacking in infrastructure.

This is simple stuff.

They don't exist. Your NIMBY approach has turned a housing problem into a crisis.

.......

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

They don't exist. Your NIMBY approach has turned a housing problem into a crisis.

You are making absolutely no sense.

Plenty of places exist in this country where housing could be built.

What is nonsense is councils approving planning for ever more housing in areas without providing the infrastructure to match.

You claim thats not the councils problem - well then they need to stop approving more housing until it gets sorted.

I would welcome more housing in Knocklyon, but not without the infrastructure. And I assure you, most sensible people feel the same way. We have been subjected to bad planning decisions for the past 4 decades in Knocklyon.

So wind in your neck there eh bud and leave off the personal attacks.

seamus

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have you noticed what the biggest problem facing our country for the last five years is?

It's housing - the lack of it.

Throwing up housing on every scrap of land is not a solution either. You're trading one crisis for another.

If local government don't have the authority to put infrastructure in place, then they should be rejecting large developments in order to force the problem up to the Dail and force national government to act.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I haven't had many dealings with SDCC, but for many people "entirely unaccountable" roughly translates as 'they won't do what I want them to do'. I've seen the fuss and drama kicked up by some residents around the Scholarstown roundabout, despite the improvement seen within weeks in numbers of cyclists and pedestrians using it. Some people seem to miss the fact that we can't keep doing what we're doing - things have to change.

Can you provide a source for that? It wouldn't be the SDCC briefing that compared pedestrian + bicycle traffic from 2014 with 2019 would it? Because comparing one day in November 2014 with a single day in Spring 2019 shows absolutely nothing, particularly given that St Colmcilles primary school hadn't even re-opened at that stage. It's just another example of how SDCC employs people who are clearly not the brightest.

A development of 500-600 units:

Bus services have been oversubscribed for several years and take ~75-90 minutes at peak time to reach anywhere even close to city centre if you can even get on one.

Roads are overcapacity (and shouldn't be developed any further)

No cycling facilities

No civic amenities

No local amenities beyond one small shopping centre

To put it into context, this development will result in more homes than Orlagh + Woodfield put together (great! knocklyon could do with growing after having become moribund in the last couple of decades) in an area that cannot manage existing traffic (whether vehicular, by bike or by public transport), doesn't even have a restaurant or pub (unless you count Delaney's), doesn't have a park(because SDCC won't get off their arses and do something with the Dodder), and an area in which every single school is massively oversubscribed. What's the point?

Also, lack of houses isn't a national crisis. Lack of sustainable, government led development is. There's still no mention of the knocklyon road re-alignment, which would at least be a beginning on creating a public transport+bicycle corridor into the city centre for commuters.

Marcusm

....... wrote: »

Then build it in places that are not already full and lacking in infrastructure.

This is simple stuff.

That area is not already full based on the availability of development land and is overrun with semi Ds when a mix of housing stock is required. Transport infrastructure is in the remit of NTA/TfI. Have you lobbied them? No point in blocking development which will allow people to be housed within M50 and reduce crazy commutes.

Qrt

BusConnects might improve the area...in the 2030s when they decide to buslane the orbital routes 😅

Marcusm

Marcusm wrote: »

That area is not already full based on the availability of development land and is overrun with semi Ds when a mix of housing stock is required. Transport infrastructure is in the remit of NTA/TfI. Have you lobbied them? No point in blocking development which will allow people to be housed within M50 and reduce crazy commutes.

This is the very last available private site of any substantial size within the Knocklyon/Templeogue/Rathfarnham area.

A 90 minute commute from the city centre doesn't require a mix of 'housing stock' and I'd challenge you to provide a single source that suggests otherwise.

The vast majority of the people commuting will do so via either the M50 or via public transport, both of which are already 'crazy commutes'. Indeed, I know of many middle aged professionals living in Knocklyon who won't consider a job in the city centre because the commute is too bad even compared to driving via the m50.

I don't really give a toss what goes up in the land, it's 25 years since I used to play in it trying to avoid the good-natured Gardai on protection duty. I do care that it's going to make an area that's already under-served on every type of infrastructure noticeably worse.

Councils absolutely should block planning until both local and national government put in place viable levels of infrastructure. Ardstone took a risk purchasing this land, they aren't guaranteed obscene levels of profit by God.

Atlantic Dawn

How did a person on a politicians salary acquire €70 million worth of land?

Atlantic Dawn

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

How did a person on a politicians salary acquire €70 million worth of land?

1) It sold for circa €32m

2) It had been in his family since 1919

K.Flyer

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

How did a person on a politicians salary acquire €70 million worth of land?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

1) It sold for circa €32m

2) It had been in his family since 1919

3) He didn't buy it, he inherited the property from his father, WT Cosgrave, the first leader of an independent Ireland, and refused all offers to sell it during the various building booms that occurred during his lifetime.

4) He had a very long political career, including the role of Taoiseach from 1973 - 1977 and retired with an annual pension of over 130k / year.

Yup, there had been many offers (including much higher than €32mil) to buy the land during the Celtic Tiger. All were rebuffed without a second thought.

Marcusm

Deleted User wrote: »

This is the very last available private site of any substantial size within the Knocklyon/Templeogue/Rathfarnham area.

A 90 minute commute from the city centre doesn't require a mix of 'housing stock' and I'd challenge you to provide a single source that suggests otherwise.

The vast majority of the people commuting will do so via either the M50 or via public transport, both of which are already 'crazy commutes'. Indeed, I know of many middle aged professionals living in Knocklyon who won't consider a job in the city centre because the commute is too bad even compared to driving via the m50.

I don't really give a toss what goes up in the land, it's 25 years since I used to play in it trying to avoid the good-natured Gardai on protection duty. I do care that it's going to make an area that's already under-served on every type of infrastructure noticeably worse.

Councils absolutely should block planning until both local and national government put in place viable levels of infrastructure. Ardstone took a risk purchasing this land, they aren't guaranteed obscene levels of profit by God.

A nice set of 6-8 storey apartment blocks with good landscaping would ideal for this site. Not everyone commutes to work, not every commuter heads to the city centre. Perhaps your neighbours adult children would like to fly the nest into an adjacent apartment which they could rent for a while. More housing stock is needed in south Dublin. Employment opportunities are being impeded by a lack of housing units, rents are increasing for similar reasons. Lobby for new schools, lobby for improved transport but why lobby against badly needed housing which might add only a small additional nuisance in terms of transport.

.......

I would like to see a multi use plan for the site. Housing and commercial opportunities.

Knocklyon has virtually nothing but housing. SuperValu, some small shops scattered about, a garage. If the council actually approved a mixed use such that local jobs might also be created it would be far far better than JUST more housing.

Marcusm

Marcusm wrote: »

A nice set of 6-8 storey apartment blocks with good landscaping would ideal for this site.

Why exactly?

Not everyone commutes to work, not every commuter heads to the city centre.

Local roads and the M50 are already beyond capacity, as has been said. Repeatedly.

Perhaps your neighbours adult children would like to fly the nest into an adjacent apartment which they could rent for a while.

People prefer houses, large apartments developments aren't suitable for deeply suburban areas unless they have high speed public transport to employment hubs. Even high-rise cities elsewhere in Europe/USA follow this trend.

More housing stock is needed in south Dublin.

More housing stock is needed where local amenities, facilities and commutes are realistic and viable.

Employment opportunities are being impeded by a lack of housing units, rents are increasing for similar reasons.

More employment opportunities in Dublin aren't long-term viable, even if all the scraps of land within the M50 are filled with apartments.

Lobby for new schools, lobby for improved transport

Facilities and amenities need to be developed in tandem, not decades after the fact.

but why lobby against badly needed housing

Because it's not sustainable, not suitable for the area as it is right now, there are no plans to develop additional amenities or transport options and it's condemning another generation to living a quantifiably worse life than they otherwise would.

which might add only a small additional nuisance in terms of transport.

Knocklyon is only 10,000ish people including children and retirees. 5-600 apartment units is going to be increasing the numbers of people commuting by a ridiculous amount. What makes you think it will only be a small additional nuisance?

As an aside, where exactly do you propose SDCC develops amenities/facilities like schools and parks and play areas, given that knocklyon is effectively now completely developed after this site?

Your post is an example of the anti-intellectual myopia that permeates any discussion on the housing crisis in Dublin - build as much as possible at any cost and forget sustainable living or quality of life, all that matters is making everyone more miserable so we can continue an unsustainable bubble in Dublin.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

The vast majority of the people commuting will do so via either the M50 or via public transport, both of which are already 'crazy commutes'. Indeed, I know of many middle aged professionals living in Knocklyon who won't consider a job in the city centre because the commute is too bad even compared to driving via the m50.

To be fair, that harks back to a lack of facilities and lack of sustainable transport options.

Knocklyon is insanely close to the city centre in commuting terms, less than 10km. If you're so inclined, you can walk it in 90 minutes. Problem is that too many people want to drive and busses and bikes aren't given enough priority. If it was possible to actually get on a bus in the morning and it didn't get stuck for 20 minutes each in Templeogue and Terenure village, more people would use it. If segregated bike lanes were available all the way to Terenure, more people would cycle.

The Knocklyon road realignment would provide this space for part of the distance. This has been in planning since the late 70s and has been paused, "awaiting funding" since 2006.

Which is all part of the wider issue. Planners need to reject MUDs for the area until the infrastructure is upgraded to something which not only meets the needs of the area, but has some headroom for growth. Just call a complete stop to development.

Marcusm wrote: »

A nice set of 6-8 storey apartment blocks with good landscaping would ideal for this site.

If the infrastructure was in place. It's far too high density at the moment - as another poster points out, you're talking about increasing the population by 10% in an area that's already at least 10% over capacity.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you provide a source for that? It wouldn't be the SDCC briefing that compared pedestrian + bicycle traffic from 2014 with 2019 would it? Because comparing one day in November 2014 with a single day in Spring 2019 shows absolutely nothing, particularly given that St Colmcilles primary school hadn't even re-opened at that stage. It's just another example of how SDCC employs people who are clearly not the brightest.

A development of 500-600 units:

Bus services have been oversubscribed for several years and take ~75-90 minutes at peak time to reach anywhere even close to city centre if you can even get on one.

Roads are overcapacity (and shouldn't be developed any further)

No cycling facilities

No civic amenities

No local amenities beyond one small shopping centre

To put it into context, this development will result in more homes than Orlagh + Woodfield put together (great! knocklyon could do with growing after having become moribund in the last couple of decades) in an area that cannot manage existing traffic (whether vehicular, by bike or by public transport), doesn't even have a restaurant or pub (unless you count Delaney's), doesn't have a park(because SDCC won't get off their arses and do something with the Dodder), and an area in which every single school is massively oversubscribed. What's the point?

Also, lack of houses isn't a national crisis. Lack of sustainable, government led development is. There's still no mention of the knocklyon road re-alignment, which would at least be a beginning on creating a public transport+bicycle corridor into the city centre for commuters.

Yes indeed, that's the SDCC traffic count I'm referring to, comparing November to February (both generally fairly similar for weather conditions).


You really seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill. Knocklyon is not exactly starved of green space.


Yes, traffic can be fairly crap at peak times, given the large numbers of people who insist on bringing an empty armchair and empty couch with them on every journey, though it's far from the worst in the city. And yeah, more community facilities would be great, just like in the rest of the city.



But residents can't get to block every possible housing development by setting mythical bars way too high to ever be practically achieved.

L1011

Deleted User wrote: »

This is the very last available private site of any substantial size within the Knocklyon/Templeogue/Rathfarnham area.

A 90 minute commute from the city centre doesn't require a mix of 'housing stock' and I'd challenge you to provide a single source that suggests otherwise.

The vast majority of the people commuting will do so via either the M50 or via public transport, both of which are already 'crazy commutes'. Indeed, I know of many middle aged professionals living in Knocklyon who won't consider a job in the city centre because the commute is too bad even compared to driving via the m50.

I don't really give a toss what goes up in the land, it's 25 years since I used to play in it trying to avoid the good-natured Gardai on protection duty. I do care that it's going to make an area that's already under-served on every type of infrastructure noticeably worse.

Councils absolutely should block planning until both local and national government put in place viable levels of infrastructure. Ardstone took a risk purchasing this land, they aren't guaranteed obscene levels of profit by God.

Anything over 100 units is out of a councils hands and cannot be blocked by them as the application doesn't even go to them

Qrt

L1011 wrote: »

Anything over 100 units is out of a councils hands and cannot be blocked by them as the application doesn't even go to them

Is that mandatory?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yes indeed, that's the SDCC traffic count I'm referring to, comparing November to February (both generally fairly similar for weather conditions).

You mean comparing November 2014 to February 2019?

Are you still arguing with a straight face that having a traffic count 4.5 years later somehow proves anything when it comes to a new roundabout design finished a couple of months back?

And no, two individual days aren't 'generally fairly similar for weather conditions'.



To re-iterate, in November 2014 St Colmcilles Primary School was still located in it's temporary facilities in Ballyroan. School-aged pedestrians and cyclists are obviously going to be less when a primary school with ~1200 students is closed.

You claimed that "I've seen the fuss and drama kicked up by some residents around the Scholarstown roundabout, despite the improvement seen within weeks in numbers of cyclists and pedestrians using it. "

You really seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill. Knocklyon is not exactly starved of green space.

It's starved of available land for development. I see your comprehension skills are consistently terrible.

Yes, traffic can be fairly crap at peak times, given the large numbers of people who insist on bringing an empty armchair and empty couch with them on every journey, though it's far from the worst in the city.

Can you tell me where else in the city has the same levels of congestion as the Scholarstown Road? Saturday at 5pm: Stuck for 8 minutes travelling 400m from Scholarstown to Orlagh. Sunday at 3pm: Stuck for 12 minutes from southbound M50 slip road to Orlagh Roundabout.

Can you tell me where specifically is as consistently bad in a suburban area?

And yeah, more community facilities would be great, just like in the rest of the city

Can you tell me specifically which areas you think have less facilities and amenities compared to the wider Knocklyon area?

But residents can't get to block every possible housing development by setting mythical bars way too high to ever be practically achieved.

Can you tell me specifically what mythical bars are being set?

I italicised the word specifically because you refuse to actually be nailed down on anything you say.

Anything over 100 units is out of a councils hands and cannot be blocked by them as the application doesn't even go to them

The council's submissions to ABP can easily sway them one way or another, particularly if it's an in-depth one(HAH - not likely with SDCC) pointing out that a) the roads do not have the capacity for added vehicles b) public transport does not have the capacity for added commuters c) none of the schools in the area have the capacity for more students & d) none of these issues have a foreseeable way of being fixed, whether in the short, medium or long-term. In short, it's not a sustainable development in a community that's already unsustainable - and a community that has been routinely ignored by both local and national politicians for as long as I've been alive.

L1011

Qrt wrote: »

Is that mandatory?

No, but you'd be bloody insane to apply to a council when you can bypass them.

Iceman29

Are these houses social welfare houses? i've been looking to buy in the area and have noticed that Knocklyon doesnt seem to have any Council Estates... I would imagine this area will be getting a big one on this land maybe? I might hold off to see whats going in there

Synode

Iceman29 wrote: »

Are these houses social welfare houses? i've been looking to buy in the area and have noticed that Knocklyon doesnt seem to have any Council Estates... I would imagine this area will be getting a big one on this land maybe? I might hold off to see whats going in there

It's privately owned land so unlikely.

.......

Iceman29 wrote: »

Are these houses social welfare houses? i've been looking to buy in the area and have noticed that Knocklyon doesnt seem to have any Council Estates... I would imagine this area will be getting a big one on this land maybe? I might hold off to see whats going in there

Synode wrote: »

It's privately owned land so unlikely.

The councils have completely stopped building large council estates for decades now - this is one of the reasons we have such a housing problem in Ireland today.

For a long time now the policy has been that privately built estates have to have a percentage of new builds as social housing. The idea is that rather than build large council estates that cause anti social problems etc that social welfare tenants will be integrated in small groups in privately owned estates.

The planning application will detail what percentage is to be social housing, how many units etc.

I think that developers *may* be able to pay the council a fee to bypass allocating the social housing units - no entirely sure on that one.....

L1011

Developers can't buy themselves out but can provide units elsewhere. it's 10% that has to be offered - councils can decline to buy them too