Dublin Cycling Campaign

SC024

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/cycling-campaign-wins-case-against-permission-for-741-dublin-apartments-1.4414819

What does this have to do with Dublin Cycling Campaign? Should these court cases not be predicated on what relevance it is to the person/body that is bringing the case? ie. you apply to bring the case & the Judge etc asks before anything is admitted what's it got to with you? Whats to stop someone living in the UK with an address in the republic kicking up a fuss over something that in all likelyhood may never really affect there day to day life(s) if you live in the vicinity and/or have a genuine interest in the case fair enough case admitted but otherwise no way jose. Next.

Any thoughts?

beggars_bush

SC024 wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/cycling-campaign-wins-case-against-permission-for-741-dublin-apartments-1.4414819

What does this have to do with Dublin Cycling Campaign? Should these court cases not be predicated on what relevance it is to the person/body that is bringing the case? ie. you apply to bring the case & the Judge etc asks before anything is admitted what's it got to with you? Whats to stop someone living in the UK with an address in the republic kicking up a fuss over something that in all likelyhood may never really affect there day to day life(s) if you live in the vicinity and/or have a genuine interest in the case fair enough case admitted but otherwise no way jose. Next.

Any thoughts?

They stopped the developer putting an illegal car park on the 3rd floor
Proper order too

SC024

beggars_bush wrote: »

They stopped the developer putting an illegal car park on the 3rd floor
Proper order too

wasnt really my point tbh

Eric Cartman

An astroturf group for the anti car greens complain about an apartment complex with much needed parking, shocker

Solutionking

Eric Cartman wrote: »

An astroturf group for the anti car greens complain about an apartment complex with much needed parking, shocker

Don't really need parking do we. Plenty of space if the quanitity of cars is reduced

Thelonious Monk

The more anti-car groups in the city the better, the city centre is a complete mess because of private car domination.

Muahahaha

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

The more anti-car groups in the city the better, the city centre is a complete mess because of private car domination.

yeah I agree but would also like to know what Dublin Cycling Campigns angle is here in taking this case to the High Court. Nothing in the article suggests they were fighting for cycling facilities in the new apartment blocks, it just seems to be an objection against a car park on the basis that they are cars. Its up to them of how the fill their remit but their time, money and resources would be better spent on fighting for cycling infrastructure rather than fighting on an anti car agenda. If I were donating to them Id be re-considering that donation.

Grassey

Muahahaha wrote: »

yeah I agree but would also like to know what Dublin Cycling Campigns angle is here in

There you go.

https://www.dublincycling.com/cycling/planning-submission-connolly-quarter-shd

Dublin Cycling Campaign has made a submission to An Bord Pleanala on the proposed development of the Connolly station car park... focused around 4 key elements:

The future location of high-density cycle parking at Connolly station if the existing Connolly car park is to be re-developed without any new public bike parking
Ease-of-use of the proposed cycle parking for residents and office staff of the development
The unjustified 180 car parking spaces that have no parking management plan
The safety issues of the existing or proposed cycle facilities on adjoining roads

https://www.dublincycling.com/cycling/dublin-cycling-campaign-takes-high-court-action-against-bord-plean%C3%A1la

The development of this state land does not include any new cycle parking for the train station. If public cycle parking isn’t provided as part of this development we’d love to know where CIÉ and the National Transport Authority (NTA) plan to provide it.

Hidden within the development plans is a new 135-space public car park at level three, above the railway tracks. The development will include new public car parking but no new public cycle parking.

This car park is not included in the planning application. The developer argues that it does not require planning permission.

Dublin Cycling Campaign disagreed with this approach and made a submission to An Bord Pleanála.

Dublin City Council echoed our concerns to An Bord Plenála. It said “The existing use of the site to accommodate CIÉ parking is noted however such parking is not currently provided at 3rd floor overhanging the CIÉ railway sidings. The provision of car parking at this location constitutes development in the opinion of the planning authority”

Dublin City Council continued by saying they “would have serious concerns in relation to the undesirable precedent” that granting permission would set. Dublin City Council recommended that An Bord Pleanála not grant permission for this car park.

The concerns of Dublin Cycling Campaign and Dublin City Council were rejected by An Bord Pleanála, which granted permission regardless.

This case sets a dangerous precedent about what kind of development requires planning permission...

A key objective of the Dublin City Development Plan, approved by the elected city councillors, is to reduce commuter car parking in the city centre. It is a proven approach for reducing the congestion in the city centre. Reducing traffic is key to reducing air pollution, noise pollution, and road danger in Dublin. Reducing traffic will make Dublin a more enjoyable and vibrant city to live and cycle in.

If developers can re-develop sites without planning permission we will never significantly reduce or eliminate commuter car parking in the city centre.

It is Dublin City Council policy that all new car parks must include significant levels of cycle parking. As this car park was excluded from the planning application we missed out on the opportunity to provide high-quality cycle parking at Connolly Station...

Given Dublin City Council’s strong objections to the assessment of the car parking in this case it is also disappointing that Dublin City Council is not taking this case.

If An Bord Pleanála had properly assessed this planning application our small charity would not have been forced to bring this case.

Kermit.de.frog

If you want people to support what you're doing I don't think objecting to 750 apartments over a car park in the middle of a housing crisis is a bright strategy.

Seth Brundle

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If you want people to support what you're doing I don't think objecting to 750 apartments over a car park in the middle of a housing crisis is a bright strategy.

They didn't object to the apartments. They objected to a development which included 180 car parking spaces. I take it for granted that the developers will look to submit a more sustainable development application which they won't object to.

Kermit.de.frog

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If you want people to support what you're doing I don't think objecting to 750 apartments over a car park in the middle of a housing crisis is a bright strategy.

We do need housing but developers should not be left unchallenged to take the piss out of the planning laws. Which was effectively what the judge said in this case.

I've a feeling we'll see more of this around the country, hopefully nabbed before construction happens and they apply for a change of purpose afterwards.

Beasty

Dublin Cycling Campaign are as entitled as anyone to make representations. Clearly there was validity in their objections, so I'm not sure what the problem is here. I've certainly no idea as to why the OP has made this thread about the Dublin Cycling Campaign when the only issue I see is a developer apparently trying, and indeed failing, to get round planning regulations.

doublejobbing 2

Seth Brundle wrote: »

They didn't object to the apartments. They objected to a development which included 180 car parking spaces. I take it for granted that the developers will look to submit a more sustainable development application which they won't object to.

Where are the residents meant to park their cars?

Or would the Greens prefer the apartments be solely for the use of non driving foreign students living 8 to a flat?

Seth Brundle

doublejobbing 2 wrote: »

Where are the residents meant to park their cars?

Or would the Greens prefer the apartments be solely for the use of non driving foreign students living 8 to a flat?

If the developers want to include parking in the development then they shouldn't try to hide it in the application

Chiparus

Apartment complex , beside Connolly station and Busarus , Kind of ironic that it wanted a carpark as well.

Thelonious Monk

doublejobbing 2 wrote: »

Where are the residents meant to park their cars?

Maybe they wont have cars? Anyway, it's not like not having a parking space has stopped people from owning cars, in my estate every footpath is littered with illegally parked cars up on the pavement.

Eric Cartman

Chiparus wrote: »

Apartment complex , beside Connolly station and Busarus , Kind of ironic that it wanted a carpark as well.

Lets just hope its residents only ever need to go to the very select parts of Ireland public transport reaches.

suicide_circus

Personally I wouldnt be buying an expensive apartment without a parking space.

Eric Cartman

suicide_circus wrote: »

Personally I wouldnt be buying an expensive apartment without a parking space.

Yeah. 741 apartments realistically should have 741 parking spaces plus 37 guest spaces (5%) and 2 spaces for maintenance vehicles. The 180 figure is tiny

suicide_circus

That said, i did live in an apartment in Dub CC for years with no car or parking space so perhaps i'm talking out of both sides of my mouth. I'm no longer the target market for these apartments. Sun rise, sun set.

The J Stands for Jay

doublejobbing 2 wrote: »

Where are the residents meant to park their cars?

Or would the Greens prefer the apartments be solely for the use of non driving foreign students living 8 to a flat?

When I lived on that area I didn't need a car, and didn't own one.

doublejobbing 2

Chiparus wrote: »

Apartment complex , beside Connolly station and Busarus , Kind of ironic that it wanted a carpark as well.

The dart is an absolute joke of a service. Never on time and in normal times too crowded (the leg room design is unreal)

Eternally baffled as to how living on it drives up the cost of a house.

Eric Cartman

doublejobbing 2 wrote: »

The dart is an absolute joke of a service. Never on time and in normal times too crowded (the leg room design is unreal)

Eternally baffled as to how living on it drives up the cost of a house.

Same with the crime express red luas

John_Rambo

doublejobbing 2 wrote: »

Where are the residents meant to park their cars?

In a car park with planning permission hopefully. Sneaking a car park in with no planning permission and without a parking management plan would have caused problems for the residents and the locality.

Sly move by the developer that would have set a precedence.

doublejobbing 2 wrote: »

The dart is an absolute joke of a service. Never on time and in normal times too crowded (the leg room design is unreal)

Rapid urban transport isn't known for it's leg room, there's no business class. That's a global thing in cities.

Muahahaha

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

The more anti-car groups in the city the better, the city centre is a complete mess because of private car domination.

Grassey wrote: »

There you go.

https://www.dublincycling.com/cycling/planning-submission-connolly-quarter-shd

Cheers, you would think that the Irish Times article would have made it clear the reason the Dublin Cycling Campaign were objecting was because there was no provision for cycle parking in the car park. But it didnt make that clear and instead left the impression that the campaign were just objecting to be anti-car. Very sneaky of the Irish Times leaving that important detail out.