D'Agger wrote: » 18months after an objection submission 'hours before the deadline'
TheChizler wrote: » Weeks, not months. Still too long IMO.
AugustusMinimus wrote: » The greens claim they are all for high density living which would allow better public transport. Yet when these kind of proposals are put forward they are almost always opposed. The Green Party may espouse one thing but their luddite members go in a completely different direction.
AugustusMinimus wrote: » Cork city can either go up or go out. The Green Party appear opposed to both. They need to decide once and for all what they are for. They largely need to grow up and leave college campus politics behind. There is plenty of brownfield in Cork which can be redeveloped for high density usage. This will support high density public transport and other public amenities. We don’t want to make the same mistake as Dublin with s plethora of 6 story buildings. They have wasted so much of their brownfield. Upwards I say, not outwards.
who_me wrote: » I'm still not at all convinced about the location of the Custom House quay tower for many reasons, but I guess we'll have to wait and see. The Prism though - even though it's going to be my living room view if built - I do like. I hope that goes ahead.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Are you mad. It's a perfect gateway to the city. What a signal of intent it would be
mire wrote: » There is a case to be made for a tall building at this location. However this idea of it being a signal of intent is a bit bizarre. I have no idea what that means or is supposed to mean. Is it some kind of notion that it tells people that cork is open for business? That sounds a little bit insecure.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Shows that Cork isn't afraid of development, unlike Dublin. It's a signal that Cork will embrace actual high density, and that there will be a city based population for business and traders
D'Agger wrote: » 18months after an objection submission 'hours before the deadline' Fúck An Taisce. As snotboogie mentioned, going to An Bord Pleanala here, whilst in their rights, is a large hole in the process in Irish planning. If there's pressure on the system to process these objections, leading to a delay that could actually surpass the build time on a project, then why isn't the system in place being reviewed?
lisasimpson wrote: » They are starting to loose their objections to projects. Their objection to the rubgy museum in limerick was thrown out recently hopefully something similar will happen here
Mardyke wrote: » A rugby museum?! Now that sounds like something worth objecting to. A.. rugby.. museum..?
PreCocious wrote: » They (and others) are objecting to a humongous building that doesn't gel with the rest of that street. In Cork let's not forget that the Port of Cork objected to the Penrose development, the Idle Hour et al objected to Navigation House, Reardens (or one of those pubs) objected to student housing on the Beamish site and the Elysian management objected to One Albert Quay. Objections shouldn't be viewed purely as someone throwing a spanner in the works, many times it's the only opportunity for those affected by a development to try and get things worked out and have an outcome that suits as many as possible.
EnzoScifo wrote: » I don't disagree, but an Taisce has form for delaying projects by bringing them to an bord pleanala. The port of cork for instance withdrew their objection once they were satisfied. An Taisce would never do that.
PreCocious wrote: » Objections shouldn't be viewed purely as someone throwing a spanner in the works, many times it's the only opportunity for those affected by a development to try and get things worked out and have an outcome that suits as many as possible.
who_me wrote: » I agree wholeheartedly. Objections can serve a very good and important purpose - they highlight weaknesses and flaws in a proposal. I've seen some terrible proposals in the city in the past - apartment buildings so packed in they couldn't fit stairwells so the only entrance was via external fire escape; or another similar one where several rooms didn't have any windows. Or proposals to build on the cities bridges. Or even build IN the river (building in a river already prone to flooding?). Or my favourite - there was an old, old plan for a Horgan's Quay development, which kinda forgot a national primary route had to pass through the site and proposed to just build in/on it. IMO, the issue isn't the existence of objections, but the delays involved. Some objections certainly require a significant amount of time (e.g. archaeological surveys etc.), but others ("my view will be affected") should and could be handled in a day. I'm sorry, but if it ISN'T being handled that quickly, it's incompetence. Either on the part of those reviewing the objection, or those responsible for resourcing ABP. If you told companies "You'll get a definite answer within a month. Though it might be a rejection", they'd be overjoyed. If they get a rejection that quickly, they can amend the plans and re-submit. But how can anyone do business where you get a vague "Ok, an objection came in. It may be a year before it's dealt with. It might be upheld, or not. And we can't guarantee new objections won't come in after that either....."
AugustusMinimus wrote: » Except An Taisce are objecting to this for all the wrong reasons. Disgraceful.https://www.eveningecho.ie/corknews/An-Taisce-Prism-skyscraper-would-set-unfavourable-precedent--8017dfbf-5419-4bc8-9d81-8c3d3bfcbc47-ds