nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Proposed/Recently Refused Infill Developments in Dalkey

patrickbrophy18

In light of the fact that there have been recent proposals (either refused or awaiting a decision) for mass infill developments in the Dalkey area, I thought that I might make a thread about the topic.

To begin with, there were 3 recently refused planning proposals for Dalkey Manor on Barnhill Road, Bulloch Harbour and the wooded area behind Castlepark School. The details of these proposals can be found below:

There is also a modest sized proposal for the site of the Eamon Walshe Garage here.

Over on Harbour Road, there is another infill development earmarked for Charleville just down the way from Loreto Abbey Dalkey. The planning application can be found at this address.

All of the above proposals have received numerous objections. Many of them are somewhat biased either due to the prospect of being overlooked while others (particularly Castlepark School and Charleville) feel that it would impede on the privacy of students attending those schools. There are a few other important factors including the loss of trees and a lack of aesthetic character. Finally, the bulk of these concerns seems to be the inevitable additional traffic these developments would bring to the vicinity.

Now, let's just say if new versions or variations of these developments were to come to fruition, how would Dalkey cope with the additional traffic?

At the moment, we have 21st century traffic traveling on 18th/19th century legacy infrastructure. Many might say that this gives Dalkey its old world charm which for the most part holds true. In reaction to this, Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council have put in place preservation orders (listed buildings etc.) and Architectural Conservation Areas (ACAs) which is fair enough. However, if traffic continues to increase (nevermind as a result of new infill developments), at what point do preservation orders and ACAs become superfluous?

From a 10 to 20 year outlook or long-term perspective, what is the solution to Dalkeys traffic problems?

Also, parking is another issue which many people feel may be exacerbated by infill developments. Should the infrastructure be made more public transport and cycle friendly to kerb or alleviate these issues?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

patrickbrophy18

ted1 wrote: »

I know what it means. But your plans are more daft or indeed notions of grandeur, while bordering on narcissistic.

That's an improvement as I think our country should push for more grandeur and greatness if recent predictions of post-Brexit economic down are anything to go by. Then again, I am very right-wing as I firmly believe in free market capitalism.

As someone who wants to see Dalkey become more accessible for the general population as well as the local populace, narcissistic is the complete opposite.
On the other hand, the people who try to keep it to themselves because doing otherwise diminishes their sense of importance are indeed narcissistic.

TheW1zard wrote: »

That new pottery road is the most awful, desolate, no character, baron wasteground of a place. I had to walk up it the other day and I was depressed. If that's the future Id rather see Dalkey become a one way system of some kind and introduce cycle lanes and parking that way.
Up the Malachy ;-)

So, you're saying you preferred this to this?

In its previous state, the road was completely unsuitable for suburban use.

Now, I have always thought that if the council don't eventually carry out road widening in Dalkey, a mass one-way system would be a non-destructive solution.

So, I am with you on that one.

Cyrus

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

As someone who wants to see Dalkey become more accessible for the general population

why? one of dalkeys USPs is that unlike its northside cousins howth and malahide is that it doesnt attract 1000s of local tourists every weekend, best kept that way imo

ted1

Cyrus wrote: »

why? one of dalkeys USPs is that unlike its northside cousins howth and malahide is that it doesnt attract 1000s of local tourists every weekend, best kept that way imo

The DART makes it very accessible.

Cyrus

id advocate a residents pass or approved visitors permit to disembark if i had my way

Awaaf

For the record I am ignoring anyone on here who doesn't sign off with either UTM or MTT!

MTT

PS As a Dalkey refugee living in the squalor of a place all too well accessible from all sides by road and just back from my hols in the village (<ducks> - only joking!) I say leave well enough alone.

ted1

Awaaf wrote: »

For the record I am ignoring anyone on here who doesn't sign off with either UTM or MTT!

MTT

PS As a Dalkey refugee living in the squalor of a place all too well accessible from all sides by road and just back from my hols in the village (<ducks> - only joking!) I say leave well enough alone.

Village!!! talk about throwing the cat in among the pigeons.

Cyrus

ted1 wrote: »

Village!!! talk about throwing the cat in among the pigeons.

that old chesnut jaysus

keeps the facebook forum alive, all the people who left decades ago pouring scorn on anyone who refers to dalkey as a village :P

has a townhall you know

Awaaf

ted1 wrote: »

Village!!! talk about throwing the cat in among the pigeons.

No ducks, cats or pigeons were harmed in the writing of my previous post.

MTT

Edgware

ted1 wrote: »

The DART makes it very accessible.

Could we get armed guards to check peoples P60s at. Glasthule to ensure they have the corect level of income to mix with the Dalkey people?
Of course we will still have to sort out the G.A.A. scruff in Cuala who are impacting on property prices

ted1

Edgware wrote: »

Could we get armed guards to check peoples P60s at. Glasthule to ensure they have the corect level of income to mix with the Dalkey people?
Of course we will still have to sort out the G.A.A. scruff in Cuala who are impacting on property prices

I’m more worried about Dalkey United and the Pikey Sport.

crushproof

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

A tad dramatic on my part, I know!

As an ordinary consumer of the suburban environment, I can tell you first hand how frustrating it was to get anywhere in my teens and early 20s without a car. For example, while I was working for Dunnes Stores in Cornelscourt, I found it intensely annoying relying on the 59 which came every 45 minutes. On occasion, I would miss it if it left 10 minutes earlier than the posted time. Once, I had to get a taxi as a result of this forcing me to fork up a considerable sum of my earnings given the part time nature of the work.:mad:

Next up, while I was working for IBM in Damastown, the situation was far worse. However, it was the length of time rather than the frequency of routes which made getting there sole destroying. DCU was the only manageable one given that the timetable wasn't so stringent.

Surely in your teens and early 20s it would have been easy to cycle to work? I'd hazard a guess and say that Dalkey to Cornelscourt would have been 25 mins or so on the bike and probably less on the way back. I can't understand why this wouldn't have been an option.

In regards to the overall idea, I think you've spent too much time on Sim City or Cities skylines. Hare brained ideas that would get no where in the planning process. If you want to live in an accessible area with related infrastructure look to moving to a purpose built place like Adamstown. Dalkey isn't going to be radically altered to suit your own needs.

Marcusm

Cyrus wrote: »

id advocate a residents pass or approved visitors permit to disembark if i had my way

But not for nearby residents who have offstreet parking available to them!

patrickbrophy18

Crushproof, towns such Blackrock and Shankill aren't exactly purpose built areas and yet, they still tick all the right boxes.

Also, you're saying that Dalkey should only remain accessible by car and bike?

The DART only goes north and south and not east or west.

Nothing even remotely great (by international standards) gets passed the planning process due to the short-sighted, risk averse and simple minded nature of many of our councillors and population. Our multi-layered political system is no big help either.

Cyrus, Malahide and Howth are precisely what Dalkey should strive to be more like.

But, alas, the fossils and NIMBYs have the floor.

Cyrus

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Crushproof, towns such Blackrock and Shankill aren't exactly purpose built areas and yet, they still tick all the right boxes.

Also, you're saying that Dalkey should only remain accessible by car and bike?

The DART only goes north and south and not east or west.

Nothing even remotely great (by international standards) gets passed the planning process due to the short-sighted, risk averse and simple minded nature of many of our councillors and population. Our multi-layered political system is no big help either.

Cyrus, Malahide and Howth are precisely what Dalkey should strive to be more like.

But, alas, the fossils and NIMBYs have the floor.

blackrock has been all but ruined, i lived there for 12 years and loved it and was reluctant about moving further south, but i am very glad i did now.

howth is what dalkey should strive to be like? the traffic is a shambles out there and they have serious ASB issues at the weekends from their neighbours.

Have a look at the houses over 1m, there is a big difference in how far your money will go in howth v dalkey, dalkey is more desirable for a reason, many of which you want to get rid of.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

ASB in howth is rare enough and generally dealt with.

ted1

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Crushproof, towns such Blackrock and Shankill aren't exactly purpose built areas and yet, they still tick all the right boxes.

Also, you're saying that Dalkey should only remain accessible by car and bike?

The DART only goes north and south and not east or west.

Nothing even remotely great (by international standards) gets passed the planning process due to the short-sighted, risk averse and simple minded nature of many of our councillors and population. Our multi-layered political system is no big help either.

Cyrus, Malahide and Howth are precisely what Dalkey should strive to be more like.

But, alas, the fossils and NIMBYs have the floor.

Dalkey is on the east coast, there is no east. So your issue is with access to the west. That’s easy park near a dart station and get the dart or a bus.

So we have Car, Rail and Bike. You could include boat in accessibility. Other than those three what’s left ?

What great international project has being refused?

patrickbrophy18

Cyrus wrote: »

blackrock has been all but ruined, i lived there for 12 years and loved it and was reluctant about moving further south, but i am very glad i did now.

In what way was Blackrock ruined?

Having said (or rather asked) that, I do think Blackrock could be smartened up in many parts where it has gotten grubby looking. I don't think that the transport system within Blackrock had anything to do with its ruination though.

Cyrus wrote: »

howth is what dalkey should strive to be like? the traffic is a shambles out there and they have serious ASB issues at the weekends from their neighbours.

Unfortunately, our lenient law enforcement is the culprit in ASB issues. As someone who is right-wing, I think a zero tolerance approach to law enforcement is what is needed.

Cyrus wrote: »

Have a look at the houses over 1m, there is a big difference in how far your money will go in howth v dalkey, dalkey is more desirable for a reason, many of which you want to get rid of.

By keeping or making places awkward to get to or keeping them to the locals, you indirectly encourage people from those areas to use the car. It also encourages those visiting these areas to use the car as well. Yes, shorter trips are completely doable by bike.

Moreover, building exclusivity into the price of property or using it to over-inflate property prices is non-sensical. It serves to glamorise living away from well connected areas by creating an ivory tower type mentality. Narcissism is one of many deplorable by-products of this.

No suburb should be exempt from being made accessible by ALL modes of transport. Other-wise, it exacerbates the disjointed nature of Dublins overall public transport system.

ted1 wrote: »

Dalkey is on the east coast, there is no east. So your issue is with access to the west.

Noted as there is only coast to the east of Dalkey. I'll give you that.

Bar the car and bicycle, the offering for west bound transport is extremely poor. This is further compounded by the lack of permeability for any other mode of transport. Transfers at Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire only add time to these journeys given the issues I've discussed in other threads.

ted1 wrote: »

That’s easy park near a dart station and get the dart or a bus.

Ultimately, we shouldn't need to park and ride in Dalkey never-mind anywhere else in Dublin. But, that is a pipe-dream given how badly planned Dublin is.

ted1 wrote: »

So we have Car, Rail and Bike. You could include boat in accessibility. Other than those three what’s left?

You're right about boats in that they are heavily under-utilised as a means of getting around Dublin. If there were better berthing facilities in Coliemore and Bulloch as well as new ones in Sandycove, Blackrock and Sandymount Strand, there could be a cruising tour between these and those on the north-side. Again, outside the box thinking.

Bar Ulverton, Hyde and to a lesser extent, Barnhill Road, any other way into Dalkey by bus is non-existent without horrendous detours. Cars and bikes can get around no bother. However, the roads are unsafely narrow for these two modes alone to get about without encroaching on each other.

ted1 wrote: »

What great international project has being refused?

I was making a general statement about the planning process in this country. Metro, High-rise and more recently, Bus Connects can't even get anywhere with out being heavily watered down.

Finally, if the proposed New Parish Centre in Dalkey gets the go-ahead, I fear that the same mistake that was made by the building of Dalkey Mews will be made again. Enough parish pump politics and more joint up thinking.

ted1

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I was making a general statement about the planning process in this country. Metro, High-rise and more recently, Bus Connects can't even get anywhere with out being heavily watered down.

Bus connect is a joke, it’s very badly thought out. I’ve seen where they did similar in London and it destroyed villages. Made them just into streets.

As for cutting down the old trees lining the roads. That’s just wrong. They need to build a metro instead and discourage people from using single occupancy cars. That’ll de much more than bus connect.

L1011

One metro line is not going to replace the requirement for BusConnects.

London has not done anything similar. Some older standard bus lanes and poorly planned "cycle superhighways" is not similar.

ted1

L1011 wrote: »

One metro line is not going to replace the requirement for BusConnects.

London has not done anything similar. Some older standard bus lanes and poorly planned "cycle superhighways" is not similar.

Who ever said 1 metro line. We got 60+ bn for the banks fairly easy. Surly we could borrow several billion for infrastructure that last over 150 years..

Parts of London have done similar. Widening the streets, cutting down trees. taking gardens and putting a bus lane each direction. Who mentioned Cycle superhighways?

L1011

ted1 wrote: »

Who ever said 1 metro line. We got 60+ bn for the banks fairly easy. Surly we could borrow several billion for infrastructure that last over 150 years..

Parts of London have done similar. Widening the streets, cutting down trees. taking gardens and putting a bus lane each direction. Who mentioned Cycle superhighways?

One is all there is a planning process for. Even a second line would have a ten to fifteen year leadtime. Bus Connects will be done and the impacts forgotten by then

If you want to keep the streets the same width and save trees, you can remove the cars instead. Somethings going and its not the buses.

ted1

L1011 wrote: »

One is all there is a planning process for. Even a second line would have a ten to fifteen year leadtime. Bus Connects will be done and the impacts forgotten by then

If you want to keep the streets the same width and save trees, you can remove the cars instead. Somethings going and its not the buses.

They could plan for more than one, removing cars especially single occupancy is key

The impacts of bus connect won’t be forgotten. They will be no nice tree lined avenues, the two sides of villages will be separated and fundamentally changed.

7 minutes is all the bray to town bus connect route will save!!! Get the cars of the road. Introduce school busses , get kids to cycle. Promote working remotely from home incentives. Perhaps build regional shared office space where people could work from.

L1011

You're going to need the road space for those extra buses. It's a choice between cars or trees, not buses or trees.

Multiple areas have worked on redesigns that remove cars and keep the trees. Cars are as alien to a "village" as buses if you must try use such emotive language to refer to suburbs

patrickbrophy18

I might as well bump this thread in light of the fact that 2 developments at Charleville and Castlepark School.

The latter development has already been given the go ahead by ABP while the former is still waiting on a planning decision.

Collectively, both developments will result in an additional 206 residential units.

Personally, I like the look of both of them.

A further 36 residential units (13 houses and 26 apartments) have been granted permission with conditions. Again, I've seen the proposal and I do like it.

Now, I'll leave the infrastructure out of it for the moment for fear of being slated again.

[Deleted User]

ABP would be mad to let Charleville go ahead. Harbour Road couldn’t cope with the additional traffic and it would make the road a lot more dangerous for the pupils if the two primary schools within 200 metres.

Cyrus

Aegir wrote: »

ABP would be mad to let Charleville go ahead. Harbour Road couldn’t cope with the additional traffic and it would make the road a lot more dangerous for the pupils if the two primary schools within 200 metres.

isnt the traffice concern generally over played?

i live in dalkey manor on killiney road, all of the objections raised made reference to an increase in traffic on the road, and its made next to no difference that i can see.

my kids goto the school, id imagine the cars parking for the school run will be a bigger issue for the residents than vice versa.

although i shudder to think what the construction phase will be like.

TheW1zard

Cyrus wrote: »

isnt the traffice concern generally over played?

i live in dalkey manor on killiney road, all of the objections raised made reference to an increase in traffic on the road, and its made next to no difference that i can see.

my kids goto the school, id imagine the cars parking for the school run will be a bigger issue for the residents than vice versa.

although i shudder to think what the construction phase will be like.

I don't think its over played. The whole discussion around Dalkey going one way or having a pedestrian zone while not practical (or wanted by the residents) is needed in the long term. Dalkey is a nightmare to drive through!
Making it one way or no traffic at all might not help but if more developments are built it will only get worse I think.
You're spared a lot of that as your road is a good link to N11/Dunlaoghaire etc.

The bottom of Sorrento / Vico and Coliemore Rd come impassable on a sunny day, the comment of 18th infrastructure is very true there.

Maybe Dalkey should only be for locals

:pac:

Cyrus

TheW1zard wrote: »

I don't think its over played. The whole discussion around Dalkey going one way or having a pedestrian zone while not practical (or wanted by the residents) is needed in the long term. Dalkey is a nightmare to drive through!
Making it one way or no traffic at all might not help but if more developments are built it will only get worse I think.
You're spared a lot of that as your road is a good link to N11/Dunlaoghaire etc.

The bottom of Sorrento / Vico and Coliemore Rd come impassable on a sunny day, the comment of 18th infrastructure is very true there.

Maybe Dalkey should only be for locals :pac:

i agree main street should be one way for sure, but harbour road isnt really a thoroughfare except during school term and only at certain times (which if people are commuting from those new properties they will be gone) and if its downsizers they will probably be walking.

id agree the borders should be closed on a sunny day if the carry on at whiterock and sandycove is anything to go by! removing the parking at whiterock may help a little, undesirables arent keen on walking. Especially carrying large bags of cans

[Deleted User]

Cyrus wrote: »

isnt the traffice concern generally over played?

i live in dalkey manor on killiney road, all of the objections raised made reference to an increase in traffic on the road, and its made next to no difference that i can see.

my kids goto the school, id imagine the cars parking for the school run will be a bigger issue for the residents than vice versa.

although i shudder to think what the construction phase will be like.

Harbour road only has two ways in and out though. The main one being the junction at Bulloch, which is pretty poor to turn right from. The other is a very narrow one way street.

If this were to provide affordable housing then I can understand the need to put 100 apartments there, but it won’t be, this is all about squeezing as much money from the land as possible.

Cyrus

Aegir wrote: »

Harbour road only has two ways in and out though. The main one being the junction at Bulloch, which is pretty poor to turn right from. The other is a very narrow one way street.

If this were to provide affordable housing then I can understand the need to put 100 apartments there, but it won’t be, this is all about squeezing as much money from the land as possible.

If it was to provide affordable housing on one of the most expensive roads in Dublin that’s a whole other can of worms !