Presumably it'll be appealed to ABP by the Save Our Silos campaign? OK, I totally made that up.
You should see the Facebook comments! One of the top comments is “Skyscrapers on a bog”
The approval for the relocation of Gouldings to Marino Point, freeing up land in city was appealed to ABP soon after. However, from my reading of the ABP webpage, was the appeal 'invalid'? Haven't heard anything about this since.
Complaint about using a fertilizer factory with storage and a dock , to import and store fertilizer ?
( I know it hasn't been an active fertilizer factory for decades )
If the appeal is deemed invalid then ABP presumably don’t make any ruling because there effectively isn’t any appeal to be ruled on. But I guess the appellants could seek a judicial review of ABP’s decision to deem the appeal invalid…
Do MSL still own that site since it was turners cross motors?
SHD application for 6 storey, 206 bed student accommodation at former Finbarr Galvin site on Victoria Cross Rd lodged with ABP.
8 storey student block already approved next door at Kelleher Tyres site.
High court challenge brought against the ABP decision by Louth environmentalist
All that’s wrong with the planning system in Ireland in one article. Absolute pisstake
More apartments for non students would be very welcome!
However, the students flat's are needed not just for students but to get them out of house shares to free up those accommodation types for regular Joe's.
This assumes that regular Joe students will be able to afford these bespoke apartments!
A lot of students can't afford these fancy new apartments and still rely on the older accomodation types so nothing or very little is being freed up. The private purpose built apartments are crazy expensive and very much aimed at foreign students.
Lol. This country is a basket case.
What a pest. Needs to be legislation in place to fast-track getting this crap dismissed much much quicker. Frustrating.
What if the objection has merit and is in the interest of the greater good?
I'm not saying that this is the case here, but the idea that all objections to developments are crap and should be dismissed quickly, is rather concerning.
I see a worrying trend where all objectors are seen as crackpots who are against progress. Robust planning is vital and we don't have a great history of sound urban or rural planning in this country.
Yeah 'if', if the objection has merit.... I'm all for them, absolutely. Who said anything about all objections to developments should be dissmissed? Certainly nothing in my post suggesting that. There doesn't seem to be one here from what I can see - an objection with merit that is. He's being a pain in the arse and its only going to delay badly needed residential units and put money in solicitors pockets.
On the subject of crackpots, its just a shame that you can get one objecting to something simply for sake of objecting (thinly veiled with various claims) and unfortunately current legislation deems it necessary to process this stuff for months in the courts.
I'm all for legimate objections - Obviously we have to have that. But that's just not the case here from what i can see. Load of rubbish imo. No doubt this will probably get resolved with some minor changes requested by ABP to make it go away. Its just a shame it'll take months to get sorted.
Thing is, spurious objections without merit carry no weight and don't hold up the process. There has to be a valid reason behind any objection with regard to the county development plan.
Judicial reviews are another matter and can bevery costly so, generally, they are not taken lightly.
he will be paid to drop objection after awhile and made sign a NDA so the public never hear about it. That’s what’s really crazy about the country…All they need to do is change legislation that makes the objector pay all costs if the objection is unsuccessful. That way a quick resolution could be hammered out for legit objections and the professional objectors that don’t even live in the area wouldn’t bring as many stupid cases because they would be landed with a massive bill.
As I understand it, anyone taking a judicial review can be held liable for the costs.
Sometimes a judge can decide that the review was in the public interest and costs can be divided differently.
Also, an objection either has merit or it doesn't. Where the person is from is irrelevant.
"Mr Kenny’s challenge has been brought on grounds including that the decision amounts to a material contravention of building height objectives contained in the Cork City Development Plan."
This is a big problem all over the country. County and City Councils produce Developments Plans at great expense, after public consultation and then feel that they have the power to ignore these same plans to keep some developer sweet and happy.
Maybe we need more Mr. Kenny's, with the balls to challenge the arrogance of these various Councils???
Or if a proposed development is clearly in contravention of a plan , there should be a clear process to show why that individual development is in the public interest , ,( possibly with a council vote )
It's called a material contravention. The report they did on it is here. It isn't as simple as An Bord Pleanala just completely ignoring the Development Plan
Here is what the 2015 development plan (now outdated as the new one was put into place the other day, but relevant for this planning) says about tall buildings:
“Tall buildings can play a visual role as landmark buildings and can make a positive contribution to the skyline of a city. Due to the visual prominence and strategic significance of tall buildings their design must be of a high standard. There are large areas of the city where tall buildings are unsuitable given the potential conflicts with the character, grain, and the amenity enjoyed by users of adjacent sites. In particular, high buildings should be avoided in the historic areas of the city. The City Council has identified Docklands and South Mahon as areas with the potential to accommodate high buildings. Maps 2, & 7 in Volume 2 specify those locations. All other areas of the city are not considered appropriate for tall buildings. Such development will be resisted in areas of special and/or significant character in the city i.e.:
• The City Centre (within the 1869 boundary);
• The North and South River Lee Channels (west of Docklands);
• Architectural Conservation Areas;
• Other historic areas of the city of architectural and historic character (including the old city approaches and the villages enveloped by city expansion);
• The suburban areas of the city (apart from locations specified in the Plan);
• Areas of significant landscape value (including Landscape Preservation Areas and Areas of High Landscape Value)”. [emphasis added]"
It would seem to me that we know that:
BUT:
Section 4.2 and 4.2.1 of the material contravention document, if allowed by the High Court, would make a complete joke of any type of planning or negate the usefulness of any and all development plans (4 to 15 stories).
Will be interesting to see how the High Court swings on this!!
TII have appealed planning permission for the hotel/office development in Jacob's Island citing the impact on safety of the N40
Camden Place alterations (removal of rooftop restaurant + addition of long stay suites) given OK by planners
The foreign students with wealthy mommies and daddies that UCC want to attract to the detriment of students from poorer backgrounds they pretend to care about.
You can take foreign out of that sentence and then it strikes just as true.
Pete_Cavan has posted on the ports thread how the enabling works for Marino Point are now out for tender. This presumably confirms that any appeals have fallen by the wayside.
Jacobs Island one is a bit odd is it? You can't build there because our ring road can't handle the extra traffic? I've seen objections like that for smaller roads but that's probably the best served location for cars in the city.
No doubt they will be built and parking will be removed from developers plans at the councils request in an effort to reduce the number of cars on the road but no reliable alternative transport will be provided besides a bicycle shed in the new development.
There's a bit of history with the building. I think CAB were involved and that's why it was empty for the last 10 years. It's now finally been sold and hopefully someone here will be more knowledgeable on the future plans.
