As the title says, this is a new thread for chat about Dun Laoghaire in general without the traffic & transport nonsense.
Enjoy.
There won't be a seawater pool retrofit into the 'Baths' site. Ever.
The whole thing has been a poisoned chalice since the start, the tussle between commercial exploitation or the money pit of a faithful 1930s rebuild.
As ever, the twain never meets in the local lobby blocks in DL and so we end up with this Camel by Committee, a Baths that isn't a Baths in a seaside resort town, that isn't a seaside resort town.
comical. They are only doing it in the first place as they couldn’t get the English right when building the other new entrance
councillors asked for wheelchair access to the church. And an entrance to the hill .
they got the wheelchair access to the church and a path with steps to the hill
im pretty sure Glenalybn is to.
the original cost was 2.5M. It came in at 18.4m
i can’t see a pool being built.
The pool is still included in the county development plan AFAIK. So one will hopefully go in eventually.
Incorrect engineers report with regards of drainage means that the works at the Killiney Hill Gate have to be completely redone, absolute idiots
All of it. Having said that you're entitled to your opinion!
What part?
its a good foot path that cost 18.4 million.
pity there no pool or baths and the jetty was built in shallow water surrounded by rocks which means it’s only useful on high tide.
it’s an absolute disgrace
I'm looking forward to this:
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-style/2022/12/02/first-look-dun-laoghaire-baths-are-finally-set-to-reopen-its-a-breathtaking-sight/
Great town
Are there any tutors for charicture drawing or cartoonists in the area?
these are the guys building it.
Are you sure that Rathigan is locally based? I thought that they were Galway. They made a big fuss about their local credentials when they built the regional Garda HQ there recently!
I agree with you here.
I think one thing to take from this decision is that we do need to reassess the wider scale of the damage being caused by not building them in the first place.
We as a society don't actually know what the wider impact of these decisions are going to be coming next as a result of these Judicial reviews being put on public record. We don't how many other properties that were meant to be built and completed, under the allegations of impropriety by the Hyde brothers, in other parts of the country.
If those 1,400 properties that are now not going to be built in South Dublin & Kildare is being now regarded as a starting point because of the incoming criminal charges that are coming to Paul Hyde. It could have wider implications for trying to expand the entire housing supply chain in this country as a whole.
We don't want this level of potential contagion to spread out to other parts of the supply chain either as many families and individuals around the country are currently looking at housing here at the moment.
good news to some extent. anything that ABP gave permission for is now tainted.
Hopefully they will take another look at the monstrosity that the Rhatigans are buildings in Dalkey.
You kind of expect developers like the Larkins to crap on the neighbouring properties of the apartments they are building in Castle Park School, as they live the other side of Dublin and don't have to look people in the eye, but the Rhatigans are local and must have necks like a jockey's bollocks.
You're not wrong, but whats happening now is the quickest way to deliver the homes, all things considered.
If BP had contested the case and won, it would have delayed things further to an eventual Supreme Court appeal, maybe a year or much more.
Its a bit of a lose-lose. AnBP were clearly corrupt and doing things incorrectly, so theres no real way to avoid reviewing the approvals. But at the same time its a disaster for the property market to have 1400+ new housing units in the area delayed indefinitely.
The objections to the Blackrock one in particular are insane. How anyone could object to apartments being built in that location is beyond me.
Its not bad news, its an appropriate response to the stink coming from AnBP recently, and why.
These projects will go through the process again, this time with the correct diligence. And I'm sure will be delivered, albeit later.
The most important thing is the overhaul of the planning authority and the appeal process of last resort.
The Killiney apartments and houses that are not being built as a result of this judicial review relate to Watson Drive in Killiney.
Both developments in Killiney and Blackrock are now not proceeding as a result of fire safety concerns which relates to the criminal charges of impropriety against Paul and Stefan Hyde.
There are more details here as to how this case have been assessed under the judicial review into these developments and at ABP.
Where abouts in killiney ?
There has been some bad news from ABP today regarding the construction of new housing units in both Killiney and on the Daughters of Charity site in Temple Hill in Blackrock.
ABP have conceded their legal challenge to oppose building these units during a legal hearing today.
As a result of this move being carried out by ABP today. The construction of these new properties will now no longer be fast tracked under the strategic housing development laws.
New planning permission applications will now have to be sought to build these housing developments in Killiney and Blackrock.
Larbs, credit where credit is due, I'm in awe of some of you utterances. Case in point from above:
When you say I seem to take every criticism of the Council as a personal slight, you are quite deliberately ignoring my persistent and vocal criticism of their proposal to close GSL to traffic altogether, which I know you have been following on the other thread. I also have been all over their cackhanded process around the so-called Coastal Mobility Route.
Everybody who has been posting here for a while know that your absolute and undying love for all things council and council members is only surpassed by your hatred of all things cycling. Ffs I have a Jack Russel Terrier here that doesn't hate bikes as much as you do. But in terms of twisting such issues to suit your argument:
Larbs you the man!! Respect!! 😁
Now you're getting it. You should show a bit more respect honestly.
Must have missed that memo. Seems to know everyone in the Dept of Defence as well. A busy little bee is our Larbs!
You're one of the council cheerleaders and buddies, aren't you?
You asked boss man, it's not my problem if the answer goes over your head.
In short, you're mistaken, the Council weren't committed to anything specific on site in Myrtle Square in 2021. End of.
If you disagree, try telling them that they were and see how far you get.
Next topic.
Larbs in all fairness that is the greatest load of a horsesh1te response to a simple question that I have ever had the misfortune to partially read.
Smacks of pure deflection, council speak and I'm thinking that there is too much protest going on here (in the Shakespearean sense).
If you wish.
This release by the Council on 24th June 2021, followed on from what you posted above, as a response to submissions made under the *non-statutory* consultation that DLR carried out to take the local temperature, if you will, regarding a street closure and temporary measures in the public realm, to facilitate outdoor dining, physical distancing and increased outdoor activity, in line with the prevailing Covid requirements of the time.
If you read this, it details the overall ambition of what they are trying to achieve, the traffic management, policing, enhanced cleansing, facilities for street entertainment etc. It makes absolutely zero reference to a specific layout for physical measures on Myrtle Square. All there is, is the design montage that you can see at the top of the article, showing some trees in planters, movable picnic benches, a high-traction surface overlay, bike racks and so on.
In a process like this, that is purely indicative and not binding in any specific way.
Its important to note the non-statutory nature of all of this. It commits them to nothing specific, to no measurements or permanence. Its nothing more than a local understanding, made notionally for the temporary benefit of all, during a public health and economic emergency of sorts.
So the way in which you are wrong, specifically, is that your contention that there was a fixed design for Myrtle Square agreed in 2021 and never completed, is incorrect. There was never any such thing. You are reading between the lines, I suggest and finding something that never was or intended to be.
By comparison, the Part 8 Planning, *is* a statutory process and a largely fixed design, which the Council are required to build and enable as approved.
I say "largely", because there is minor flexibility to amend in during contract, for reasons of underforeseen ground conditions, proximity of services causing a conflict in a particular spot etc.
Hope thats clear enough.
I prefer to deal in facts, so don't mistake my critique of you being wrong
I also prefer to deal in facts, so you might point out exactly which part of my posts re the development of Myrtle Sq. above, that was wrong.
If I worked as a Planner for the County Council??
Absolutely not. Dun Laoghaire is my home area, I retain a large number of family and friendship links with the area, some of whom are active in a political party that I'm involved with myself.
I have worked with other Local and Regional Authorities in the past, so I do know how they work, but when it comes to DLR, they have very frequently dropped the ball when in comes to Dun Laoghaire while concentrating on more lucrative development areas like Dundrum and Sandyford. However, credit where it is due, efforts are being made and where I see good things I will mention them and where I see bad things I will call them out.
I prefer to deal in facts, so don't mistake my critique of you being wrong for defending the Council unduly, on this or any other matter.
The text that you mention is also accompanied by a drawing of the proposed changes to the square which were never fully implemented. Hence, and to repeat the place looks like a kip.
The interest that may need to be declared stems from:
a) You are a self proclaimed town planner.
b) You no longer live in the area yet seem to have an intimate knowledge of Council business and motives.
c) You appear to take any criticism of the council as a personal slight.
Just wondering?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
