Cork developments

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.

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.

What a pest. Needs to be legislation in place to fast-track getting this crap dismissed much much quicker. Frustrating.

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.

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.

"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???

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]"

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

You can take foreign out of that sentence and then it strikes just as true.

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.

can anyone tell me whats being done to that bar/restaurant (i think is what it was) that is across from the old square deal building on washington st. lot of work being done to it, looks like its being clad atm

There is a casino/arcade thing going into one of the ground floor units on the Washington Street building. I'd prefer to see the whole thing knocked and rebuilt, it's not nice looking to me

sigh

yes, open the train station but dont bother with the nonsensical outlet factory. we keep hearing about how towns+villages are dying. why in gods name are they agreeing to strip the last remaining custom away from local retail? carrigtwohill is undergoing serious residential development maybe they could think of ways to liven up the town instead of pushing locals out to some greenfield site. Thats without mentioning all the additional traffic it'll bring. the city centre + rural towns like midleton/cobh/carrigtwohill need to be put first over these kind of projects, imagine what that 100mil would do for these places. i genuinely cant understand why people want this.