Proposed/Recently Refused Infill Developments in Dalkey

patrickbrophy18 · 20-09-2017 11:11pm #1

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?

listermint · 20-09-2017 11:16pm

It's very unusual how tiny developments such as these can be halted for traffic reasons or impinging on rights of students whereas other areas of the city no such traffic questions even come in to play for large scale development. Ballycullen firhouse comes to mind.

Those with money it seems get preferential objections

patrickbrophy18 · 21-09-2017 12:10am

listermint wrote: »

Ballycullen firhouse comes to mind.

The big difference here is that the arterial routes around Ballycullen as well as the main roads feeding into it have ample road width. Additionally, many of the roads have a pretty much continuous hatch marking in the center acting as a buffer for traffic going in opposite directions. So, the potential to scale up there is enormous. Also, the residential boundaries are decently set back from the roads where improvements such as the addition of cycle lanes could be carried out.

Also, pretty much all of the roads in Dublin City have enough space to become excellent corridors for all types of road users. Unfortunately, up until recently, they have all been catering almost exclusively for the car. Either that or they have failed miserably to make efficient use of the public space available. Between design flaws where cycle lanes stop abruptly and become a row of parking spaces to the complete lack of segregation, the Dublin City Council have decades worth of work cut out for them.

Anyway, back to the current topic.

On the other hand, the main arterial routes in Dalkey are heavily hemmed in by houses. So, not a lot of forward thinking or anticipation went in to the planning of houses around there. In short, while Dalkey is undoubtedly a beautiful area, its road network is an example of what not to do. Unless the arterial routes can comfortably accommodate bicycles, buses, pedestrians and (dare I say it) cars, it is back to the drawing board in my opinion.

Once these flaws have been ironed out, then we can upscale the population. Otherwise, developments will continue to have limitations imposed.

The phrase "catch 22" is very applicable in this matter.

Fratton Fred · 21-09-2017 9:58am

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

The big difference here is that the arterial routes around Ballycullen as well as the main roads feeding into it have ample road width. Additionally, many of the roads have a pretty much continuous hatch marking in the center acting as a buffer for traffic going in opposite directions. So, the potential to scale up there is enormous. Also, the residential boundaries are decently set back from the roads where improvements such as the addition of cycle lanes could be carried out.

Also, pretty much all of the roads in Dublin City have enough space to become excellent corridors for all types of road users. Unfortunately, up until recently, they have all been catering almost exclusively for the car. Either that or they have failed miserably to make efficient use of the public space available. Between design flaws where cycle lanes stop abruptly and become a row of parking spaces to the complete lack of segregation, the Dublin City Council have decades worth of work cut out for them.

Anyway, back to the current topic.

On the other hand, the main arterial routes in Dalkey are heavily hemmed in by houses. So, not a lot of forward thinking or anticipation went in to the planning of houses around there. In short, while Dalkey is undoubtedly a beautiful area, its road network is an example of what not to do. Unless the arterial routes can comfortably accommodate bicycles, buses, pedestrians and (dare I say it) cars, it is back to the drawing board in my opinion.

Once these flaws have been ironed out, then we can upscale the population. Otherwise, developments will continue to have limitations imposed.

The phrase "catch 22" is very applicable in this matter.

I believe the charleville one is for 56 apartments, which will probably mean 112 cars all trying to get out of the Harbour Road/Ulverton Road junction (not a particularly nice junction) in the morning. there is also two primary and one secondary school on that road, which really does not need all that additional traffic.

uch · 21-09-2017 3:38pm

Issues like this in an area with a road layout like Dalkey can only be resolved with thinking outside the box IMO, even silly idea's should be considered, like for example build a large carpark on the castlepark site for residents then ban all traffic from the area, have an outer limit type thing, I know it sounds daft and I'm sure for every reasonable idea there will be dozens of absurd one's, but Dalkey really can't handle any more traffic as it is

ted1 · 21-09-2017 7:55pm

listermint wrote: »

It's very unusual how tiny developments such as these can be halted for traffic reasons or impinging on rights of students whereas other areas of the city no such traffic questions even come in to play for large scale development. Ballycullen firhouse comes to mind.

Those with money it seems get preferential objections

Developments of 100+ can skip straight to ABP for fast tracking.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/fast-track-planning-system-for-large-scale-housing-begins-1.3141160?mode=amp

ted1 · 21-09-2017 8:04pm

uch wrote: »

Issues like this in an area with a road layout like Dalkey can only be resolved with thinking outside the box IMO, even silly idea's should be considered, like for example build a large carpark on the castlepark site for residents then ban all traffic from the area, have an outer limit type thing, I know it sounds daft and I'm sure for every reasonable idea there will be dozens of absurd one's, but Dalkey really can't handle any more traffic as it is

Our discourage car ownership and remove the need for a car

patrickbrophy18 · 22-09-2017 1:11am

ted1 wrote: »

Our discourage car ownership and remove the need for a car

I'm with you on this one. However, this would require a huge amount of investment by DLRCOCO in infrastructure which would better facilitate any modest increases in frequency for public transport and also decent cycle lanes to name but a few.

The narrow corridors of Dalkey won't cut it from this perspective if we are to enable a more seamless and efficient flow overall. A mixture of measures from mass one-way systems to road-widening would be needed to achieve this. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any plans on the DLRCOCO website about addressing these shortcomings.

While this isn't a high priority by any means on the grander scheme of things, it still doesn't change the fact that we have modern travel patterns operating on legacy roads from the time of horse and carriage.

Nevertheless, As recently as 50 years ago, the council had plenty of chances to make the necessary land reservations. Sadly, residential development was allowed to proceed in such a way that houses were squeezed into whatever space was available.

To re-iterate a point from my opening post, I do see the need for preservation orders and ACAs for the most part. But, where they prevent an area like Dalkey from playing a more prominent role in public transport and cycling provision, this is where I draw the line.

Before we proceed with any infill developments (be it modest or of relatively large scale), we need to come up with a master plan for the Dalkey Area so that it is prepared for any up-scaling of the population.

schemingbohemia · 25-09-2017 12:48pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I believe the charleville one is for 56 apartments, which will probably mean 112 cars all trying to get out of the Harbour Road/Ulverton Road junction (not a particularly nice junction) in the morning. there is also two primary and one secondary school on that road, which really does not need all that additional traffic.

56 apartments should mean 84 car park spaces at an absolute maximum.

I think the problem with Dalkey traffic (and the rest of Dublin) is the amount of very very short journeys that people insist on making by car. We're talking about a journey of 1-2km that would be quicker walked or cycled when searching for a parking spot is taken into account.

Fratton Fred · 25-09-2017 2:52pm

schemingbohemia wrote: »

56 apartments should mean 84 car park spaces at an absolute maximum.

I think the problem with Dalkey traffic (and the rest of Dublin) is the amount of very very short journeys that people insist on making by car. We're talking about a journey of 1-2km that would be quicker walked or cycled when searching for a parking spot is taken into account.

I was talking cars, not parking spaces.

It would undoubtedly mean people parking on Harbour road because the development won't have enough parking spaces.

I get your point about journey's in to Dalkey though, far too many people driving, although i would suggest a lot of that is down to the general age profile of Dalkey as well. It is a retirement village after all

schemingbohemia · 25-09-2017 5:18pm

Nah, it's lazy parents driving their lazy children to school, I don't mind oul'ones driving up for a coffee and a scone.

Fratton Fred · 25-09-2017 5:49pm

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Nah, it's lazy parents driving their lazy children to school, I don't mind oul'ones driving up for a coffee and a scone.

But you don't realise how hectic it is for some of these parents.

It's drop the kids off at 9, then rush home to let the gardener in, then off to Killiney Hill for a power walk and coffee with the girls, then down for a Pilates class at 12:30, drop the kids off with the child mnder at 2pm, tennis lesson at Sandycove in 3 and then home to find that the cleaner hasn't been and this morning's washing up is still in the sink.

All that on top of the feckin au pair banging and crashing around this morning as she got the kids their breakfast and waking everyone up.

you just don't understand how stressful life can be....

patrickbrophy18 · 04-10-2017 12:41am

Here is something I came out with over the last 10 or so years which is part of a "*Do Maximum" approach to the areas infrastructure. See below:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/K3OqTkdknHTOKv473

The usual punters can slate it all they want. However, it is just an idea which might be needed over the next 15 to 20 years (as a rule of thumb). Maybe needed much further down the line.

In any case, the legacy infrastructure of Dalkey is clearly reaching breaking point and the council need to come up with a much better traffic management plan.

*: I've come out with less ambitious ideas which comprise of a "Do Medium" and "Do Minimum" approach. The less ambitious ones involve a mass one-way system around the place.

Larbre34 · 04-10-2017 11:24am

Some of it has merit, but in my view even as a 'do max' its off the mark. The cost-benefit wouldnt be close to salable. The overarching Government policy is to de-prioritise and de-incentivise private car usage.

Dalkey is a heritage area, anything that proposes creating additional roadspace, for whatever mode, would be jumped all over by the conservation watchers. Dalkey is also a backwater in development terms and that heritage status will become all the more cherished in the area.

In my view, the future for Dalkey is that is will become more and more blocked off to traffic, with limited parking provision on the outskirts and at intermodal points. Castle Street and surrounds will likely narrowed for pedestrian priority and time limited commercial access.

patrickbrophy18 · 04-10-2017 10:52pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

Some of it has merit, but in my view even as a 'do max' its off the mark. The cost-benefit wouldnt be close to salable.

So, we are in partial agreement. I'll take that. Which parts do you think have merit?

As for the costs. Yes, they would be very high indeed. But, the long term benefits and access not just locally but nationally would open the Dalkey area back up as a far more prominent tourist destination.

Larbre34 wrote: »

The overarching Government policy is to de-prioritise and de-incentivise private car usage.

While many people are of the mindset that providing wider roads would serve to encourage car use, the actual end result of my proposal would be to better facilitate trucks, buses and bicycles. Also, de-prioritising and disincentivising car usage is something which I agree with for the most part. I know many people may invariably say "if you build it, they will come". However, as long as it is the right "they" (i.e. more buses and bikes) and not the wrong "they" (i.e. less private cars), then the policy of the government is being adhered to. As naive as all of this may sound!:o

Paradoxically, the only vehicles which are catered for by the legacy road system in Dalkey is the private car. In other words, they are too narrow to comfortably cater for buses, bikes and cars. From a space perspective, they are fine for cars but, very hazardous for buses. With the increase in people cycling, it has become a fight for road space. On the other hand, roads such as Pottery Road appear to offer a more harmonious environment for all road users. Having said that, the odd time, I still do see ignorant motorists parked on the cycle lanes on that particular road.

Larbre34 wrote: »

Dalkey is a heritage area, anything that proposes creating additional roadspace, for whatever mode, would be jumped all over by the conservation watchers.

It all depends on where the road space is being provided. If it is being provided in such a way where it threatens a designated conservation area or where a listed building is under threat, resistance should be encouraged. On the other hand, if it is only in the vicinity (i.e. just outside) the same, allow for some leniency with some caveats. In this case, caveats would be that all materials and final renderings are harmonious to the current built form.

Larbre34 wrote: »

In my view, the future for Dalkey is that is will become more and more blocked off to traffic, with limited parking provision on the outskirts and at intermodal points. Castle Street and surrounds will likely narrowed for pedestrian priority and time limited commercial access.

It's funny that you mention pedestrian priority as part of my proposal would result in Castle Street becoming one-way and eventually becoming completely pedestrianized. A major component in my proposal is enclosing the railway above the DART line with a new road to relieve Castle Street of it's duties as a thoroughfare for cars. This way, it would permanently divert traffic away from Castle Street through what is currently the Church Car Park. In time, this would allow all shops in the Village Part of Dalkey to have outdoor seating and other pleasantries.

You are probably right in saying that eventually, Dalkey will get choked up and stagnate to become more of an outpost area. Slapdash developments such as those discussed in the opening post will only exacerbate this.

I just think we should breath some new life back into the area.

Save

Fratton Fred · 05-10-2017 12:55pm

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Here is something I came out with over the last 10 or so years which is part of a "*Do Maximum" approach to the areas infrastructure. See below:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/K3OqTkdknHTOKv473

The usual punters can slate it all they want. However, it is just an idea which might be needed over the next 15 to 20 years (as a rule of thumb). Maybe needed much further down the line.

In any case, the legacy infrastructure of Dalkey is clearly reaching breaking point and the council need to come up with a much better traffic management plan.

*: I've come out with less ambitious ideas which comprise of a "Do Medium" and "Do Minimum" approach. The less ambitious ones involve a mass one-way system around the place.

ouch. I'd better not tell my brother in law that you've just built a road through the house he has spent a shed load of money rebuilding

patrickbrophy18 · 05-10-2017 10:25pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

ouch. I'd better not tell my brother in law that you've just built a road through the house he has spent a shed load of money rebuilding

Smiley face noted!

Again, it is only just an idea. Basically, I examined the map over the years to find the path of least resistance i.e. the route with the least amount of obstacles. Over the coming weeks, I am going to be posting the "Do Medium" and "Do Minimum" approaches. Now, I amn't a qualified town planner or anything. It's just an area which I find very fascinating on the side. In other words, it's a hobby where I do personal projects. However, I do like to air my thoughts with examples of how to better guide planning applications rather than the slapdash nature that has prevailed.

Back to the main topic of infill, I just got word that the Charleville Development has been refused permission as per the following link:

http://planning.dlrcoco.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=D17A%2F0707&theTabNo=2&backURL=%3Ca+href%3Dwphappcriteria.display%3ESearch+Criteria%3C%2Fa%3E+%3E+%3Ca+href%3D%27wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL%3FResultID%3D2377785%26StartIndex%3D11%26SortOrder%3Drgndat%3Adesc%26DispResultsAs%3Dwphappsresweek2%26BackURL%3D%3Ca+href%3Dwphappcriteria.display%3ESearch+Criteria%3C%2Fa%3E%27%3ESearch+Results%3C%2Fa%3E

Going by the artists impressions, it looked very bleak and along similar lines to the Irish Fisheries Board building and Phibsborough Shopping Center.

If developers want to secure planning permission for constructions on a similar scale, they could at least have the decency of making the buildings aesthetically pleasing and not perpetuate the concrete jungle stereotype.

Save

patrickbrophy18 · 12-10-2017 10:14pm

Here is something which I wrote in the Dalkey Open Forum regarding the issue with traffic:

I might as well bring this up on this page as well in light of the recent objections and controversy surrounding both the Dalkey Manor (Dalkey Manor Site) and Bulloch Harbour (Save Bulloch Harbour) Developments. Anyway, one of the common concerns regarding both proposals is the issue of traffic along Barnhill Road and indeed the rest of the Dalkey Area in general.

In my opinion and given the steady increases in traffic to both Barnhill Road and Dalkey Avenue together with the badly managed traffic in the rest of the Dalkey area, one or a mixture of the following three measures will likely be needed at some point in the future:

Have more of the streets made one-way where two-way traffic is near impossible.

Widen the main arterial routes to an acceptable level.

New roads where space permits.

Point 1 would be more for roads in Dallkey Village which is an Architectural Conservation Area (ACA). This includes those such as White's Villas, Carysfort Road, St. Patrick's Road, Tubbermore Road, Sorrento Road and Coliemore Road. Making these roads one-way would avoid otherwise very destructive road widening schemes along Dalkey's most breath taking locations and streets.

At the same time, some of these roads would be made more friendly to buses (for coastal tours) and the odd truck without eating away at the historic built form. For example, Sorrento and Coliemore Roads could form a massive loop for coastal coach tours with a honeycomb of connector side roads in between for local residents to turn around. This would help to capitalize on the new ferry service between Coliemore Harbour and Dalkey Island.

Point 2 would apply to the likes of Dalkey Avenue and Barnhill Road, much of which are situated well outside the ACA. However, every effort would need to be made so that these roads aren't tarnished beyond recognition. Nevertheless, this would be an extremely difficult and undoubtedly controversial undertaking. The works carried out on Pottery Road spring to mind and they did an excellent job of it. I say that because it also caters to pedestrians and cyclists given that both the cycle tracks and sidewalks have adequate widths while the main carriageway affords buses and trucks plenty of space.

Now, given that Dalkey is a heritage town, any new boundary treatments to the hypothetical new road shapes would have to be sympathetic and not perpetuate the concrete jungle stereotypes which many would view as soulless.

Point 3 is more inspired by the job carried out in paving over the railway line in Dun Laoghaire. In this instance, the railway line between Dalkey Avenue and Dalkey Train Station would be completely enclosed by a new road system directly above. The idea behind this concept would be to carry mainstream traffic to the train station to avoid any damage to the main thoroughfare of Castle Street.

Bottom line, a more strategic plan needs to be put in place to future proof the Dalkey area and at the same time, preserving the best parts of it.
As bold a suggestion as the above may seem, it isn't outside the realm of common sense.

It got a lot of likes albeit with some skepticism which is to be expected given the radical nature of the idea.

ted1 · 13-10-2017 6:40am

I think the roads are fine

schemingbohemia · 13-10-2017 10:35am

Your plan will lead to more cars - read up on induced demand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand
This has been going on for decades. There is absolutely no need for more or wider roads in the Dalkey area. There is a need for lazy people to stop driving 1km to the shops and then complaining about the lack of parking.
Where are these issues you are talking about? What is the longest it has ever taken you to drive down Barnhill road? You're providing a solution for a problem that doesn't actually exist.

patrickbrophy18 · 15-10-2017 2:02am

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Your plan will lead to more cars - read up on induced demand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand
This has been going on for decades.

Actually, the whole point of my plan is to make the roads of the area more suitable for buses and cyclists which is something that is constantly being airbrushed off the map by the council. Roads as narrow as those in Dalkey don't lend themselves to any increase in frequency for buses and the tight nature of the junctions limit the permeability of same. Also, throw in bicycles into this mix and there is no room to safely overtake.

Plus, if there was an increase in footfall to the area, induced demand would add more business to the area. Yet, you see this as a bad thing.

My plan would better enable buses and bicycles to play a much better role in this induced demand. But, ironically, the narrow nature of the roads caters almost exclusively to the car.

schemingbohemia wrote: »

There is absolutely no need for more or wider roads in the Dalkey area.

Their shape says otherwise. We have modern travel patterns (i.e. buses, cars and trucks) operating on legacy infrastructure (originally designed for horse and cart). The fact that these modes are unable to traverse them smoothly without having to heed to each other is indeed a design flaw which will need to be addressed.

[QUOTE=schemingbohemia;104953949There is a need for lazy people to stop driving 1km to the shops and then complaining about the lack of parking.[/QUOTE]

I'm with you on that. Having said that, how would this be enforced?

Also, doing so would be a violation of their civil liberties.

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Where are these issues you are talking about?

The reason I started this topic was because there have been a considerable number of proposed infill developments over the past few years with the potential to push the current roads to breaking point given the amount of houses to the unit area. The purpose of the my proposals is to better prepare the Dalkey area for up-scaling while at the same time ensuring that buses and bikes are better catered for to service these new residences.

Of course, if we continue to keep the roads narrow, the only vehicle which will persevere is the private car. At least wider roads cater for buses, bicycles and other sustainable modes. The narrow nature of the roads in Dalkey don't tick these check-boxes which in my opinion should be mandatory.

schemingbohemia wrote: »

What is the longest it has ever taken you to drive down Barnhill road?

It is not about me driving down Barnhill Road nor the time it takes me to get from one end to the other. What are you getting at here?

schemingbohemia wrote: »

You're providing a solution for a problem that doesn't actually exist.

It is more to do with the geometry (i.e. shape, width and permeability) of the road and it's ability to cater for all modes conveniently. Having a road with virtually no clearance for buses to pass each other in opposite directions, no proper cycle facilities and no footpaths at crucial points is the ultimate issue at hand. I hate to correct you but, this is an actual problem.

On a broader note, I am getting a sense of denial from some locals who feel that my plan would end the exclusivity of Dalkey and the ego boosting it provides them.

ted1 · 15-10-2017 9:16am

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Your plan will lead to more cars - read up on induced demand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand
This has been going on for decades.

Actually, the whole point of my plan is to make the roads of the area more suitable for buses and cyclists which is something that is constantly being airbrushed off the map by the council. Roads as narrow as those in Dalkey don't lend themselves to any increase in frequency for buses and the tight nature of the junctions limit the permeability of same. Also, throw in bicycles into this mix and there is no room to safely overtake.

Plus, if there was an increase in footfall to the area, induced demand would add more business to the area. Yet, you see this as a bad thing.

My plan would better enable buses and bicycles to play a much better role in this induced demand. But, ironically, the narrow nature of the roads caters almost exclusively to the car.

schemingbohemia wrote: »

There is absolutely no need for more or wider roads in the Dalkey area.

On a broader note, I am getting a sense of denial from some locals who feel that my plan would end the exclusivity of Dalkey and the ego boosting it provides them.

That’s just a crazy statement, people like Dalkey for its charm and character. You clearly don’t which is why I suggested that you would be better off moving to a modern purpose built place like cherrywood, etc.

What busses does Dalkey need? What connections does it need?

patrickbrophy18 · 15-10-2017 8:48pm

ted1 wrote: »

That’s just a crazy statement, people like Dalkey for its charm and character. You clearly don’t which is why I suggested that you would be better off moving to a modern purpose built place like cherrywood, etc.

Actually, if you saw the maps which I provided, you would see that it actually keeps the best parts of the area in tact. It respects the village core where the bulk of the heritage zone lies. For Coliemore and Sorrento Roads, I have proposed a one-way system which would make it more suitable for buses and by extension, possible coach tours. As a result, this would negate the need to widen these roads as they are rich character. So, that statement of "You clearly don't" is moot.

Bottom line, my plans aim to open Dalkey up so that there is better permeability for buses, bikes and articulated trucks whilst working around the heritage core.

ted1 wrote: »

What busses does Dalkey need? What connections does it need?

As someone who would very much like to leave the car at home, I think there should be a better link to the Luas than the shambles which the 111 provides where it takes upwards of 40 minutes from Dalkey to Brides Glen. Next, there is the almost non-existent 7D which as a route is an excellent idea. However, it is a pity that there is only one journey each way midweek. This makes the route pretty useless.

Do you really want Dalkey to continue as the silo it has become?
Aside from the DART, the only workable way to it from places like Sandyford and UCD is with a car. My plans aim to reverse this trend by turning Dalkey into a prime commuting destination.

Cutting Dalkey off is just regressive while places like Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire have far better prospects.

To cut a long story short, I don't want to see Dalkey stagnate into a has-been. My concern in this thread is that there will continue to be proposals by property developers for infill development. Nevertheless, it wouldn't be as much of a concern if there were plans by the council to improve access to the area and not just for cars. The main aim of my plan is to open the area up to buses, cyclists and also to improve conditions for pedestrians.

I'm all for up-scaling the local population as long as there are proper plans to guide the inevitable up-scaled traffic for buses and bikes etc.

ted1 · 15-10-2017 11:40pm

I work in the airport and mange to commute 60 km each day. So i don’t buy your excuse for not leaving the car at home.

Why do you want to encourage articulated trucks? They should be be banned from residential areas and smaller vans or cars go bikes. Used for deliveries

As for Dalkey stagnating, it’s a heritage village night need to compete with other places. Kinsale is a good model, with local shops and coffee shops.

Do you want people to commute to Dalkey or from Dalkey ? The Dart brings people to town, once cherrywood is built and shops and offices are open you may find if there is a requirement then public transport between the two will increase.

As for changing the roads , applying cpo’s to gardens of the dearest houses in the country just to accommodate road changes for busses, how do you propose that happens , how much will our LPT Increased to cover the legal fees that will happen through extended court challenges

patrickbrophy18 · 16-10-2017 12:26am

ted1 wrote: »

I work in the airport and mange to commute 60 km each day. So i don’t buy your excuse for not leaving the car at home.

Is that using the Aircoach?
If so, your case is an exception.

I work in Citywest which is 2 hours by public transport and 30 minutes by car. I would call that a valid excuse unless you expect people not to have a healthy work-life balance. If there was a bus that took an hour door-to-door, I might consider it as I've alluded to in other forums.

ted1 wrote: »

Why do you want to encourage articulated trucks? They should be be banned from residential areas and smaller vans or cars go bikes. Used for deliveries

Roads such as Barnhill Road and Dalkey Avenue are arterial routes where articulated trucks are usually allowed in other roads with similar functions.

ted1 wrote: »

As for Dalkey stagnating, it’s a heritage village night need to compete with other places. Kinsale is a good model, with local shops and coffee shops.

Common sense prevails in Kinsale town with one-way systems to accommodate the narrow nature of its roads unlike Dalkey.

Dalkey is also a heritage town. It is hasn't been a village for a long time.

So, the only way to respect the heritage of a town is to allow it's function to become depleted and eclipsed?

ted1 wrote: »

Do you want people to commute to Dalkey or from Dalkey ? The Dart brings people to town, once cherrywood is built and shops and offices are open you may find if there is a requirement then public transport between the two will increase.

Right. And if it increases, do you honestly think Dalkey's narrow roads will cut it?

We should be stimulating additional provision of buses to make it a commuting destination. To answer your question, this would be both ways.

Seriously. Why am I even answering these questions?

ted1 wrote: »

As for changing the roads , applying cpo’s to gardens of the dearest houses in the country just to accommodate road changes for busses, how do you propose that happens , how much will our LPT I creaecto cover the legal fees that will happen through extended court challenges

What is "creaecto"?

Also, my plan is just an idea. There are probably other less expensive ways of better accommodating buses and the like.

ted1 · 16-10-2017 12:57am

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

ted1 wrote: »

I work in the airport and mange to commute 60 km each day. So i don’t buy your excuse for not leaving the car at home.

Is that using the Aircoach?
If so, your case is an exception.
e.

No, it’s using my bicycle!!!

patrickbrophy18 · 16-10-2017 1:04am

ted1 wrote: »

No, it’s using my bicycle!!!

That takes some serious dedication! How long does that take you?

ted1 · 16-10-2017 1:13am

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

ted1 wrote: »

No, it’s using my bicycle!!!

That takes some serious dedication! How long does that take you?

The average is about 1hr 10 min from Seafield. Each way

Via the m50 it’s about 45 min, but then I’d end up spending time in the gym so driving would work out taking more time.

patrickbrophy18 · 03-12-2017 11:38pm

I might as well bump this thread because the planning applications mentioned in the opening post have all been refused permission. Now, I'm not too sure if the thread should be kept open as the prospects of developments of similar scale do result in topical debates such as overshadowing, over development and traffic concerns to name but a few. Anyway, I thought I would let you all know the outcome of these planning applications.

ted1 · 31-12-2017 1:37am

New planning lodged : http://planning.dlrcoco.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=D17A/1135&theTabNo=3&backURL=<a href=wphappcriteria.display>Search Criteria</a> > <a href='wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?ResultID=2437574&StartIndex=71&SortOrder=rgndat:desc&DispResultsAs=wphappsresweek1&BackURL=<a href=wphappcriteria.display>Search Criteria</a>'>Search Results</a>

patrickbrophy18 · 31-12-2017 1:46am

Thanks for that ted1. Appreciate that!

Proposed/Recently Refused Infill Developments in Dalkey

Comments