Planning Notice - Change of use creche to dwelling

Charlie-Bravo

astrofluff wrote: »

Hi guys,

If you feel in any way the change of use of these units is wrong for Charlesland, each of the three applications must receive a submission/objection by Wednesday 14 March 2007.

The planning numbers are:

07/212; 69 Charlesland Wood Click here
07/224; 158 Charlesland Wood Click here
07/225; 196 Charlesland Court Click here


It is very important that the developers are not allowed to remove vital community facilities for such a young development. At the moment, we are short about 60 childcare spaces for the size of the development.

Puroga's business is mainly through children in residence outside of Charlesland; which may indicate a good creche facility but this means less spaces available to the Charleslandians! There is a huge waiting list for this creche.

Removing these creche units will create a further shortfall in the very near future. This is about maintaining a sustainable development so your help is needed.

Thanks for reading.

Results are in....

Planning refused for all 3. The long and short of it is that the Planning Inspector looked at the current development and recommended the units be granted permission as there was no requirement for the units but the BOARD themselves upheld their own inspector and refused it based on the Planning Authority's original refusal. For those of you who have kids or are planning have kids, it's worth reading the inspector's report and then the direction by the board to get a gist of what's available locally by way of childcare.

Regards, A!

mikedragon32

FWIW, this could be a disastrous outcome.

I had a conversation recently with some people who are of the opinion that setting up creches in units as small as these three houses would be prohibitively expensive and therefore there is no interest in the units as creches.

This, in turn, means that if the developer is unable to offload these units, then they will retain an interest in the Wood, thereby obliterating any hope we might have had for WCC to take over the estate in the near future.

IF this is the case, then despite the best intentions of all who objected (and I can fully understand why), have we (collectively) shot ourselves in the foot?

Those who know me and my posting history here will know I've never been a fan of the developers or their motives, however, the question is one I feel needs to be asked.

lostexpectation

I don't see how you can think making houses into creches is good idea in the long or short term, are there not retail units around into creches with a few off road parking spaces?

mikedragon32

lostexpectation wrote: »

I don't see how you can think making houses into creches is good idea in the long or short term, are there not retail units around into creches with a few off road parking spaces?

The problem is that it was part of the planning permission for the development that a number of houses would be given over for use as creches.

That's not really the developers' fault. The local authority should have stipulated purpose built creches like Puroga or the one up in the Court.

loyatemu

possibly someone could rent all 3 and use them for different levels of childcare.

The Ch Grove montessori (single 3 bed unit) was closed for a while because they moved to a larger unit in Ch Park, but they are now back using the original unit for after-school care while the Montessori and Creche are still in the Park.

This is actually a good model as the requirements for afterschool care and montessori are very different and it not ideal to have them in the same building (though they presumably lose some flexibility in staffing, catering etc).

Anyhow, there are plenty of people running childcare in non-purpose built 3-bed semis around the country - I'm sure there will eventually be a demand for these units if they are priced realistically. Bigger is not always better.

Charlie-Bravo

mikedragon32 wrote: »

I had a conversation recently with some people who are of the opinion that setting up creches in units as small as these three houses would be prohibitively expensive and therefore there is no interest in the units as creches.

Or perhaps the developer could reduce the price of the units down from €650,000 to make it more financially viable? Dare the developer be done out of a few quid!

I understand your point Mike but it bothers me that childcare facility provisions are looking to be removed without other facilities being put in place elsewhere locally. There are no creche spaces left in Charlesland for under 2 year olds. As the planning refusal states, its is pre-mature to remove such facilities as the demographic profile is continually changing...yours truely is an example of this. And most would agree that if there is an increase in children on the estate, it wouldn't be from moving in from outside it would be because we are getting down to business!;)

woodcutter

WCC are not anxiously awaiting the step down of the Developer in order that they can rush in and take the estate in charge. There are a myriad of complex issues which will have to be dealt with first, before WCC will even begin to consider a hand over, not least of these is the taking in charge of the spine road.

The developer could indeed take steps to make the units more attractive. The Developer could make the generous gesture of fitting out the units and handing them over to the Management Company in order to provide the members with an additional service within the estate.

The Developer has on deposit, a sizeable bond with WCC, the value of which is a multiple of any potential profit to be made on the sale of the 3 units. This bond can not be returned to the developer if the plannning requirements for the development have not been fully complied with, i.e. provision of specified childcare facilities.

MyPerfectCousin

woodcutter wrote: »

There are a myriad of complex issues which will have to be dealt with first, before WCC will even begin to consider a hand over, not least of these is the taking in charge of the spine road.

Off-topic diversion:

What are people talking about when they refer to the famous "spine road"? Is it the road stretching from Mill Road in Greystones to the Kilcoole Road in "Delgany"/Eden Gate? Or, is it the road that runs up and down the main green in Charlesland on both sides?

I've always thought it was the latter, but I've seen some references that sound more like the former (perhaps including the one above).

Why can't roads be given names in this country?

future_plans

Its the later Perfect...

mikedragon32

MyPerfectCousin wrote: »

Off-topic diversion:

What are people talking about when they refer to the famous "spine road"? Is it the road stretching from Mill Road in Greystones to the Kilcoole Road in "Delgany"/Eden Gate? Or, is it the road that runs up and down the main green in Charlesland on both sides?

I've always thought it was the latter, but I've seen some references that sound more like the former (perhaps including the one above).

Why can't roads be given names in this country?

The road from Mill Road to N11 (and Eden Gate) is known as the southern access road (or SAR).

MyPerfectCousin

mikedragon32 wrote: »

The road from Mill Road to N11 (and Eden Gate) is known as the southern access road (or SAR).

As is a similar road in Bray from Kilruddery to the N11.

I've only ever heard them referred to that way in the local papers, and there's no signs labelling them as such, so it will continue to be a mystery to visitors and some residents, especially new ones.

mikedragon32

MyPerfectCousin wrote: »

As is a similar road in Bray from Kilruddery to the N11.

I've only ever heard them referred to that way in the local papers, and there's no signs labelling them as such, so it will continue to be a mystery to visitors and some residents, especially new ones.

The road from Kilruddery to the N11 is the Southern Cross Road.