Shopping Center - The size of Liffey Valley and 260 Houses!

future_plans

woodser wrote:

It is not up to the developer to provide a school its up to the D.E.S.the D.E.S. rarely get involved inP.P.P. schools as they have proven disastrous in the recent past-- as for the Garda station Future Plans could you tell me exactly who these local cllrs are because two of our local cllrs along with 3 Wicklow T.D.s recently met with the Gda Commissioner and Minister Lenihan and they are anxious to press ahead with the station the old one has one functioning toilet and is totally unsuitable now that Greystones has been allocated 6 more Gardai.So I dont know what cllrs you were talking to as they seem tobe basing their statements on pure conjecture and opinion.

Cannot remember exactly. But I read it in the Bray People around the beginning of March this year.

Marcais

From a councillor - The Gardai do not want to relocate from the town centre. They have a site in the town to build if they want.

loyatemu

Marcais wrote:

From a councillor - The Gardai do not want to relocate from the town centre. They have a site in the town to build if they want.

greystones Garda station is also responsible for Delgany and Kilcoole.
from that point of view, Charlesland is probably the obvious place for them to be based.

woodser

Lets just wait and see what happens my money is on amove to be announced shortly.

Hammiepeters

D2 wrote:

I am advised that an exhibition of the model, plans, display boards and the non-technical summary of the EIS will take place in Charlesland Shopping Centre this week:

Thursday 19 July 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Friday 20 July 11:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Saturday 21 July 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Representatives of Zapi will be on hand to answer queries, comment cards will be provided and there'll be an email address and website.

Monorail...................Monorail....................Monorail*

*The Simpsons. All rights reserved.

scivvy

- No promises of a school...just land will be provided for such...( woodser)
While i was down viewing the plans today i met some some people who were under the illusion that zapi were donating the site for the school. This is absolutely not the case . They have agreed to sell the site for a million an acre IF they get planning permission . They apparently (according to a recent council meeting) have also agreed to sell the recycling centre and enterprise centre to the council for a total of ONE EURO IF again they get planning permission . How could one refuse them??? To be honest something smells slighty fishy to me. What do other people think.?

Charlie-Bravo

Hammiepeters wrote:

Monorail...................Monorail....................Monorail*

*The Simpsons. All rights reserved.

Mono...D'oh!

Marcais

It is not surprising they are under this illusion when the Zapi representative at the exhibition is telling them this i.e. that Zapi gave the school site to Dept. Of Education for nothing, and their press releases and flyers refer to sites "being provided" etc.

If you were to read this advertisement in the Independent property section, you may be excused for thinking that Zapi were building the scool, garda station and recycling center and these would begin before anything else is built:

http://www.independent.ie/unsorted/property/building-gateway-to-greystones-822236.html

"The first phase of the scheme will include a 32-classroom primary school, garda station and recycling centre ,while the enterprise centre of 2,800sqm will be transferred at no cost to the Greystones Enterprise Board to be run on a non-profit basis."

ps. I don't doubt that a school will be built on the site. Also, the 92 high density apartments - affordable housing, will be owner occupied and not Council maintained, they will have a management company.

scivvy wrote:

- No promises of a school...just land will be provided for such...( woodser)
While i was down viewing the plans today i met some some people who were under the illusion that zapi were donating the site for the school. This is absolutely not the case . They have agreed to sell the site for a million an acre IF they get planning permission . They apparently (according to a recent council meeting) have also agreed to sell the recycling centre and enterprise centre to the council for a total of ONE EURO IF again they get planning permission . How could one refuse them??? To be honest something smells slighty fishy to me. What do other people think.?

woodser

Marcais wrote:

ps. I don't doubt that a school will be built on the site. Also, the 92 high density apartments - affordable housing, will be owner occupied and not Council maintained, they will have a management company.

Marcais I think you misunderstand the concept of affordable as opposed to social housing Affordable is built under the current leglislation at affordable prices and then sold to those on affordable housing lists in the district that they are built and who meet certain criterion including the relevant mortgage approvals at below market cost .Social on the other hand are handed over to the council to allocate and to run and rent to Council tenants just like any other council estate.The affordable houses will come under will come under a management company as the council has no responsibility for them they are owned outright by those who bought them.Social housing on the other hand come under council control who are responsible for them as they own them.The new houses at the back of the park will not come under a management company.Zapi made this cleaar when I asked as leglislation passed in Jan 07 clearly outlaws new estates with freehold houses in them to come under a management company.However this leglislation cannot be retrospective for the rest of us as we signed contracts with lease agreements and covenants that cannot be affected by this law.

Marcais

woodser wrote:

Marcais I think you misunderstand the concept of affordable as opposed to social housing Affordable is built under the current leglislation at affordable prices and then sold to those on affordable housing lists in the district that they are built and who meet certain criterion including the relevant mortgage approvals at below market cost .Social on the other hand are handed over to the council to allocate and to run and rent to Council tenants just like any other council estate.The affordable houses will come under will come under a management company as the council has no responsibility for them they are owned outright by those who bought them.Social housing on the other hand come under council control who are responsible for them as they own them.

The new houses at the back of the park will not come under a management company.Zapi made this clear when I asked as leglislation passed in Jan 07 clearly outlaws new estates with freehold houses in them to come under a management company.However this leglislation cannot be retrospective for the rest of us as we signed contracts with lease agreements and covenants that cannot be affected by this law.

Yes, because it was described as "social and affordable housing" I wanted to clarify that it is "affordable housing". My understanding is that the Council may purchase units to house social tenants.


re. "The new houses at the back of the park will not come under a management company" I wasn't aware of this and it's contrary to what the rep. on duty at the exhibition stated, but that can be taken with a pinch of salt. How can they work their plan to extend the shuttle bus service if we are paying for it and the new tenants will not pay management fees ?

mikedragon32

I took a look today. All very impressive. Just got used to not having to wash building debris off my car on a weekly basis and now we'll have to start all over again! :rolleyes:

Anyway, did anyone notice on the display that pictures of the harbour and the north beach were used as backgrounds for some of the developer's plans. How's that for irony?

Marcais

mikedragon32 wrote:

I took a look today. All very impressive. Just got used to not having to wash building debris off my car on a weekly basis and now we'll have to start all over again! :rolleyes:

Anyway, did anyone notice on the display that pictures of the harbour and the north beach were used as backgrounds for some of the developer's plans. How's that for irony?

You won't be surprised that I noted the irony Mike! A very nice portrait of the harbour area, they should be made to pay for using that image, note it was also used by Durkans for Charlesland. That could be the way to pay for an acceptable marina! i.e. sell the brand.

ps. re. the affordable housing, what I stated re. the units not being social housing and in charge of a management agent was from the Zapi rep so don't take it that this is good information!

woodser

Marcais wrote:

You won't be surprised that I noted the irony Mike! A very nice portrait of the harbour area, they should be made to pay for using that image, note it was also used by Durkans for Charlesland. That could be the way to pay for an acceptable marina! i.e. sell the brand.

ps. re. the affordable housing, what I stated re. the units not being social housing and in charge of a management agent was from the Zapi rep so don't take it that this is good information!

I wouldnt take it as good information either but I do know they will not be allowed to put a management company in place under new leglislation on the freehold houses.Apts are a different matter.

loyatemu

btw - when I pointed out to the guy that his maps didn't include the (recently rejected) development behind the Crescent he said that that proposal was now "dead". Which would suggest they won't be appealing that decision...

Irelandscape

Has anybody noticed the number of dwellings for sale in Charlesland? To me it seems pretty high and the property market has seriously cooled down.
Are houses/apartments really selling that well at the moment? I've seen apartments for sale for many months now.
I'm wondering if these proposed developments will really go to term. The Greystones new quarters website hasn't been updated in almost a year and I think it shows something. Maybe developers are not so sure anymore that this is a good time to invest in property.
Charlesland and Eden Gates shopping areas are not doing so well neither...
My point is that I wouldn't be surprised if these developing projects were to be delayed by months if not years. Just a guess of course.

loyatemu

its a 10 year planning permission - they'll build and sell them at a rate that maximises their profit.

smithser

Was just looking at the wicklow county council website, 71 objections submitted, decision due on the 16th August...

Ossie

Included in the inspectors report on the the Greystones Harbour Development reference was made to comments by Ms S. Walsh (Wicklow County Council Planner) regarding the Zapi development at Charlesland as follows:

"One significant change made to the Local Area Plan related to land in Charlesland owned by a company called Zapi Developments. These lands were changed in the Local Area Plan from employment use zoning to residential, and a mix of employment and office use with a significant element of retail use. This was in spite of the fact that the proposal was opposed by the Executive of Wicklow County Council."

Based on this comment and the fact that the County Manager himself publicly stated his opposition to the plan it is very likely that the Council will refuse permission tomorrow.

ryecatcher

Fingers crossed!!

dh2007

I heard that the town planners of wicklow proposed for a shopping centre to be built on wicklow county council land near the park and ride and red brick council building.

There were a number of reasons why this site was recommended over charlesland most important of which was that this site would be an extension of the current shopping/infrastructure of greystones village. Apparently it goes against all retail development strategy to build a shopping centre in an area away from current business as it causes existing shops to suffer. Who's going to go greystones village when there's a gigantic shopping centre down the road??

Do you know who rejected it??? The councillers. Why I don't know.

The way it works is that planners make recommendations and they're either accepted or rejected by councillers. what mystifies me is why we even bother to employ town planners when un-educated, inexperienced councillers can just veto their advice?

Ossie

Further information requested by the Council.

It looks like a re run of the Harbour Development again where money talks.:mad:

cheers

has everything been rejected or has it just been the shopping centre?

Ossie

cheers wrote:

has everything been rejected or has it just been the shopping centre?

Nothing has been rejected. They are looking for additional information. The content of the AI request would indicate what they may want to change. It looks as if it will be an approval subject to conditions.

Lumbarda

Has anyone heard what Further Information they are looking for and what any changes are likely to be?

Hopefully, that it's not acceptable to build 12 metre high houses set 6 metres back from their neighbours' existing back walls or is that too much to ask for in this developer-crazy count(r)y?!

Ossie

Lumbarda wrote:

Has anyone heard what Further Information they are looking for and what any changes are likely to be?

Hopefully, that it's not acceptable to build 12 metre high houses set 6 metres back from their neighbours' existing back walls or is that too much to ask for in this developer-crazy count(r)y?!

Letter from WCC to Zappi as follows:

---

16/08/2007

Zapi Properties Ltd
Tíros Resources Ltd.
Armitage House
10 Hatch Street Lower
Dublin 2


RE: Planning and Development Regulations 2006 – Planning Register Reference 07/1352 - Zapi Properties Ltd - 10 year permission for development on 31.7 ha of land
at Charlesland Greystones Co. Wicklow

A Chara,

With reference to the above application I am to inform you that the information submitted is not adequate to enable a decision to be made.

Accordingly, in pursuance of Article 33 of the Planning & Development Regulations, 2006 notice is hereby given requiring the information requested on the following page(s)

This information is essential in order to fully assess the proposal. If it is not received within 6 months from the date of this notice the application will be automatically declared withdrawn.

Once received the further information may be deemed ‘significant, in this instance you will be advised that a notice must be placed in a newspaper in accordance with Article 35 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2006.

All drawings submitted in response to Article 33 must comply with the requirements of Article 23 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2006.

Mise le Meas,

___________________
SENIOR EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT







RE: Planning and Development Regulations 2006 – Planning Register Reference 07/1352 - Zapi Properties Ltd - 10 year permission for development on 31.7 ha of land
at Charlesland Greystones Co. Wicklow

Retail
1. Having regard to the location of the proposed retail shopping centre development (convenience and comparison element) at an out-of-centre site, considerably distant from the existing retail core of Greystones, the Planning Authority does not consider that the submissions made in connection with the application, including the Retail Impact Assessment are adequate to demonstrate that alternative sites closer to the existing retail core are not more suitable for a retail development of the nature proposed. In particular, it is considered that the location of the development would not encourage pedestrian movement to or from the town centre or multi-purpose trips with regard to existing facilities, that no commercial synergy would be created with the existing retail core of Greystones and that the vitality and viability of the existing retail core would therefore be seriously undermined. You are therefore invited to consider one of the following options;
(a) Submit revised proposals for a more appropriately scaled retail development on the subject site serving a local catchment area only, i.e. a neighbourhood centre development (as defined in the Retail Planning Guidelines).

(b) Provide an expanded Retail Impact Assessment that;
(i) Clearly demonstrates that the subject site is the most favourable site in lieu of other sites identified, in particular Site 3, ‘Mill Road car park and playground’.
(ii) The sequential site test and Retail Impact Assessment clearly and robustly demonstrate that the proposed development would be in keeping with the sequential approach as outlined in the Retail Planning Guidelines and would conform to the Land use matrix associated with the E2 Lands as outlined in Table 11.2.1 of the Local Area Plan which clearly requires that retail uses will only be considered at the subject site where it can be shown that;
(1) The provision of retail units will not undermine the vitality and viability of the existing core retail area of Greystones
(2) The provision of retail units will help to counteract the leakage of retail expenditure from the Greystones area in particular and the County in general
(3) The provision of retail facilities will be in accordance with the Retail Planning Strategy for the GDA and the Draft Wicklow County Retail Strategy as set out in the Wicklow County Development Plan.
(4) Such development will provide for high levels of employment

Phasing
2. Having regard to the quantum of previously permitted residential development in Greystones and surrounding areas, you are advised that the office/enterprise development would be required to be completed in advance of the proposed residential development in the interest of ensuring sufficient employment is available for the residents of the local area in the interest of sustainable development. Please submit a revised phasing plan which reflects this requirement.

Residential
3. The housing proposed to the northern portion of the site would not comply with the E2 zoning objective which permits residential development of ‘..168 family units incorporating a range of dwelling sizes and types, with average floor areas up to 220sqm..’ as a number of dwellings proposed would be in excess of 220sqm, i.e. house type b at 280sqm. Please submit revised proposals to address.

4. The Development Plan requires that private open space per house be provided at a rate of 0.64sqm per 1sqm house area. Please state garden areas achieved and clarify how this standard is achieved in relation to the housing (168 units) located to the residential portion of the site.

5. Please submit revised site layout plans which address the following;
(a) Dwellings no. 160, 2 and 149 to be repositioned to generally conform to the building line established by dwellings no.150 to 159.

(b) Dwelling no. 42 to be omitted or replaced with a single storey dwelling due to unacceptable visual impact to existing dwellings within the Charlesland estate.

(c) Dwelling no. 1 to be omitted in the interest of visual amenity due to unacceptable proximity to the public road. This dwelling may be relocated/repositioned elsewhere within the site.

(d) Dwellings 7-19 to be repositioned to ensure 22m separation to gable ends of dwellings within the Charlesland estate.

(e) Please provide full details as to how the position of dwellings no. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 will visually and architecturally integrate with possible future housing layouts proposed on the adjoining site the north in the ownership of the applicant (site of prr07/956). If integration with future development cannot be indicated, revised proposals will be required.

6. Please provide full details of measures/ arrangements to ensure safe and convenient access to the existing dwelling on site is maintained during the construction phase of the development. This shall include owners/residents agreement to proposals.

7. It is proposed to provide access to the apartment/duplex development through an existing residential development known as ‘Seabourne’. Please provide full details of the legal entitlement of the applicant to utilize such an access arrangement. Such details should be provided by a solicitor with professional indemnity insurance.

8. In relation to the provision of social and affordable housing within the site you are advised that the Housing Directorate have reported that the proposals to provide 92 units to the eastern portion of the site are deemed unsatisfactory. In particular the Housing Directorate would prefer the provision of a greater number of three bed units provided in a more integrated manner throughout the overall housing development to prevent undue segregation In this regard you are invited to reconsidered your proposal and submit revised details to provide the required quota of Social and Affordable residential development in line with current Housing Department requirements. This may require a redesign of some elements of the proposed scheme. You are advised to contact the Housing Department of WCC in this regard.

9. The proposal to provide 92 social and affordable housing units in addition to 168 private dwelling units would exceed the number of residential units allowable on the site as set in Table 11.2.1 of the Local Area Plan which states a maximum of 210 units will be permitted. Please submit revised proposals to address.

10. Please clarify the discrepancy in residential floor areas and Part V (20%) floor areas outlined at Section 2.8 and 3.4 of the planning report submitted with the application, i.e. Section 2.8 gives a total floor area of 45,094sqm, 20% of which would equate to 9,018sqm, while Section 3.4 gives a total floor area of 46,267sqm, 20% of which would equate to 9,253sqm .

Office/Enterprise development
11. Please expand the submitted visual assessment to include a series of views/photomontages of the office portion of the development, in particular the 4 storey blocks, from locations;
(a) Along the public footpath to the northern side of the Greystones Southern Access Route facing south.

(b) From the estate road serving dwellings 115-127 facing south.

(c) From the proposed entrance to the residential portion of the development (168 units) facing west at the existing roundabout.

Should adverse visual impacts be identified revised proposals to address, including a reduction in height of the office portion of the development may be required.

12. Please submit a cross section east to west through office block 3 and the existing apartment block located to the western side of the R761 regional road.

13. The proposed 5 storey (including mezzanine) motor showroom/ office development, specifically blocks MS2 and MS3, are considered to be of excessive height, scale and visual dominance having regard to the location of the site on the urban/rural fringe of Greystones adjoining a greenbelt buffer zone in close proximity to permitted and proposed housing development. You are therefore invited to submit revised proposals for blocks MS2 and MS3 to provide for a development that is not in excess of 4 storey /18metres in height.

14. Please state the site coverage/ plot ratio achieved in relation to the office/enterprise portion and retail portion of the development for each particular site.

Traffic
15. The applicant should clarify the following items raised in the submitted Traffic Impact Assessment;
(a) It is stated that the R761/Greystones Southern Access Route roundabout will require upgrading by the construction of freeflow left slip lanes on the R761 northbound and the Charlesland Dual Carraigeway. The applicant should submit drawings showing the necessary modifications and clearly highlighting the lands necessary for the construction of the slip lanes. The applicant should also clarify his intentions in relation to the construction of these slip lanes as the Planning Authority consider that a phasing restriction may be necessary in relation to the construction/occupation of parts of the development until such slip lanes have been constructed.

(b) The EIS submitted with the existing permission for the site (01/5318) identified traffic capacity problems at the roundabout junction serving the industrial development. The submitted Traffic Impact Assessment does not identify any capacity problems with this roundabout for the current development. While it is acknowledged that the development types served by this roundabout are different, the applicant should clarify how the difference in development types and the subsequent alteration of traffic flows has resulted in there being no capacity problems envisaged.

(c) The applicant should clarify the assumptions used to calculate the traffic flow distribution for the shopping centre and the proposed retail park having regard to the two entrance/exists from the dual carriageway link road. Any road traffic signs necessary to guide traffic in accordance with such assumptions should be clearly identified.

(d) It is stated the R761 Killincarrig Junction would be “out of capacity due to the concentration of all movements at that location”. The indicated mitigation is the provision of the “R761 Killincarrig Eastern By-Pass”. In this regard the applicant should indicate the quantum of development that could be constructed and occupied such that the Killincarrig Junction does not reach capacity at 2019. Having regard to the likely long-term timeframe for the provision of the “R761 Killincarrig Eastern By-Pass” the applicant should propose a phasing for the proposed development based on their response to this item to ensure that congestion on the road network is avoided. The applicant may wish to discuss alternatives with the Road Authority in this regard.

16. The applicant should submit an assessment of the ability of the existing R761 between the R761/Greysones Southern Access Roundabout and the Killincarrig Roundabout to cater for the traffic generated from the proposed development. Such an assessment should address the safety aspects in relation to width and alignment as opposed to the capacity of the junctions.

17. The applicant should submit the following further detail in relation to the retail portion of the development;
(a) Please clarify the priority status of the two entrance/exists from the dual carriageway link road serving the retail centre development. Please provide full details of any road traffic signs necessary to guide traffic in accordance with any such entrance priority intentions.

(b) Please clarify which of the proposed entrance/exists will be utilized to serve goods and service vehicles associated with the retail development.

(c) Please clarify how goods vehicles will access the proposed service yards and delivery areas located to the rear of the retail complex as a site access from the site entrance road to the south west of the retail units does not appear readily apparent from the submitted site layout plan.

(d) Please indicate how HGV’s and articulated vehicles will safety negotiate the existing roundabout adjacent Charlesland sports complex given its limited diameter and the internal entrance estate road which includes a series of tight bends.

18. The following further detail is required in relation to the proposed motor showrooms
(a) Please clarify if on site storage of display/stock vehicles will take place outside the proposed motor showrooms in car parking areas. You are advised that this may not be acceptable having regard to the under provision of car parking identified within the site.

(b) Please clarify if on site maintenance/repair of cars will take place.

(c) Please clarify how unloading of display/stock vehicles will be facilitated within the site without undue impact to traffic safety. Any details submitted should include details of car transporter parking/turning facilities and frequency of deliveries.

19. The following further detail is required in relation to the proposed office development
(a) The proposed access arrangements to the basement level car park serving the office portion of the development appear to conflict, i.e. site layout plan 5652-006 and drawing no 5652-140. Please address.

(b) Please clarify the purpose of the portion of the access road located between office blocks 1 and 7.

(c) Please provide further detail in relation to the entrance /exit to the multi storey car park which should clearly illustrate how safe access and egress can be facilitate for vehicular and pedestrian traffic.

20. The Planning Authority has concerns regarding the entry/exit and circulation of vehicles within the petrol station forecourt and the potential impact on traffic and pedestrian safety having particular regard to the single entry/exit point. In this regard please submit a safety statement addressing this concern. Any details submitted should include details of petrol tanker parking/ turning facilities and frequency of deliveries.

Miscellaneous
School Site
21. The proposal to utilize the proposed shopping centre car park and proposed pedestrian bridge for drop off and collection is not acceptable. Please provide revised proposals that provide dedicated vehicular and pedestrian access points to the school site from the proposed residential estate to the north in addition to an access from the existing Charlesland commercial centre to the north. You are strongly advised to consider a reconfiguration of the current site layout to facilitate an access in this regard.

Archaeological
22. There are a number of recorded monuments located within the application site that will be directly affected by the proposed development in addition to newly discovered sites. It is stated at section 16.8.2 of the EIS submitted that ‘There will be no impact on archaeology during the operational phase of the project as it is anticipated that all archaeological features and sites will be resolved in advance or during construction’. Please expand on this statement to indicate how it is envisaged that there will be no impact on archaeology as a result of the proposed development.

Visual
23. Section 13 of the EIS has not been included in the EIS document. Please address

Lumbarda

Thanks a million for posting that, Ossie.

While there are some good elements in there, I can't believe that there is nothing about the greater height of the houses in relation to existing houses in Charlesland and to the fact that the back row of houses from Numbers 20 -41 are so near to the end walls of Charlesland Park...

Does anyone know what action can be taken at this stage?

anniec

Lumbarda wrote:

Thanks a million for posting that, Ossie.

While there are some good elements in there, I can't believe that there is nothing about the greater height of the houses in relation to existing houses in Charlesland and to the fact that the back row of houses from Numbers 20 -41 are so near to the end walls of Charlesland Park...

Does anyone know what action can be taken at this stage?

Lumbarda

I would agree!

In relation to the house numbers they refer to above the copy I received doesnt show the numbers does anyone have a clearer copy? if so do any of the above house numbers refer to the houses near Park??

Thanks

Lumbarda

Hi Anniec, the house no.s 20-41 are those which back onto the south-facing gardens in the Park down as far as the Green Space between Park & Grove.

Ossie

I see that Sean "Dunner" Dunne (owner of Zappi) had a long letter in todays Irish Times bemoaning his harsh treatment. :eek:

I am surprised that neither the Bray People nor the Wicklow Times have any report on the stalling of Charlesland Phase 2.

Ossie

I received a letter from WCC today advising that further information has been received in relation to the Zapi Properties application and that this corrrespondance can be inspected during normal office hours.

Has anyone been able to review this additional information yet?