Large Appartment Block Planned For Barnhill Road Dalkey

patrickbrophy18

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Why would Barnhill Road ever need to be a QBC? That's just silly.

It's the same reason why Upper Glenageary Road was widened and that is to prepare for future demand. The same thing goes for Dalkey Avenue which pretty much makes Dalkey a cul de sac and non commuting destination.

schemingbohemia wrote: »

The rest of your post is just NIMBYISM.

I'm far from being a NIMBY. For example, I didn't object to the extension of Centra or SuperValu. Nor did I object to Starbucks (before and while it was open) or Caffe Nero. I think that the whole "ideal" of keeping Dalkey exclusive is absolute nonsense as Dalkey should be streamlined where possible. Moreover, the concept of "local trade for local business" often mooted by the denizens of the area is something I find deplorable as it smacks of NIMBY.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that Dalkey should play a far more prominent role in the future as a coastal town.

schemingbohemia wrote: »

As to your point about buses having to pull in, there's 1 59 and 1 Aircoach per hour, the amount of times they actually go down Barnhill Road at the same time is minimal, you're totally clutching at straws.

No I amn't. I just think that retaining the width of a road incapable of comfortably accommodating the two-way flow of buses and other larger vehicles is guided purely by sentiment. Plus, the current width doesn't lend itself to increases in frequency if and when they might be needed.

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Barnhill Road works fine, i'd rather there wasn't on-street parking between the village and the railway bridge but it doesn't cause too much of an issue.

Fair enough. Though I would say double-yellow lines between Centra and the Squareabout would be a good start.

Now, having said all of that and read through the responses again, you, ted1, Larbre34 and Aard have raised a very valid point in that the age profile will more than likely make no difference to traffic. So, I'll buy that. To a lesser extent, I can kind of see the point of it freeing up existing residents for younger families. This point was a tad tenuous but, I feel much more enlightened.

Larbre34 wrote: »

I think you should move to America. Or Moscow.

If that isn't a sense of humor, it comes off as a very hostile! Then again, I have launched hostile comments your way. How about a truce?:D

Larbre34

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

If that isn't a sense of humor, it comes off as a very hostile! Then again, I have launched hostile comments your way. How about a truce?:D

I'm certainly not being hostile. I'm suggesting with reasonable seriousness that if that's your idea of progressive design, you should live somewhere its appreciated and where you will find examples of it.

patrickbrophy18

Larbre34 wrote: »

I'm certainly not being hostile. I'm suggesting with reasonable seriousness that if that's your idea of progressive design, you should live somewhere its appreciated and where you will find examples of it.

I think I'll stay put in the Emerald Isle. What is the issue with American or Moscow road designs anyway?

Back on topic, it will be interesting to see how the apartment block plans pan out from a decision perspective.

I still don't understand the need then for 74 parking spaces if traffic is likely to be minimal as many posters here put it. Staff might make up a small fraction of that amount. What about the rest?

From reading the 493 page document which also makes the point on minimal traffic levels, I think it is quite presumptuous, not to mention ageist, to base low levels of traffic on the "age profile". Unless they are planning on regulating how many people go in and out which would be highly unethical. That would make it more like a prison.

Aard

It might be of interest to you that traffic generation is generally caused by the availability of car parking at one's destination rather than their home. If this is a building primarily for older people, it is unlikely that there will be any rush hour congestion unlike a regular housing estate.

ted1

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I think I'll stay put in the Emerald Isle. What is the issue with American or Moscow road designs anyway?

Back on topic, it will be interesting to see how the apartment block plans pan out from a decision perspective.

I still don't understand the need then for 74 parking spaces if traffic is likely to be minimal as many posters here put it. Staff might make up a small fraction of that amount. What about the rest?

From reading the 493 page document which also makes the point on minimal traffic levels, I think it is quite presumptuous, not to mention ageist, to base low levels of traffic on the "age profile". Unless they are planning on regulating how many people go in and out which would be highly unethical. That would make it more like a prison.

Some people like to have a car even if they don't use them. The planning actual stipulates that they are using stackers. We have them in work. To get the top car out you have to move the lower one . It just about works in work because security have the email and phone number attached to each reg and people only have to move their car once. I can't imagine it working in a residential unit where cars are in regular use.

Later life people don't travel to work daily. That removes journey, your losing the plot if you think saying that out loud is ageist.

As regards staff, there are staff units available ( I Persume the three bed + another ) so that reduces traffic further.

pedronomix

Don't forget all the bicycle spaces and parking/charging stations for mobility scooters. The Dalkey Senior "Wacky" Street Racing Festival could be a huge event for the town. They do need lots of parking as people are generally very diligent about visiting their elderly parents with the grand-kids etc.

ted1

Actually just had a thought, it works out as 1.3 spaces per dwelling which if memory serves me right is what is set out in the county development plan.

Labre, as a planner does that sound right?


********************************************* from http://www.dlrcoco.ie/Meetings/2014/DDPETWAPR14.pdf
Table 16.3 of the County Development Plan sets the following minimum car parking standards for residential developments:
Residential Dwelling
1 space per 1-bed unit and per 2 bed unit
2 spaces per 3+ bed unit (depending on design and location)
Apartments, Flats, Sheltered housing
1 space per 1-bed unit,
1.5 spaces per 2-bed unit,
2 spaces per 3+ bed unit (depending on design and location)
**********************************************************

Larbre34

Yes, although most of my own work is commercial, those dev plan guidelines each County has are the first point of reference. Apartment/sheltered housing would be the mark. They may have got away with less spaces if they were closer to the Dart, but the proposal seems sufficient.

pedronomix

Over 30 objections lodged by today's 4pm deadline, apparently. No local Dalkey love for the project, the promoter has been exposed for being cute, or worse, with selective data and methodologies. this one will run for a very long time

Larbre34

"pedronomix wrote: »

this one will run for a very long time

Not really, 8 weeks for a decision, 4 weeks appeal window, 18 weeks max for bord pleanála to decide. Most developments will have that factored in to their project timeline. Cant imagine anyone wanting to fund a judicial review of a low environmental impact development like this.

pedronomix

if you assume only planning law is at play, you are probably correct. A judicial review of a planning based appeal is unlikely to end well.
There are other avenues open in this case, just not those within the remit of planners. A nice little case would take years to get though Circuit/High/Appeals courts.

ted1

pedronomix wrote: »

Over 30 objections lodged by today's 4pm deadline, apparently. No local Dalkey love for the project, the promoter has been exposed for being cute, or worse, with selective data and methodologies. this one will run for a very long time

If there all like the first lady who objected because she ilegally reverses out if her drive I can't see them carry much weight.

pedronomix

Objections published now stands at 38 including one from An Taisce.

Ted you should get on to the Road Safety Authority and advise them of their error in omitting this offence http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-of-the-road-eng.pdf Page 53/54 refers

Larbre34

pedronomix wrote: »

if you assume only planning law is at play, you are probably correct. A judicial review of a planning based appeal is unlikely to end well.
There are other avenues open in this case, just not those within the remit of planners. A nice little case would take years to get though Circuit/High/Appeals courts.

Im intrigued as to what other avenues you believe might be open in this regard? Do you believe there is insufficient interest in the site by the applicant? Do you believe there is undue influence or some element of deception or fraud? I know you cant answer that in this place, but I can tell you that because of the behaviour of parties on both sides of the process, there is a long history of vexatious cases in Ireland and the Courts take a very dim view of them.

pedronomix

Larbre34 wrote: »

Im intrigued as to what other avenues you believe might be open in this regard? Do you believe there is insufficient interest in the site by the applicant? Do you believe there is undue influence or some element of deception or fraud? I know you cant answer that in this place, but I can tell you that because of the behaviour of parties on both sides of the process, there is a long history of vexatious cases in Ireland and the Courts take a very dim view of them.

This is not something I am prepared to share on here but it is not a vexatious type of litigation, expensive and pointless. I know of no undue influence/deception/fraud other than inaccuracies and omissions contained in the application... these will be teased out and adjudicated upon in the planning process.

The validity of my plan does not hinge on what you or some others seem to think are the options available. Lateral thinking and good in depth research are at the heart of innovation. The answer is hidden in plain sight in the application document

pedronomix

Just spotted the Dept of Arts Heritage and Gaeltachta have submitted an awkward one too. Will this Horse ever fly?

pedronomix

I particularly like this one, it could be a very long time before I need to initiate my own option!


: PIJnfl!r1p Department
Planning Application Reference Number :015X
"Later Living Development" at Dalkey Manor, Barnhill Road, Dalkey,
County Dublin
Equal Status Acts 2000-2012 Objection
Dear Sirs,
We refer to the above planning application and can confirm that we have been retained to act
on behalf of a number of residents of Old Quarry, Dalkey Avenue, Dalkey, County Dublin,
and in that regard please now find enclosed herewith our cheque in the sum of €20.00 in
respect of your objection fee.
We note the contents of the planning application lodged with yourselves on 29 January 2015
for a "later living" development at Dalkey Manor, Barnhill Road, Dalkey, County Dublin and
must advise that the development sought is illegal and contrary to Sections 3 and 6 of the
Equal Statu$ Act 2000.
In those circumstances, Counsel has advised that any such permission granted on foot of the
current application would be ultra varies and subject to judicial review in the High Court In
those circumstances we believe you have no option but to refuse this application.
Sections 3 of the Equal Status Act 2000 confirm that it is illegal to discriminate on the
grounds of age (Sections 3 (1) (a) and 3 (2) (f)). Section 6 (1) clarifies: -'
"6 -( 1) a person shall not discriminate in-
(a) disposing of any estate or interest in premises"
l This is exactly the case here.
1
"
~ image:

---

'.'. ---- '''''

---

._m, .-. ' ""--'---. --.
..
However, Section 6 (5) set out an exception to this general principle: -
"6- (5) where any premises or accommodation are reserved for the use of persons in a
particular category of persons for a religious purpose or as a refuge, nursing home, retirement
home, home for persons with a disability or hostel for homeless persons or for a similar
purpose, a refusal to dispose of the premises or provide accommodation to a person who is
not in that category does not, for that reason alone, constitute discrimination".
Thus, in the immediate case the applicant has to show that the development is a "retirement
home" and therefore comes within the scope of the above exception. There is no definition of
"retirement home" within the legislation, however, at no stage have the applicants attempted
to contend that the proposed development is a "retirement home".
It appears the developers are a UK company, and the UK equality legislation with respect to
the disposal of property specifically excludes the age ground. They have merely transposed
their model to this country without taking account of the difference in legislation.
At all stages in their application they stress that the development is a "later living"
development and not a retirement home.
Most tellingly at page 3 of their Transportation Report, the applicants confirm that the
development does not fall under the current development plan, and further that the number of
parking spaces sought are those in respect of a standard private residential apartment
development and not a retirement home development.
Page 3 states: -
"The residential development consists of 57 No. Later Living Apartments, housing
approximately 90 No. persons.
As part of consultations with the Transportation Department of DLRCC during the course of
the preparation of this planning application, it was noted that this type of development is not
specifically covered in the current Development Plan. Therefore, in this report the proposed
development has been assessed against a standard private residential apartment development
and a Retirement Home Classification.
It is proposed to provide 74 No. car park spaces which equates to 1.30 per residential unit.
This is in accordance with the Dun Laoghaire Rathdown Development Plan which requires a
maximum of 1 space per I-bed apartment and 1.5 spaces per 2-bed apartment (maximum 82
spaces in this case). On the other hand, the parking provision for care homes/elderly person's
homes within the Dun Laoghaire Rathdown Development Plan is one space per 4 residents,
which would equate in this case to a requirement of 22 No. car spaces and would clearly be
insufficient. "
Therefore, even on the applicants own submission only 22 car park spaces can be granted if
this development is to comply with the Development Plan as a retirement home. image:

---

4>
.
Indeed all through the Planning Report it is stressed that this is a "Later Living" development,
and therefore not one recognised by the Equal Status Act under Irish law. For example at
page 10 of the Planning Report it is emphasised twice at Section 6.0 that the instant
application is a "later living" development.
Again, at page 16 of the Planning Report it is stated that the "... proposed development is not
a nursing or care home.. . "
There are numerous other examples and indeed the title of the development is referred to as a
"later living "development.
In summary therefore please note that the proposed development is not lawful under the
provisions of the Equal Status Acts and therefore you as planning authority have no power to
grant same. In the event that planning permission is granted we will of course take our clients
further instructions however please note that we will be relying on the contents of this letter
should any further application be required in order to fix you with the costs of same.
Yours faithfully,
lW-o
DARAGH M. KEANE
SOLICITORS image:

ted1

I'm afraid the above won't fly, there are plenty of similar places around the country already, Ballygihen in sandycove is for over 55s.
http://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/15-ballygihen-sandycove-co-dublin/1835480

In any case, while it targets later living it's only descrimunstion if they prevent a younger person from buying.
Your grasping at straws.

As for reversing into a main road : see 25.2. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/si/0294.html#zzsi294y1964a25

schemingbohemia

I love it, threats of legal action to deliberately drag the whole process out! Definitely not NIMBYISM at all, oh no.

schemingbohemia

Interesting to see here http://www.environ.ie/en/residentiallandavailabilitysurvey/
that this site is one of only 3 in Dalkey that is available for residential development.

What type of development would meet your criteria for this site pedronomix?

ted1

I particularly think that's it's all the oldies giving out about that age profile. I wonder what they would tink if a low profile halting site/ social housing etc.

pedronomix

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Interesting to see here http://www.environ.ie/en/residentiallandavailabilitysurvey/
that this site is one of only 3 in Dalkey that is available for residential development.

What type of development would meet your criteria for this site pedronomix?

this is not about having no development but rather about having quality sympathetic housing that would add to the overall fabric and community of our town.
The local consesus is that a modern townhouse type development would fit in nicely, given the two long dimensions of the site are bounded by bungalows. The increased density that is afforded by the designs similar to those say at Ballinclea Wood which are two storey but also utilise the roof space would be generally a good use of the site. This kind of housing has broad appeal to a wide market including families and down sizers alike.


Sets of 2,3 and 4 units could yield an aesthetically pleasing development for those who own them and for their neighbours. The Dalkey Manor house itself might suit conversion to a small number of apartments.

schemingbohemia

pedronomix wrote: »

this is not about having no development but rather about having quality sympathetic housing that would add to the overall fabric and community of our town.
The local consesus is that a modern townhouse type development would fit in nicely, given the two long dimensions of the site are bounded by bungalows. The increased density that is afforded by the designs similar to those say at Ballinclea Wood which are two storey but also utilise the roof space would be generally a good use of the site. This kind of housing has broad appeal to a wide market including families and down sizers alike.


Sets of 2,3 and 4 units could yield an aesthetically pleasing development for those who own them and for their neighbours. The Dalkey Manor house itself might suit conversion to a small number of apartments.

How many houses?

pedronomix

schemingbohemia wrote: »

How many houses?

i would not be qualified to evaluate or suggest a number as there are so many factors involved including access/traffic/open space etc etc. It is a very challenging site and they seemed to have very limited interest. In Dalkey that tells a tale in itself!

ted1

pedronomix wrote: »

they seemed to have very limited interest. In Dalkey that tells a tale in itself!

Well if the people stopped objecting to everything then they might...

pedronomix

ted1 wrote: »

Well if the people stopped objecting to everything then they might...

You might try that approach yourself.

ted1

pedronomix wrote: »

You might try that approach yourself.

And what have I objected too? I think the development is good.

Aard

Sorry pedronomix, it might just be me but your posts are making absolutely no sense at all.

This is a planning issue. Any "lateral thinking" will have to work within the planning legislation.

pedronomix

Aard wrote: »

Sorry pedronomix, it might just be me but your posts are making absolutely no sense at all.

This is a planning issue. Any "lateral thinking" will have to work within the planning legislation.

I must be in the wrong place so, I seem to have trespassed on some one's turf. Just because you don't understand does not make me wrong.... one day butterfly.....

Larbre34

That objection you published is just obtuse. There are plenty of precedents nationally for developments you might describe as specialist later living accommodation, heck the Councils even build them themselves.

You could conjure up a similar vexatious argument for women-only gyms, or suggest kindergartens are discriminating against people over 5 years of age. By bringing the Equal Status Act into it, your man is insulting his own profession.