New housing developments in Maynooth

lordgoat

squirrel6767 wrote: »

Independent.ie: Comer Group's Maynooth apartment plan sunk by flooding concerns.

https://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/maynooth-apartment-plan-sunk-by-flooding-concerns-39112277.html

ABP refusing planning in maynooth? That's a first.

L1011

lordgoat wrote: »

ABP refusing planning in maynooth? That's a first.

Same site has been refused by ABP at least once possibly twice (an extension of time application may have gone in - it had permission previously).

ghostdancer

L1011 wrote: »

That site is going to be exceptionally difficult to flood-proof and will realistically just impact further downstream anyway.

how did the existing apartments opposite MM get PP/implement flood defences?
AFAIK they haven't flooded?

L1011

ghostdancer wrote: »

how did the existing apartments opposite MM get PP/implement flood defences?
AFAIK they haven't flooded?

Site was built up a few metres. And back then the analysis on what impact you would have down stream by building up defences was less stringent; should that have had an impact.

squirrel6767

https://kfmradio.com/news/29052020-0816/proposal-deliver-84-new-homes-maynooth-has-been-published

No documents on KCC planning site yet

marieholmfan

proposal to deliver ...
What the heck - proposal to build and sell 84 shoeboxes to dubliners who will never spend a penny in Maynooth and probably hate it more like.

L1011

Invalid application for a series of amateur mistakes including the newspaper notice and site notice not matching!

Expect it to come back. And there to be another 700 units in time on other sites.


The pedestrian/cycle permeability will be very interesting as Maynooth residents have mostly long convinced themselves that dead end cul de sac estates are "safer" (they aren't - they're all burglary hotpots for starters and all the worldwide research shows that there is a major benefit to passive surveillance from passing traffic. Just use surface of the sun grade lighting in alleyways and nobody will congregate) and oppose any and all permability moves.

Being able to get out from the back of Parklands to the ring road and down to the two schools on foot/bike would be ~300m shorter than it currently is snaking through the Y and ~500m than the main road distance. Would also be ~150m shorter to Tesco for instance.

L1011

Its back in now.

L1011

Scanned in now - road access only from the ring road, site entrance from the ring road (so can't even start construction until then); and no pedestrian access to Parklands/Old Railpark at all - indeed one file says this was explicitly removed due to the LAP!

Residents in Parklands may prefer it but it's a bloody stupid idea if so - there should absolutely be a pedestrian and cycle access through.

TragicJohnson

L1011 wrote: »

Scanned in now - road access only from the ring road, site entrance from the ring road (so can't even start construction until then); and no pedestrian access to Parklands/Old Railpark at all - indeed one file says this was explicitly removed due to the LAP!

Residents in Parklands may prefer it but it's a bloody stupid idea if so - there should absolutely be a pedestrian and cycle access through.

It may be a stupid idea in your opinion, but the residents clearly don't think so. I'm glad they got their wish.

L1011

Condemning new residents to live in an inaccessible box just because you have ridiculous ideas about what permeability allows is actually going beyond stupid in to despicable really. I'm talking solely about pedestrian and cycle access, not vehicular. There may still be pedestrian/cycle access but there's hard lines on the site layout map.

Without pedestrian/cycle access through Parklands, nobody in this estate is going to be using public transport to go anywhere - selfishness creating car dependency.

But there's a history of lots of selfish/misinformed people in this town - we've had proposed pedestrian accesses in new estates removed from plans and existing ones closed up for decades due to people being scared - when its well proven that passive surveillance caused by pedestrian traffic reduces crime; and high power lighting will stop any loitering - or simply selfish of "privacy".

TragicJohnson

L1011 wrote: »

Condemning new residents to live in an inaccessible box just because you have ridiculous ideas about what permeability allows is actually going beyond stupid in to despicable really. I'm talking solely about pedestrian and cycle access, not vehicular. There may still be pedestrian/cycle access but there's hard lines on the site layout map.

Without pedestrian/cycle access through Parklands, nobody in this estate is going to be using public transport to go anywhere - selfishness creating car dependency.

But there's a history of lots of selfish/misinformed people in this town - we've had proposed pedestrian accesses in new estates removed from plans and existing ones closed up for decades due to people being scared - when its well proven that passive surveillance caused by pedestrian traffic reduces crime; and high power lighting will stop any loitering - or simply selfish of "privacy".

Perhaps you should launch a door to door campaign in Parklands, you can show all the residents the errors of their ways, teach them to be a little more virtuous.

L1011

Or I could just expect the council to ignore whining like they should.

smelly sock

It's crazy that pedestrian / bike access wasn't facilitated. The question I have is why? Typical Maynooth and the bad forward planning that doesn't get considered. Live in Maynooth my whole life but the lack or proper traffic management and lack of relief routes for pedestrians and vehicles is really grating at this stage. The University / and 3-4 schools along with multiple housing estates have no real alternative but to go through the main street to reach their destination. Any of the potential rat runs etc are also clogged up now and of poor quality also. It really is time Maynooth /Celbridge / Clane / Kilcock had a proper ring road developed along with easier access to the M7.

Patser

L1011 wrote: »

Or I could just expect the council to ignore whining like they should.

Why should residents trust them though? Moyglare Hall had their planned 'permeable' pedestrian only entrance upgraded at the council request to vehicle entrance, so that when the 2nd entrance opens fully soon Moyglare Hall estate will become a 'rat run' to the new schools being built by the GAA pitches.

They also tried to get planning permission for vehicle connection between the Rise in Moyglare Hall and the new Mariavilla estate being built, which was only blocked due to the farmer keeping an access strip between the 2 estates. Even so the roads were given permission to line up for future connection - which would effectively turn Moyglare Hall into a 3 way junction for connection of College, to schools to Dunboyne road at Mariavilla - and to hell to the residents in the estate that 'whinged'

smelly sock

Patser wrote: »

Why should residents trust them though? Moyglare Hall had their planned 'permeable' pedestrian only entrance upgraded at the council request to vehicle entrance, so that when the 2nd entrance opens fully soon Moyglare Hall estate will become a 'rat run' to the new schools being built by the GAA pitches.

They also tried to get planning permission for vehicle connection between the Rise in Moyglare Hall and the new Mariavilla estate being built, which was only blocked due to the farmer keeping an access strip between the 2 estates. Even so the roads were given permission to line up for future connection - which would effectively turn Moyglare Hall into a 3 way junction for connection of College, to schools to Dunboyne road at Mariavilla - and to hell to the residents in the estate that 'whinged'

Whats the alternative to not creating access between the estates?

L1011

First issue with your post there is that Mariavilla did not get planning permission from KCC.

Dead end cul de sac estates are a 1970s invention in Ireland, designed to force total car dependency and were a failure from day one. If a town is properly permeable there are going to be a hell of a lot less car journeys in the first place

More people walk and cycle, public transport routes are more accessible and passive surveillance reduces the incidence of burglaries.

Maynooth is full of dead end estates, people drive everywhere and we've a burglary epidemic. I wonder why!

ghostdancer

Patser wrote: »

Why should residents trust them though? Moyglare Hall had their planned 'permeable' pedestrian only entrance upgraded at the council request to vehicle entrance, so that when the 2nd entrance opens fully soon Moyglare Hall estate will become a 'rat run' to the new schools being built by the GAA pitches.

What second entrance are you talking about?
Using the one at The Drive, opposite the GAA clubhouse, and going through Moyglare Hall would be FAR longer and more convoluted than just staying on the main road direct to the new schools.

Patser

ghostdancer wrote: »

What second entrance are you talking about?
Using the one at The Drive, opposite the GAA clubhouse, and going through Moyglare Hall would be FAR longer and more convoluted than just staying on the main road direct to the new schools.

Yes that one. Always originally planned as a pedestrian entrance, only altered a few years ago to be a vehicle entrance at the request of KCC - as far as we were informed by councillors, despite resident and councillor objections. Which, yes is longer, but allows still a rat run to the new school if Moyglare Road becomes congested with the 2 lage schools being built there.

As for reply above, An Bord Pleanala granted the planning permission as part of their fast track plans, in which the KCC manager and planners were involved - again this is what we were informed by 3 seperate town councillors - in which KCC wanted to achieve vehicle permeability. So while your plan of pedestrian and cycle planning might have merits, while KCC is actively pushing for full permeability that would turn Moyglare Hall in to a crossroad for all forms of traffic, why should they be trusted?

We also had complaints that the proposed permeabilty at the Rise to Mariavilla gives access to the farmer's lane between the developments, a dead area with no passive surveillance or traffic. Even unconnected as it will be, it creates an obvious path for any future students in the new schools to hop walls as a shortcut and have this lane way as a hidey hole.

L1011

Nobody is going to use a longer slower route as a rat run. Scare tactics. It doesn't bypass any potential congestion on the Moyglare Road.

KCCs input to Mariavilla had as much basis as any random punters did. It was an ABP decision

Certain councillors did/do tell people what they want to hear, nothing more

If that is the breadth of imagination of what to do with a vacant space that could have multiple amenity uses, I despair.

You are rattling off residents association echo chamber fears here and nothing else. People get whipped up in to nonsense fears, usually about pesky youths, none of which are real and willingly seek to give up actual safety and practicality due to the fearmongers



The only valid bit of your argument is the lower entrance to Moyglare Hall being opened to cars at all; which realistically has had virtually no impact on anything; as the other parts of the scare story are nonsensical.

L1011

Checking the actual planning files (as opposed to online rumour and whataboutery), the new application in 2014 had an FI request asking the developer to explain if they felt having only the one vehicular access met the DMURS (design manual for urban roads/streets) specs, which had come in since the 2002 original planning which had it as a pedestrian walkway

They declined to do so and changed it to a vehicular entrance instead

Blame the State (and/or the developer for not being able to justify meeting DMURS), not KCC. They didn't write the standards, but they do have to enforce them.

If there's any breach of trust, it was in the developer getting it completed in the allowed time for the 2002 planning.

Residents could have gone to ABP if they wanted but good luck overturning national policy.

Patser

L1011 wrote: »

Nobody is going to use a longer slower route as a rat run. Scare tactics. It doesn't bypass any potential congestion on the Moyglare Road.

KCCs input to Mariavilla had as much basis as any random punters did. It was an ABP decision

Certain councillors did/do tell people what they want to hear, nothing more

If that is the breadth of imagination of what to do with a vacant space that could have multiple amenity uses, I despair.

You are rattling off residents association echo chamber fears here and nothing else. People get whipped up in to nonsense fears, usually about pesky youths, none of which are real and willingly seek to give up actual safety and practicality due to the fearmongers



The only valid bit of your argument is the lower entrance to Moyglare Hall being opened to cars at all; which realistically has had virtually no impact on anything; as the other parts of the scare story are nonsensical.

The 'slower route' is no longer a trip than the route along Moyglare road to get to the school closest to Moyglare Hall, it also has no traffic lights unlike the 2 that are now on Moyglare road from there on up - so it may not actually be slower at all, especially when you take into account that all traffic to the second school will go that way.

You dismiss our fears as nonsense while in the next bit saying ok that's genuine (because you can't deny that it was changed to vehicle entance), you say that councillors are lying to us just because..., that KCC didn't really ask for vehicle permiability to Mariavilla despite them doing so via 2nd entrance - also they have also said that the through road is of a standard that doesn't need traffic calming to it, so no speed bumps etc in the estate.

https://www.kildarenow.com/news/news/415025/council-says-no-plans-for-traffic-calming-on-rat-run-road-in-maynooth.html

So when stuff happens that confirm our fears, ok but not that important to you but somehow you can't see that others may be worried that other fears may come true. Plans were changed to create a 2and full vehicular entrance. Permission was sought by the council in the desire of permeability to link in Mariavilla (why would Cairns or ABP care), this would/could create a full on 3 way rat run situation through the estate that the council have already shown they won't calm.

But you know, nonsense of course, groundless fears.....except you know the bits are that built.

Here's a simple one for you - if there wasn't plans for vehicle permiability via Mariavilla and the Rise, why does the proposed link road in Mariavilla line perfectly up with the Rise with no turning circle or the likes but absolutely flush to edge of that Mariavilla boundary?

And would you, if you were living in Moyglare Hall, particularly the Rise be concerned too? Raising your fears now?

L1011

Patser wrote: »

You dismiss our fears as nonsense while in the next bit saying ok that's genuine (because you can't deny that it was changed to vehicle entance), you say that councillors are lying to us just because..., that KCC didn't really ask for vehicle permiability to Mariavilla despite them doing so via 2nd entrance - also they have also said that the through road is of a standard that doesn't need traffic calming to it, so no speed bumps etc in the estate.

I dismiss your nonsense and inaccurate claims as nonsense.

KCC asked the developer to comply with the current law of the land. End of

You are also wildly over-interpreting what I said by the only thing that's genuine is that the second entrance opened. I'm not saying any of your concerns or claims about it are genuine, not at all. Most of your post is written as if I was agreeing with some of your claims when that never happened.

Patser wrote: »

https://www.kildarenow.com/news/news/415025/council-says-no-plans-for-traffic-calming-on-rat-run-road-in-maynooth.html

Paid link I have zero intention of paying for; particularly as it has the "rat run" right in the headline.

Patser wrote: »

So when stuff happens that confirm our fears, ok but not that important to you but somehow you can't see that others may be worried that other fears may come true. Plans were changed to create a 2and full vehicular entrance. Permission was sought by the council in the desire of permeability to link in Mariavilla (why would Cairns or ABP care), this would/could create a full on 3 way rat run situation through the estate that the council have already shown they won't calm.

But you know, nonsense of course, groundless fears.....except you know the bits are that built.

Something happened that has been grossly misrepresented both across the entire internet and by you here today. Developer was asked to comply with national standards. Did so by putting a second entrance in. This got planning and was not challenged to ABP.

Patser wrote: »

Here's a simple one for you - if there wasn't plans for vehicle permiability via Mariavilla and the Rise, why does the proposed link road in Mariavilla line perfectly up with the Rise with no turning circle or the likes but absolutely flush to edge of that Mariavilla boundary?

Sightlines and overlooking concerns will often cause roads in adjacent estates to line up perfectly.

Such as on the other side of Maynooth in a ~20 year old set of estates; which were never going to be opened for any form of permability let alone full vehicle access.

You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Patser wrote: »

And would you, if you were living in Moyglare Hall, particularly the Rise be concerned too? Raising your fears now?

I'd be very concerned about living near you to be honest. Living in constant fear of stuff you don't seem to actually understand.

I would have no concerns about any of the stuff you're whipping up.



I would strongly advise you to calm down and stop convincing yourself of horrors that will never happen. You'll live a happier life. You'll also live a happier life in an estate with proper permeability that isn't totally car dependent, as it happens.

TragicJohnson

L1011 wrote: »

Nobody is going to use a longer slower route as a rat run. Scare tactics. It doesn't bypass any potential congestion on the Moyglare Road.

KCCs input to Mariavilla had as much basis as any random punters did. It was an ABP decision

Certain councillors did/do tell people what they want to hear, nothing more

If that is the breadth of imagination of what to do with a vacant space that could have multiple amenity uses, I despair.

You are rattling off residents association echo chamber fears here and nothing else. People get whipped up in to nonsense fears, usually about pesky youths, none of which are real and willingly seek to give up actual safety and practicality due to the fearmongers



The only valid bit of your argument is the lower entrance to Moyglare Hall being opened to cars at all; which realistically has had virtually no impact on anything; as the other parts of the scare story are nonsensical.

Fearmongering? You are the one talking about a burglary epidemic.

L1011

TragicJohnson wrote: »

Fearmongering? You are the one talking about a burglary epidemic.

Maynooth has an astonishingly high burglary rate; high enough to bring it to the top ten towns in the country for reported crimes, and with the lowest detection rate for this class of crime going too

Very easy to break in to a house sight unseen in a meandering, dead end estate of cul de sacs; which is what makes up most of Maynooth.

TragicJohnson

L1011 wrote: »

Maynooth has an astonishingly high burglary rate; high enough to bring it to the top ten towns in the country for reported crimes, and with the lowest detection rate for this class of crime going too

Very easy to break in to a house sight unseen in a meandering, dead end estate of cul de sacs; which is what makes up most of Maynooth.

Those articles are from 2015. I'll take your word on how easy it is to break into houses.

L1011

TragicJohnson wrote: »

Those articles are from 2015. I'll take your word on how easy it is to break into houses.

They're the newest stats available with that level of granularity. Do you have anything worth countering them with?

Patser

L1011 wrote: »

Sightlines and overlooking concerns will often cause roads in

I'd be very concerned about living near you to be honest. Living in constant fear of stuff you don't seem to actually understand.

I would have no concerns about any of the stuff you're whipping up.



I would strongly advise you to calm down and stop convincing yourself of horrors that will never happen. You'll live a happier life. You'll also live a happier life in an estate with proper permeability that isn't totally car dependent, as it happens.

How does extra vehicular permiability, designed to allow traffic flow easier, make us less car dependent.

And please play the ball, lay off the man. Less of the personal attacks.

It was in the original application to have a vehicular link with the Rise, it was removed due to farmers access lane blocking it. ABP stated that future permission may be sought if ownership changed, and as such road layout should be such to facilitate it then, although subject to a further planning application. That concern is currently parked, but may come back at a much later date.

As for news report, it simply said council thinks road is of dmurs standard, and doesn't need calming despite cutting through an estate directly to entrance of school.

Edit: it was also mentioned in the Msynooth newsletter, that's how I knew of it. Will try get better link later.

L1011

Patser wrote: »

How does extra vehicular permiability, designed to allow traffic flow easier, make us less car dependent.

And please play the ball, lay off the man. Less of the personal attacks.

As for news report, it simply said council thinks road is of murs standard, and doesn't need calming despite cutting through an estate directly to entrance of school.

Permeability in general makes everyone less car dependent.

The second Moyglare Road access happened because the developer took too long to finish the estate and the law changed; with the access being how they decided to accept it. Not some conspiracy about KCC and 'trust'.

L1011

Patser wrote: »

It was in the original application to have a vehicular link with the Rise, it was removed due to farmers access lane blocking it. ABP stated that future permission may be sought if ownership changed, and as such road layout should be such to facilitate it then, although subject to a further planning application. That concern is currently parked, but may come back at a much later date.

I do not remember that being in the planning documents at all - I'm trying to dig up a copy now

Cairn do not like permeability in their developments for whatever reason and have since tried to get the link to the town centre over the river dropped (didn't happen).

I can't find any mention of it in the actual planning decision either.. The inspectors report only ever mentions pedestrian and cycle access and suggests the requirement for that is from the NTA, not KCC (again)

Have you any proof any of this actually occurred the way you claim it did? Specifically that vehicular access was ever proposed at all.