Say goodbye to Bradys Castleknock

SnakePlissken

Clare Day would protest the opening of a crisp packet.

daymobrew

ThisRegard wrote: »

Clare Daly hypocriticaly, was one of the more serial objectors.

I am impressed that she objected to developments where the developer had not finished other developments or they had pyrite:

In four of the nine cases, Ms Daly opposed the plans because the developer involved had previously been involved in estates that were left unfinished or where pyrite had been used.

The local authority can block planning permission on a site where the applicant has not completed another site! The local authority should be using this law without requiring TDs or members of the public to point the issue out to them.

ThisRegard

daymobrew wrote: »

I am impressed that she objected to developments where the developer had not finished other developments or they had pyrite:

Yeah, unfinished developments is a good reason to object and something I agree with. However it's not really the fault of the developer that they were supplied with materials contaminated with pyrite. It's their actions after the discovery of pyrite in the homes that matter.

daymobrew wrote: »

The local authority can block planning permission on a site where the applicant has not completed another site! The local authority should be using this law without requiring TDs or members of the public to point the issue out to them.

There's at least 5 member of the socialists in some form or another on Fingal CoCo , maybe they should have done something before a TD had to get involved.

Pat Dunne

ThisRegard wrote: »

There's at least 5 member of the socialists in some form or another on Fingal CoCo , maybe they should have done something before a TD had to get involved.

As Councillors and TD's are public representatives, you will find that they are making the objection/observation based on the number of contacts they have received from members of the public in the constituency.

ThisRegard

I understand that. But out of the other side of her mouth she decries the lack of housing. Yes, it's most likely developments that have no social housing within them, but people buying these may free up such housing.

daymobrew

I was unsure whether to start a new thread.
A new planning application has been submitted for this site.

Website:
https://bartrablanchardstownshd.com/

Summary: 210 "bedspaces", communal living/kitchen/dining rooms on each of the 5 floors.

Details:

The development will principally consist of: the demolition of the existing part 1 to part 2 No. storey over partial basement public house and restaurant building (1,243 sq m) and the construction of a part 1 to part 5 No. storey over basement Build-to-Rent Shared Living Residential Development (6,549 sq m) comprising 210 No. bedspaces (182 No. single occupancy rooms, 4 No. accessible rooms and 12 No. double occupancy rooms). The development also consists of the provision of communal living/kitchen/dining rooms at each floor level to serve the residents of each floor; communal resident amenity spaces for all residents including tv/cinema room at basement level, gymnasium and lounge/reception area at ground floor level, a library/study at third floor level and a private dining room at fourth floor level; external roof terrace at third floor level (78 sq m) facing north-east, north-west and south-west; external communal amenity courtyards at basement (170 sq m) and ground floor level (336 sq m); external amenity space at basement level accessed from the communal living/kitchen/dining room (30 sq m); balconies at third floor level facing north-east/north-west (14.35 sq m); resident facilities including launderette, linen store, accessible WC and bin store; 2 No. accesses to the public park along the north-eastern boundary; 2 No. carshare parking spaces; a lay-by and delivery bay; emergency gate access to the courtyard (north-west boundary); bicycle parking; boundary treatments; hard and soft landscaping; plant; PV panels; substation; switch room; generator; lighting; and all other associated site works above and below ground. The application contains a statement setting out how the proposal will be consistent with the objectives of the Fingal Development Plan 2017 – 2023. The application contains a statement indicating why permission should be granted for the proposed development, having regard to a consideration specified in section 37(2)(b) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, notwithstanding that the proposed development materially contravenes a relevant development plan or local area plan other than in relation to the zoning of the land. www.bartrablanchardstownshd.ie All submissions to be made to An Bord Pleanala.

daymobrew

The previous planning application in 2016 was for 34 x 2 bedroom and 7 x 3 bedroom units - a total of 89 bedrooms.

This new application is for a lot more people!

The downside to objecting to something is that something worse can come along.

miamee

It sounds like a co-living space with the communal living/dining room/kitchens on each level but I thought there was an issue with those? Actually maybe I am just thinking of this - a similar development in Rathmines (same company) was recently refused planning permission by Dublin City Council.

RoryMac

Is this type of development aimed at students or young professional types?

Seems a strange location for so many shared living rooms

AlanG

Thanks for posting, it seem quite over the top for the area. These seem like bedsits without even cooking facilities.

No car parking for 210 residents would ring a lot of alarm bells if I was a local - it is not as if that part of Blanch is near a transport hub, one train line and a linear bus route is not enough transport for this sort of development.

I think this may be designed to frighten locals into accepting some subsequent application that will be slightly more appealing.

L1011

These would be targeting ebay/paypal/IBM support/languages staff mostly

Former Former

It's as good a location as any for this type of development I suppose.

The lack of parking is a bit mad though. Will people really not have cars, or will they just park on the surrounding streets?

Great idea in theory, but if I was a local resident I'd be absolutely raging.

Nijmegen

Developers can argue it’s within a very short walking distance of both bus and rail connectivity as well as a load of in situ jobs.

Zaph

The vast majority of the rooms are 16m2, with a few 18m2, presumably they're the double rooms. A whole extra 2m2 for a second person. There are no floor plans for the rooms themselves on the website, but the Flythrough video doesn't make them look too appealing. A fold down bed with only room for a single folding chair and what appears to be a tiny bathroom tucked in the corner. I'll be shocked if this gets planning permission, but as AlanG already said, it's probably to lay the groundwork for what they really want to build there.

d15ude

RoryMac wrote: »

Is this type of development aimed at students or young professional types?

Seems a strange location for so many shared living rooms

I assume it's aimed at young professionals as an alternative to flat shares.
Could be ok, if well managed. But there needs to be parking included in the planning!

beauf

They should build a park and ride there for the train station and the Greenway.

Lots of space for building proper sites all along the train line from 12th lock to Ashtown.

It was a mistake to build tiny apartments in the past it still is.

But this is an obvious ruse to get something else accepted.

Pete_Cavan

It's definitely not a ruse for something else, if they wanted something else they would have applied for it. Bartra are all about coliving developments and have applied for several others around the city.

I think coliving units are a good solution for a certain demographic but I don't think this is a good location for it. It suits young people who don't spend a lot of time at home, mostly for sleeping, which is fine in the city centre. I don't think any of these young professionals will be interested in living in this location.

miamee

Zaph wrote: »

The vast majority of the rooms are 16m2, with a few 18m2, presumably they're the double rooms. A whole extra 2m2 for a second person. There are no floor plans for the rooms themselves on the website, but the Flythrough video doesn't make them look too appealing. A fold down bed with only room for a single folding chair and what appears to be a tiny bathroom tucked in the corner. I'll be shocked if this gets planning permission, but as AlanG already said, it's probably to lay the groundwork for what they really want to build there.

This was one of the reasons that it was refused PP for a similar building in Rathmines, that the occupier could not enjoy he apartment and furniture without having to rearrange everything. I.e. no room to swing a cat.

AlanG

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

It's definitely not a ruse for something else, if they wanted something else they would have applied for it.

This is standard practice for many developers and most negotiators. They have been refused this kind of development in a few places with far better transport links based on the type of room provided and the lack of space for a person to live.

It's no problem for them to let the locals expend loads of energy fighting this and then they come in with a compromise that would have looked crazy at first but in light of the first offer will look reasonable. Getting an extra few dozen apartments into the site is worth several million to the developers so it is well worth it for them to play a long game.

Pete_Cavan

AlanG wrote: »

This is standard practice for many developers and most negotiators. They have been refused this kind of development in a few places with far better transport links based on the type of room provided and the lack of space for a person to live.

It's no problem for them to let the locals expend loads of energy fighting this and then they come in with a compromise that would have looked crazy at first but in light of the first offer will look reasonable. Getting an extra few dozen apartments into the site is worth several million to the developers so it is well worth it for them to play a long game.

It is not standard practice for developers to spend thousands of euro and waste half a year applying for something they don't want to build. Planning decisions are made on the basis of regulations and guidelines, not the amount of energy locals expend! Regardless of whether the building contains apartments or coliving units, the size and mass of the building will still have the same limitations. Applying for coliving units now certainly won't get you an extra few dozen apartments later.

Bartra have gotten approval for a coliving project in Dun Laoghaire and have indicated that they will build it. They were refused twice in Rathmines because of issues relating to that application. I have no doubt that they will go again in Rathmines for coliving units again. Both of these contradict what you have said.

beauf

Developers re-apply constantly. Lots of people re-apply constantly?

Larbre34

Not just the FDIs, Connolly is a training hospital, the IT and the National Sports Campus both have people coming and going on temporary stints. I'd say the only problem with a co-living development on the Bradys site is that it isn't big enough to be economical.

Dub guy

I have pity for the residents in the houses facing Bradys they are some of the finest houses in the area. I would say this development if it gets the green light their house values will be hit big time and if it starts to take in less desirables they could be unsellable.

beauf

I think that's extremely unlikely. It's a prime location.

Nijmegen

Dub guy wrote: »

I have pity for the residents in the houses facing Bradys they are some of the finest houses in the area. I would say this development if it gets the green light their house values will be hit big time and if it starts to take in less desirables they could be unsellable.

A house within 5 minutes walk of the nearest schools, 10 minutes of the nearest supermarket, 6 minutes to the nearest train station, and less than 10 minutes drive from the Blanch centre and literally around the corner and on to the N3 and the M50, and they'll never sell. I really think that's hyperbole of the type we often see around any planning application regardless of its other merits or demerits.

Dub guy

Point taking but when you get rid of a lovely landmark pub and replace it with a 5 storey building with more doors than mountjoy prison and move God knows who into it the area is less desirable.

Former Former

I have noticed quite a few houses on the Old Navan Road and in Talbot Downs going up for sale lately.

Is an apartment block a worse neighbour than a pub? Matter of perspective I suppose.

Dub guy

I was told about a year ago by a local a house near the pub wasn't selling and was on the market for over a year he reconnend perspective buyers were waiting to see what was happening and this was when the apartments were been built.

beauf

Former Former wrote: »

I have noticed quite a few houses on the Old Navan Road and in Talbot Downs going up for sale lately.

Is an apartment block a worse neighbour than a pub? Matter of perspective I suppose.

No different to anywhere else.

Lots more house for sale all over, especially older one as the market has peaked, etc etc.

AlanG

Former Former wrote: »

Is an apartment block a worse neighbour than a pub? Matter of perspective I suppose.

It is if there is no parking - the people living in Summerfield have had a lot of access issues since the small apartment block at the entrance started charging for parking spots to get around the rent cap.
That is a small complex where parking exists - imaging a couple of hundred people in the suburbs with no parking. Every road in the area will need to be made residents parking which is a pain for locals.