Planning application for 28 story building at Junction6

Gemma1982

Just saw today that there is a planning application to demolish Junction 6 in Castleknock to build a 500 room hotel. It seems very strange given that Junction 6 sat empty for 5 or 6 years and it is only recently that a good few good businesses have opened up there and they seem to be thriving. I was really disappointed to see the application as our family use junction 6 a lot - my two daughters do dance and swimming lessons there and I’m in the gym there. A drive through coffee place has only opened there in recent weeks so I would have thought that their lease would be for a minimum of a year. Whole thing is strange and disappointing for the area.

ongarite

It's a real hodge podge of business there. Hard to work around the existing legacy mega gym setup.
I would guess that the owner is looking at big losses with current setup due to COVID-19 restrictions so better to sell up.

Hurrache

It's been pretty busy lately, go into it the last couple of weeks and the carpark has been pretty full.

blanch152

A sensible use for the location. It was silly to leave it there when they built the junction, and it is sort of cut off from the rest of the village.

Larbre34

Definitely a case to be made for intensification of that site, but double the height of the Crowne Plaza? I don't see it passing muster myself.

jack presley

It'll be absolute madness if planning permission is granted for anything like what is proposed at that location. It's in the middle of a motorway junction and they want to add a 459 room hotel and 4 office blocks and 232 car spaces. Granting planning permission for the original site was one of the worst planning decisions I can remember and showed such a lack of foresight so why make it worse by allowing this!

That's just what the M3/M50 interchange needs at 5pm on winter's evening, loads of more cars looking to get out. I must look at their traffic management proposals in the application.

bobbyy gee

why do they need hotel in castleknock

Pinoy adventure

How can 1 object too a planning application ?

jack presley

Pinoy adventure wrote: »

How can 1 object too a planning application ?

http://planning.fingalcoco.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/wchintlogin.display?ApnID=FW20A/0142

There's a fee (€20 I think) to make an observation/objection. 6 October is the deadline for making a submission.

jack presley

it's ok folks. My concerns about traffic were unwarranted. Everyone will be cycling or using the excellent bus connects and/or train (including the Luas extension to Finglas) to get there. Seriously, the traffic management plan is about 80% about how it is so accessible by public transport and the magnificent cycling infrastructure we have in this city. And then there's a small bit about driving......

It's laughable.

My biggest concern with this development is that sometime in the future (might be 10 or 20 year's time) the M50/N3 junction will need to be properly upgraded and CPOing the site will be a hell of a lot more difficult if there's a massive hotel in situ there.

Gemma1982

I agree with the traffic concerns. A recipie for disaster. What impacts me more immediately though is the loss of some really good family amenities if the current structure is demolished. There are a huge amount of excellent fitness classes for adults and kids up there along with hairdressers, beautician, kids play centre etc. I was only talking to a friend today whose baby is in crèche there - it is the only crèche in the vicinity that takes babies. A lot of businesses there who have worked so hard to establish themselves.

VonLuck

jack presley wrote: »

It'll be absolute madness if planning permission is granted for anything like what is proposed at that location. It's in the middle of a motorway junction and they want to add a 459 room hotel and 4 office blocks and 232 car spaces. Granting planning permission for the original site was one of the worst planning decisions I can remember and showed such a lack of foresight so why make it worse by allowing this!

That's just what the M3/M50 interchange needs at 5pm on winter's evening, loads of more cars looking to get out. I must look at their traffic management proposals in the application.

Just to play devil's advocate here for a minute, there's already roughly the same number of car parking spaces at Junction 6 so they're not increasing the number of cars going in or out of there.

jack presley

VonLuck wrote: »

Just to play devil's advocate here for a minute, there's already roughly the same number of car parking spaces at Junction 6 so they're not increasing the number of cars going in or out of there.

Yeah that's true but how often is that car park full? With a hotel and multiple office blocks, they all will be and there will be more people coming and going at peak times as opposed to now.

But as I said, my biggest objection to this is to do with any further development on this site basically killing off any chance of any further upgrade of the M50 interchange that will someday be needed.

VonLuck

jack presley wrote: »

Yeah that's true but how often is that car park full? With a hotel and multiple office blocks, they all will be and there will be more people coming and going at peak times as opposed to now.

But as I said, my biggest objection to this is to do with any further development on this site basically killing off any chance of any further upgrade of the M50 interchange that will someday be needed.

I assume the original planning application for the existing development had considered the traffic implications. I'm not sure how busy Junction 6 was when it first opened but it's likely to have declined in car volumes going to/from it.

In an ideal world the interchange would not need to be upgraded with the push towards improving public transport, plus with the expected tolling of the M50 along different stretches of the road it may actually reduce usage and pressure on the junction.

Caranica

I drove past junction 6 last week around 3pm and the car park was almost full. Was shocked

Brock Turnpike

And yet again D15 will end up with another terrible planned and inadequately serviced development. It's a ****ing joke at this stage.

Larbre34

Old Navan Road residents concerned about 5 storey co-living dev.

28 storey hotel 50 metres away - 'hold my beer'!

blanch152

Larbre34 wrote: »

Old Navan Road residents concerned about 5 storey co-living dev.

28 storey hotel 50 metres away - 'hold my beer'!

A lot of people will struggle with the intensification of development over the next decade.

I often look at the Blanchardstown SC and wonder why there isn't another two or three stories of apartments on top of it, and why the car parks aren't replaced with multi-storey ones so that some can be developed.

Larbre34

They will, but if people feel they are being asked to bear more than their fair share, they won't roll over on it.

jack presley

Larbre34 wrote: »

Old Navan Road residents concerned about 5 storey co-living dev.

28 storey hotel 50 metres away - 'hold my beer'!

This will be their view

kdevitt

jack presley wrote: »

This will be their view

They'll potentially have to look past this eyesore first -

VonLuck

kdevitt wrote: »

They'll potentially have to look past this eyesore first -

How is that an eyesore? Certainly far better than what's there at the moment.

kdevitt

VonLuck wrote: »

How is that an eyesore? Certainly far better than what's there at the moment.

Because it looks horrendous?

Bradys doesn't look super these days either, but that's mainly down to it being allowed to rot.

ongarite

It was never a good looking building or fitting of the area.
It looks like a warehouse or industrial unit that's stuck in the middle of a housing estate.
Even before the M3 or M50 it caught the eye and not in a good way.

Larbre34

kdevitt wrote: »

They'll potentially have to look past this eyesore first -

A five storey apartment building? Perfectly anonymous and unobtrusive looking, just like examples all over the City.

kdevitt

Larbre34 wrote: »

A five storey apartment building? Perfectly anonymous and unobtrusive looking, just like examples all over the City.

I don't think you're setting a high bar there.

Edit - totally unobtrusive!

no.8

jack presley wrote:

It'll be absolute madness if planning permission is granted for anything like what is proposed at that location. It's in the middle of a motorway junction and they want to add a 459 room hotel and 4 office blocks and 232 car spaces. Granting planning permission for the original site was one of the worst planning decisions I can remember and showed such a lack of foresight so why make it worse by allowing this!

jack presley wrote:

That's just what the M3/M50 interchange needs at 5pm on winter's evening, loads of more cars looking to get out. I must look at their traffic management proposals in the application.

Tbh this is not unusual in large cities. Bei useful location for airport / ferry traffic and those wanting quick access to services

blanch152

Larbre34 wrote: »

A five storey apartment building? Perfectly anonymous and unobtrusive looking, just like examples all over the City.

I agree with you. The Bradys development has no issues from a visual point of view.

It is important from a development point of view. Despite all the hand-wringing and crying, there is no evidence, good or bad, on whether co-living developments work in Ireland or not.

I am sure there are people who will complain about the experiment being on their doorstep, but change and experimentation have to happen somewhere.

Larbre34

Its a proven model in other big Cities. Has to be a first time for everything in Dublin also.

I don't have a problem with co-living as part of a healthy residential mix. I spent some time working on the Continent and lived in versions of co-living spaces that operated as high end student accommodation at other times of the year. They were excellent and ideal for my short term needs.

The risk is that developers try to build too many of them and they end up turning into long term accommodation for the wrong people and that they be impeccably managed and operated. But thats a planning concern and a manageable one. In principle though, they have their place and I think with the hospital, TUD, and other big employers in the area from where people come and go, the Brady's site is a suitable location. I'd expect it to gain permission in the end.

larbakium

Hi, are you aware of these intends?
Some of us think that such a project could have detrimental social, local traffic, environmental and geographical impact. What is you opinion?

Below are shared details of the planning as well as where you can sign to support the objection/concern, if you choose to do do.

Objection form:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfqmyysv-PtoM6AnA7DI4uT100O8XVjwKMSffz64Xzt4pz3lw/viewform

Planning details;
1.http://documents.fingalcoco.ie/NorthgatePublicDocs/00671672.pdf
2.http://planning.fingalcoco.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=FW20A/0142&theTabNo=8

miamee

Larbakium, I've moved your post to the this pre existing thread about the same building.

blanch152

larbakium wrote: »

Hi, are you aware of these intends?
Some of us think that such a project could have detrimental social, local traffic, environmental and geographical impact. What is you opinion?

Below are shared details of the planning as well as where you can sign to support the objection/concern, if you choose to do do.

Objection form:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfqmyysv-PtoM6AnA7DI4uT100O8XVjwKMSffz64Xzt4pz3lw/viewform

Planning details;
1.http://documents.fingalcoco.ie/NorthgatePublicDocs/00671672.pdf
2.http://planning.fingalcoco.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=FW20A/0142&theTabNo=8

Pretty much have an open mind on it.

Good location for high-rise in Dublin 15 as it is away from housing development but close to transport nodes.

Will have a look to see how they intend to provide pedestrian access to the train station as that would be important.

beauf

blanch152 wrote: »

A sensible use for the location. It was silly to leave it there when they built the junction, and it is sort of cut off from the rest of the village.

Why is it problem for Junction 6, Gym etc. But not for a hotel?

beauf

jack presley wrote: »

Yeah that's true but how often is that car park full? With a hotel and multiple office blocks, they all will be and there will be more people coming and going at peak times as opposed to now.

But as I said, my biggest objection to this is to do with any further development on this site basically killing off any chance of any further upgrade of the M50 interchange that will someday be needed.

We keep doing this. Build right up to things, like schools, transport infrastructure etc. So when it needs expansion, we have a problem.

Look at the constricted location for the children's hospital same thing. Sold off all the land for Blanch Hospital too.

beauf

larbakium wrote: »

Hi, are you aware of these intends?
Some of us think that such a project could have detrimental social, local traffic, environmental and geographical impact. What is you opinion?...

I think some people yes to every development regardless. You can't point out any issues, as you are being negative. So why bother.

As for this specific location it doesn't really matter. Always thought it was poorly designed, they should have compulsory purchased that site when they were building the M50. They didn't and twisted everything around it. So its done now. Lot of locations in D15, are pretty much AVOID at peak due to poor planning and over development.

I don't think this development will make much of a difference.

beauf

Losing the original pool and hydrotherapy was big loss. I've never really recovered from that.

jlang

Looks like a very dense development, but the buildings are relatively narrow. So it's actually not that ugly but there's a relatively low floor area for the amount of walls/windows. My suspicion is that it's a first bid in the planning process and they're setting up for multiple rounds. After the wrangling, they'll get approval for a downsized squatter but slightly uglier development.

How does the hotel rank in the tallest building in Ireland competition? I think the top few floors that have very few rooms may be trimmed off by the time planning is approved.

It's fine that city centre offices are are discouraged from offering parking but users of suburban and motorway-adjacent hotels and offices would surely be expecting reasonable levels of car access. 232 parking spaces sounds like a lot but that has to cover quite a lot of offices as well as the 459 rooms of the hotel. How many hotel users will be arriving by bike or humping suitcases across from the DART+ station at Castleknock? The bus access will be good once Bus Connects gets done and obviously there's good access for taxis. I wonder if they eventually expect to mark out additional parking on the exposed podium/plaza level. Or maybe the co-living guys from Brady's not-apartments will all walk to work here.

I presume the internal plans for the hotel are indicative as there don't seem to be function rooms suitable for conferences or weddings (although with limited parking, neither are likely to be a significant feature). Looks like just a gym and reception/bar/lounge on the entrance floor and restaurant upstairs.

Larbre34

This has, very unsurprisingly, been refused by Fingal CoCo.

143m high. Lol.

beauf

Was it not tall enough?

Phil.x

beauf wrote: »

Was it not tall enough?

Ha yes, knowing how corrupt fingal are I'd say theres a bigger project in the plans.

Larbre34

Phil.x wrote: »

Ha yes, knowing how corrupt fingal are I'd say theres a bigger project in the plans.

Quite a statement. Care to back it up?

No, I thought not.

Phil.x

Larbre34 wrote: »

Quite a statement. Care to back it up?

No, I thought not.

You must be onboard. Its glaring, most of their accounts are unpublished.

Larbre34

Phil.x wrote: »

You must be onboard. Its glaring, most of their accounts are unpublished.

Most of Fingal County Council's accounts are unpublished?

Oh, this should be good. Which ones? And why?

kravmaga

I wonder will the developers revise and downsize the plan.

It did appear too dense for the area in question.

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/property/irelands-tallest-building-plans-massive-19217307

raheny red

https://amp.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/appeal-lodged-after-planning-refused-for-states-tallest-hotel-39796972.html

Fred Cryton

Great i hope they get this through planning. The height phobia in this country is something else and truly pathetic.

Phil.x

raheny red wrote: »

https://amp.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/appeal-lodged-after-planning-refused-for-states-tallest-hotel-39796972.html

7000 office workers!! Beside the who and everything else, we'd need another few lanes on the m50 and a overpass on the N3.
I'd be able to wave to the people on the top floor from my back garden 4 miles away

Larbre34

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Great i hope they get this through planning. The height phobia in this country is something else and truly pathetic.

As a town planner involved in some speculative applications myself over the years, I can tell you these guys are dreaming on their feet.

Increased height is desirable in the right place, which this isn't.

The Crowne Plaza nearby, has set the bar locally at 14 stories, or equivalent top-out height. They might get that, if they stop playing games. It depends on the new densities at a lower level, associated services and parking etc.

Polar101

raheny red wrote: »

https://amp.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/appeal-lodged-after-planning-refused-for-states-tallest-hotel-39796972.html

Makes me wonder who'd stay in that hotel, I guess business travelers (and Manhattan Peanuts), but 459 rooms sounds crazy.

Fred Cryton

Larbre34 wrote: »

As a town planner involved in some speculative applications myself over the years, I can tell you these guys are dreaming on their feet.

Increased height is desirable in the right place, which this isn't.

The Crowne Plaza nearby, has set the bar locally at 14 stories, or equivalent top-out height. They might get that, if they stop playing games. It depends on the new densities at a lower level, associated services and parking etc.

town planning is exactly the problem, you guys plan our cities to be low rise. The less "planning" the better.



There is never any downside to height. The developers are the ones taking the financial risk.

Brock Turnpike

Fred Cryton wrote: »

town planning is exactly the problem, you guys plan our cities to be low rise. The less "planning" the better.



There is never any downside to height. The developers are the ones taking the financial risk.

Can you expand on the bolded part please?