ac1976
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Smithfield Plaza to be completed
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1015/1224256691498.htmlanyone know what the completed plazza will look like?
Eh I think we need a new Dublin City Development plan, these markets (Iveagh and smithfield) need to be saved as markets. Its just silly to think a hotel would be a good idea for the sites.
New Development Plan could = limiting planning permission of the site to allow market activity only as I think the people of Dublin would want.
How did it end up taking 4 years to get planning permission?
Very doubtful any hotel will be built here now so maybe it was for the best.
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2007/03/25/story22028.aspHow did it end up taking 4 years to get planning permission?
Very doubtful any hotel will be built here now so maybe it was for the best.Oh just though of another, the Motor office where u go to get your Driving license.
6. Drivers license applications.
Arnotts €1bn shops scheme under threat
More problems with the planners! It all a bit of a game this planning malarkey!
http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-news/arnotts-euro1bn-shops-scheme-under-threat-1871079.html
@StephenC wrote:
Droool?…sounds like the most bnoring load of old tripe. Who on earth would visit a Legal Museum?
Exactly, I believe the current plan is to locate the Legal Museum in Kilmainham Court House which is adjacent to Kilmainham Jail.
It closed last year and I guess the OPW need something to use it for, the interior is largely original (although in disrepair). The only reason people would visit it would be as part of another attraction and to see a restored Victorian Court House, I’m sure it would add something to the experience there, but as an attraction by itself would be very limited.http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0803/kilmainham.html
I guess we might xpect this to open in 2016 as part of the centinary of the 1916 Rising, no rush for the moment.
Does anyone know what they plan on doing with the Special Criminal Court Building after it moves to the new Courts Complex at Parkgate Street?
Graham I hope you are sending all your mini-reports to the Irish Times Letter section, you’d be giving Frank McDonald a run for his money if you were.
Well done encore
Frank McDonald reporting on this today:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0820/1224252949855.htmlIn terms of planning, maybe if some space was made available underground as part of the Metro Stop for Fast Food this might be a pull away from on-street outlets.
It would make sense as this is common in other cities.
For example, McDonalds etc could be offered space in a couple of metro stops in exchange for their leases on O’Connell Street.This is what I mean by the carrot approach, its far more flexible and there’s no end to what you can do to entice.
@rumpelstiltskin wrote:
The problem is that they cheapen the general feeling of O’Connell St., and represent one of the most obvious reasons why it continues to resemble a grotty, smelly armpit. One or two is fine, but half the shops on O’Connell St. are either fast food restaurants or convenience stores.
I agree they do cheapen the street, but I dont see how restricting their hours of business would solve that, it could make it worse. There is currently a ban on any new fast foods on the street as well as convience stores as far as I know (or at least no change of use planning application for these will be granted). This has made little improvement.
I think the solution is to attract less cheap and more up-market retailers to the street, and DCC have made a bit of a mess of this as the same Area Plans and Retail Zone Plan they brought in to tackle the problem of the undesired shops has left the Carlton Site without planning permission despite the council granting it!
The Area plans need to be updated and refocused on what is desired, i.e. more carrot and less stick.
@rumpelstiltskin wrote:
Are you sure the council doesn’t have the power to restrict trading hours of existing businesses?
Well it’s just my own opinion, but I dont beleive they do.
They are not even able to enforce the restrictions that they attach to planning applications anyway, such as the no stickers in shopfront windows.The only way to control the opening times of ALL fast-food restaurants for example would be to introduce a licensing system, such as that for pubs. This would have to apply to all premises and I’m not sure what the benefit would be anyway? Considering the costs involved it would be silly.
Whats wrong with fast-food anyway? What would your solution be?
I think it is preferable that they are scattered around the center of the city as this is safer at night, avoiding larger congregations of drunks and larger crowds if say there were only designated areas for last night eating.
Thats what the council want too, and that’s what the special planning zone for O’Connell St does by effectively capping the number of fastfoods at the current level.What is your solution? And what problem are you trying to solve anyway?
@rumpelstiltskin wrote:
No, because I’m not a lawyer and it would be tedious looking for it. Besides, your own quote of a statute in Irish law was stupid, because it says nothing but that people have the right to private property. The relevant element of your argument is that the supreme court interpreted this to mean that, for example, Ann Summers could open up a sex shop wherever they liked.
However, I will give you a link to this article which I read some time ago, where it is suggested that Dublin City Council may close city centre off licences at 8pm in the interests of public health. Note that it also mentions restricting fast food opening times. Even if they don’t have this power, they clearly think they can get it very easily.
http://www.dublinpeople.com/content/view/616/55/<a href="
Not so obvious. You really think City Councils have no say over the trading hours of retailers? And never will?
You need to read between the lines in that article. DCC have the power to grant or reject planning applications, thats all. They do not have to power to revoke already granted planning applications. So it would be unfair for example to restrict opening hours of any new fast food restaurants without applying this to exisiting ones (which the council does not have the power to do). So a legal challenge might be sucessful if DCC decided to restrict any new applications which is exactly why they have Area Plans which are carefully written legal instruments to allow for restricting future planning application for certain things is what is a legally fair way. Thats the whole point fo them.
And they already exist in the case of O’connell street with limited impact.If they could get more powers easily they would already have done it, so clearly its not so simple.” class=”bbcode_url”>
Not so obvious. You really think City Councils have no say over the trading hours of retailers? And never will?
You need to read between the lines in that article. DCC have the power to grant or reject planning applications, thats all. They do not have to power to revoke already granted planning applications. So it would be unfair for example to restrict opening hours of any new fast food restaurants without applying this to exisiting ones (which the council does not have the power to do). So a legal challenge might be sucessful if DCC decided to restrict any new applications which is exactly why they have Area Plans which are carefully written legal instruments to allow for restricting future planning application for certain things is what is a legally fair way. Thats the whole point fo them.
And they already exist in the case of O’connell street with limited impact.If they could get more powers easily they would already have done it, so clearly its not so simple.
@forrestreid wrote:
Could you quote the government Act or regulation that gives Dublin City council this power?
Obviously it doesn’t exist, and never will.
DCC tried their best to get rid of the naughty knicker shop on O’Connell St and the mobile phone shops on Grafton Street, but the only actual power they have is to create statutatory area plans which restrict future planning approval (the Carlton Site being the most recent victom of this).The satatutory area plans (O’Connell st area plan, and special retail planning zone, or whatever it’s called) can have unwanted affects on development too by restricting the interest of developers with cash, which is contrary to the objective and reason the plans were voted for in the first place.
Its probably time for a new approach, and any intending Mayor might well try and shake a carrot at the developers rather than the stick.
ABP’s order has been published on the planning app with DCC
@rumpelstiltskin wrote:
It gets a bit barren the further up you go. I think getting some chain to open a big fat department store near the top would be a good idea – Harvey Nichols or John Lewis, or even Brown Thomas. Banish the fast food restaurants and Spars to side streets and give subsidies to fashion retailers and good quality restaurants to set up. Force all owners to maintain their own buildings to a standard appropriate to the dignity of the street, or face closure and huge fines within one month. It’s not that hard if they have the will, and that’s why an elected mayor with real power might do wonders.
Such powers go beyond those any Mayor will have, and are closer to those of Czar or Dictator. We would need a new constitution to confer those powers on any office.
@OisinT wrote:
I wasn’t aware that ACA designation was placed on Fingal Co.Co., an empty space and Dr. Quirkey’s… off the top of my head I’m not sure what else they were planning on demolishing there.
Plus, if what they’re demolishing is a totally derelict building with ACA protection – we need to get real. Is it worth protecting if it is just going to be derelict garbage?ACA applies to the whole street and surrounding area.
I totally agree Oisin, and basically it seems that the ACA order itself should be changed to allow this, and its a specific order applying to O’connell street so changing it would not affect any other ACA areas.
Otherwise the architects will have to blend the new site into the existing streets and hide all of the shiny stuff from view, oh and leave out the park and other unique features.
That would be a pity and would be DCC’s silliness at fault.@OisinT wrote:
I disagree, I think the class building at least around the carlton is a vast improvement on what is there presently and would love to see that go ahead at least and worry about some of the other stuff later. e.g. the slope part can be designed and built at a later time
ACA designation would usually mean that there is no need to improve what is there at the moment and makes preservation obligitory.
Is it time to remove the ACA from O’Connell Street?
