Combined Whitehall Residents Association

Barina have re-submitted their planning application for the site at the bottom of Nun’s Field.  Barina Revised Plan

Height and facilities remain an issue.  Also the fact that this will be in place before there is a full plan for the area.

The Combined Whitehall Residents Association asks that you make submissions to the City Planner noting the following issues.

_____________________________________________________

How do I do this?

(1)   Need to write to:

Executive Manager, Planning Department, Dublin City Council, Block 4, Civic Offices, Wood Quay, Dublin 8 or E Mail christina.smith@dublincity.ie

(2)   Need to include your name and address on the letter

(3)   Need to include the following details “Objection to the proposed development by Barina Construction Ltd, at Swords Road, Whitehall, Dublin 9. Application No: 1547/08 - lodged September 24th, 2008 (Article 35(1)(c))

______________________________________________________

* The height of the proposed 6 to 8 storeys.

8 storey buildings are not in keeping with the character of the existing community.

* The density of the proposed development is excessive in comparison to the size of the site.

* The layout of the proposed development will consist of overlooking, impact on privacy and contribute to a reduction in light for our nearby properties.

* The development only proposes residential apartments. There should be a balanced mix of houses and apartments. This achieves a more balanced new community in the middle of existing communities.

* It is important that developers maintain external finishes on proposed developments that are in keeping with the surrounding areas. From the developers draft plans this does not seem to be the case.

* The traffic generated during construction and afterwards is not acceptable on the possible access entrances and exits to the proposed site. The Swords Road on a daily basis is filled to capacity. This planning application would add a significant increase in the volume of traffic to an already over-stretched road network without the appropriate resolution of the transport facilities.

* The existing transport facilities cannot cope with the current residents in the area, never mind the additional needs of residents contained within the 420 new proposed apartments. There are no detailed plans to improve public transport in the area, just the promise to improve the service. This is not acceptable.

* There is a lack of parking in the area. This proposed development is going to further contribute to this problem. The developer has proposed a crèche and commercial units without adequate parking needs being met.

* The current community facilities are under increasing pressure in the area and the building of 420 residential units cannot be facilitated in their current form. These issues need to be resolved before new development should be approved in the area. In fact, the developer has removed the proposed social/amenity facilities that are contained in the Draft Whitehall Framework Plan documents.

We do not doubt the need for a Framework Plan but it is important that it is the right plan. 

A key issue at the moment is that the current version of the plan is simply not public. 

Residents associations are close to a solution that would gain much more community acceptance and the proposal for 4 and 6 storeys would alsodeliver high density. 

This Framework Plan has the potential to create a central focal point that Whitehall community could be proud of.

The development could allow older people to downsize and a more acceptable plan could even create more net residential units within the locality.  The experience of the Grace Park Manor development bears this out. 

Already we are conceding more traffic chaos in an area that has suffered far more than its fair share for the city with the Port Tunnel. The only reason why DCC don’t see the situation getting worse is because it is already as bad as it can be.  . more specific details on community facilities to be seen.

Barina have provided little in the way of community facilities for the area. Eight storey apartments across the road from existing settled 2 storey dwellings would be totally out of character. The additional traffic implemented by these extra storeys would be bang in the middle of an existing city traffic black spot in gridlock during all peak times and often at other times and on land zoned Z12.     

1. Height and density of the buildings (8 storeys) not in keeping with character of the area would bring additional traffic chaos.

2. Retail/commercial fronting onto the road when its not possible currently to get parking at shops fronting onto Collins Avenue and Swords Road. These retail units should face into the development

3. Traffic and parking in the area are already horrendous. Trucks will have to take right hand turns across traffic going into the sites.

5. Whitehall should become an example for sustainable building

*          The height of the buildings proposed (6-8 stories) and the lack of compatibility with the character of existing properties

*          The number of units in relation to the size of the site

*          Apartments only proposed - no mix of apartments and houses

*          The impact of an extra 568 cars on traffic in the area

*          The impact of another access point off the Sword Road on traffic flows in the area

*          The prospect of more parking problems in the area - proposed development includes also a crèche and commercial units with no assigned parking for customers

*          The lack of any additional facilities for existing residents

*          The fact that the developer has gone ahead with a planning application before the Whitehall Framework Plan has been agreed, and before you as resident have your say. The application is very different from the element contained in the Framework Plan

*          The potential impact on the Dublin Port Tunnel

*          The prospect of overlooking of nearby properties and the impact on the privacy and amenity of homes, and their market value.

*          The prospect of overshadowing of nearby properties

1. Our concerns re height and density.
2. Our concerns re extent of retail/commercial
3. Our concerns on traffic and parking in the area
4. Our concerns about the lack of specifics on facilities.

4) There are only 26 surface parking spaces allocated to the crèche and other retail units on ground level which is clearly inadequate to cater for staff and clients ( 125 children attending creche alone ).

5) The height of this development will impact on the day light to our homes in High Park.

6) Barina appeared to have pre-empted the Whitehall Framework plan and have submitted an application which is very different to that proposed in the Framework plan eg. the additional storeys proposed and no sign of designated amenities such as the astropitch, children’s playground and putting green etc.

7) With 420 apartments and only 542 underground. car spaces allocated on this plan, there is clearly insufficient parking for visitors to the residents and the retail units.

I strongly object to any proposed pedestrian way through the cul-de-sac in High Park as this would impact on the privacy of the residents here. Parking in this cul-de-sac is very limited already for residents alone without having any additional traffic whether it is pedestrians only or people parking their vehicles in High Park to obtain access to the new Barina development. It is a well known fact that pedestrian access routes throughout Dublin are being closed by Dublin City Council because of anti-social behaviour .A boundary wall should be erected all around this new development keeping it separate from the existing private estate here in High Park.

1) this will lead to nearby properties being overlooked. Furthermore height will lead to the invasion of my privacy.

2) This amount of apartments will lead to traffic congestion and would make parking a nightmare in the surrounding area.

3) I strongly object to the wall which joins the Barina and Dublin City Council lands with High Park estate being removed or altered in any way. As at present the walls provide security for me.

4) I also object to the noise pollution that would be created by the building of these apartments.

*in view of the fact that the Whitehall Framework Plan has been referred back to the North Area Central for reconsideration on height, I ask that no decision on this application be made until this matter has been finalised.

Objections need to be received by Dublin City Council

Thanks to all who contacted their representatives in advance of this meeting.  Your calls and emails were listened to.   It’s unclear from the proceeeding where we stand in terms of the height.  According to the meeting, the Area Committee has adopted the plan and the Council has noted that.  There has been calls for the North Central Area Committee to re-consider the plan.  We’ll keep you informed here as to what happens next.

You can watch the meeting on the Dublin City Website.

It was item 31 on the agenda and if you fast forward to 2:07:10  (2 hours, seven minutes) you will get to the part of the meeting concerning the Whitehall Framework Plan.

Andrew Montague 0879080409
Anne Carter 0863851082
 Bill Tormey 0872544646
Bronwen Maher 0877841937
 Declan Flanagan 0872595544
Deirdre Heney 0868118072
Dessie Ellis 0868541941
 Eibhlin Byrne 0863851424
 Gerry Breen 0872567811
 Julia Carmichael 0872455527
 Killian Forde 0863870543
 Larry O’Toole 0868541940
Liam Kelly 0872271196
 Naoise O’Muiri 0868270408
Niamh Cosgrave 0872744707
 Paddy Bourke 0872862558
Ray Corcoran 0872812435
 Sean Kenny 0868126340
Sean Paul Mahon 0863831804
 Tom Brabazon 0868092944

If you reside in Whitehall and are familiar with the traffic, 5 years of dirt and dust when the tunnel was being built you have only a few days left to contact your local councillors and voive your concern about the density of the development proposed - called the Whitehall Framework Plan.

 The Combined Whitehall Residents Group has voiced their concerns, particularly in relation to height and density to the council.  Our councillors voted for the plan despite our concerns, an it will go for before the full council next Monday October 6th.  Unless you pick up the phone, email or text the representatives voted in by YOU, they will think you approve of 5 - 8 story developments in the area.

Contact today

Send an E-Mail to the Councillors by clicking on this link

If you use web-based email, get the email addresses here  When the new window opens, choose the Edit Tab in the menu, Select All and Copy and Paste straight into your To: in the email.

The votes were as follows: 

Approved the Plan: Lord Mayor Eibhlin Byrne (FF, Clontarf), Cllrs. Tom Brabazon (FF, Donaghmede), Gerry Breen (FG, Clontarf), Pat Crimmins (FG, Donaghmede), Declan Flanagan (FG, Artane), Killian Forde (SF, Donaghmede), Bronwen Maher (Green, Clontarf), Sean Paul Mahon (FF, Artane), Naoise O’Muiri (FG, Clontarf), Larry O’Toole (SF, Artane). 

Abstain / Against:  Cllrs. Anne Carter (Lab, Donaghmede), Deirdre Heney (FF, Clontarf). 

Absent:  Cllrs. Paddy Bourke (Lab, Artane), Sean Kenny (Lab, Donaghmede)

Over the summer our councillors were asked a number of times to vote on the Whitehall Framework Plan.  The vote was defferred until last Thursday - September 25th.  Members of the Combined Residents Group attended the North Central Area Committee meetings during the summer and urged councillors to reject the plan.  On Tuesday September 23rd, representatives from a number of the RA’s met with the area manager and planning manager responsible for this plan. 

For two hours we urged them to re-consider population density.  There was no movement on density, and we stated that we could not recommend adoption of the plan and we would be letting our councillors know.  We also stated that two days between this meeting and the presentation of the plan to councillors was not enough time for us to go back and consult with our residents.

A letter was sent to the councillors outlining our opposition to the plan.  Despite this, the plan was adopted by the councillors on Thursday at their area meeting.  Minutes of the meeting are not available online yet, but check this page in the future.

The Framework Plan was adopted by our councillors on Thursday 25th September 2008.

19th of May - Vote put to Councillors - defferred to later meeting   (minutes not available at time of post)

21st July - Vote put to Councillors - request for more information  (minutes not available at time of post) notes available on request.

03 September - Whitehall Residents send letter outlining their views to councillors.

15 September - Dublin City Council provides update to Councillors

September - Dublin City Council meets individually with Resident Associations

September 23rd - Dublin City Council meets with combined group - density main concern

September 24th - Letter sent to councillors urging them not to vote in Framework Plan

September 25th - Councillors Vote in Framework Plan

3rd September 2008

Dear Councillor _________,

This letter is from the Combined Whitehall Residents Association, representing the views of residents from All Hallows, Ardmore, Collinswood, Collins Avenue, Ellenfield, Gaeltacht Park, Grace Park Heights, High Park and Swords Road. 

As you know, we raised a number of concerns on the original Whitehall Framework Plan, alongside almost 300 individual submissions from our members.  We have since received the Report on Submissions prepared by Dublin City Council but, unfortunately, almost all of our concerns remain outstanding and indeed the report misrepresents some submissions. In this context, we very much appreciate the decision of the North Central Area Committee at its July meeting to defer a decision on this report until September, pending more information. 

We understand that the additional information will include an engineering report on the impact on the Port Tunnel, a parking survey and an economic viability study.  We welcome these studies and ask that these reports are sent to us as soon as they are completed.  These surveys should provide some insight into some, but not all, of our concerns and we regret that an environmental impact study or a social infrastructure study has not been undertaken.   We also see the need for a full archaeological survey given the interest of the Royal Historical and Archaeological Association of Ireland. 

We see this development as a once-off opportunity to provide a vibrant and sustainable centre for the Whitehall community while still providing a significant amount of new housing.  Unfortunately, we remain under the impression that the latter is the overwhelming concern of the City Council at the expense of all other social aims, even where these are provided for by legislation.  We regret also that the Framework Plan was not changed to a Local Area Plan, which would have shifted the emphasis more towards the provision of a vibrant centre for the local area, as recommended by our professional planner, Jerry Barnes (submission no. 84). 

Our concerns are fully set out in our initial submission, which we can provide upon request.  We would like to take this opportunity however to outline and summarise our main concerns again. They are as follows:

Height – the corner building, at 8 storeys, remains far too tall and not in keeping with the character of the area.  The other buildings should be set in from the edges with graduated heights towards the centre of the main development, which would, in particular, counter overshadowing.  We are firmly opposed to building on the car park and old social services site given proximity to Thatch Road residents and the ongoing issue of the height of the wall between the car park and Thatch Road. 

Parking – provision for those using retail and sports facilities in the area, existing and proposed, is inadequate.  The current car park is needed for existing, let alone new, pressures and a valuable park and ride facility would be lost to the city, particularly in the light of parking restrictions around Croke Park on match days and the possible future introduction of congestion charges.  Any study of car park use should be sustained over a reasonable period of time, be fully transparent, include some qualitative input from actual users of the car park, rather than just numbers and assess the likely impact on Whitehall of changes to parking around Croke Park.

Traffic – problems which currently exist at each of the estate entrances (where cars must turn into a full tailback on weekday mornings and block exits on the other side of the road, where right turns are off one car lanes on key city and national routes, rat-running through estates etc.) will be compounded by this development, there is no proposal in the Report on Submissions to run a clear bus lane to the city centre to cope, the Metro will be at least 20 minutes walk from the site and not in the direction of the city centre and there is no provision or space for a separate cycle lane on Swords Road. A through road discourages the use of the development, particularly by children and the elderly. 

Facilities – very little of the money accruing from this development is being made available to the community. A leisure centre with swimming pool would provide facilities for the community, Whitehall Colmcilles and other local sports clubs and could also provide a clubhouse and a social hall for local use such as for meetings, bingo etc. We reject the notion that there is a trade-off between current facility provision and density as this development will be worth far more than the cost of a library.  A crèche, youth café, basketball area and pensioner playground would occupy young people and encourage activity among the elderly. 

Density and range of accommodation – Lower density, and particularly reduced height, would encourage more permanent dwellers, especially families, making this more likely to be a vibrant centre for the area.  It is critical as a local area centre that this development is not first to suffer in a weak property market and that the accommodation is not seen as undesirable during a property slump.  We favour a high provision of affordable housing units to allow local young people from the area to live in the area,.  High quality senior citizens’ units should be incorporated into the Nuns’ Field site, improving the social mix and eliminating the segregation in current proposals. 

Design – this should be a carbon neutral self-sustaining development and an example of energy efficiency for the city.  There should be a stated preference for soft rather than hard landscaping.  In line with the vision as a gateway to the city, the highest architectural designs should be employed.  Moving buildings in from the edge with trees and front gardens to the front would hide heights, blend with the local area and counter overlooking, particularly over High Park estate.  Buildings should have a sympathetic finish using granite and redbrick and should blend in with those in adjoining Gracepark Manor.  A sculpture on the corner in a green area could become a city landmark.  More open space and a walkway through the development would also encourage a sense of community.  Pedestrian access should not run through the established High Park estate but the existing walkway between Gracepark and Swords Roads should be brought into use. 

Port Tunnel – we remain concerned on safety grounds and it is paramount that a fully impartial study is undertaken and made public and that the National Roads Authority approves the Plan before any vote is undertaken.  

We remain convinced that a design based on the provision of a vibrant centre for the local community would address all of our concerns while providing a significant quantity of new housing.  It is not surprising, however, that a Plan constructed without such priorities to the fore would fall short of such a design on so many counts. 

This is the most important development in the history of Whitehall and could make or break the local community.  We would like to thank you for your time and interest to date, but ask that you consider our letter before you vote. We would also like to point out that we will record and publicise all votes at local and central level on a political party basis so that those who support us will receive due recognition in local and general elections.

Yours sincerely,

_____________
Secretary, on behalf of all members of the Combined Whitehall Residents Association

At the Area Committee Meeting held in July it was agreed to prepare a supplementary report (for councillors)  in relation to 3 issues.  These issues were  (i) The rationale for the proposed tall building on the junction of Swords Road and Collins Avenue. (ii) An economic appraisal of the proposed plan and its key social and community objectives in the light of the current property downturn. 

(iii) The impact of the port tunnel on the draft plan proposals.

The report can be downloaded here. Report from Dublin City Council - 15th September 2008

The request to change the Framework plan to a Local Area Plan with statutory standing has been dismissed in the report on submissions, the following being the response.

“The Whitehall Plan is a draft non-statutory framework plan. This approach for the preparation of a non-statutory plan was agreed by the members at the North Central Area Committee Meeting on 21st January 2008.

The purpose of Local Area Plans (LAPs), as set out in the legislation and ministerial guidelines, is to provide guidance for the coherent development of strategic growth areas and areas with substantial brownfield or greenfield lands for development. The Whitehall lands are relatively small-scale and site-specific in nature and do not demonstrate strategically significant development capacity. For these reasons, the lands in question do not come within the definition of lands appropriate for the preparation of an LAP, as set out in the legislation.”

It seems that the focus is on that piece of land above the tunnel rather than Whitehall as a whole and how to bring it together into a great area.