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