24/08/08
Green Party Castleknock Ward candidate, Roderic O’Gorman has called for major changes to be made to the proposed development of lands behind the Ashleigh Shopping Centre in Castleknock village. It was commenting after submitting a planning objection to the proposed development on behalf of the local Green Party.
“I’ve submitted an objection to this proposed development as I have serious concerns about certain aspects, specifically the residential element, the large number of parking spaces provided and the overall height of the buildings”.
“I would have a major worry about the height of some of the proposed buildings. While I accept that the Castleknock Urban Centre Strategy (UCS), which was recently adopted by the Council, suggests an indicative height of 4 stories for buildings in this area, I would argue that this is inappropriate in an area which still has a typical village setting. I would say that at most, buildings should not exceed 3 stories and that the proposed development should be amended to reflect this”, stated Roderic O’Gorman.
O’Gorman was also critical of the number of car parking spaces proposed for the development. The planning application provides for 336 car parking spaces in a basement car park, comprising 89 residential spaces and 277 commercial spaces.
“Provision for such a large number of cars is obviously going to have a big impact on traffic in the centre of Castleknock village. I believe that the proposed number of spaces is too great. As I point out in my objection, the amount of parking contained within the proposed development is significantly more than the amount which the Castleknock UCS suggested would be appropriate. I would propose that the number of parking spaces be reduced in line with what the Castleknock UCS suggests, in order to reduce the traffic impact on the village. Castleknock Village will soon be served with a significantly upgraded bus corridor. As such, the use of public transport should be encouraged as much as possible – creating large commercial car parks acts as a disincentive to this”, stated Roderic O’Gorman.
O’Gorman also called for a reduction in the number of small one and two bedroom apartments in the scheme and for more family friendly 3 bed apartments.
“Out of the 49 proposed apartments in the development, only one is a 3 bed, all the rest are 1 or 2 beds. As such it is clear that there is a significant undersupply of large, family friendly 3 bed units and an oversupply of 1 bed units. In a development that is being promoted as a model of new urban design, we think it is highly inappropriate that so many small apartments should be constructed. This would also be in keeping with the Castleknock UCS, which suggests limiting the number of small apartments”.
“While I would welcome certain aspects of this development, such as the idea of an extension of the existing streetscape and the plans for new civic spaces, I hope Fingal County Coiuncil will take on board the reservations myself and residents have on the issue outlined in our objections”, concluded Roderic O’Gorman.
Ends
Further Information
Roderic O’Gorman: 087 417 9777
rodericogorman@gmail.com
Planning Objection lodged by Dublin West Green Party
Senior Executive Officer,
Planning Department,
Fingal County Council,
County Hall,
Swords,
County Dublin.
13/08/08
Re: Objection to Development F08A/0892
Dear Sir/Madam,
I would like to lodge the following objection on behalf of the Dublin West Green Party to development F08A/0892 – in Castleknock, Dublin 15.
Yours sincerely,
____________________________
Roderic O’Gorman
Introduction
We welcome elements of the proposed development, in particular the idea of an extension of the existing streetscape and the plans for new civic spaces. However, we have significant concerns about the residential element, the large number of parking spaces provided and the overall height of the buildings.
Residential Element
We believe the current residential element of the proposed development does not comply with the mix suggested by the Castleknock UCS.
P 29 of the Castleknock UCS states:
All apartment schemes shall contain a mix of dwellings types and sizes and therefore shall comply with the following standards:
Maximum 20% of 1 bed
Minimum 45% of 2 bed
Minimum 15% of 3 plus bed
The proposed development contains the following residential mix:
One bed 11 (22%)
Two bed 37 (75%)
Three bed 1 (2%)
Total 49 (100%)
As such, compared to what is outlined in the Castleknock UCS, it is clear that there is a significant undersupply of large, family friendly 3+ bed units and an oversupply of 1 bed units. In a development that is being promoted as a model of new urban design, we think it is highly inappropriate that so many small apartments should be constructed.
We believe that there should be a decrease in the number of 1 & 2 bed apartments and an increase in the number of family friendly 3 bed apartments.
Parking
The proposed development provides for 336 car parking spaces in a basement car park, comprising 89 residential spaces and 277 commercial spaces.
Provision for such a large number of cars is obviously going to have a significant impact on traffic in the centre of Castleknock village. We believe that the proposed number of spaces is too great. In support of this, we note the table on P 27 of the Planning Support Statement supplied with the planning application. This draws a comparison between the suggested amount of parking contained within the Castleknock UCS, the actual amount provided in the proposed development and the suggested amount contained with the Fingal Development Plan. The amount provided for in the proposed development is significantly more than is suggested as being appropriate in the Castleknock UCS.
We would propose that the number of parking spaces be reduced in line with what the Castleknock UCS suggests, in order to reduce the traffic impact on the village. Castleknock Village will soon be served with a significantly upgraded bus corridor. As such, the use of public transport should be encouraged as much as possible – creating large commercial car parks acts as a disincentive to this.
Height
We are concerned about the height of some of the proposed buildings. While we accept that P 20 of the Castleknock UCS suggests an indicative height of 4 stories for buildings in this area, we would argue that this is an inappropriate height in what is a still a typical village setting. We would propose that at most, buildings should not exceed 3 stories and that the proposed development should be amended to reflect this.