Fingal’s Parks Department is consulting the public on plans to build two new children’s playgrounds at Rusheeny and Hazelbury.
I generally welcome the idea of new recreational facilities for Dublin 15, and the communities around Rusheeny and Hazelbury are now benefiting from vastly improved schooling facilities – including the Community College under construction with sport and community use built in.
Nevertheless. I have had some emails expressing doubt in relation to the playground and I’m anxious to hear local views.
Please feel free to phone me on 087-2207798 or e-mail me at michael.odonovan@fingalcoco.ie on this or any other matter
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Friday, December 11, 2009
Press Release re Tyrrelstown School
Speaking at the debate on the Tyrrellstown School situation, Labour’s Cllr Michael O’Donovan said
“We need greater imagination in order to fast track the building of the two Tyrrellstown Primary Schools.
Let’s look at the Planning process to begin with. There is a notion that the Department of Education must be the owner of the site before a planning application can be lodged. To my knowledge, this is not a hard and fast rule. The Department can lodge an application literally next Monday morning as soon as contracts are exchanged. It may take time before the transfer is completed and the Department takes full ownership of the site, but the planning process can start right away.
There is a second opportunity to speed up the delivery of schools. The main developer in the area has full permission for two sixteen classroom schools and a shared community sports hall. The design is to Department of Education specifications. Building could start straight away on this model, and a planning application could be lodged straight away for two eight-classroom extensions.
A lot is possible, but we need a level of urgency that has not been apparent up to now”.
“We need greater imagination in order to fast track the building of the two Tyrrellstown Primary Schools.
Let’s look at the Planning process to begin with. There is a notion that the Department of Education must be the owner of the site before a planning application can be lodged. To my knowledge, this is not a hard and fast rule. The Department can lodge an application literally next Monday morning as soon as contracts are exchanged. It may take time before the transfer is completed and the Department takes full ownership of the site, but the planning process can start right away.
There is a second opportunity to speed up the delivery of schools. The main developer in the area has full permission for two sixteen classroom schools and a shared community sports hall. The design is to Department of Education specifications. Building could start straight away on this model, and a planning application could be lodged straight away for two eight-classroom extensions.
A lot is possible, but we need a level of urgency that has not been apparent up to now”.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Objection to An Bord Pleanala re Clonsilla Village
The Secretary
An Bord Pleanala
64 Marlborough St
Dublin 1
17th November 2009
A chara,
I write in relation to file PL06F.235260, an application for lands at Clonsilla, Dublin 15. I am writing particularly to support the objection lodged by residents of Porters Gate Estate, Clonsilla.
I believe the plan submitted by the developers is totally inappropriate in the heart of Clonsilla Village. A very detailed case is made in the objection lodged with you, but I would emphasise the following:-
1. The design of the apartment blocks is poor. Even the “artists impression” submitted by the developers shows a very unpleasing view and one that is totally out of any sympathy with the village ambience we should be trying to protect.
2. The five story element is in breach of our own plan for Clonsilla Village, a plan which was warmly welcomed by local residents. For us to turn our back on local residents new would set a dreadful precedent.
3. The proposed apartment blocks are right beside two listed structures, St Mary’s Church and the Clonsilla Signal Box, the oldest intact signal box in the country.
4. All the adjacent housing is village style bungalows or two story houses. The apartment block would represent an extraordinary visual intrusion.
5. The density of 27 units to the acre is too high. Higher densities are often permitted near railway stations, but in this instance, other factors must be taken into account. The appropriate development of this site should involve 2,3,4, and even some 5 bedroom town houses up to 2 ½ storeys in height. A good density of 20 per acre (50 per hectare) could comfortably be achieved on this site.
6. There is a protected hedgerow on the southern boundary of the site. The plan to remove it is most regrettable.
7. Market conditions have changed since pre-planning discussions began on this site. As a local Councillor representing Clonsilla for almost 17years, I can say that there is little or no demand for apartments here. The young families wishing to live in Clonsilla are seeking family-friendly houses with back gardens.
8. The Open Space provision is below even the standard set by Fingal’s own development plan.
I consider this to be a very important site for the proper planning and development of the core Clonsilla Village area. An entirely new application for a development of townhouses at 2 to 2 ½ storey is warranted.
I ask the Board to uphold the appeal by the local residents and Refuse Permission for this development.
I enclose cheque of €50.00 fee.
Le meas
Cllr. Michael O’Donovan
Local Councillor, Clonsilla Area
An Bord Pleanala
64 Marlborough St
Dublin 1
17th November 2009
A chara,
I write in relation to file PL06F.235260, an application for lands at Clonsilla, Dublin 15. I am writing particularly to support the objection lodged by residents of Porters Gate Estate, Clonsilla.
I believe the plan submitted by the developers is totally inappropriate in the heart of Clonsilla Village. A very detailed case is made in the objection lodged with you, but I would emphasise the following:-
1. The design of the apartment blocks is poor. Even the “artists impression” submitted by the developers shows a very unpleasing view and one that is totally out of any sympathy with the village ambience we should be trying to protect.
2. The five story element is in breach of our own plan for Clonsilla Village, a plan which was warmly welcomed by local residents. For us to turn our back on local residents new would set a dreadful precedent.
3. The proposed apartment blocks are right beside two listed structures, St Mary’s Church and the Clonsilla Signal Box, the oldest intact signal box in the country.
4. All the adjacent housing is village style bungalows or two story houses. The apartment block would represent an extraordinary visual intrusion.
5. The density of 27 units to the acre is too high. Higher densities are often permitted near railway stations, but in this instance, other factors must be taken into account. The appropriate development of this site should involve 2,3,4, and even some 5 bedroom town houses up to 2 ½ storeys in height. A good density of 20 per acre (50 per hectare) could comfortably be achieved on this site.
6. There is a protected hedgerow on the southern boundary of the site. The plan to remove it is most regrettable.
7. Market conditions have changed since pre-planning discussions began on this site. As a local Councillor representing Clonsilla for almost 17years, I can say that there is little or no demand for apartments here. The young families wishing to live in Clonsilla are seeking family-friendly houses with back gardens.
8. The Open Space provision is below even the standard set by Fingal’s own development plan.
I consider this to be a very important site for the proper planning and development of the core Clonsilla Village area. An entirely new application for a development of townhouses at 2 to 2 ½ storey is warranted.
I ask the Board to uphold the appeal by the local residents and Refuse Permission for this development.
I enclose cheque of €50.00 fee.
Le meas
Cllr. Michael O’Donovan
Local Councillor, Clonsilla Area
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Press Release
Cllr Michael O'Donovan Welcomes Decision of Fingal Planners to demand the Retention of traditional cottage fronts on Main St, Blanchardstown
October 09
PRESS RELEASE
I am very pleased that our County Planners have responded in this fashion to the application to demolish Nos. 4 & 6 St Brigid’s Cottages, Main Street, Blanchardstown.
I particularly welcome the statement by the Planners that “these cottages contribute to the historical character of the streetscape and form an integral part of the character of Blanchardstown Village.”
The Planners are of the view that the more intensive development of this site is acceptable in principle and I agree with that. The issue is that any new development should respect and enhance the special character of these village cottages.
I look forward to the Developers submitting an altered set of plans and I particularly welcome the Planners instructions that the front facades including windows, door openings, roofs and chimneys are to be retained.
October 09
PRESS RELEASE
I am very pleased that our County Planners have responded in this fashion to the application to demolish Nos. 4 & 6 St Brigid’s Cottages, Main Street, Blanchardstown.
I particularly welcome the statement by the Planners that “these cottages contribute to the historical character of the streetscape and form an integral part of the character of Blanchardstown Village.”
The Planners are of the view that the more intensive development of this site is acceptable in principle and I agree with that. The issue is that any new development should respect and enhance the special character of these village cottages.
I look forward to the Developers submitting an altered set of plans and I particularly welcome the Planners instructions that the front facades including windows, door openings, roofs and chimneys are to be retained.
Clonsilla Village
Cllr Michael O'Donovan lodges Objection to a Proposal for
High-Rise, High Density Apartments in Clonsilla Village.
The Planning Officer
Fingal County Council
Blanchardstown
Dublin 15
6th October 2009
A chara,
I write in response to the additional information recently supplied in relation to the application for houses, apartments and retail units by LaVista developments at Clonsilla Link Road, Dublin 15.
I commend the fact that a row of houses has been “moved” to allow more space between the proposed development and Porters Gate Estate and to allow for the protection of a row of mature trees. I also welcome the reduction in the number of one-bedroom units.
Nevertheless, the basic reasons for my original objection are as relevant as ever:-
1. The design of the apartment blocks is poor. Even the “artists impression” submitted by the developers shows a very unpleasing view and one that is totally out of any sympathy with the village ambience we should be trying to protect.
2. The five story element is in breach of our own plan for Clonsilla Village, a plan which was warmly welcomed by local residents. For us to turn our back on local residents new would set a dreadful precedent.
3. The proposed apartment blocks are right beside two listed structures, St Mary’s Church and the Clonsilla Signal Box, the oldest intact signal box in the country.
4. All the adjacent housing is village style bungalows or two story houses. The apartment block would represent an extraordinary visual intrusion.
5. The density of 27 units to the acre is too high. Higher densities are often permitted near railway stations, but in this instance, other factors must be taken into account. The appropriate development of this site should involve 2,3,4, and even some 5 bedroom town houses up to 2 ½ storeys in height. A good density of 20 per acre (50 per hectare) could comfortably be achieved on this site.
I believe an entirely new application is warranted on this site.
Le meas
Cllr. Michael O’Donovan
Local Councillor, Clonsilla Area
High-Rise, High Density Apartments in Clonsilla Village.
The Planning Officer
Fingal County Council
Blanchardstown
Dublin 15
6th October 2009
A chara,
I write in response to the additional information recently supplied in relation to the application for houses, apartments and retail units by LaVista developments at Clonsilla Link Road, Dublin 15.
I commend the fact that a row of houses has been “moved” to allow more space between the proposed development and Porters Gate Estate and to allow for the protection of a row of mature trees. I also welcome the reduction in the number of one-bedroom units.
Nevertheless, the basic reasons for my original objection are as relevant as ever:-
1. The design of the apartment blocks is poor. Even the “artists impression” submitted by the developers shows a very unpleasing view and one that is totally out of any sympathy with the village ambience we should be trying to protect.
2. The five story element is in breach of our own plan for Clonsilla Village, a plan which was warmly welcomed by local residents. For us to turn our back on local residents new would set a dreadful precedent.
3. The proposed apartment blocks are right beside two listed structures, St Mary’s Church and the Clonsilla Signal Box, the oldest intact signal box in the country.
4. All the adjacent housing is village style bungalows or two story houses. The apartment block would represent an extraordinary visual intrusion.
5. The density of 27 units to the acre is too high. Higher densities are often permitted near railway stations, but in this instance, other factors must be taken into account. The appropriate development of this site should involve 2,3,4, and even some 5 bedroom town houses up to 2 ½ storeys in height. A good density of 20 per acre (50 per hectare) could comfortably be achieved on this site.
I believe an entirely new application is warranted on this site.
Le meas
Cllr. Michael O’Donovan
Local Councillor, Clonsilla Area
Cllr Michael O'Donovan Lodges Objection to the Proposal to Demolish 2 Cottages in Main St Blanchardstown
Senior Planning Office
Dublin 15 Area
Fingal County Council
Blanchardstown
Dublin 15
25th August 2009
Ref: FW09A/0122
A chara,
I write in relation to the above application and I refer in particular to the proposal to demolish two existing cottages and to change the North elevation completely.
I support the idea of bringing life and people into the village and into Main St, Blanchardstown. The site in question is suitable for development. It is a long rectangular site and I do not have a problem with the long back gardens being developed for business use.
My problem is with the notion of demolishing the existing house fronts rather than restoring them.
The row of cottages in question is a long standing feature of the street-scape of Blanchardstown Village. The old black and white photographs show these cottages as an important visual element of the village with the spire of St Brigid’s behind them. We have few enough buildings of this type left in Blanchardstown Village or indeed in Dublin 15 generally due to the pace of development in recent years. I believe our Council has a key role to play in preserving such building by insisting on the retention of these traditional house fronts rather than allowing their demolition.
The artist’s impression of the proposed new street frontage shows a modern shop front with floor to ceiling glass. This is totally out of keeping with the rest of the cottages and should not be permitted
If this demolition is allowed it will set a very worrying precedent. If these cottages can be flattened then so can all the rest.
Again, I wish to state that I do not object to the conversion of the cottages into retail or business use but the existing front elevation should be retained.
I’d be obliged if you would acknowledge receipt of this submission.
Yours sincerely,
Cllr. Michael O’Donovan
Dublin 15 Area
Fingal County Council
Blanchardstown
Dublin 15
25th August 2009
Ref: FW09A/0122
A chara,
I write in relation to the above application and I refer in particular to the proposal to demolish two existing cottages and to change the North elevation completely.
I support the idea of bringing life and people into the village and into Main St, Blanchardstown. The site in question is suitable for development. It is a long rectangular site and I do not have a problem with the long back gardens being developed for business use.
My problem is with the notion of demolishing the existing house fronts rather than restoring them.
The row of cottages in question is a long standing feature of the street-scape of Blanchardstown Village. The old black and white photographs show these cottages as an important visual element of the village with the spire of St Brigid’s behind them. We have few enough buildings of this type left in Blanchardstown Village or indeed in Dublin 15 generally due to the pace of development in recent years. I believe our Council has a key role to play in preserving such building by insisting on the retention of these traditional house fronts rather than allowing their demolition.
The artist’s impression of the proposed new street frontage shows a modern shop front with floor to ceiling glass. This is totally out of keeping with the rest of the cottages and should not be permitted
If this demolition is allowed it will set a very worrying precedent. If these cottages can be flattened then so can all the rest.
Again, I wish to state that I do not object to the conversion of the cottages into retail or business use but the existing front elevation should be retained.
I’d be obliged if you would acknowledge receipt of this submission.
Yours sincerely,
Cllr. Michael O’Donovan
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
LISBON - A KEY QUESTION
“Is Lisbon 2 any different? We already voted “NO” to Lisbon One.”
Cllr Michael’s view
“The difference is not in the treaty but in the guarantees which cover many of the issues that worried voters on the last occasion. Legally-binding guarantees on taxation, on military neutrality, on the right to life, on the family and on education and a solemn declaration on workers’ rights, on social policy and on public services together with the unanimous agreement of 27 Member States that each of them will continue to have a Commissioner, constitutes vital new matter, additional to what was on offer to the electorate last June twelve months.
The guarantees will be attached to the next Treaty as a Protocol. They were drawn up carefully and were agreed with all twenty-six EU Member States to address the concerns and fears that voters say caused them to vote “NO” or stay away from the polling stations on the last occasion.
Cllr Michael’s view
“The difference is not in the treaty but in the guarantees which cover many of the issues that worried voters on the last occasion. Legally-binding guarantees on taxation, on military neutrality, on the right to life, on the family and on education and a solemn declaration on workers’ rights, on social policy and on public services together with the unanimous agreement of 27 Member States that each of them will continue to have a Commissioner, constitutes vital new matter, additional to what was on offer to the electorate last June twelve months.
The guarantees will be attached to the next Treaty as a Protocol. They were drawn up carefully and were agreed with all twenty-six EU Member States to address the concerns and fears that voters say caused them to vote “NO” or stay away from the polling stations on the last occasion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
