Téama:
Do you have any suggestions to improve the draft masterplan?
3 stories is far too low for a city centre site like this, there should be 6-8 stories minimum to enable higher density and address the housing crisis
3 stories is far too low for a city centre site like this, there should be 6-8 stories minimum to enable higher density and address the housing crisis
As long-term residents of (Redacted - Personal Information), we - Evelyn Conlon and Fintan Valley - welcome the development of the Gulistan site with the balance of social/residential services it proposes. We have lived here and raised children, since before the Swan Centre itself was built indeed, and would like to see community orientation in the use of the former corporation yard. However we have some general concerns, as well as particular issues with the draft plan as diagrammatically proposed, which directly, adversely affect our own home at (Redacated - Personal Information). Some suggestions are made by which could ameliorate the serious matters. Our general considerations are on parking and traffic, but first we deal here with the most important:
1/ Light and privacy: The draft plan currently proposes to build the housing units right up against the existing perimeter wall of the site; this wall is also the parity boundary with existing house buildings and yards. In our own case, the draft plan has a proposed five to seven storey building abutting the rear of our house, (Redacted - Personal Information). This would totally block all light to the rear of our house, and remove the aesthetic sight of the heritage views - the Rathmines skyline, the Town Hall clock and church cupola - which we have appreciated for all of our forty-two years here. It would also render the rear of the house totally overlooked by all storeys of the new building. This would remove the privacy which we have also had over the four decades of our occupancy, and which we enjoy on a roof terrace. The new development buildings - as currently proposed - would remove this privacy, in addition to our view and light, all of which this house has had since its construction c. 1845. As regards the roof terrace, this has been a feature of the house since c. 1966. While we, as residents on this corner of the new-development site, would suffer the greatest intrusion as regards loss of light and privacy, we are also aware that the loss of these would also apply to the owners and residents of the neighbouring houses (Redacted- Personal Information).
Remedying this. However, in the interests of supporting the site's development, our desire for light/space could be accommodated if the proposed new building was kept back at a distance of c. 10 metres from the existing perimeter wall (even at the cost of adding another storey), and if a green buffer area installed in this space. This would have the benefit of not only 1/ preserving some light and visual space, reducing claustrophobia, but also of 2/ making possible a rear entrance to our houses. Existing residences should and can be offered some return for the grave disruption which any building plan will impose. One basic concern which could be remedied is the issue of sewage: for instance, for all of the houses in Castlewood Terrace the main sewer runs under the back of each house, and in all cases these areas are built over, with interior sewer-covers, or have enclosed yards. Because of the gradient, if the main sewer blocks, the first house to flood is the last in the row, which is our own house here, (Redacted - Personal Information) something which has happened four times to date; this can be a considerable health hazard. The option of provision of a sewer on the perimeter of the new site to which all houses could connect may also apply to the 17 Gulistan houses which would have their Southerly light totally blocked by the proposed buildings. It should be possible to connect our existing drains to a sewer system on the new site. Such consideration by the DCC would not only be a gesture of compensation for the disruption, loss of privacy and sense of space, but would also be an investment against hazard in the future.
2/ Parking. This is a general consideration affecting the area as a whole. The draft plan and its text propose building 156 housing units. There is no consideration included in it for new-residents' parking, or for services-vehicle parking, other than, at point 4. of the proposal, which states that there would be "on-street parking". But there is no indication of any space being provided for this within the site. So it appears that it the planners' assumption is to use on-street parking in the surrounding streets. However, Castlewood Terrace and Gulistan Terrace and Cottages have c. 100 houses, and all parking space is currently utilised by them daily, so there is not room to park any more cars here. This would suggest, as with city developments elsewhere in Europe, that an underground cart parking facility should be provided for the exclusive use of residents and users of the new buildings. If, as noted in the plan, the HSE facility is likely to have such, surely it is an obvious thing to consider - before the HSE building is planned - for all of the homes on the site at this proposal stage?
3/ Traffic. The suggested traffic exit from the new development onto Castlewood Terrace beside No. 15 - seems poorly researched, because that is on a tricky double bend which vans and lorries already find difficult to negotiate, and larger - delivery and construction - vehicles cannot negotiate it at all. However, any traffic exiting from the new site, would then have to enter Castlewood Avenue, which at peak times - morning and evening - has dense traffic already, on account of Castlewood Avenue’s use as a route from Rathmines Road across to Ranelagh and Donnybrook in the mornings, with much school-drop-off traffic, and vice versa in the evenings. Congestion is not helped by the added disadvantage of a crippling slowness, limited left-turning space (for buses in particular during deliveries to Rathmines Road shops). There is also a very short traffic light duration at the junction of Castlewood Avenue and Rathmines road, which permits only from 4 to 7 cars to get out at a time. So, using Castlewood Terrace as the exit from the new development is likely to render this narrow street a long traffic jam at peak times, not only a new pollution hazard for the established residents, but also an obstruction in the present traffic system.
Ranelagh Gaels is a GAA club founded in 2003. The membership has grown exponentially since then. At present our membership stands at 1,500 of whom 1,181 are players. Our membership has doubled in the past three years and, on current growth trajectories, we will have 2,000 playing members by 2030. The current playing membership includes some 916 juvenile (under 16) players. The club has suffered terribly from a dearth of playing facilities in an area where recreational land is in short supply. .
As hurling and camogie are core sports for us, the club would hugely benefit from the use of a hurling wall with artificial turf, which would allow children and adults access in their own neighbourhood to a valuable amenity where they can practise hurling skills. The Gullistan depot is situated at the heart of the club's catchment area and would allow players to walk and cycle and use public transport, rather than rely on a car.
Hurling walls have been transformative in increasing the skill levels of young players and many of the the surrounding clubs in South Dublin (Faughs, Kilmacud Crokes, Naomh Olaf) have such facilities. As a club with no grounds of our own, nor a clubhouse, such a facility would be hugely invaluable to us, giving a marked community gain to almost 1,000 local children who are active playing members of the club.
These walls have become a standard feature for many clubs in the capital and around the country. A similar practise wall in Crumlin is 19 metres long and 5 metres high, with a one-metre high net above that which acts as a ball stopper. That brings the overall height to 6 metres. In the Crumlin example there are two 5 metre supporting concrete fins. The other three sides of the enclosure in Crumlin has a 3 metre high weld mesh fence topped by an additional 3 metres of netting to stop balls.
The surface is of synthetic turf. In Crumlin, there are two 10 metre high floodlights for use in poor light/darkness.
The depth perpendicular from the wall can vary but would ideally be 20 metres plus.
Hurling walls are now constructed as ready-made precast concrete units by a number of specialist firms and are installed on site.
The Draft Gulistan Depot Masterplan proposes a civic space of 1,500 sq.m. We believe that a hurling wall and associated multi-use games area (MUGA) should form part of the masterplan proposals occupying part of the civic space. This facility would help to bring the mixed use elements of the masterplan lands together by providing active open space for people of all ages and abilities, whether they be future residents of the scheme or from the wider community. The facility could be utilised for outdoor classes for those residing in age friendly housing, exercise space for primary care centre users, or for passive surveillance and spectating. Ranelagh Gaels has recently launched Ranelagh Rockets (an initiative by members to include children with special needs in the activities and life of the club) and we would very much welcome an additional secure outdoor space to expand this initiative. We note there is no such publicly accessible MUGA anywhere in the Rathmines and Ranelagh areas.
Traffic in and out of Gulistan: Traffic is already a significant issue coming in and out of the existing Bring Centre and the proposal does not lay out a plan to deal with the future increase in traffic through the narrow streets of Gulistan Terrace and Gulistan Cottages. Nor does it explain how the construction traffic will be dealt with during the building period - existing trucks going in and out of the bring centre already struggle with the narrow streets.
Height of the proposed buildings: The proposed four- and five-story buildings are out of keeping with the surrounding area and will loom over the small cottages in Gulistan. The proposed four-story medical centre building is directly south-west of us and so will significantly block the daylight that the cottages currently get.
Distance between buildings: The proposal sketches may be misleading but it looks very close to the cottages in Gulistan. The Dublin City Development Plan states the following (page 330): “At the rear of dwellings, there should be adequate separation between opposing first floor windows. Traditionally, a separation of about 22 m was sought between the rear of 2-storey dwellings… “
Proposed Building Height
Point 4.9 of The Master Plan proposal details 5-7 storey affordable and cost rental housing which will back onto and overlook the small houses and cottages of Castlewood Terrace (Note that this contradicts section 4.4 of the plan which states cost rental housing will be 3 -5 stories high?). This is not in keeping with existing properties in the area and our privacy is a major concern - our bedrooms, showers, gardens, etc will now be looked into from the apartments. It is too close and too high. We believe consideration should be given to a) moving the proposed cost rental housing from the immediate vicinity of the Castlewood terrace boundary wall i.e. to the north end of the development beside already existing 3-5 storey apartments in Rathmines and thus in keeping with the surrounding areas and b) providing a green screen on the south boundary wall to prevent residents from being directly overlooked.
New outflow of traffic on to Castlewood Terrace
Point 5.3 of The Master Plan proposal details vehicular access and proposes to use Castlewood Terrace as an exit point for all traffic exiting the site. This includes service vehicles, residents, and mini vans transporting eldering or those requiring care at the Health Centre. Castlewood Terrace is a narrow cul de sac with no footpath in places and narrow pinch points. so it would not be able to cope with any degree of traffic and would also be a huge danger to residents, children and the many pedestrians who use this road for access. We have significant concerns on this point and believe a traffic study and impact assessment must be undertaken prior to any further decisions being made. Consideration should also be given to vehicular access to the development via a) Parker Hill to the North end of the site b) the laneway abutting Rathmines Town Hall to the west. Such access could be further facilitated through a compulsory purchase order of surrounding properties i.e. Peter Mark hairdressers.
Parking
Section 5.4 references parking and that parking will be provided to new residents and their visitors and will be located on-street. Castlewood Terrace it is a small narrow road / laneway, which already struggles to accommodate its residents with on-street parking as a result of the continued increase in popularity of the swan centre (many have to park on the footpath outside their house). it is one thing to aspire for the entire development to be carless, but another thing to ask residents to not own a car. We believe as above, a traffic / parking impact study should be undertaken prior to any further decisions being made and consideration given to underground parking for residents / visitors. Failing this, with the increase in traffic from this development, we would like to get assurance as to how ongoing availability of parking for the residents of Castlewood terrace will be addressed.
Section 5.4 also has no specific proposal for the HSE primary care centre but suggests it may develop an underground car-park. This is essential and needs to be incorporated into the plan. Many patients for the HSE primary care centre will be inhibited in their ability to walk and will need to drive / be driven.
Whilst I can see the benefit of a primary healthcare centre ,although I would not support current healthcare regime in Ireland perhaps this site could be given over to recreation specifically public park and allotments --the absence of the latter are a huge failing on the part of Rathmines Township/Dublin Corporation/Republic of Ireland etc
The recent pandemic emphasised the lack of public access to green space in Lower Rathmines .The last things Rathmines needs are more bricks and concrete..
In my view the opinions of Mary Freehill have some merit but more so Ciaran Ferrie
Where will the Bring Centre be relocated to? This is an important facility, especially now we are being asked to recycle as much as possible.
Comments are allowed on this submission.
Thomas Curran
(Redacated - Personal Information)
Rathmines Depot Draft Plan My Observations 11 October 2021
(Redacted - Personal Information) - Gulistan Depot for 47 years.
During that time I have seen the changes from full working Bin Lorry Depot and ESB technical office to the present Bring Depot.
Gulistan Terrace and Cottages are zoned Z1 and Z2 respectively.They are at the interface of this proposed development.
Objectives
Z1 objective is to “protect, provide and improve residential amenities”
Z” objective is to “protect and/or improve the amenities of residential conservation areas”
The proposed development as it stands will have a major negative impact on the lives of the residents of Gulistan Cottages and Gulistan Terrace and certainly not meet the Z1 and Z2 objectives.
The artisan Gulistan Cottages are a unique feature of Dublin architecture and Gulistan Terrace has been a protected structure for almost 30 years. It is commendable that the granite structure in the depot is being preserved as a cultural centre but the historic and unique nature of the Terrace and Cottages must be acknowledged by sympathertic planning also.
Traffic
Gulistan Terrace is a one lane cul de sac. Even at present there are traffic holdups at times.
It is essentially a one lane road so the vehicle at one end has to wait till the other clears a bit like a one line railway.This will not work with the proposed increased traffic.
The Primary care centre will be popular and busy. Keep in mind the number of separate services provided
Doctors ,Public health ,Diagnostic services and the traffic generated by these And in addition the number of vehicles in use from 150 in habitants of the new apartments and Elderly housing plus the 90 houses on Gulistan Terrace and Cottages
This ONE access of Gulistan Terrace will not work. Gridlock will happen when the planners have gone away and then another problem will have to be solved.
From an environmental point of view ,this level of traffic will be very poor from residents’ point of view given the delays idling and holdups that surely will occur.
A direct route or routes to Rathmines Road must be used either Parker Hill and/or the Route presently used by the Bring centre by the side of Rathmines Town Hall.
Building density and height
In fairness, the open distance needs to be at least the same between The Cottages and the distance between the Elderly apartment block and the Affordable housing block perhaps more
I would suggest moving the whole project west towards Dunnes stores yard to give more space to work with on the east side towards the cottages.
There is going to be much shadowing and domination and invasion of privacy of Gulistan Cottages by both the Primary Care centre and the Elderly Block as the Draft Plan stands.
I would suggest a maximum height of 3 story well set back.The present proposal represents an overdevelopment of this site.There are other potential sites nearby of much larger extent so the impulse to squeeze in as many as possible should be resisted.As it stands(3-5 story) the proposed heights and proximity will leave the cottages overwhelmed and dwarfed by this monolithic development like Lilliput in Gulliver’s Travels. The present occupiers of Gulistan Terrace must have their rights to the enjoyment of their property upheld too.
Some people have bought here recently. Indeed the All Ireland RTE 2020 House of the Year is in Gulistan Cottages.
Many people are worried that this development as it stands will devalue their houses by a significant amount.
The Plaza
The Plaza will give needed open space to the apartments as the Cottages also need but it also needs careful consideration that it will not become a place for a skateboard rink as at Portobello and or late night drinking parties. It is conveniently close to many late night venues in the Centre of Rathmines.
Consideration needs to be given to security and or barriers for this site and what will happen after the planners have gone and the site is built.
Personally I don’t like the idea of 24 hour access to Gulistan Terrace and Cottages via this site which up to now has been gated and closed .
Finally there is a main running under Gulistan Terrace towards Mountpleasant AveWill this beable to cope especially in the future climate?
I am happy for a scaled back development to proceed as outlined above.I would like serious consideration to be given to my views.
Yours sincerely
Thomas C, Curran
Castlewood terrace is already very congested due to swan shopping centre car park exiting onto the entrance to our cul de sac and constant deliveries and parking problems which cause ambulance and fire service to reverse in.
Wouldn't it be possible to have drop off and car free zone to protect our environment going forward thanks mello
Children from the area of Ranelagh and Rathmines attend St Louis primary and secondary schools in Rathmines, and Ranelagh has several primary and secondary schools. Gullistan Terrace is used by school children and parents as a pedestrian route to connect both areas.
The draft proposal indicates that vehicular access to and from the development will be Gullistan Terrace road. Currently, 2 vehicles going in opposite directions on this road cannot pass each other and 1 of them must give way. It is not a wide road.
If this proposed access goes ahead I foresee huge proplems for vehicles, but also for school going pedestrians, who will have to cope with increased traffic on a narrow road at commuter rush hour every morning.
The proposed development mentions affordable housing but does not include a percentage of living units for social housing.
Given the current housing crisis I feel even a small percentage of this development should be offered to people on Dublin City Council housing waiting list.
There is no mention in the proposal of an alternative Bring Centre site local to Rathmines.
I think the inclusion of a Primary Health Care Centre will be welcomed by the community.
OBJECTIVES.
The proposed development as it stands will have a major negative impact on the lives of the residents of Gulistan Cottages and Gulistan Terrace (Redacted - Personal Information). Gulistan Terrace has been a protected site for 30 years. Z1 and Z2 objectives not being met by this proposal.
TRAFFIC.
Gulistan Terrace is a one lane cul de sac and at times already there are traffic hold ups. Parking is already an issue too. Is there going to be enough parking for residents, visitors, carer, people attending HSE centre in the new proposed development. Are people on Gulistan Terrace to be deprived of their paid for parking spaces to facilitate 2 way traffic on the Terrace.
There is an exit to Rathmines Road already beside old Town Hall building and there is also possibility of exiting traffic onto Parker Hill beside Travel Lodge Hotel.
BUILDING DENSITY AND HEIGHT.
There will be domination, loss of light and privacy for residents of Gulistan Cottages. Could HSE primary care centre and elderly housing be moved back further from the cottages. The residents of the cottages and Terrace have a right to enjoy their properties and indeed many of them have paid quite an amount for these properties in recent times. Why does it have to be such a dense development, could maximum three storey apartments or perhaps houses be built there instead. Also question the need for a pharmacy there as there are already many pharmacies in Rathmines and indeed one has recently closed down because of all the competition.
THE PLAZA AND CIVIC SPACE
Careful thought needs to be given to this to prevent anti social behaviour. Also if there are events in Civic space this will lead to further traffic and parking demands. Also don't relish thought of 24 hour access from Rathmines as this could lead to noise problems, especially at night.
I would like to see a scaled back development which would be fair to new and existing residents which this proposal is not.
As a local resident I am not opposed to this development per se. People undoubtedly need places to live, and a new heath centre would be welcomed.
However, should this site be redeveloped, I feel that it is important that the opportunity is taken to improve the public realm for local residents. The significant disruption that will inevitably be caused during the development’s construction and the additional traffic it will generate once completed will have significant implications for nearby residents, and it seems only right that there should be some ‘quid pro quo’ for the local community.
It's worth stressing that suggestions I make below are much needed and should not be contingent on whether this development proceeds.
Many of the cottages and small houses in Gulistan/ Castlewood Avenue do not have anywhere to store wheelie bins, and therefore have to leave out refuse in plastic bags which get ripped apart by animals, regularly causing an unsightly and unsanitary mess. There should communal bins where refuse can be properly disposed of.
Bike storage is also a challenge in these small homes. Community Bike Bunkers seem to be an ideal solution to this issue and would encourage active travel.
The roads surfaces on Gulistan Cottages & Gulistan Place are very degraded and in need of resurfacing. Given the area’s historic charm, there is an opportunity to look at a more imaginative solution that would enhance the streetscape for local residents and give children a safe space to ‘play out’.
Given their relative affordability vis a vis the surrounding area, the cottages and houses in Gulistan should make ideal ‘starter homes’ for families. However, given that many do not have any outside space at all, or a small yard at best, families are disincentivised from living here. Some creative thinking with regard to how the road surfaces are treated could go some way to remedying this.
For example:
The non-profit ‘A Playful City’ has many interesting examples of successful street transformations, and it would certainly be worth engaging with them on this matter. https://www.aplayfulcity.com/
It is essential that a safe pedestrian route through to Rathmines be maintained, particularly in light of the extra vehicular traffic that will inevitably be brought to the area should the development proceed.
There are no less than 4 local primary schools located nearby (Harcourt Terrace Educate Together, Ranelagh Educate Together, St Louis and St Marys), not to mention numerous local creches that parents pushing buggies need a safe pedestrian route to and from 8am each morning for school drop offs and pickups.
The alternative route along Castlewood Avenue is incredibly dangerous, with delivery trucks and cars coming at you from all angles (including 2 delivery areas and a car park) - see attached diagram. If vehicles are to exit the proposed development via Castlewood Avenue, this will further exacerbate what is already a treacherous situation.
In light of the already incredibly dangerous situation experienced by pedestrians along Castlewood Avenue and the back of the Swan Centre, the proposal to add extra traffic into the mix is hair-raising. Surely the opportunity should be taken to improve the current situation, rather than to exacerbate it?
One solution might be to investigate if cars could exit via the Swan Centre underground Car Park, thereby keeping above ground safe for pedestrians, and removing the neccesity for an additional exit point. The ticketing system could be designed to allow cars entering from Gulistan to exit free within 5 minutes, or something similar.
Ideally, however, the entire development would be car free, with the Swan Center car park used for visitors to the health center, and 'residents only' parking on Gulistan streets for Gulistan residents.
Limited access for motor vehicles is fantastic. Multiple access points for pedestrians and cycles is great, as well as the planned provision of dedicated cycle parking. I hope the cycle parking provided will be covered.
The proposed buildings are too short. Rathmines is a prime location with excellent bus access. It is 1 mile from St. Stephen's Green and 2 miles from the O'Connell bridge. In the immediate vicinity, there are 4 grocery stores, a shopping mall, and countless restaurants and pubs.
Given the prime location, demand for apartments is high. In late July, I viewed a no-frills 1-bedroom apartment nearby listed at the time for €1475. Now that restaurants are fully open and university students are back, I'm certain a similar unit would garner closer to €1800. With that context in mind, buildings of only 3-6 stories are simply not tall enough to adequately meet local housing demand. I would suggest increasing the size of the proposed buildings to the range of 8-12 stories.
If it is decided that there is not demand for more than 3-6 stories of age friendly housing, perhaps that building could become mixed with age-friendly housing and cost-rentals, with age friendly occupying the currently planned 3-6 stories and cost rentals occupying any additional stories.
While the listed key development principles are all important, there is one principle which is glaringly absent. That principle is to provision dense, plentiful housing.
Given the state of the housing market, this principle must be the centerpoint of any development plan. Its omission from this plan is glaring.
Please make this a car free development with access restricted to emergency vehicles and disabled.
Incorporate a mix of housing types: one, two and three bed houses/ apartments suitable for all ages.
Omit the health centre fron the plans. It should not be accommodated on this site due to the vehicular access required to service such a building.
I think there should be no commercial aspect to the site (e.g. pharmacy, shop, cafe, gym). Commercial should be concentrated on Rathmines Road.
Please make this site an exemplary development for the future of urban housing in Ireland.
Vehicular Access and traffic:
The proposed vehicular exit route from the Gulistan development onto Castlewood Terrace would create a significant increase in traffic volume on an already narrow street which has a high pedestrian footfall. The proposed vehicular exit would be onto a very narrow part of the terrace that has no footpath or room for a footpath to be added. While there is a footpath on the rest of the Terrace towards the Swan Centre, it is too narrow for wheelchair users or buggies. I have attached two photos of the part of Castlewood Terrace where the proposed exit would be to illustrate how narrow the terrace is and the absence of a footpath. This already presents a health and safety risk to pedestrians and cyclists. Furthermore, heavy traffic at the top of Castlewood Terrace can be an issue as it stands, as traffic enters and exits the Swan Centre resulting in backlogs onto Castlewood Avenue at busy times. An exit route onto Castlewood Terrace is likely to result in traffic chaos at certain times, due to traffic emerging from the porposed Health Centre, the Swan Centre Shopping Centre and local residents.
There is an existing vehicle access route (with a footpath) from the Gulistan Depot, which runs alongside the Town Hall, straight onto Rathmines Rd. The masterplan outlines that this route will be for pedestrian and cycle access only, however it would in fact would be a more suitable vehicular exit route.
Housing Volume and Height:
The proposed housing volume of 90 cost rental units along with 60 age appropriate units would create a highly congested living space in the most densely populated area of the entire country. In addition, the masterplan refers to height levels of 3 - 6 storeys and 5 - 7 storeys. Those upper height levels would overshadow the surrounding one and two storey cottages and houses. While there are other apartment blocks of that height in the Rathmines area e.g. Rathmines Town Centre, they do not overshadow existing houses. Furthermore, there does not seem to be a consideration of green space for children / young people who may reside in the proposed cost rental development. This is most short sighted given the lack of public outdoor areas for children and young people in the area. For example, there are no public playing fields or outdoor sports facilities in the Rathmines/Ranelagh area.
Parking:
The plan does not take the limted parking facitlites into consideration. While public transport and taxis may be used by many who attend the Health Centre, there will undoutedly be a demand for parking. For example, for patients with physical disabilites, who travel in specialised vehicles. There is limited parking on Castlewood Terrace for current residents, with all spaces full on a daily basis. While the Swan Centre houses a carpark, it is only has capacity for patrons of the shopping centre as it is extremely busy on a daily basis. Therefore, there needs to be consideration of how parking demands will be addressed.
Development of the site for the proposed uses is welcome, but the draft plan does not respect the comfort of the residents of the small cottage homes abutting the site. The draft plan shows high buildings right up against the back of 25 cottages, some more dramatically affected than others. This is at odds with standard regulations.
This submission makes the reasonable request that there should be a buffer zone between these new buildings and the rear of the 25 cottages. This would need to be c. 10 metres wide, which would remove the immediacy of the light reduction and the view interruption that would result at the rear of the cottages. This is indicated on the attached map by the thick blue line.
Such a buffer zone could be internal, as part of the development site, as a green or landscaped belt.
OR, it could be achieved by offering the 25 cottages the opportunity to purchase, at a nominal rate, the same space in units corresponding to the width of their rear walls, this to be used as a back yard or garden in each case. This in effect would transfer responsibility for a buffer zone to the residents themselves. To qualify for a negotiated, nominal charge for this, there could be a condition that no building would be permitted on it, and/or, if such were to be done, the full market value would be charged. That is, the way in which residents treat or use a buffer zone provision would be reflected in the pricing.
If the inclusion of a green belt as an integral part of the development were chosen, this would provide an opportunity to relieve sewage drains issues which potentially affects all of these 25 houses, but in particular the end houses in each of the rows - i.e. the drains are in all cases built over by small extensions, sometimes with internal sewer covers, so that when the sewer floods (as it occasionally does), the end houses can be flooded. If a new main sewer pipe were to be installed under the green belt, the 25 cottages could link in to that, removing the potential hazard of flooding. Provision of such would be a major gesture of goodwill to existing residents, as well as being an investment against hazard for the City Council.
This proposal requests that the City Council in its planning not only should respect the existing residents of the 25 affected houses, but demonstrate that respect by making this effort to not totally block their light, and in a measure of compensation for inevitable loss and for major disruption by building works over a long period, provide a green / buffer zone - either on the new site, or by offering the option of private purchase of same by the 25 residents.
Such a green breathing/light belt would reduce the building space on the site, yes, but this could be compensated for by permitting addition of a tiered extra storey or storeys on the side of the new-build away from the existing houses.
The option of the purchase of space would, similarly, mean reducing the size of the site by the same amount, but in that case would raise revenue of its own accord, would be self-policing as regards security, and could also be compensated for by a tiered extra storey or storeys in the new buildings.
The overshadowing of the 25 existing homes is a major issue for all of them. It is only one aspect of response to the overall development, and would require direct negotiation with the owners of the 25 directly-affected houses, something which should be mediated by councillors.
Development of the site for the proposed uses is welcome, but the draft plan does not respect the comfort of the residents of the small cottage homes abutting the site. The draft plan shows high buildings right up against the back of 25 cottages. This is at odds with standard regulations.
This submission makes the reasonable request that there should be a buffer zone between these new buildings and the rear of the 25 cottages. This would need to be c. 10 metres wide, which would remove the immediacy of the light reduction and the view interruption that would result at the rear of the cottages. This is indicated on the attached map by the thick blue line.
Such a buffer zone could be internal, as part of the development site, as a green or landscaped belt.
OR, it could be achieved by offering the 25 cottages the opportunity to purchase, at a nominal rate, the same space in units corresponding to the width of their rear walls, this to be used as a back yard or garden in each case. This in effect would transfer responsibility for the buffer zone to the residents themselves. To qualify for a nominal charge for this, there could be a condition that no building would be permitted on it, and/or, if such were to be done, the full market value would be charged. That is, the way in which residents treat or use a buffer zone provision would be reflected in the pricing.
If the inclusion of a green belt as an integral part of the development were chosen, this would provide an opportunity to relieve sewage drains issues which potentially affects all of these 25 houses, but in particular the end houses in each of the rows - i.e. the drains are in all cases built over by small extensions, sometimes with internal sewer covers, so that when the sewer floods (as it occasionally does), the end houses can be flooded. If a new main sewer pipe were to be installed under the green belt, the 25 cottages could link in to that, removing the potential hazard of flooding. Provision of such would be a major gesture of goodwill to existing residents, as well as being an investment against hazard for the City Council.
This proposal requests that the City Council in its planning not only should respect the existing residents of the 25 affected houses, but demonstrate that respect by making this effort to not totally block their light, and in a measure of compensation for inevitable loss and for major disruption by building works over a long period, provide a green buffer zone - either on the new site, or by offering the option of private purchase of same by the 25 residents. Such a green breathing/light belt would reduce the building space on the site, yes, but this could be compensated for by permitting addition of a tiered extra storey or storeys on the side of the new-build away from the existing houses. The option of the purchase of space would, similarly, mean reducing the size of the site by the same amount, but in that case would raise revenue of its own accord, would be self-policing as regards security, and could also be compensated for by a tiered extra storey or storeys in the new buildings.
The overshadowing of the 25 existing homes is a major issue for all of them. It is only one aspect of response to the overall development, and would require direct negotiation with the owners of the 25 directly-affected houses, something which should be mediated by councillors.
Very happy to see that housing for the elderly has been included in the proposal. Equally happy to see the area get a Primary Care facility which will serve the community. However, I have a number of reservations as to the scale and height of the development at 5 to 7 stories. This density is inappropriate for the area and will destroy the character of this quiet neighbourhood. It will also significantly affect the people living in Gulistant cottages, infringing on natural light and their rights of privacy not to mention devaluing local properties.
Of equal concern is the proposed site access. The scheme is suggested to house hundreds of people and the Primary Care facility will also obviously attract a lot of additional traffic. The obvious access route would appear to be via Rathmines High Street but the proposal suggests the main thoroughfare will actually be Gulistan Terrace.
As it stands meeting an oncoming car on Gulistan Terrace necessitates either a) one car reversing or b) one car mounting the pavement in order to create space to pass. To put forward a plan of this scale and density with such inadequate access is extremely perplexing and concerning. The logical entry point should be Rathmines main street which has width and capacity to facilitate both construction traffic for the duration of the build and as a permanent entry/exit point for the development.
Happy that the site has been retained by DCC for development rather than in the hands of developers
Traffic Access to site
Gulistan Terrace currently is the only access route to the Gulistan Depot. The road is narrow and lined by protected period houses on either side.
The plan suggests that there may be a one-way system with entry from Mount Pleasant Avenue and exit from Castle wood Terrace (not yet approved). There should be alternative exit points ie Parkers hill which could done using a traffic light system, Castlewood Terrace. Whilst Rathmines Road has a bus corridor this should not preclude cars exiting onto the road. I would also suggest additional entry and exit systems for Gulistan exisitn and future residents and in psrticular contractors when site is being developed.
Whilst the road is busy, the large vehicle traffic has decreased over past 6/7 years. Bring Centre traffic has increased but only between the hours of 9 and 4 daily, except Fridays hen it closes at 1pm and closed all day Sundays. Although the centre opens at 6.30 most of the heavy vehicles are now gone with light (noiseless) vehicles in use. This allows residents some traffic peace for at least 1.5 days.
The other real concern is the amount of construction vehicular access that will be required on the site coming for c 3 years via one entry point. This will cause huge discomfort for the residents due to increased traffic, noise and dust pollution etc
It is really important to get this right. The area/buildings may be built to the highest architectural standard but it must take into account how to access it and how it affects existing residents who will be very discommoded for at least 3 years.
Parking
The plans provide for c 0.3 to 0.5 cars per unit. It assumes that most new residents will not have a car. Whist the green agenda is to phase out cars they are extremely necessary for many people. It does not take into account the restrictive parking already in place for existing residents and the resultant additional on street parking that will occur for new residents with cars. Most existing residents require a car for work( which may not be accessible by public transport), parent and children duty ie vulnerable people.
It is laudable in theory to assume that people will not own cars, but in reality many people do own cars.
Height of buildings
Whilst I note that building height may be 3-5 storey high, 5 storey is not in keeping with the surrounding 1-2 storey height house and cottages.
I suggest a phased step back plan with the lower storey buildings being on the Gulistan Terrace side, with space in between so that they are not overcrowded and dwarfed by the new buildings
Retention of old red brick electricity works
Do not demolish but incorporate into plans
Diversity of houses
Only providing for 1 and 2 bed properties. This does not take into account the need for family sized properties ie at least 3 bed properties. The plan and the area is promoting families but those sized units are very limiting for families.
Connectivity with Rathmines
Very little oversight of connectivity to Rathmines – should have some road frontage to encourage pedestrian sight and use from the Rathmines side.
Gulistan Terrace is not wide enough to handle additional traffic (in both directions) as is proposed, in particular the likely regular traffic from the health care centre. The Castlewood Terrace entrance is significantly wider and closer to a main road and would be more suitable for such traffic in both directions.
I like how every single precedent photographs promise a car free development, as unanimously supported at the 2019 public meeting and endorsed by the Minister present. However, as this promise contradicts the actual proposals: which include a new commercial car park and new vehicular highway across the site from Gulistan to Castelwood Avenue, the photographs are misleading. I support the promise of the photographs but not the proposals as drawn.
I really welcome the plans to develop this site and to provide Health care facilities, ages friently housing etc, while maintaining the beautiful buildings on the site, but the plan currently refers to guiding principles of 'The development should be a high quality, sustainable scheme of suitable character.', yet the only reference of any sustainable materials are the windows and doors (a tiny fraction of the materials used). What about the huge amount of concrete & steel used? Why are they not low-carbon concrete & steel?
Secondly, where are the green spaces? Which part of the Surface Water Requirements are you planning to implement in this development? I can't see a reference to green roofs or green spaces (other than a green screen) or any other natural spaces that help retain water naturally?
And last point in relation to sustainability, I absolutely don't understand why there is a need for car parking in a Dublin 6 development? There are hardly any places in Ireland with better access to public transport than here. Gullistan & Mount Pleasant Avenue Upper are already choked by traffic and with over 150 units and a health care centre, this is only going to get much much worse. If car access is required, why can this not be provided through Parker Hill, which is connected to a main street, not a residential street like MPU & Gullistan? Also, building traffic during construction phase should really utilise the main street in Rathmines, not the residential streets.
In relation to the actual proposal, I feel sorry for the cottages, who will be towered by the potentially 5 story buildings right behind them.
In relation to the Cost Rental proposal, I am very concerned with them all being 1 or 2 bedroom places only. That surely excludes families, so what local needs are addressed by the 1-2 bedroom places and will this development therefore be a reflection of the community surrounding it?
Access to the site during construction and on completion: the masterplan appears to indicate that access to the site will be via Gulistan Terrace and Gulistan Cottages, with exit through Castlewood Terrace. These small narrow roads are not sufficiently wide and accessible to allow for this type of traffic. Vehicles already have to take turns when driving up and down Gulistan Terrace and very often drivers mount the narrow footpaths to accelerate their passage through Gulistan Terrace. This is dangerous for pedestrians and has led to damage to parked cars. The masterplan does not appear to have considered these factors.
Increased traffic flows: the masterplan is proposing over 100 new homes on this site, some cost-rental and some older age housing. While a small number of households may choose not to have cars, many of these households will have 1-2 cars each. This will lead to a substantial increase in traffic on Upper Mountpleasant Avenue, Gulistan Terrace and Castlewood Terrace. At a meeting with local representatives a few years ago (I think 2017), local residents were told that access to/from the Rathmines Road would be considered (possibly via a compulsory purchase of the Peter Mark building on the Rathmines Road or through Parker Hill). Have these more direct access sites been investigated as more appropriate to the development now being proposed?
The proposed lack of parking on the Gulistan site: the masterplan appears to provide for some underground parking at the HSE Primary Care Centre but only allows for limited on-street parking for the proposed housing on the site. Residential parking on Gulistan Terrace, Gulistan Cottages and Upper Mountpleasant Avenue is already very constrained, with too few spaces for the existing residential cars. I am very concerned that a lack of parking spaces on the new Gulistan site will lead to overflow into the neighbourhood roads, further exacerbating an already very difficult situation for existing residents. Rathmines does have good public transport links but not every journey can be made using public transport. Also, residents in the new housing on the Gulistan site will have visitors who may choose to drive to the Gulistan site (including possibly carers for older residents), as well as visitors to the HSE centre. The planners cannot simply ignore these potential parking issues and hope for the best.
The height of the proposed development: the proposed four- and five-storey buildings on the Gulistan cottages side of the draft masterplan are completely out of keeping with the existing cottages and houses in the area. This will have an over-bearing effect on the character of the area and in particular on those cottages that are immediately adjacent to the proposed new buildings.
Engagement: the Masterplan has a section entitled "Engagement", which outlines that DCC proposes to engage with the HSE and an AHB to further development on the site. There appears to be no formal acknowledgement of the need to engage with local residents in the area in any meaningful way. Over the last few years, local residents have met with local representatives regarding the plans for the site. I am concerned that despite these meetings and promises made by local representatives to keep us informed of plans for the Gulistan site, the plans for the site have pushed ahead without any further consultation with local residents. Without doubt, the Gulistan site represents a wonderful opportunity to create a new community in Rathmines, but this should not happen by sacrificing the already existing communities in Gulistan Terrace, Gulistan Cottages, Castlewood Terrace and Upper Mountpleasant Avenue.
Traffic
Gulistan Terrace is Zoned Z2 (residential and conservation area) which means that "the overall quality of the area in design and layout terms is such that it requires special care in dealing with development proposals which affect structures in such areas, both protected and non-protected. The general objective for such areas is to protect them from unsuitable new developments or works that would have a negative impact on the amenity or architectural quality of the area". The Terrace is a narrow residential street of protected structures with disc parking on one side. There is, in effect, one lane for cars to pass up and down. Two cars cannot pass each other without one mounting the pavement. It is entirely (and quite manifestly) unsuitable as the entry and exit route for all of the vehicular traffic that will undoubtedly be associated with a major development including a 3-4 storey Primary Care Centre, a 5-7 storey apartment building for cost rental/affordable housing, a 3-5 storey apartment building for housing for older people, a civic area and a separate private mews development.
It is unrealistic to believe that 156 new homes and a large healthcare centre will not generate considerable traffic and congestion in the network of very narrow streets that surround the development site. The local one-way system on Mount Pleasant Avenue, which was introduced to manage and decrease traffic, will also become overloaded (as well as leading to hundreds of new residents and visitors to the healthcare centre having to take a long 'roundabout' route to the site via Rathmines or Ranelagh if coming from the city centre direction.
Furthermore, the construction traffic involved in the construction of the development is unlikely to be able pass up and down Gulistan Terrace, which is too narrow. It will certainly make life difficult for resident and the street unsafe for pedestrians. Vibrations from heavy construction traffic (or pile driving) may also affect the protected structures on the Terrace.
The proposed exit onto Castlewood Terrace is onto a lane used by pedestrians with no pavement with car bays and parking spots facing the proposed exit gate. The lane also has a very sharp and narrow turn that is difficult for larger vans or trucks to navigate.
The only way (it seems to me) to overcome the traffic management/construction traffic issue is that all vehicles would enter and exit via the open yard at the back of the Swan Centre which has a wide entrance and is directly adjacent to the site. This will however create far more traffic on Castlewood Avenue, which is already very congested. The underlying problem is the scale of the development and the extra traffic such a large-scale development given the obvious restrictions in relation to access to the site from any direction. It is not realistic to expect that the occupants of the 156 homes planned would not have cars or visitors in cars nor is it reasonable to assume that a 3-4 storey primary health centre will not generate significant vehicular traffic. An independent traffic management plan was needed before a masterplan for the site was drawn up as access to the site was obviously going to be a significant, possibly insurmountable, problem for a development of this size.
Parking
Similar problems arise. It is already difficult for residents to find a parking space on Gulistan Terrace at Gulistan Place and the Cottages and on Mount Pleasant Avenue, without the development. Gulistan Terrace and Mount Pleasant Avenue (Upper) both only have parking on one side of the street and, some evenings, you end up having to park in a clearway or on double yellows.Any resident of Gulistan Terrace who has a car will have experience of being clamped (probably on numerous occasions).
The masterplan however doesn’t seem to have made any allowance for parking apart from a few on-surface surface parking spaces. Where will the people who live in the 156 new homes park if they have a car (or cars)? It is entirely unrealistic to proceed on the basis that each home will not have at least one car/van (even if these turn out to be electric vehicles and air pollution isn't therefore such an issue, they still need a parking spaces), or that any person who visits them will do so on foot. There is going to be hundreds of extra vehicles looking for parking in or around the site.
It is difficult to estimate how many people will work in an visit the proposed health centre in a day but surely someone should have tried to do this before they decided not to include any car park /set down area in the masterplan? An underground car park for the health centre might of course be an option but the construction costs increase significantly, and then there is the risk to the houses surrounding the site.
The only suggestion I can make in respect of parking is that the underground car park for the Swan Centre be extended to go under the site an provide parking for residents and visitors to the site.
Scale
A 7 storey apartment block and a 4 storey primary health care centre seem to be completely out of scale for the site. These buildings are just too big and will loom over the Mount Pleasant side of the which is all 'low rise'.
The bunker like structures in the masterplan diagram will also block out the sunlight for the single storey cottages adjacent to them, as well as blocking the view of the clock tower form the Mount Pleasant side of the site which is attractive .
The health centre in the diagram seems to be very close ot the back of the cottages. The privacy both of patients and the residents in the cottages, whose back yards will be overlooked, needs to be more carefully considered.
I would suggest a smaller scale development. The masterplan, to be honest, looks like it was developed for another different site, probably beside a main road and with plenty of parking for residents and set down close by.
I would like to see the Bring Centre kept as a part of the new development. The Bring Centre currently provides an important service to local residents and it is important to encourage recycling, especially with the current climate crisis.
Dear Architects Division / Planning Department
Please find below a request in relation to Common Swift populations as outlined in the attached document.
Thank you for your time in the consideration of this matter.
I appreciate that the development takes into account having a mix of housing types for all ages as well as the colocation of the hospice. Its well designed and looks to be a major improvement to the local communities facilities while using a patch of land which is underutilised.
Reject or Reduce the Scale of Development Proposed for Gulistan Depot Lands
We write to request that the Draft Master Plan for the Integrated Redevelopment of the Gulistan Depot Lands be rejected by Dublin City Council for the following reasons:
Reject the 'Relevant Recent Planning History' cited in Gulistan Depot Masterplan - (Vehicular Access to R114)
The Relevant Recent Planning History cited in the Draft Master Plan states that 4778/05 + 1843/08 (Swan Leisure Centre, Rathmines Road) and two other multi-storey sites located to the West of the Rathmines Road (R114) are referenced as examples of relevant planning history. These sites are serviced by direct or proximate vehicular access to the ‘Regional’ classified road - R114. The Gulistan Depot is not serviced by comparable and proximate vehicular access from a ‘R’ classified road. In the Master Plan, The Gulistan Depot is only serviced by ‘Local’ classified roads for vehicular access. These local roads are to the east boundary at Gulistan Terrace (accessed via Mount Pleasant Avenue Upper) and the south boundary at Castlewood Terrace (accessed via Castlewood Avenue). As a result, the relevance of the Recent Planning History cited should be further investigated
Breach of Trust by Dublin City Council (Reported Health & Safety concerns related to Mount Pleasant Avenue Upper and environs)
represents a breach of trust by Dublin City Council and a significant health and safety threat to local residents. See Dublin City Council’s Mount Pleasant Avenue Upper Report (2019) for further information
Capacity to Destroy or Significantly Disrupt Neighbourhood of Gulistan Cottages, Gulistan Terrace, Castlewood Terrace and the surrounding areas of Mount Pleasant Avenue Upper
The neighbourhood of Gulistan Cottages, Gulistan Terrace, Castlewood Terrace and the surrounding areas of Mount Pleasant Avenue Upper will be severely damaged by the proposed development. The nature of this residential area is measured by the size of building plots, building widths and heights and the narrow dimensions of the streets. The provision of a major mixed-use development in the vicinity of this neighbourhood has the capacity to destroy and significantly disrupt the residential nature of this neighbourhood.
Heritage Features of Rathmines destroyed or significantly changed
Right of Access - Rear of Gulistan Cottages
General Observation - Overcrowded Nature of Masterplan
The Master Plan for Gulistan Depot takes its cue from the overcrowded nature of the many Pre-63 flat complexes and the mediocrity of the other multi-storey 1980-90s apartment developments in the Rathmines area. The Draft Master Plan for the Gulistan Depot Lands is over-scaled and inconsistent with the modest residential neighbourhoods to the east and south of the site.
I have already added my name to a submission that has been made by local residents mainly living in the Gulistan area.
I live on (Redacted - Personal Information) and have serious concerns around the traffic issues that both the construction phase and the implantation of the masterplan will have on what is already a heavily congested entirely residential road. At the very least the roadway should be restricted to residents of the area only and users of the primary care centre. The proposed bus connects plan to make Ranelagh and Rathmines Road one way will push traffic onto the Avenue also which is a further reason why traffic management and control on the roads around the proposed development should be a prominent consideration of the plan.
Kind regards
Ambrose Loughlin
This petition is against the proposed development of the city council bring centre land Gulistan terrace Rathmines. Points of concern,
1) Blocking natural light of Gulistan Cattages
2) Parking Problems acess and egress for traffic
3) Emergency access for fire service or ambulance
4) Traffic congestion
5) In an already busy area
6) Loss of access to Rathmines Road via the depot
Please see attached petition with 57 signatures on it.
The draft master plan is welcomed on the whole and in particular the development of a Primary Care Facility for local residents. However there are some concerns that I would like to bring to your attention.
It would appear that the main entrance into the development is via Gulistan Terrace. As the Council is already well aware this road is narrow and simply cannot facilitate two way traffic. This was recognized by the Council when they changed the RE-Cycling Centre and discontinued with large lorries going up and down the road. The traffic on Gulistan Terrace has reduced significantly over the last number of years, enhanced by the change in opening hours of the Centre. My preference, in line with Government initiatives, is that the development would be a car free one, given the good public transport available in this area. Increased pedestrian and cycle access is required and should be encouraged in the present environment
1. Location of proposed building in relation to 1-story cottages and small terrace houses on
Castlewood Avenue: There is a significant negative impact on the single story cottages and terrace
houses of the proposed developments backing directly onto such. Suggestion: Retro-fit the existing red-bricked building, which also has historic significance.
2. Concern re increased traffic to Mountpleasant Avenue and Gulistan Terrace: The vehicular access
provision is entirely inappropriate and will result in increased and unsafe traffic on Mountpleasant
Avenue and Gulistan Terrace, regardless of efforts to reduce car use given the proposed use of the
development. Suggestion: Make the new development car-free completely.
3. Negative impact on residents parking on nearby roads (in particular Castlewood Terrace, Gulistan
Cottages and Gulistan Terrace): This will increase demand for already limited parking facilities in this
existing long established residential area. Suggestion: Vistors should use Swan Car Park, which is a short walk away.
4. Mix of proposed apartment sizes and focus on rental only: There is an inappropriate mix of
proposed apartment sizes with a focus on rental only. Suggestion: Adopt a 20-30 year projection on age, family structures, etc. Can use existing Dublin demographics for age brackets and translate to meaningful accomodation sizes. This should not be based on short-term demand, which is skewed towards younger age groups, so what happens in 20 years time as they age and have families? We want to create communities.
5. Poor connectivity to Rathmines: Poor integration and permeability with Rathmines with the current
plans leaving the site ‘hidden’ to this main thoroughfare. Suggestion: Open up from Rathmines Road for a much larger pedestrian access, even if it means taking over some of the properties which create this link.
6. Trucks/Lorries during construction phase cannot go via Gulistan due to narrow road. Suggestion: This access should come via Rathmines Road. The argument that Rathmines Road has a bus corridor doesn't make sense, as based on the plan, we can see cars can go down Rathmines Road (from Rathgar) and turn into Leinster Road. Therefore, the bus corridor is only ensuring vehicles cannot go through all the way to the canal. Trucks can therefore do a right turn from Rathmines Road into the development site via Peter Marks, so it makes sense to procure this access over the long-term.
7. Loss of existing recycling centre amenity for area. Suggestion: Retain a sufficient amount of recycling amenities (including xmas trees) to ensure communities are not forced to go elsewhere. It will also reduce the risk of dumping.
8. Lack of consultation up to now: Recent engagements are welcome and this progress should continue
with the local community. Suggestion: Please engage with the local community over meaningful mediums, and please start going through the granular solutions/ideas in place for debate. Currently, it's too high level, which is causing a lot of suspicion amongst residents about getting a community based outcome. We're here to work with the council, not to put up blockades. That's why we need coherent and granular designs/ideas put forward. The community is also happy to take a proactive approach in this design, as we have a wealth of expertise in the neighbourhood. Please work with us.
Thomas Curran
(Redacted - Personal Information)
Further observations following the Dublin City Council Zoom Meeting October 2021 Rathmines Depot Draft Masterplan
My initial observations were sent prior to the Zoom meeting chaired by Dermot Lacey .
Having reviewed the meeting my fears on those observations are not in any way allayed.
The Chief Planning Officer seems to have set his face against any alternative vehicular access routes to this enclave as it stands to the route via Mountpleasant /Gulistan Terrace - explaining away any direct access to Rathmines Road by the magic words “Bus Connects”.
I don’t think this is proper engagement with the obvious inherent and flawed access to this enclave site at the end of a one lane cul de sac with a dangerous junction onto Upper Mountpleasant Avenue.
Construction Phase
At the meeting the construction phase was mentioned but not analysed and my main concern here is to further look at this where we find ourselves now from the present DCC mindset.
Given that this development will at some stage progress to the construction phase in a vastly modified and enlightened form I hope, I have been thinking about this and the nightmares it will generate if alternate routes are not opened to the site and the huge construction traffic it will generate.
The south side of Gulistan Terrace is composed of older Protected Structures nearly 200 years old.
These houses are fronted by yellow brick and granite steps. With the “normal “ traffic over the years all these steps have had leakage problems caused in the main by shock waves from passing cars and trucks. Damage and loosening of mortar can be clearly seen on the street side of the front garden walls or where they have been repaired
Given the nature of the road surface on Gulistan Terrace which is jointed concrete and the various service trenches cut across it - sewage and water mainly, with a daily cavalcade of concrete trucks at closely timed intervals there is a higher potential for vibration waves and major damage to this concrete road surface.
Also, the front walls and brick for the houses on both sides are in mortal danger - given the solid nature of the footpath on the one side and the granite steps on the other as a conductor of impact waves. The top-heavy parapet roof/wall structures of all the Protected houses on Gulistan Terrace South and the 19th Century foundations will be particularly vulnerable. Also damage to just below-the-surface water/ wastewater connections and broadband are at significant risk.
Given that most thorough studies have been done about flood risk , this vibration risk needs to be addressed and the risk spread to other access routes. DCC have various tools at their disposal to alleviate this.
Given also we are paying a fairly high property tax in this area we would expect DCC would do their best to assist us in protecting our properties and certainly not assist in destroying them.
Also, 8 no. of the Gulistan Cottages particularly the corner ones on Gulistan Terrace and the cornerhouses on Upper Mountpleasant Avenue with just the width of the footpath and no significant absorbent surface such as a garden between them and the traffic will potentially suffer severe damage. Some of these end walls have had to be restructured and replastered over the years with “normal traffic.”
On the other hand the Parker Hill buildings are mainly of less than 30 years and not more than 80 years old in the main bar one.
This needs your urgent consideration to reconfigure access.
Added to that, I understand a large wastewater main runs down Gulistan Terrace to Mountpleasant Avenue to join an even larger one there. How will this be affected by continuous construction traffic, vibrations?
Where will the construction workers park given that most travel long distances and mainly by car?
I set these future problems out for your present consideration so that a plan can be formulated to avoid the worst effects on the road itself and the homes of the residents of Gulistan Terrace.
Sincerely
Thomas Curran
Please find attached response on behalf of Irish Water
Regards,
Niamh McDonald
Please see attached
Development: A Draft Masterplan for the former depot lands at Gulistan Terrace, Rathmines, Dublin 6.
Dear Sir/ Madam,
I refer to the above-proposed development details, of which were forwaded to the Irish Aviation Authority.
I wish to advise that we had no observations on this application from the Safety Regulation Division.
Yours sincerely,
Deirdre Forrest
Corporate Affairs
While the development of the site and in particular the provision of housing and a Primary Health Care Centre for the area is welcomed by the residents group, we would request that the effects on our neighbourhood are appropriately considered and mitigated. We welcome the considerations regarding sustainable travel and sustainable communities specifically called out in the Masterplan and would like these to be maximised to “develop a network of active, attractive and safe streets” and to “place a stronger emphasis on sustainable forms of transport such as walking, cycling” as per stated DCC objectives. However, we believe that the plan must recognise and anticipate the limits of such ambitions given the necessity of access (including by vehicle) arising from the nature of the users of a Primary Health Care Centre and the residents of the planned 160 apartments (in particular the age friendly residences).
A summary of our observations, comments and concerns is provided here (points 1-7).
We have set out our comments in respect of each of these points in more detail below:
The current plan indicates that the Primary Health Care Centre and the various apartment buildings will back directly onto the small back yards of Gulistan Cottages and small terraces on Castlewood creating substantial loss of daylight. The location, design and operations of the proposed buildings should be revised to "protect, provide and improve the residential amenities" of Gulistan Terrace and Cottages. In particular, the existing levels of daylight access, recycling facilities and absence of commercial traffic should be protected and improved as per the zoning objectives (Z1 & Z2).
2. Concern re increased traffic to Mountpleasant Avenue and Gulistan Terrace
One of the key concerns of our residents relates to an increase in car traffic to the area due to required access to 160 new apartments and the Primary Health Care Centre. The current Masterplan directs all car traffic via Mountpleasant Avenue and through Gulistan Terrace. There is a potential, though impractical, exit only through Castlewood Terrace also suggested.
Mountpleasant Avenue is heavily used by pedestrians and bicyclists to commute to their workplaces, primary and secondary school and university places. Mountpleasant Avenue Upper already has substantial levels of through-traffic and serves as a rat-run for motorists using the road to bypass Ranelagh and Rathmines Road to access the city centre. Gulistan Avenue is currently a cul de sac with car access only for residents and users of the Recycling Centre. Both roads are narrow (with single vehicle width at many points – please see attached photographs) with narrow footpaths and their current design does not support increased traffic. Increased traffic volume will lead to more cars having to mount footpaths to pass each other (which already occurs). Whilst the Recycling Centre of course already attracts some traffic, given the limited hours of its operation, the proposed development will represent a significant increase in traffic. Whilst historically Gulistan Depot of course attracted more council vehicles historically, it will be nothing to the number of trips a Primary Health Care Centre and hundreds of new residences will attract, however, much car travel is discouraged. Finally, given how easily Gulistan Terrace can become blocked with normal traffic this represents a significant risk regarding access for emergency vehicles.
The main vehicular access route needs to be provided via Parker Hill and / or Castlewood Avenue (e.g. potentially through partial CPO of the Swan Centre loading area to allow safe access and division between pedestrian and vehicular routes). The dimensions of Mountpleasant Avenue (in parts), Gulistan Terrace (throughout) and Castlewood Terrace could also not facilitate access of large construction vehicles (which may also risk damage to listed buildings located on Gulistan Terrace). Access through Castlewood Avenue will also allow integration with existing developed parking facilities and roads as mentioned below.
Our preference would be for this development to be car free, as unanimously supported at the 2019 public meeting and endorsed by Government Ministers and the Key Development Principles ("best practice sustainability standard”). A car free environment is appropriate for this central location with good public transport connection and during a climate emergency, dependency on unsustainable traffic modes needs to be reduced. A car free development would also maximise the development potential for homes.
During the recent zoom call facilitated by Dublin City Council, it was agreed that a car free proposal should be considered for this site. It was also suggested, and would be supported by the residents, that insofar as not all vehicular traffic can be barred, use of the car parking spaces available at the nearby Swan Shopping Centre should be encouraged where necessary. This would apply for users of the Primary Health Care Center as well as visitors to residents. Insofar as possible, ‘no car’ clauses should be included in any lease agreements for the residents of the apartment schemes proposed.
3. Negative impact on residents parking on nearby roads (in particular Castlewood Terrace, Gulistan Cottages and Gulistan Terrace)
The development will most likely have a negative impact on the existing, already limited on-street parking available to residents on the nearby roads. The impact can be somewhat mitigated by making this development largely car free with a firm commitment to use the Swan Centre car parking facilities for visitors where required.
4. Mix of proposed apartment sizes and focus on rental only
The plan is to build c. 80-90 homes as part of a cost-rental scheme. All units are planned to be 1-2 beds. We believe that the mix of apartment sizes and usage needs to be reflective of the various types of households in the community, and should range from 1-bed rooms to 3-4 bedrooms to accommodate families. Some of the units should be available to rent (some at cost rent, some at market rents), some to buy, to reflect the different needs of households in the community. The current plan risks to create a potentially transient mono-culture at this site in contrast to the vibrant neighbourhood community it sets out to create.
The plan for c. 60 age friendly housing units envisages 1 bed apartments only and is not reflecting the varying needs of an ageing population and does not even allow for a visitor or carer to stay overnight.
5. Poor connectivity to Rathmines
The connectivity to Rathmines in the plan is poor for pedestrian / bicycle access. Only a small pedestrian non-descript walkway is proposed to link Rathmines to this new community hub, risking that the site will not be able to maximise its potential for community use. There needs to be a better visual link drawing people to the new amenity that is being created. There may be an option to undertake a CPO of one of the buildings on Rathmines Road (e.g the one currently occupied by Peter Marks) to facilitate this enhanced access for pedestrians and cyclists.
As noted elsewhere, better connectivity for essential vehicular access also needs to be created as current access is via small residential roads only. As suggested vehicular access via either or both Parker Hill or Castlewood Avenue should be considered as representing already established vehicle access for the expected throughput without impacting on an established residential area.
6. Loss of local recycling facility amenity
It would be useful if a multi-purpose recycling facility of sufficient scale was retained on the site supporting the 15-min city and ensuring the public can access all vital services within 15min walk or cycle distance.
7. Lack of Consultation
Although recent engagement has been welcome, we would like to see further and meaningful consultation with the residents affected: there has been no adequate consultation between Dublin City Council and residents to date, in particular those residents without computer access or adequate IT literacy. Any council transfer of any land that we own should be postponed until after such consultation (in contrast to the disposal made already regarding the Primary Health Care Centre). The recent online information meeting, requested after considerable effort, went some way to repair a broken trust with some of the residents who were able to attend. It is hoped that it is just the start of an adequate consultation process which will take into account and react to residents input, suggestions and concerns.
We would also suggest using an open competition for interested architects would ensure the best ideas on how the potential of the site can be maximised from a local realm and space design, building design and connectivity perspective could emerge.
In summary, the current masterplan is underwhelming and falls short of our expectations and gives rise to numerous justified and material concerns. This is a unique opportunity to create a facility in the heart of Rathmines that can benefit all of the community.
Kind regards
Claudia Strauss & John Walsh (Redacted-Personal Information)
Douglas Carson (Redacted-Personal Information)
Matthew Broadstock & Sarah Broadstock (Redacted-Personal Information)
Steve Fitzgerald & Churpy Strahan (Redacted-Personal Information)
Aisling Dunne (Redacted-Personal Information)
Denis Gilbert (Redacted-Personal Information)
Ambrose Loughlin (Redacted-Personal Information)
Carrie Sheeran and Mike Guiney (Redacted-Personal Information)
Thomas Curran, Anna Curran & Irene O’Callaghn (Redacted-Personal Information)
Anne Noonan (Redacted-Personal Information)
Colm O’Dwyer and Elizabeth Mitrow (Redacted-Personal Information)
Suzanne MacDonald and Antonelllo Vagge (Redacted-Personal Information)
Elizabeth Erraught (Redacted-Personal Information)
Mary B Brady (Redacted-Personal Information)
Barbara McAleese (Redacted-Personal Information)
Héléne O’Brien (Redacted-Personal Information)
Anne Kearns (Redacted-Personal Information)
Jessica Looney and Eoin Cusack (Redacted-Personal Information)
Padraig and Hannah Twomey (Redacted-Personal Information)
Nils Koop and Carol Mahon (Redacted-Personal Information)
Katy Hanley and Conn McCluskey (Redacted-Personal Information)
Suzanne Black (Redacted-Personal Information)
Barbara Hughes (Redacted-Personal Information)
Peter McElwee and Ian Mulvaney (Redacted-Personal Information)
Orla Lane (Redacted-Personal Information)
Daragh and Sanam O’Shea (Redacted-Personal Information)
Saibh Ni Loingsigh and Harry Bhoja (Redacted-Personal Information)
Jen Sheahan (Redacted-Personal Information)
Christy McEvoy and Esther McEvoy (Redacted-Personal Information)
Maree Gallagher and Brian Moran (Redacted-Personal Information)
Monika Cullen, Anthony Cullen, Mark Cullen and Louise Cullen (Redacted-Personal Information)
Michael & Hazel Twomey (Redacted-Personal Information)
The images below show the proposed access route (in both directions) via Mountpleasant Avenue and Gulistan Terrace and the proposed exit route via Castlewood Terrace.
Image – Googlemaps image of Junction Belgrave Square / Mountpleasant Avenue Upper showing narrow entrance and narrow footpaths
Image – Googlemaps image of current footpath on Mountpleasant Avenue Upper near junction to Belgrave Square
Image – Googlemaps image of proposed access route via Gulistan Terrace
Image – Image of proposed access route via Gulistan Terrace looking towards Mountpleasant Avenue Upper from Gulistan Cottages
Image – Image of proposed access route via Gulistan Terrace looking from Mountpleasant Avenue Upper evidencing the width of the road is entirely inappropriate to increased two way traffic (even in absence of temporary roadsigns) with traffic mounting the pavement.
Image – Photo of location of proposed exit route via Castlewood Terrace
Image – Map indication close proximity of developed parking facilities in the Swan Shopping Centre and clear opportunity to provide direct essential vehicular access at same point to site, whilst not increasing traffic in any surrounding residential areas.
Re: Draft Masterplan Gulistan Consultation
Dear Ms. Beatty,
I wish to acknowledge receipt of your referral of 20 September 2021 regarding the above, the contents of which have been noted.
Yours Sincerely,
Mark Byrne
Regulatory and Administration Unit
There has been an absence of consultation between Dublin City Council and the local residents to date. It would appear that significant consultations have taken place with stakeholders other than the local residents who will be directly impacted by the proposed development. It is clear that this project has a number of interested parties, not least the local affected landowners, residents, and local residents groups. We would urge Dublin City Council to ensure comprehensive, proactive stakeholder involvement and communication takes place going forward. We would welcome Dublin City Council to demonstrate an appreciation of our observations and concerns and how they will be resolved.
We are very concerned about the proposal to provide vehicular access to the development via Gulistan Terrace and vehicular egress via Castlewood Terrace. The vehicular access proposal is inappropriate and will result in increased traffic volumes along Mountpleasant Avenue and Gulistan Terrace. Gulistan Terrace is already prone to traffic congestion when vehicles approach from both directions. The proposal to provide vehicular egress from the development via Castlewood Terrace is a safety concern for us.
The proposed egress route via Gulistan Cottages and Castlewood Terrace is regularly used by young children and elderly residents. Castlewood Terrace is a cul de sac and has been for many years. The proposed one way egress route for vehicular traffic from the development via Castlewood Terrace could promote faster speeds as drivers are likely to drive faster when no risk is perceived from oncoming traffic. Sight lines and forward visibility mid-way along Castlewood Terrace are inadequate and could pose a hazard to pedestrians and cyclists.
It would be beneficial to the local community if a suitable recycling facility was reinstated within the grounds of the site to ensure this essential service is maintained.
The proposed building heights up to a maximum of 5 storeys will conflict with those of the adjacent single storey cottages. The proposed Healthcare facility could be up to 4 storeys. The possible overbearing effect on the single storey cottages is a concern.
Conclusion
The Draft Masterplan is disappointing and neglects to consider the impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding community and local stakeholders. There are a number of justified concerns that have not been considered. We object to this development.
We welcome the proposed use as a Primary Health Care Centre and the development of Age Friendly and Cost Rental housing.
The proposed civic and community space are positive..
Having a space for community meetings as part of the HSE Primary Care Centre is much needed in the area.
- In the cost rental housing proposal, a better mix of housing sizes to accommodate different sized households..
-The civic space to have a nod in the design and layout towards use by children; both for children visiting the health centre, children visiting residents and themselves living in the proposed housing and children already living in the area. The ability to distract children safely while waiting for appointments would be welcomed by parents.
Seating in the civic space would add value for all ages.
-Retain some element of recycling: a staffed Bring Bank including paper and cardboard and plastics.
-Car access and Parking:
Full consideration of the parking needs of the Primary Health Centre, for staff, and users including a drop-off space.
We are concerned that inadequate parking provision will put pressure on already scarce parking resources in the neighbourhood.
While Rathmines is well catered for in terms of city centre public transport links, not all journeys many journeys are cross city.
Young families and the mobility impaired are very likely to arrive by private transport.
-Provision of adequate parking for resident and visitors to Age Friendly, Cost Rental housing and potential mews houses. Inadequate provision will put further pressure on already scarce parking resources. We welcome provision of good cycling infrastructure in the new development and the general area.
-Proposed entrance and exit routes:
The proposed exit by Castlewood Terrace is particularly narrow and will impact on safe pedestrian use as there are no footpaths for some of the sections proposed.
A section of Gulistan Terrace is effectively single file traffic which requires cars to traverse this section in turn for access/exit.
Can Parker Hill be considered as part of the vehicular access plan?
-Green 'buffer' zones:
(Redacted-Personal Information). The draft plan modelling looks like it will be erected almost immediately beside the cottages' gardens. We see similar overshadow between the Age Friendly Housing and Cost Rental housing on neighbours in 21-33 Gulistan Cottages and part of Castlewood Terrace.
We would welcome a larger landscaped 'buffer zone' between the Primary Care Centre. We also request that the height of the finished Health Care facility and the other developments to be at the lower end of available options. Similarly a green area at the back of the Age Friendly and Cost Rental developments.
-Drainage and water ingress:
The opportunity be taken before and during construction to look at sewerage, rainwater run-off and general drainage in the area.
There is a sewerage pipe serving the cottage running between the backs of the house at 34-40 Gulistan, and intervention has been required several times over the years by residents. There have been some issues with ingress of surface waters from the current Council yard into our own property in the last 3-4 years.
-Waste Management
Rethinking of domestic waste management for the general area. Is there a better system than individual bag or bin collection for cottages and proposed apartments?
-Consultation and engagement on the management of the construction phase:
The rows of houses from 34-40 Gulistan Cottages and 19- 33 Gulistan Cottages will have work happening immediately adjacent to their houses, including demolition of a substantial building and deep excavation. Heavy construction traffic access will need some management.
In general the streets adjacent to the construction site are living streets with children going to school, child street play, regular pedestrian traffic across the age spectrum. There is a a good sense of community and safety. Is involvement of the Council Community Development Team in the consultation phases possible, to obtain the best outcomes for the whole area.
I like the references in the plan to sustainable travel and to create a sustainable community - many of the photos suggest a car free environment and shows children playing etc. However, the details of the plan fall short in delivering on this promise with a car park being built in site and through taffic being channelled through narrow residential roads. The proposed mix of appartments (all 1 and 2 beds, all for rent) does not suit a range of different households and therefore does not lend itself to create a sustainable commmunity.
I also like the proposal that one of the existing old buildings is being refurbished. I would like to see more of the existing buildings (including the beautiful redbrick structure at the entrance to the bring centre) as well as the cobble-stone retained and incorporated into the design.
I also like the inclusion of a public space to be enjoyed by the wider community of Rathmines. However, the current plan offers poor connectivity (visual as well as access-wise) to the new development and it remains hidden from sight from the main Rathmines Road.
I would be very concerned about an increase in car traffic to the area due to required access to 160 new apartments and the Primary Health Care Centre. The current Masterplan directs all car traffic via Mountpleasant Avenue and through Gulistan Terrace.
Mountpleasant Avenue is heavily used by pedestrians and bicyclists to commute to their workplaces, primary and secondary school and university places. Mountpleasant Avenue Upper already has substantial levels of through-traffic and serves as a rat-run for motorists using the road to bypass Ranelagh and Rathmines Road to access the city centre. Gulistan Avenue is currently a cul de sac with car access only for residents and users of the Recycling Centre. Both roads are narrow (with single vehicle width at many points) with narrow footpaths and their current design does not support increased traffic. Increased traffic volume will lead to more cars having to mount footpaths to pass each other (which already occurs).
The main vehicular access route needs to be provided via Parker Hill and / or Castlewood Avenue (e.g. potentially through partial CPO of the Swan Centre loading area to allow safe access and division between pedestrian and vehicular routes). The dimensions of Mountpleasant Avenue (in parts), Gulistan Terrace (throughout) and Castlewood Terrace could also not facilitate access of large construction vehicles (which may also risk damage to listed buildings located on Gulistan Terrace).
My preference would be for this development to be car free. A car free environment is appropriate for this central location with good public transport connection and during a climate emergency, dependency on unsustainable traffic modes needs to be reduced.
Insofar as not all vehicular traffic can be barred, use of the car parking spaces available at the nearby Swan Shopping Centre should be encouraged where necessary. This would apply for users of the Primary Health Care Center as well as visitors to residents. Insofar as possible, ‘no car’ clauses should be included in any lease agreements for the residents of the apartment schemes proposed.
The plan is to build c. 80-90 homes as part of a cost-rental scheme. All units are planned to be 1-2 beds. I believe that the mix of apartment sizes and usage needs to be reflective of the various types of households in the community, and should range from 1-bed rooms to 3-4 bedrooms to accommodate families. Some of the units should be available to rent (some at cost rent, some at market rents), some to buy, to reflect the different needs of households in the community. The current plan risks to create a potentially transient mono-culture at this site in contrast to the vibrant neighbourhood community it sets out to create.
The plan for c. 60 age friendly housing units envisages 1 bed apartments only and is not reflecting the varying needs of an ageing population and does not even allow for a visitor or carer to stay overnight.
The connectivity to Rathmines in the plan is poor for pedestrian / bicycle access. Only a small pedestrian non-descript walkway is proposed to link Rathmines to this new community hub, risking that the site will not be able to maximise its potential for community use. There needs to be a better visual link drawing people to the new amenity that is being created. There may be an option to undertake a CPO of one of the buildings on Rathmines Road (e.g the one currently occupied by Peter Marks) to facilitate this enhanced access for pedestrians and cyclists.
It would be useful if a multi-purpose recycling facility of sufficient scale was retained on the site supporting the 15-min city and ensuring the public can access all vital services within 15min walk or cycle distance.
I would like more of the existing old structures on the site to be retained and refurbished , inclucing the beautiful red-brick building (I believe this is the old ESB building) and the smaller cottages. It would also be nice to retain the old cobblestone and incorporate these into the design.
More direct consultations with the immediate neighbours
Please see attached document.
We attach a letter setting out our more detailed comments and concerns in respect of the Masterplan. In summary we have three main concerns with respect to the Masterplan as currently proposed:
Please see attached
Senior Development Officer
Dear Sir,
I am writing in regard to the Draft Masterplan for depot lands at Gulistan Terrace, Rathmines, and having seen the plan I welcome the provision of Age Friendly residences and a Primary Health Centre, but I am totally opposed to the proposed scale of four and five storey buildings which would be totally out of keeping with the area. The houses on Gulistan Terrace were built back in 1860 and I believe Gulistan Cottages go back to the 1890’s so it would be totally inappropriate to have four and five storey buildings towering over the small houses on Gulistan Cottages it would completely take the light away for the residents not to mention visually it would be totally out of character for the area. My other concern is The proposed traffic route through Gulistan Terrace, as it stands the traffic going to The Bring Centre at times is a nightmare, as Gulistan Terrace is quite narrow and as a resident I have many times had difficulties trying to access my house with the volume of traffic and also to try to get parking is impossible and with the inevitable increased volume of traffic proposed in the Draft plan it would be a nightmare. The solution obviously would be for traffic to enter and exit from Rathmines Road. Furthermore I cannot see why the existing stonework and red brick buildings cannot be restored and included in the plan which would fit in with the surrounding area.
I would ask you please do not destroy this vital part of Rathmines to add to the destruction of Dublin in recent years.
Sincerely
Anne Kearns
To whom it may concern,
I commend the decision by Dublin City Council to develop the Gulistan Terrace bring centre site. This is a unique opportunity for a local authority to lead by example and create an archetypal model of urban design and residential amenity.
(Redacted-Personal Information). I would like to note that I currently have an interest in seeing more detailed proposals with regard to the following issues:
1. The existing historic ESB red brick building on the site. This should be retained and repurposed it is an important part of our built heritage and forms an integral part of the vista from Gulistan Terrace towards Rathmines town centre clock tower.
2. The replacement of the existing dilapidated combined drain running along the south-west boundary of Gulistan Cottages on the site
3. Maintaining adequate separation distances between the existing Gulistan Cottages and the proposed new buildings. Many of the single-storey cottages have first floor dormer windows to private, habitable rooms facing the site.
4. Appropriate height, massing and form of the proposed new buildings in relation to the existing urban grain.
5. Provision of adequate waste collection and bin storage facilities for Gulistan Cottages. Current provision is wholly inadequate - residents do not even have a place to store bins or access to composting facilities.
6. Adequate, sustainable and realistic traffic and parking proposals, also considering possible use of Castlewood Terrace as a vehicular entry point to the site. The use of the already congested Gulistan Terrace for vehicular access to the site is just not feasible.
7. Proposals to avoid overlooking and overshadowing of the existing Gulistan Cottages.
8. The provision of adequate bicycle parking for both the new development and the existing residents.
9. Proposals to address the current lack of sustainable, high quality open space and landscaping proposals.
I look forward to seeing how these issues are addressed and the opportunity to comment on all future proposals as design progresses.
Kind regards,
Sarah Heery.
