Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
LATER THIS AFTERNOON Dublin City Council will discuss a controversial proposal on proposed changes to the height of buildings in the city.
The issue is a contentious one that has seen councillors and DCC management pulling in different directions.
If it goes ahead, the changes would increase the height that low-rise residential buildings can be built to, allowing them to be as tall as low-rise office buildings.
The proposal is included in the draft Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022 that is set to be published later this year.
What exactly is the problem?
This issue relates to an increase in the height of buildings that are categorised as ‘low-rise’.
The development plan acknowledges that Dublin is a “low-rise city and considers that it should remain predominantly so”, but also that the council “recognises the merit of taller buildings”.
The way regulation is at the moment, measurements of both storeys and height in metres are used to regulate how tall buildings can be.
The council calculates the average height of a storey as three metres for a residential development and four metres for a commercial development.
Apartment blocks in the inner city can be 19 metres in height (or six storeys) and offices are allowed to be 28 metres (or seven storeys).
Different categories exist for apartment buildings and offices next to rail hubs (which work out at 19 metres and 24 metres respectively), and for buildings in the outer city (13 metres and 16 metres respectively).
The new regulations would change it so that apartments and office blocks can be up to 28 metres in the inner city, up to 24 metres above rail hubs and up to 16 metres in the outer city.
What isn’t a factor in this discussion are buildings that fall outside of the ‘low-rise’ category – like The EXO building in Dublin’s Docklands, that will be the tallest office building in the city when completed.
And why is this a problem?
“We’re concerned that the chief executive [Owen Keegan] is looking for fairly tall buildings and we want to bring that down a bit,” says Green Party councillor Ciarán Cuffe.
Both the People Before Profit Alliance and Cuffe’s party have made party motions that propose reducing the allowed heights of buildings.
A more ideal height for buildings in the city would be between 20 and 24 metres, Cuffe explains to TheJournal.ie.
“Tall buildings overshadow and overlook the buildings that are around them and I think that the importance of livability and decent communities is crucial,” he says.
We are not convinced that building higher and higher is the way forward for the city.
This is a sentiment shared by People Before Profit councillor Hazel De Nortúin.
“The big comparison that has been used is with the It is the Georgian houses which usually have the three stories. What this would mean is basically two Georgian houses which go on top of each other,” she says.
De Nortúin explains that the issue has been raised with a number of residents groups, with particular concerns from people in the Liberties and Dublin 8, areas where there is a demand for housing.
“What people are actually asking about is where does it start and where does it end?,” she says, “You give one step to the developers and they take 10.”
Sinn Féin’s DCC councillors will be meeting today ahead of today’s discussion on the draft development document.
Speaking to TheJournal.ie, councillor Greg Kelly says that the standard of whatever is being built is a bigger concern than the height of the buildings, and that he would be consulting with his colleagues in areas that are more heavily impacted (Kelly’s is a councillor in the Ballyfermot-Drimnagh ward) before deciding his position on the issue.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
they did this in the uk over 20 yrs ago – the only difference it made was that response time were slower and ‘smaller’ crimes went un-investigated due to a lack of manpower at local level ,instead of getting an officer at your door to deal with an incident ,you got a ‘crime number ‘ from someone in a call centre , it was up to YOU to ‘check up’ on the ‘progress’ of the case, al that happened was that people stopped reporting ‘minor’ incidents like shed break-ins, car thefts ,street robberies etc , and those in charge of the police force were able to say that ”reported crime numbers were down ” and so deemed the move to regional offices a success . in reality -crime numbers were rising but no one was reporting them as they new it would be a waste of time doing so . what is needed is MORE gardai at local level -not fewer !
@Eric Davies: I thought the whole idea of the restructuring was to increase the number of garda and Sargents as there would be less admin and the reduction in high level salaries would be reinvested in local level gardai, hence the number of local gardai would increase, would it not?
@Eric Davies: and that’s when the Tony martin incident took place!!
@Eric Davies: yes I got a crime number in Cardiff Wales and that was that
@Vocal Outrage: It didn’t work when the divisions in England/Wales were reduced, there are 20,000 fewer officers now,the divisions in England/Wales rank 27 out of 31 in an International survey of the number of police officers per 100,000 population
@Honeybee: you are right. And guess what, we are ranked even lower.
@Vocal Outrage: thats how it was sold to people -but its not how it turned out – stations that were 20 or so miles apart were ‘amalgamated’ into one – some where even in different counties (lancashire and cheshire for instance) leaving one of the communities without proper cover – when shift changes took place officers had to be at the station for their ‘sign on’ briefing – by the time that was done it meant no officers being available in the non stationed town for over an hour sometimes 2 – also any incidents reported in the town where there was a station would get priority with regard to manpower as they were closer to the station … i know former police officers who were serving at the time and it messed up the entire system .
Also a list of where Krispy Kreme donut outlets will be opening up soon.
@WoodlandBard: hilarious
@Mark Spain: they’re shite donuts.
our fine ruc
@Kieran Cronin: yawn
@Kieran Cronin: Your stone must have needed cleaning that’s fine. Now crawl back under that stone. Stay their clown.
@Kieran Cronin: Muppet
@Kieran Cronin: I, for one, believe the Chief Constable is doing a fine job.
The Cities of Galway, Cork and Dublin are Regional HQs – Kilkenny is upgraded to include its very own ‘Regional Chief Superintendent’ while both the Cities of Limerick and Waterford are ignored? By most accounts both Limerick and Waterford have a higher inner-city crime rate then the entire County of Kilkenny. Something politically amiss here even though I think Commissioner Drew Harris is a breath of fresh air in the corp and the right person to lead the organisation.
@Conor Nolan:
because there is an eastern region covering from meath to waterford. Kilkenny would be in the middle of that. seems logical to me.
@Tim Pot: it does seem strange that. the regional HQ for the Eastern Region is in Kilkenny, I can understand the geography of that one, but the divisional HQ that covers Kilkenny itself will be in Waterford
@Vocal Outrage:
Its the same for the others, example the western region the regional hq is galway, the superintendant monaghan yet the monaghan division hq in drogheda. Its just about finding the right balance between local and central governance. I see no issue.
@Tim Pot: I guess so, I don’t think the army have their overall HQ is the same location as the HQ for the region it’s in, so perhaps that’s a better practice to avoid undue interference from the regional chief super or something
Wenger out
Anyone else see the ad for the fine transit there boss
Joke simple as
As kildare and meath have the lowest number of guards per population this is not good news. We need kildare meath wicklow and louth to be a region on their own. This will lead to these regions losing more guards to other regions. This is not a good idea.
have your say