Update from public meeting on housing development at old Smurfit site on Botanic Road

Update from meeting on 20th July 2020 with local residents on housing development at old Smurfit site on Botanic Road

Many thanks for all that managed to make it along to our information event yesterday evening. Apologies for anybody who was unable to join due to technical issues. We’re going to review the approach we’re using to see if there are better options for any future meetings.

We do not record these meetings but the presentation we made can be found here and notes from the meeting and other contacts we had are included below.

Neasa will be making a submission to An Bord Pleanála on this development. If anybody wants their points included in that submission please get in touch. We note the point that there was a large volume of submissions (99) on the last (refused) application and that individual submissions might make a difference.

Cllr. Darcy Lonergan (Cabra-Glasnevin) and Cllr. Janet Horner (North Inner City) attended the meeting. The developer is making a presentation to Dublin City Council where Darcy and Janet will raise some of the below concerns.

Concerns/comments that were raised:

• A desire to see social/affordable is mixed into development rather than units together in one block (currently all Part V apartments are on the lower floors of block A).
• Concerns about additional traffic in the area
• Development (height of buildings and large number of apartments) taking away from the area. Elevation of the 2 sites above the Residential homes, Griffith Park, Botanic Gardens & Glasnevin Cemetery on the north side of the overall site means that An Bord Pleanála run the risk of creating 7 storey monoliths on the hill over looking Glasnevin. Negative impact on the architectural & cultural heritage of Glasnevin.
• The blocks are not actually reduced in size. For example the front block is clearly 5 storey but they call it 3/5 because of the step down at both ends
• The fact that the height breeches guidelines. Whether applicants justification (metro and idea that guidelines are out of date) is valid.
• Encourage the developer to plant native fruit and nut trees and have more wildflower areas
• Whether the apartments will be for sale or sold to a institutional investor for rent
• Why wasn’t a master plan prepared for the combined Player and Smurfit site in advance of any planning application? Treating the two sites separately ignores the fact that what happens on one site will set a precedent for the second site. The scheme, if permitted, will have a major impact on how the adjoining site is developed.
• Dissatisfaction with the closure one of the entrances.
• The 2016 proposal offered apartments with extensive balcony access and offers a better quality of life for residence in relation to size of living space both indoors and out. In light of the recent pandemic and the government’s request for people to stay at home for months, (& the fact that this may be something we will need to live with, going forward) then consideration of the size of balconies in future buildings must be reviewed & the 2016 proposal should be revisited for this reason.
• Query on the use of a yellow site notice
• Swimming pool and use of water. (The plans call for a lap pool)
• Parking for crèche drop off and pick ups
• Why the development is being phased as is - Phase 1 and then Phase 2 (Block A)
• Developer has not yet developed what was granted. Developer has to date refuse to comply with previous phasing conditions.
• Phasing - building the rest of houses that are facing onto Iona Park. Does the council have any powers to enforce building
• The fact that it is very difficult to take a full view of the plans with all the changes layer on changes

If you wish to be included on the mailing list for any updates related to this development please let us know. This mailing list will only be used for mailings related to the Botanic SHD.

• Image credit