News Archive

OBJECTION Murphy’s Stone Works!

The outcome of their planning application should be known around 15 August, 2006.





  • SCALE,
  • MIX,

Leopardstown Heights Residents Association would like to bring to your urgent attention the following Planning Application, which was lodged with Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council on 20th June 2006.

The site involved is the existing industrial stone works and adjacent residence on Murphystown Road.

Ref. D06A/0860

(a) Demolition of all existing industrial buildings and residence,

(b) Construction of a mixed development in 3 blocks comprising a total of 93 apartments and 300.56 sq.m commercial premises over basement carparking. Block A has a total of 59 no. apartments : 12 no. x 1 bed, 42 no. x 2 bed and 5 no. x 3 bed, all in a 3 and part 4 storey block over basement level; Block B has 300.56 sq.m commercial premises and a total of 24 apartments, 21 no. x 2 bed and 3 no. x 3 bed apartments, all in a 3 and part 4 storey block over basement level; Block C has 10 apartments, 4 no. x 1 bed, 4 no. x 2 bed and 2 no. x 3 bed units all in a 3 storey block. All blocks have balconies at all floor levels and on all elevations.

(c) Retention of 1 no. vehicle entrance as access to surface car parking, closure of 3 no. vehicular access points and formation of 1 no. new vehicular entrance to basement car parking area,

(d) Ramping to basement parking for 93 no. cars and bike and refuse storage areas,

(e) surface car parking area for 10 cars and parking bay on Murphystown Road for 3 no. cars,

(f) All associated landscaping and external works

(g) E.S.B. substation.

All proposed development on a site of 0.7677 ha comprising the existing industrial stone works and adjacent residence bounded to the north-east by Mount Eagle Park, to the north-west by Mount Eagle Court, to the south-west by Roseacre and to the south-east by Murphystown Road with proposed vehicular access to basement and surface parking areas from Murphystown Road.

Your Association would STRONGLY recommend that every household be concerned over such a development as it is totally out of context. There are many issues to be concerned about including HEIGHT, DENSITY, SCALE and MIX all which will have negative impacts on our environment for many years to come. Also do you want to live beside a major building site for the next year or two? What about that extra traffic, etc, etc

Your Association will be objecting but we need your help.

Please send your objection quoting Ref. D06A/0860 to the address below

including your €20.- fee by 17th July, 2006:

Senior Executive Officer,

Planning Department,

Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council,

Marine Road,

County Hall,

Dun Laoghaire,

Co. Dublin.

Let’s show them again, we DO have the PEOPLE-POWER!

****! NEWSFLASH !****

An Bord Pleanala has madeit’s final decision!
WE WON!NO Hi-Rise!The WHOLE project was refused with 6:1 votes!22 November 2005
Email from Olivia Mitchell to LHRA:Delighted to inform you that I’ve just heard that the 17 storey building at Glencairn has been refused permission by Bord Pleanala.

This is further proof that in recent times that Bord Pleanala are no longer ‘simply nodding through’ high-rise / high-density developments.



The IndependentBlown out . . . wind dangers sweep away tallest flats planBy Treacy Hogan, Environment CorrespondentPLANS for the tallest apartment block in Dublin were shot down by Bord Pleanala yesterday because its residents would be “in physical danger” from high winds if they opened their windows.The apartments in a 17-storey tower and other high-rise blocks crammed close together next door to the residence of the British Ambassador at Glencairn, Sandyford, in south Dublin were also too small, planners ruled.Bord Pleanala threw out plans for 405 apartments which had been granted planning permission by Dun Laoghaire Rathdown Council, sparking off massive local objections. The 17-storey tower at Murphystown Road would have been as high as Liberty Hall.But a senior Bord Pleanala inspector said a study of climate conditions showed that because the apartment blocks were to be close together, residents of the higher units and in the 17-storey block would be at risk.”They would be in physical danger in seeking to use their balconies, or even opening their windows in certain climatic conditions,” said Philip Jones. “By no means can architecture such as this be described as being of ‘high quality’,” he said in his report.The plan was also shot down because it had too many small one- and two-bedroom apartments and did not have enough family accommodation.This is the third such major refusal by Bord Pleanala regarding the small size of apartment developments in 24 hours and signals a clampdown on poor design, apartments which are too close together, or simply too small.Mr Jones said the 17-storey tower of apartments would set a “a most undesirable precedent for high buildings in outer suburban locations”.

There was no high buildings study for Dun Laoghaire Rathdown and not even a regional study.

The board said the development would be too high with too many apartments and would create a significant and adverse visual impact on the overall character of the area. The tower was out of character for the area, was outside the M50 corridor on rising grounds and in an area which has not been identified as being suitable for a tall building. The plan also contravened the council’s own County Development Plan.

The Murphystown road project by Glencairn Developments had attracted a record 135 objections.






Ref: 06D.211875The submissions on this file and the Inspector’s report were considered at a Board meeting held on 15th November 2005.The Board decided, by a majority of 6 to 1, to refuse permission generally in accordance with the Inspector’s recommendation, subject to the amendments shown in manuscript on the attached copy of the Inspector’s draft reasons and considerations.Note: The Board noted that the Inspector’s report predated the launch of Transport
21 which includes for the completion of Luas Line B in 2010 and decided not to use the Inspector’s fifth reason for refusal.Board Member: Brian Hunt
Date: 18th November 2005.