Summerfield estate to the Blanch centre - why no pedestrian route through the wall??

brianwilliams82

Hi there,

I've been living in the Summerfield estate for about 15 months now, just across the wall from the West End roundabout (near Next, Heaven, etc) and one thing I've always wondered is just why the hell there's no pedestrian entrance/exit through the wall to get to the Blanch centre?

There's usually a trolley stacked up on either side so getting across isn't a problem per-se for any able-bodied individual, but (for example) a mother with a pram isn't going to get across. Also, as you'd expect, it gets very mucky during the winter.
Hopping the wall literally cuts 20 minutes of walking time getting to the centre. Everybody does it, so why not just knock a section of the wall and put in a pedestrian route? Put bollards or a gate there if they don't want cars/motorbikes gaining access.

What do other people think?

Cathmandooo

I remember that road & wall being built (live in blanch all my life), the wall was put up with local residents approval, they didn't want an access through it as it would intice unwanted people cutting through their estate, I know you can hop the wall, I've done it myself ONCE!! (never again, I don't like climbing high walls). They didn't want a monitored gate for it either (i.e. to be locked at night by residents) as it was a relatively new estate and I don't think they could trust all their neighbours to keep it locked.

Maybe bring up the issue with some local TD's Brian Lenihan, Leo Varadkar, Joan Burton and it might get proposed to the residents, who should now know each other a lot better than when it was built (about 10 years ago if my memory serves me well)

shane86

All the new estates around here are a pain in the hole when it comes to fences and walls, wtf are they for? I can understand maybe as a car theft prvention but a tiny walkway would not impact on this.

Have a mate lives in Castlecurragh, someone regularly cuts down part of the fence which, if you live on one half of the estate, cuts maybe 3 mins off your walking time, yet the management crowd always replace the fence within a few days. You have to either walk around the long way or walk a little usually muddy track along a side wall and have the inconvenience of hopping the fence (something Im not particularly fond of if my shoes are already wet/muddy)Take a hint ffs, people dont want to travel halfway around Blanch to get where they want to go. Forcing people to climb fences and walls is dangerous nonsense, Im surprised there bhavent been injury claims yet.

Its ironic as well that they will replace the unwanted fencing in a day or two yet didnt they have to fight tooth and nail to get the grassy areas cut or something?

DublinDilbert

The reason they don't want a pedistrian entrance is to limit through traffic, incase of an increase in crime etc..

But to be honest the type of person who will break into your car or cause vandilisim will have no bother climbing any wall...

A gate with a code lock on it would probably be a good compromise.

Naos

The reason there is no entrance in the wall is to stop traffic coming through the estate.

People who couldn't get parking in the centre would park their cars in the estate.

Stark

That's not exactly a valid reason anymore. The parking situation in the centre is much improved. Also, a lot of the people using the centre seem to be totally lazy and irrational when it comes to walking, as in they'll circle the red or the green car park for ages hunting for a space, when there are half empty car parks just across the way.

Dublin 15 in general seems to have a problem with pedestrian accesses and high walls/fences freaking everywhere. Had a few falls myself trying to climb over stuff to save 15-20 mins walking here and there. Must be very frustrating trying to get from here to there for someone who's not 100% able bodied and doesn't have a car. I think it's to curb anti-social behaviour or something, bit of a "punish everyone" solution for a lack of policing in the area. I don't think one small Garda station is adequate at all given the population of the area.

Zaph

Stark wrote: »

I think it's to curb anti-social behaviour or something

Yeah, that's the excuse given for lack of access to estates from the new Ongar Road.

Pat Dunne

In almost all of the housing developments along the Ongar Road. It was the residents representitive groups that objected to pedestrian access into their areas from the Ongar Road because of anti social behaviour.

In situations where pedestrian access is required, Fingal Co.Co are the public body to contact. However, I would first check with your local residents representitive group, as they should be aware of any previous history on matters of this sort.

You will need the written support and consenses of the vast majority of residents in your area to get Fingal Co. Co to provide a facility, such as a pedestrian entrance. However the timespan as to when it is phyisically in place will be governed by the monies available to Fingal Co.Co. for such facilities.

Cathmandooo

Stark wrote: »

I don't think one small Garda station is adequate at all given the population of the area.

I wouldn't accuse Blanch Garda Station of being small It's a lot bigger than most garda stations. Plus the traffic department is based there too.

tibor

Cathooo wrote: »

Plus the traffic department is based there too.

Seriously?

The irony of having the traffic department located right beside one of the worst planned junctions in Dublin...

Cathmandooo

tibor wrote: »

Seriously?

The irony of having the traffic department located right beside one of the worst planned junctions in Dublin...

Yeah they're based in Blanch and Dublin Castle :rolleyes:

I actually think that junction works well, mind you I'm never there in peak traffic.

Pat Dunne

If there were awards for the greatest "lash up" of a junction ever concieved and implemented. The one beside Tractamotors, has to be awarded that accolade

Errr...... have we not gone a bit off topic here.

the dee

Pat Dunne wrote: »

If there were awards for the greatest "lash up" of a junction ever concieved and implemented. The one beside Tractamotors, has to be awarded that accolade

Errr...... have we not gone a bit off topic here.

I agree, that junction is insane. I too hate that wall. How come I can see the centre from my house but have to walk for 30mins to get there.

What bugs me are the people who put grease paint and tar etc on top of the wall to stop people jumping over. wtf?

PauloMN

If I lived there, especially close to where you would place the gap, I'd want that wall up, and I think a lot of people would feel the same. I wonder how many of the people who want the gap actually own houses in the estate rather than rent? There's a big difference in how people feel about anti-social behaviour in their areas when they own a property in that area rather than when they rent one and can leave at the drop of a hat.

Anyway if the neighbours up there are putting paint/grease on top of the wall, there's no chance of them agreeing to put in a gap. Think you'll just have to get used to it.

Stark

the dee wrote: »

What bugs me are the people who put grease paint and tar etc on top of the wall to stop people jumping over. wtf?

Wtf indeed? Are these residents who do it? Sounds like you could easily take a civil case for injury against whoever did it anyway. (Sounds like a similar situation to putting traps in your home to injure burglars.)

PauloMN

Stark wrote: »

Wtf indeed? Are these residents who do it? Sounds like you could easily take a civil case for injury against whoever did it anyway. (Sounds like a similar situation to putting traps in your home to injure burglars.)

Ahhh, an example of the Irish claim mentality at its finest! :rolleyes:

Would you also claim off the person who originally left the trolley there? It is partially their fault if you fall off the wall and break your leg as they encouraged your actions.

Arcadian

PauloMN wrote: »

Would you also claim off the person who originally left the trolley there? It is partially their fault if you fall off the wall and break your leg as they encouraged your actions.

I think there's a difference between someone leaving a trolley against a wall and some scum bag setting out to damage people and their property by covering the wall with paste or paint.

PauloMN

Arcadian wrote: »

I think there's a difference between someone leaving a trolley against a wall and some scum bag setting out to damage people and their property by covering the wall with paste or paint.

People wouldn't get their clothes destroyed (or worse like injuring themselves) if they didn't attempt to climb across high walls though. Personally I couldn't care less if someone damages themselves or their property by doing so, but attempting to claim for something that happened as a result of your own stupidity is ridiculous in my view.

Just like I'd not have any sympathy for someone that injured themselves while trying to break into a property (although I don't think the two scenarios are really comparable).

As for the trolley, whoever left that there obviously stole it from somewhere, and is guilty of littering.

Why did people move into the area if they knew there was no direct access to the centre from the estate? That wall is there years at this stage.

Stark

PauloMN wrote: »

Ahhh, an example of the Irish claim mentality at its finest! :rolleyes:

Would you also claim off the person who originally left the trolley there? It is partially their fault if you fall off the wall and break your leg as they encouraged your actions.

So it's okay in your opinion to deliberately injure someone as long as they were doing something "naughty"? How "naughty" do you have to be exactly, considering "hopping a fence" isn't exactly up there on the list of scumbag crimes.

Vigilante mentality at its finest tbh.

PauloMN

Stark wrote: »

So it's okay in your opinion to deliberately injure someone as long as they were doing something "naughty"? How "naughty" do you have to be exactly, considering "hopping a fence" isn't exactly up there on the list of scumbag crimes.

Vigilante mentality at its finest tbh.

Erm, where did I say it was ok to deliberately injure someone hopping over a wall? Deliberately injuring someone and not having sympathy for someone are two very different things.

I never hinted that hopping over a wall was a "scumbag crime". Like I said, each to their own - if you want to risk injuring yourself hopping over high walls, that's your choice. If you want to potentially get yourself covered in all sorts of ****e because someone has taken it upon themselves to cover the wall in grease, that's your choice. If the person putting stuff on the wall bothers you, tell the guards and see what they say. I just think the idea of someone claiming off someone else because they've made the choice to climb a wall and got covered in ****e is laughable.

You were the one who brought up burglars, I mentioned that I wouldn't have sympathy for a burglar that injured himself/herself in the act of robbing someone's house. If you care to read my post, I also said I didn't think the two scenarios were comparable - burglars are scumbags, adults that hop over high walls with the risk of injuring themselves are just a bit thick really.

Stark

PauloMN wrote: »

Erm, where did I say it was ok to deliberately injure someone hopping over a wall?

When you advocated planting traps for people who attempt it.

PauloMN wrote: »

If you want to potentially get yourself covered in all sorts of ****e because someone has taken it upon themselves to cover the wall in grease, that's your choice.

I would have thought it was the fault of the person who greased the wall. Afaik, it's not illegal to climb over the wall; you're just using it to access the same piece of public land more quickly so it's not trespassing.

PauloMN wrote: »

adults that hop over high walls with the risk of injuring themselves are just a bit thick really.

Not when you're expecting the wall to not be covered in grease.

PauloMN wrote: »

You were the one who brought up burglars, I mentioned that I wouldn't have sympathy for a burglar that injured himself/herself in the act of robbing someone's house.

It's an interesting example, because while the burglar would have deserved it, it shows the view the law takes of people who employ vigilante methods. The burglar could have just as easily been a paramedic trying to gain access after the owner had a heart attack and would be injured by the same trap that the owner had intended for burglars. Hence why it's against the law for owners to install traps in their home, even if they only end up hurting deserving victims.

PauloMN

Stark wrote: »

When you advocated planting traps for people who attempt it.

And when did I advocate planting traps? You're way off the mark making statements like that.

Stark

*Sigh*

Do you or do you not think it's okay for someone to place grease on the top of a wall so that there'll be an increased chance of someone injuring themselves if they attempt to climb over it. Yes or No.

PauloMN

Stark wrote: »

*Sigh*

Do you or do you not think it's okay for someone to place grease on the top of a wall so that there'll be an increased chance of someone injuring themselves if they attempt to climb over it. Yes or No.

Double sigh.

Can - or more to the point - can you not find any post where I have advocated planting traps for people climbing walls?

You surprise me for a moderator. I like discussions, but being completely misquoted by people I don't like.

As for your question, I would not advocate putting grease or anything else like that on a public wall. I still couldn't care less if someone climbing a wall got covered in the stuff though.

Stark

You say your stance is No, however you argue heavily in favour of the person who did such an action taking no responsibility. Effectively that is advocating the action. Do you still think it is ridiculous that such a person could be sued? If someone was doing rock climbing as a sport and some busybody who didn't like rock climbers decided to grease up the cliff to make it more dangerous, would you still think it ridiculous for the climber to make a claim if they were injured as a result? I mean they knew the risks after all.

People take risks at their own choice, but that doesn't give other people the right to increase those risks.

PauloMN

Fact is I didn't "argue heavily" in favour of such a person. I just said all along that I don't care if someone gets dirty climbing a wall due to someone else putting grease on said wall.

As for claiming, maybe you could, I don't know. I wasn't debating the technicalities of the ability to do so; I was stating my belief that to claim from someone because your jeans got dirty climbing a wall is IMO laughable, and strikes me as a claim-mentality i.e. the belief that any chance to claim something off someone should be persued.

IMO people must be responsible for their actions, hence I don't smear grease on walls. Similarly, if you take issue with something you deem to be illegal and which you claim could cause you physical injury, you should go to the guards to discuss it. Would be interesting to see what they say about it.

Stark

PauloMN wrote:

As for claiming, maybe you could, I don't know. I wasn't debating the technicalities of the ability to do so; I was stating my belief that to claim from someone because your jeans got dirty climbing a wall is IMO laughable, and strikes me as a claim-mentality i.e. the belief that any chance to claim something off someone should be persued.

Ah now you're trying to go back on the part about injury and pretend the discussion was about dirty clothes. Let me remind you, the bits that you're trying to go back on in bold:

PauloMN wrote:

People wouldn't get their clothes destroyed (or worse like injuring themselves) if they didn't attempt to climb across high walls though. Personally I couldn't care less if someone damages themselves or their property by doing so, but attempting to claim for something that happened as a result of your own stupidity is ridiculous in my view.

...

if you want to risk injuring yourself hopping over high walls, that's your choice. If you want to potentially get yourself covered in all sorts of ****e because someone has taken it upon themselves to cover the wall in grease, that's your choice. If the person putting stuff on the wall bothers you, tell the guards and see what they say. I just think the idea of someone claiming off someone else because they've made the choice to climb a wall and got covered in ****e is laughable.

Whether you care or not is irrelevant. Honestly, I respect you for being honest and saying you don't care about the fates that befall strangers.

Similary, I agree that claiming over dirty pants would be ridiculous. However I don't see claiming over injury when it was the person's intent to injure you as being ridiculous.

Rosita

The reason for no access from Summerfield and such estates is to prevent non-residents parking in those estates and walking to the centre.

PauloMN

Stark wrote: »

Similary, I agree that claiming over dirty pants would be ridiculous. However I don't see claiming over injury when it was the person's intent to injure you as being ridiculous.

I haven't gone back on anything. If you come up against a 9 foot wall and, as an adult, you decide to tackle it, I'm sorry but you know what can happen, grease or no grease.

Anyway I honestly don't think people who put grease on walls want to injure people but rather put them off climbing walls by ruining their clothes. Maybe the chance of injury is higher, maybe not. Either way, I don't think an injury claim would hold much weight. Do you know of any cases where someone has successfully claimed off a local resident for injuring themselves off a greased wall? Nah, neither do I.

To put my earlier question again: why would someone move into the area knowing the wall is there if it causes them so much grief?

Stark

PauloMN wrote: »

Do you know of any cases where someone has successfully claimed off a local resident for injuring themselves off a greased wall? Nah, neither do I.

Well today is the first time I even heard of cretins actually going to the trouble of greasing walls because they don't like people taking shortcuts. I can't wait to see what they come up with to stop people from cutting across greens.

PauloMN wrote: »

To put my earlier question again: why would someone move into the area knowing the wall is there if it causes them so much grief?

How long is the wall there? How many people in the area were there from before the time the wall was built? Even in the case of people moving there, they might decide that the benefits outweigh the problems. That doesn't mean they forfeit the right to try and address the problems. Or in the more likely scenario, they simply have cars and drive to the centre, further contributing to the traffic madness in the area.

PauloMN

Yes it's pretty extreme alright. I've heard of people putting anti-climb paint on walls, never actually seen any real-life occurrences of it though.

I'm not defending such actions, but I'm just trying to put the other view point across. It's easy to say "that wall is a pain in the hole, why don't they put a gap there?". At the same time, I would not like to live near that gap as I can imagine what would happen when a quite cul-de-sac suddenly turned into a main walk-way.

The safety of my children and my property are more important to me than saving a few minutes off a trip to the shops. Any gaps in the estates near me generally have litter and broken glass strewn around them, kids hanging about, graffiti etc..

I'd hate that and I'd personally fight against it. I reckon most - maybe even all - people living close to where the opening would be would also fight it. I agree people have a right to try and get access by following the proper procedures, but I'd say there's no chance of getting a gap in that wall.

the dee

I lived in the estate for about 8 years, my mother owns a house there. I'd have no problem with a gap in the wall. The traffic to and from the centre is insane. If you want to walk the long way around you either have to go through the Coolmine Woods (where a few people I know have been mugged and I have been harrassed) or down the main road by Tractamotors where the path is insanely narrow. Neither option is attractive, especially if you have children.

Every able-bodied person hops the wall at some time or another - I've seen a middle-aged married couple do it. I've seen girls in tiny skirts and heels on their way to Heaven do it. There are a good few people walking through the estate anyway. Even a gate for residents would do.

daymobrew

the dee wrote: »

If you want to walk the long way around you either have to go through the Coolmine Woods (where a few people I know have been mugged and I have been harrassed)

During Centre opening hours or late at night. An alternative in this direction it to go to the next road up, passing the fire station.

the dee wrote: »

down the main road by Tractamotors where the path is insanely narrow.

Where is the path that narrow? The Snugborough Road part is very wide as it has ped and bike lanes; Main Street is grand too and, IIRC so is Clonsilla Road.

the dee

daymobrew wrote: »

During Centre opening hours or late at night. An alternative in this direction it to go to the next road up, passing the fire station.

Where is the path that narrow? The Snugborough Road part is very wide as it has ped and bike lanes; Main Street is grand too and, IIRC so is Clonsilla Road.

People have been mugged after dark. I've got hassled any time of day or night. The path is narrow at the garda station - overhanging bushes, big puddles etc.

garthv

I think ive hopped that wall about 50 million times at this stage,
Cant see a reason why they dont just put a gate there. I remember at one stage one of the locals covered the top of the wall with tar and then chased anyone who tried to climb the wall. One day a group of lads came along and bricked his window for all his troubles.

Still, makes sense to limit the traffic, summerfielders wouldnt want "undesirables" in their estate now would they?

Cathmandooo

daymobrew wrote: »

During Centre opening hours or late at night. An alternative in this direction it to go to the next road up, passing the fire station.

Where is the path that narrow? The Snugborough Road part is very wide as it has ped and bike lanes; Main Street is grand too and, IIRC so is Clonsilla Road.

The path around the Garden House Chinese is very narrow, I've pushed buggies through there and it's quite dangerous, there's no buffer between you and the traffic and the traffic can be going quite fast. Plus there's a huge dip in the path for pedestrians crossing the road which is also dangerous, a friend of mine lost her footing because of that and stumbled onto the road.

Pat Dunne

garthv wrote: »

I think ive hopped that wall about 50 million times at this stage,
Cant see a reason why they dont just put a gate there. I remember at one stage one of the locals covered the top of the wall with tar and then chased anyone who tried to climb the wall. One day a group of lads came along and bricked his window for all his troubles.

Still, makes sense to limit the traffic, summerfielders wouldnt want "undesirables" in their estate now would they?

Naahhh...... on second thoughts forget it, I'm not even going waste my time to even bother posting a reply on this one.

daymobrew

the dee wrote: »

The path is narrow at the garda station - overhanging bushes, big puddles etc.

Contact Fingal County Council Transportation/Roads department to trim the bushes.

murphaph

Zaph wrote: »

Yeah, that's the excuse given for lack of access to estates from the new Ongar Road.

The siege like mentality of the estates along that road irks me. Hopefully someday a high quality bus service will take advantage of the ongar rad and they'll all be screaming to have the walls breached again!

Pat Dunne

murphaph wrote: »

The siege like mentality of the estates along that road irks me. Hopefully someday a high quality bus service will take advantage of the ongar rad and they'll all be screaming to have the walls breached again!

In the vast majority of estates "along that road", there never was direct pedistrian access in the first place. So the walls will not be breeched again, as they were never breeched originally.

Perhaps, it is a seige like mentality, but I certainly do not condone the measures alledgely taken by a small misguided minority in attempting to stop individuals climbing section of the walls. However you must respect the democratic wishes of the majority and in this case it is the wishes of the majority of the residents in these estates "along that road". Not to have direct pedistrian access on to "that road".

Perhaps, if you lived amongst us you would know the daily reality of living "along that road".

murphaph

Pat Dunne wrote: »

In the vast majority of estates "along that road", there never was direct pedistrian access in the first place. So the walls will not be breeched again, as they were never breeched originally.

Perhaps, it is a seige like mentality, but I certainly do not condone the measures alledgely taken by a small misguided minority in attempting to stop individuals climbing section of the walls. However you must respect the democratic wishes of the majority and in this case it is the wishes of the majority of the residents in these estates "along that road". Not to have direct pedistrian access on to "that road".

Perhaps, if you lived amongst us you would know the daily reality of living "along that road".

I do live amongst you. There were pedestrian accesses planned for all estates onto the road and some were built and stopped up again. Some were never built due to the mass hysteria of the anticipated roaming hoardes of people rampaging through the place to rape and pillage. Pedestrian access should be promoted to make walking and cycling more attractive than taking the car, which is what most the the residents of these estates are reduced to. I don't believe for one minute that the decisions to stop up the pedestrian walkways were democratic, rather a few busybody types pleaded with their self serving councillors who were only to happy to oblige. Pity FCC can't spend their energy more productively. I don't notice an abnormal number of hoodlums hanging around the entrances at Willow Wood and Allendale, in fact you don't see too many folks walking along the Ongar Distributor at all, unsurprisingly.

Edit: The road has been planned since the 80's, long before any of the current residents of the newer estates moved in. I dn't think anyone can complain abiut a road that was available to see in numerous development plans. Caveat Emptor and all that.

brianwilliams82

Wow, wouldn't have imagined this would get to 3 pages!

I guess I can accept the 'residents only' thing. It'd also be annoying to have people from Heaven etc. causing trouble at 3am on a Friday night in the estate.

It's just that, as someone who rents and doesn't drive, it's something that appears to be tailored to the standard lazy Irish person who drives everywhere and discriminates against the people who don't. There isn't a whole lot of room for extra parking in Summerfield anyway, all these houses with 3 cars mean that people driving through the estate have to snake through all the residents' own parked cars.

Meh, I guess I'll just have to keep washing my shoes.

Pat Dunne

murphaph, it is a pity that you use a throw away remark about rape, as that is exactly what happened near my own home three years ago. The individuals involved jumped the wall on to the Ongar Road to make their escape.
Thankfully they were arrested and found gulity in court.

murphaph wrote: »

I don't believe for one minute that the decisions to stop up the pedestrian walkways were democratic, rather a few busybody types pleaded with their self serving councillors who were only to happy to oblige.

I must correct you in you on this. If residents in a particular area wish Fingal CC to extinguish a right of way, or establish one for that matter. Fingal CC insist that the residents must hold a plebiscite (referendum, vote) within their area to get this matter amended in their local area plan.

I know this as I am one of those busybody types you refer too. Because our Estate held one to prevent two pedistrian entrances on to the Ongar road. Which incidently were not shown on any Fingal plans for the Estate before we purchased our home and which the planner's tried to parachute in after the estate was completed. This vote must show a significant majority in favour or against, normally 85% or over before Fingal CC will act upon it.

I am sorry that you see our councillors as self serving as I have yet to find this in any of the councillors I have have dealt with over the years.

As a matter of fact I would ask you to state here on this forum as to who these self serving councillor's are. So we are aware of this in 18 months time when they are seeking re-election so we can confront them with this.

murphaph

Pat Dunne wrote: »

murphaph, it is a pity that you use a throw away remark about rape, as that is exactly what happened near my own home three years ago. The individuals involved jumped the wall on to the Ongar Road to make their escape.

An absolutely ridiculous statement. "Rape and pillage" is a centuries old phrase-not a throwaway remark about rape sir! Don't try to hyperinflate my comments to whip up hysteria. It may work in Limelawn et. al but not here.

Anyway. You claim the assailants vaulted the wall onto the Ongar Road to make their escape. In which case it would appear the wall did not prevent the attack in the first place and in fact may have prevented anyone witnessing the attack from making chase!

Pat Dunne wrote: »

I must correct you in you on this. If residents in a particular area wish Fingal CC to extinguish a right of way, or establish one for that matter. Fingal CC insist that the residents must hold a plebiscite (referendum, vote) within their area to get this matter amended in their local area plan.

I know this as I am one of those busybody types you refer too. Because our Estate held one to prevent two pedistrian entrances on to the Ongar road. Which incidently were not shown on any Fingal plans for the Estate before we purchased our home and which the planner's tried to parachute in after the estate was completed. This vote must show a significant majority in favour or against, normally 85% or over before Fingal CC will act upon it.

I disagree that this is in any way democratic. Define "particular area" for a start. Rights of way existed across fields long before your housing estates were built. People living in D15 before your estates were built used to walk across them to reach Clonsilla. Were these people consulted or asked to vote in your highly localised plebiscite? Nope. A handful of people in a new estate built atop an old right of way used predominantly by residents of older estates voting to stop up that right of way is non-democratic in my view.

Pat Dunne wrote: »

I am sorry that you see our councillors as self serving as I have yet to find this in any of the councillors I have have dealt with over the years.

As a matter of fact I would ask you to state here on this forum as to who these self serving councillor's are. So we are aware of this in 18 months time when they are seeking re-election so we can confront them with this.

I'll give you my experiences with them shall I. I have written (pen and ink as well as email) to all D15 area councillors repeatedly on the issue of the appaling road signage (the Ongar Road has the worst signage I have ever seen erected on a new scheme) in the area. Only one ever wrote back and he's since been elected to Dail Eireann. They wouldn't bother taking up my issue as it would not serve them well at election time. They take up populist issues, regardless of their benefit to society as a whole. I bet those councillors who supported your closures didn't march across to Willow Wood etc. to knock on their doors to inform them they'd make sure they couldn't use rights of way previously used by them. Any councillor (or TD, Mr. Lenihan) who can't be @rsed to reply to letters from a constituent is a disgrace and shouldn't pretend to be in public office.

Look Tom. You have your walls nice and high around you snd you yourslef state that they failed to prevent a rape taking place but I must ask, why did you move to that estate if you believe you need to live with walls around you to be happy here? Would you install security gates on the estate if you could?

I absolutely guarantee that the same individuals involved in stopping up the accesses to the Ongar Road will be back in less than 10 years begging to reopen them to boost their property prices. Can anyone guess what might force such a sea change?!

Pat Dunne

murphaph, to remind you it was you who introduced the hyperinflation and hysteria into this thread with your throw away rape and pillage comment.

Secondly, my our particular estate's discussions with Fingal were long concluded before the Lime Lawn Estate was even started. Also if you do not believe me in how the process works confirm it with Fingal CC.

Thirdly, my name is Pat Dunne and not "Tom".

Fourthly, I agree the provision for directional road signs along with the total lack of Bus Shelters from the Ongar round west of Clonsilla to Littlepace is not short of a disgrace. Along with the complete lack of supporting bus services to the various train stations. I would also be happy to work along side you in starting a campaign for the introduction of these and other much needed facilities in the area.

Interesting you name only Minister Lenihan of whom I am certainly no supporter. Ironic to think that he still go the largest vote of all our TD's in the constituency last May.

With regard to the Metro, if you study the proposed route that is proposing to take through Dublin 15. It is going through the least populated areas in the whole of Dublin 15 and will not be servicing Mulhuddart, Tyrellstown, Castlecurragh etc Which will further isolate these areas from quailty public transport making them solely reliant on Buses and other methods of private transport.

The Metro will however service Fingal CC Offices, The B'town Cte, the National Aquatic Cte, the Abbotstown Sports Campus and the Industrial Estsates North of Corduff. If you notice the common theme about all of these destinations they are all either large Public Service employers or large Commercial entities. The Metro will not greatly assist the already hard pressed commuter's of D15 in any real way. As it will not be going to where demand is greatest in D15. That of linking the various urban areas together and taking away the ove relience on cars to commute short distances.

murphaph

Pat Dunne wrote: »

murphaph, to remind you it was you who introduced the hyperinflation and hysteria into this thread with your throw away rape and pillage comment.

You clearly didn't understand my reference. There is an element of hysteria in the new estates about the potential for the undesirables from myself and zaph's side of the Berlin wall coming over there and wrecking the place! If there wasn't, there'd be no walls at all.

Pat Dunne wrote: »

Secondly, my our particular estate's discussions with Fingal were long concluded before the Lime Lawn Estate was even started. Also if you do not believe me in how the process works confirm it with Fingal CC.

I just used Limelawn as an example. I said Limelawn et al (and others).

Pat Dunne wrote: »

Thirdly, my name is Pat Dunne and not "Tom".

Apologies Pat.

Pat Dunne wrote: »

Fourthly, I agree the provision for directional road signs along with the total lack of Bus Shelters from the Ongar round west of Clonsilla to Littlepace is not short of a disgrace. Along with the complete lack of supporting bus services to the various train stations. I would also be happy to work along side you in starting a campaign for the introduction of these and other much needed facilities in the area.

To be honest I can't get too angry with FCC/BAC when it comes to bus shelters. Why provide them or the services when the residents have effectively turned their backs on the road by barricading themselves into their estates? The situation wrt feeder buses to the stations is fairly well known-until the Interconnector is built there won't be the capacity in the rail system to take bus loads more people on the trains. I'm sure train users will back me up that they are at crush loads already. Long term FCC plan to use Porterstown Interchange as the point where most buses run to/from in D15 but not until the onward capacity is built into the rail system.

Pat Dunne wrote: »

With regard to the Metro, if you study the proposed route that is proposing to take through Dublin 15. It is going through the least populated areas in the whole of Dublin 15 and will not be servicing Mulhuddart, Tyrellstown, Castlecurragh etc Which will further isolate these areas from quailty public transport making them solely reliant on Buses and other methods of private transport.

See above though. If residents are determined to hem themselves in with walls that prevent pedestrian movement through and between them then that's the nail in the coffin for public transport I'm afraid. You can't have succesful public transport if you make it difficult to access. People look down on the bus as a poor man's way and the Luas (it's not a real metro of course) through Blanchardstown could help. You highlight that it avoids certain residential areas but it passes through or past many others. D15 is comprised of a lot of low rise sprawl that cannot all be served with a single line. I will be petitioning for the Millenium Park stop to be moved north however, away from the likes of Limelawn wh have made their choice wrt. public transport as far as I'm concerned. It should be located at the main entrance to Millenium Park, along Blanchardstown Road South, opposite Mountview Road. This would allow the residents of Fortlawn/Mountview/Hartstown to walk along Mountview Road to the stop. These residents who have not opted for the Berlin Wall approach to community relations should be rewarded. A metro stop near Limelawn/Sorrel etc. is a waste as the wall prevents the residents from accessing the stop in the first place.

Pat Dunne wrote: »

The Metro will however service Fingal CC Offices, The B'town Cte, the National Aquatic Cte, the Abbotstown Sports Campus and the Industrial Estsates North of Corduff. If you notice the common theme about all of these destinations they are all either large Public Service employers or large Commercial entities. The Metro will not greatly assist the already hard pressed commuter's of D15 in any real way. As it will not be going to where demand is greatest in D15. That of linking the various urban areas together and taking away the ove relience on cars to commute short distances.

Pat-I have no sympathy for anyone in your estates who complains about poor public transport having sealed yourselves in and left yourselves unable to access the Ongar road bus lanes. If and when new services (due shortly) take advantage of the Ongar Road your estates will not be able to access them as the walls you all requested are in the way. Fingal CC have either built or are rapidly upgrading all the distributor roads to include bus lanes on both sides throughout, a la QBC (Blanch Road North&South/Snugborough Road&extension/Ongar Road) so when the buses eventually provide a good service from the large residential areas south of the N3 to the large commercial and industrial centres north of the N3 I'm sure there'll be the same people out comlaining that they can't access the services. You can't have it both ways. The sad thing is that not only are you barricading yourselves in, you are preventing people from walking routes to Clonsilla they have taken for decades. The new estates have a lot to answer for when it comes to the disincentivisation of public transport in Dublin 15.

Mailman

It's over 5 years since I lived in the summerfield estate.

Back then a guy called to the door with a petition to increase the wall height.

As far as I remember he was living close to the wall and didn't want guys climbing over the wall.

Most of the estates over that side of blanch are fairly respectable so the amount of anti-social behaviour wouldn't be huge but I did get the rear three quarter panel of my car kicked in one night by someone passing thru.

It's proximity to the nightclub would mean that I'd think twice before opening up a right of way on to the snugborough road.

Close down the nightclub and most of the nocturnal nastiness would disappear from Blanch; I suffer from the nightclub and I'm a fair distance away from it.

Pen1987

I live in summerfield and I jump that wall 3/4 times a day going to work/shop/home/gym. I still dont want a ped access thru it though, I know for a fact you would have a million empty cans, and empty glass bottles of vodka dropped just inside the estate from people getting the last of their "pre-drinks" into them out of the veiw of the bouncers from Heaven, add to that a ten time multiple of the number of people that already trek through the estate to the centre and a similar multiple of underage drinkers who would use the green near the wall as a drinking area due to its easy escape if the gards arrived.

Absolutely not, Ill gladly get my shoes dirty.

fletch

I know I would probably park there and walk to the centre during busy times, as would lots of other people, just look at the situation down by Coolmine Swimming Pool where they've had to put double yellow lines everywhere to stop people doing it. Around Christmas it can take 30mins to 1hr to get out of the centre.

DublinDilbert

Going by the state of the wall at the top of Summer Field Ave on the right, it looks like one of the locals took matters into their own hands and decided to put a hole in the wall... only problem was it was the wall of his neighbors house and not the one to the shopping center... did anyone see it? it looks very unsafe...

Naos

Lol yeah.

Apparently was hit by a drunk driver. It's being stabilised now by some good aul 2 x 4's.