UCD track to close!!

TheRoadRunner

woodchopper wrote: »

If the track closure is down to Health and Safety or at least that is what they are trying to base it on why dont UCD Athletics advocate for a gravel or dirt track in that exact location. This would elimate the slippy surface nonsense and provides no reason to maintain the track closure unless belfield officials have more sinister plans such as car parks.

That is actually an excellent suggestion.

footing

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

That is actually an excellent suggestion.

... similar suggestions from UCD AC and other local clubs have fallen on deaf ears.
See elsewhere for the planning application to DLR CC relating to the engineering building; the track will turn into a bus terminus. Big question is whether we, as members of the public can object to this application in the next three months, as is the usual form?

gerard65

footing wrote: »

... similar suggestions from UCD AC and other local clubs have fallen on deaf ears.
See elsewhere for the planning application to DLR CC relating to the engineering building; the track will turn into a bus terminus. Big question is whether we, as members of the public can object to this application in the next three months, as is the usual form?

ASAIK anyone can object to any planning application within 28 days of it been lodged. But on what grounds is an objection valid in this case? I can't think of anything that would be considered in an appeal. Object to a bus terminal been built in that location, why? Because its been built on the site of a privately owned running track (I'm assuming it was privately owned by UCD), I don't think that would be considered by DLR CC.

footing

gerard65 wrote: »

ASAIK anyone can object to any planning application within 28 days of it been lodged. But on what grounds is an objection valid in this case? I can't think of anything that would be considered in an appeal. Object to a bus terminal been built in that location, why? Because its been built on the site of a privately owned running track (I'm assuming it was privately owned by UCD), I don't think that would be considered by DLR CC.

Anyone got any ideas?

robinph

Is it a private track though, or was it a sports facility funded by state sponsorship of UCD that they vandalized without following proper procedure?

donothoponpop

robinph wrote: »

Is it a private track though, or was it a sports facility funded by state sponsorship of UCD that they vandalized without following proper procedure?

Public funding went into the original development in 1977.

dna_leri

robinph wrote: »

Is it a private track though, or was it a sports facility funded by state sponsorship of UCD that they vandalized without following proper procedure?

If they own it they can vandalize it any time they want no matter who paid for it. If you want to comment/object to a planning application you need to have valid grounds, such as loss of amenity.

PS also put 20 euro in a brown envelope).

See http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/planning_permission/commenting_on_planning_application.html

donothoponpop

dna_leri wrote: »

If they own it they can vandalize it any time they want no matter who paid for it.

That is an unfortunately common view in modern Ireland, that ownership begets authority. Thankfully, it's absolute nonsense, and reeks of the forelock-tugging that historically shackled our forefathers. The elite UCD incumbents are beholden to a charter, and that authority denotes stewardship rather than jackbootery. Ownership does not give exemption to vandalize.

Those UCD students (and specifically their AC members) deserve to be applauded for standing up for the right cause, rather than being touted that power is its own law.

plodder

You can comment on any planning application you like (so long as you pay the 20 euro fee). Whether your comment will have any effect, depends on a few things. The main issue for any planning application is whether it meets the requirements of the county development plan, and any local plan in force in the area - in other words whether the application meets the local zoning requirement. I'd guess UCD is zoned for educational purposes. So, I think there might be a case that replacing a running track with a car-park or bus terminus might not be the best thing educationally except if the track was to be rebuilt somewhere else on the campus. The other effect of lodging a planning submission is that it would allow you to appeal a planning decision (to grant permission). At the very least that would delay the project.

dna_leri

donothoponpop wrote: »

That is an unfortunately common view in modern Ireland, that ownership begets authority. Thankfully, it's absolute nonsense, and reeks of the forelock-tugging that historically shackled our forefathers. The elite UCD incumbents are beholden to a charter, and that authority denotes stewardship rather than jackbootery. Ownership does not give exemption to vandalize.

Those UCD students (and specifically their AC members) deserve to be applauded for standing up for the right cause, rather than being touted that power is its own law.

Its a common view based on reality and practice but I still applaud those who stand for their rights. If they are in the legal right then we have nothing to worry about.

badtinegirl

Sorry I have put this post in the ucd tread also hope thats ok mods

Why not forget the lake at Eng altogether Im sure they can deal with the rain water etc in another way (most buildings dont come with a lake) and with the existing funds build a new track?

RedB

Irish Times related article Sat 26/11 here http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2011/1126/1224308187644.html

footing

badtinegirl wrote: »

Sorry I have put this post in the ucd tread also hope thats ok mods

Why not forget the lake at Eng altogether Im sure they can deal with the rain water etc in another way (most buildings dont come with a lake) and with the existing funds build a new track?

Helath and safety? For every new building, you need access to water in case of fire (I think).

Gringo78

Planning Applications are best commented on by referring to how they contravene the development plans. My experiences from industrial planning is that the planning authorities (and in particular An Bord Pleanala where a decision can ultimately be appealed to) pay strong heed to these development plans. My geography of Dublin is limited but I am assuming Dun Laoghaire Rathdown is the relevant planning authority. Their latest development plan published 2010 is pretty specific as regards protection of facilities such as UCD sports track. Key here would be the presumption that UCD has no intention of actually replacing the current track in a different location or at least within a reasonable time (i.e no funding allocated to the new track) I would say UCD are already in contravention of the development plan by restricting access to the playing fields (I would interpret the grass area within the track as a playing field, as in the field portion of track & field)

From Chapter 10 of DL/Rathdown Developement Plan:

10.2.10 Policy OSR10: Protection of Sports
Grounds/Facilities

It is Council policy to ensure that adequate
playing fields for formal active recreation are
provided for in new development areas and that
existing sports facilities and grounds within the
established urban area are protected, retained
and enhanced – all in accordance with the
outputs and recommendations from the Green
Space Strategy.

Guidance in relation to the provision of open
space associated with new developments and
new development areas is provided through
the “Sustainable Residential Development in
Urban Areas- Guidelines for Planning Authorities”

(DOEHLG 2009). Within the established urban
areas of the County, however, the lack of
available sites means that new opportunities
for recreational facilities (i.e. playing pitches) are
extremely limited. It is therefore necessary to
seek to retain facilities in their current locations
where they are of most value and accessible to
the community being served (see also Sections
16.3.3, 16.3.4(x) and 16.6.3). It is anticipated that
the Green Space Strategy will provide further
clarity in relation to this issue but until such times
as the Strategy is completed and subsequently
implemented there will be a general presumption
against proposals involving development of
playing fields unless:

>> The proposed development is ancillary
to the use of the site as a playing field
(e.g. new changing rooms) or caretakers
accommodation and does not adversely
affect the quantity or quality of pitches and
their use.

>>The proposed development only affects land
which is incapable of forming a playing pitch
(or part of one).

>> The playing fields that would be lost as a
result of the proposed development would
be replaced by a playing field or fields of
equivalent or better quantity and quality and
in a suitable location.

>> The proposed development is for an outdoor
or indoor sports facility of sufficient benefit
to the development of sport to outweigh the

loss of the playing field.

footing

Gringo78 wrote: »

Planning Applications are best commented on by referring to how they contravene the development plans. My experiences from industrial planning is that the planning authorities (and in particular An Bord Pleanala where a decision can ultimately be appealed to) pay strong heed to these development plans. My geography of Dublin is limited but I am assuming Dun Laoghaire Rathdown is the relevant planning authority. Their latest development plan published 2010 is pretty specific as regards protection of facilities such as UCD sports track. Key here would be the presumption that UCD has no intention of actually replacing the current track in a different location or at least within a reasonable time (i.e no funding allocated to the new track) I would say UCD are already in contravention of the development plan by restricting access to the playing fields (I would interpret the grass area within the track as a playing field, as in the field portion of track & field)

From Chapter 10 of DL/Rathdown Developement Plan:

10.2.10

Policy OSR10: Protection of Sports
Grounds/Facilities

It is Council policy to ensure that adequate
playing fields for formal active recreation are
provided for in new development areas and that
existing sports facilities and grounds within the
established urban area are protected, retained
and enhanced – all in accordance with the
outputs and recommendations from the Green
Space Strategy.

Guidance in relation to the provision of open
space associated with new developments and
new development areas is provided through
the “

Sustainable Residential Development in
Urban Areas- Guidelines for Planning Authorities”

(DOEHLG 2009). Within the established urban
areas of the County, however, the lack of
available sites means that new opportunities
for recreational facilities (i.e. playing pitches) are
extremely limited. It is therefore necessary to
seek to retain facilities in their current locations
where they are of most value and accessible to
the community being served (see also Sections
16.3.3, 16.3.4(x) and 16.6.3). It is anticipated that
the Green Space Strategy will provide further
clarity in relation to this issue but until such times
as the Strategy is completed and subsequently
implemented there will be a general presumption
against proposals involving development of
playing fields unless:

>

>

The proposed development is ancillary
to the use of the site as a playing field
(e.g. new changing rooms) or caretakers
accommodation and does not adversely
affect the quantity or quality of pitches and
their use.

>>The proposed development only affects land
which is incapable of forming a playing pitch
(or part of one).

>

> The playing fields that would be lost as a
result of the proposed development would
be replaced by a playing field or fields of
equivalent or better quantity and quality and
in a suitable location.

>

> The proposed development is for an outdoor
or indoor sports facility of sufficient benefit
to the development of sport to outweigh the

loss of the playing field.

Excellent stuff! Now, how can we use it?

RayCun

Does that apply to facilities on the grounds of UCD though? This isn't like paving over a green in an estate or a football pitch in a park, aren't the facilities (in theory) private to the college?

(I'm a little worried that if there's a campaign on the basis that "the UCD track is a public amenity, used by runners from all over the southside" the response from the college will be "right, if you want a public amenity, let the county council replace it, off-campus". I'd be pushing the 'basic sports facility for a university of 15000 students' angle more)

Gringo78

RayCun wrote: »

Does that apply to facilities on the grounds of UCD though? This isn't like paving over a green in an estate or a football pitch in a park, aren't the facilities (in theory) private to the college?

(I'm a little worried that if there's a campaign on the basis that "the UCD track is a public amenity, used by runners from all over the southside" the response from the college will be "right, if you want a public amenity, let the county council replace it, off-campus". I'd be pushing the 'basic sports facility for a university of 15000 students' angle more)

No - private development must apply for planning permission, the basis on which that permission is granted is up to the planning authority who set out their policy in their development plan. It is the basis on which the planning authority has the right for example to only grant permission a developer if they also put in adequate recreational facilities, build a creche or give over land to the council to enable a school to be built. No one has a right to build on green space, they have to have very good reason to do it. While you may own your land, you have no right to do what you like on it, thats why planning laws exist.

A private golf course do not have the right to concrete over their private land and build apartments - they only have the right to maintain (or not maintain) their green area. They have to apply for planning permission if they wish to change its use. The planning laws & development plans were horrifically abused by developers over the last 10 years facilitated by the brown envelope antics of the likes of Ray Burke. Those days are gone though.

UCD have the right to not maintain the track through lack of money, but if there is a highly publicsed offer of sufficient money to make it a gravel track, then they would struggle to have an excuse to refuse it.

ecoli

Gringo78 wrote: »

No - private development must apply for planning permission, the basis on which that permission is granted is up to the planning authority who set out their policy in their development plan. It is the basis on which the planning authority has the right for example to only grant permission a developer if they also put in adequate recreational facilities, build a creche or give over land to the council to enable a school to be built. No one has a right to build on green space, they have to have very good reason to do it. While you may own your land, you have no right to do what you like on it, thats why planning laws exist.

A private golf course do not have the right to concrete over their private land and build apartments - they only have the right to maintain (or not maintain) their green area. They have to apply for planning permission if they wish to change its use. The planning laws & development plans were horrifically abused by developers over the last 10 years facilitated by the brown envelope antics of the likes of Ray Burke. Those days are gone though.

UCD have the right to not maintain the track through lack of money, but if there is a highly publicsed offer of sufficient money to make it a gravel track, then they would struggle to have an excuse to refuse it.

Does the fact that their are plans to build a new track count as a valid reason however. The problem is however that this plan is subject to funding meaning that it can be put on the long finger?

Gringo78

ecoli wrote: »

Does the fact that their are plans to build a new track count as a valid reason however. The problem is however that this plan is subject to funding meaning that it can be put on the long finger?

As I understand it, currently there is no planning permission application which refers to doing anything with the old track? Just a presumption (and probably rightly so) that the track issue will die down, it'll get overgrown, it'll start to be used as a temporary overflow car park every now and then and then in 6 months time appear on a planning application?

Planning permission is granted after examining an application and any submissions from the general public. If an argument is put forward by a member of the public that it is unlikely that a new track will be built for years, then responsible planners would take this on board and not grant permission. A good example of this would be IKEA, where they were not allowed to open until the M50 exits were sorted out, the planners knowing that roads projects are subject to massive delays & budget cuts sometimes (as indeed happened). Responsible planners (and they have the power to do so) would not grant planning permission on the old tracks land until a new track is built.

electrictrad

College Tribune article on the track http://www.collegetribune.ie/index.php/2011/11/athletics-club-want-ucd-to-get-back-on-track/ . . .also a public meeting tonight at 7pm in Theatre P in the Arts block(Newman Building) for anyone whose interested in the track crisis, organised by UCD AC and UCD LawSoc http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=296669633689768

donothoponpop

Just heard Eamonn Coughlan has done an interview for RTE radio sport regarding the track, it will go out tonight at 7pm.

meijin

donothoponpop wrote: »

Just heard Eamonn Coughlan has done an interview for RTE radio sport regarding the track, it will go out tonight at 7pm.

the interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn8cUgUmH6c

electrictrad

Hi all, UCD A/C Mens Captain Richard Owens will be on RTE Radio 1's Morning Ireland at approximately 8.35 this morning to discuss the track situation . . .

Gringo78

electrictrad wrote: »

Hi all, UCD A/C Mens Captain Richard Owens will be on RTE Radio 1's Morning Ireland at approximately 8.35 this morning to discuss the track situation . . .

Tuned in to this this morning....I think the fact that Trappatoni was offered a new contract and hence JOhn Delaney doing the interview rounds meant the time for the track was cut very short.

I thought Eamonn Coughlans interview was very good, got accross very clearly what happened.

Does Denis O'Brien have any interest in Athletics? Interesting to hear he is still paying part of Traps wages for the FAI...wasn't he involved in Special Olympics Ireland, was UCD a venue for that? A benefactor who would front up the money for a gravel track would force UCD to repair the track until a new track is built and thus protect it.

footing

Gringo78 wrote: »

Tuned in to this this morning....I think the fact that Trappatoni was offered a new contract and hence JOhn Delaney doing the interview rounds meant the time for the track was cut very short.

I thought Eamonn Coughlans interview was very good, got accross very clearly what happened.

Does Denis O'Brien have any interest in Athletics? Interesting to hear he is still paying part of Traps wages for the FAI...wasn't he involved in Special Olympics Ireland, was UCD a venue for that? A benefactor who would front up the money for a gravel track would force UCD to repair the track until a new track is built and thus protect it.

We don't need a gravel track - what we had was quite adequate for training purposes as Eamonn and others keep pointing out. UCD has got offers and they are turning them down. They need the space for a bus terminus/car park and as far as they're concerned that's the end of it.
The only ray of hope is that they have possibly contravened local council laws by ripping up a recreational facility without providing an alternative.

plodder

By the way, the universities are included under the Freedom of Information Act. So, that report should be available to anyone who really wants it.

Gringo78

footing wrote: »

We don't need a gravel track - what we had was quite adequate for training purposes as Eamonn and others keep pointing out. UCD has got offers and they are turning them down. They need the space for a bus terminus/car park and as far as they're concerned that's the end of it.
The only ray of hope is that they have possibly contravened local council laws by ripping up a recreational facility without providing an alternative.

Apologies, I didn't mean it like that - I meant the best way to protect that track is to get it back as a working track as quickly as possible. I think more attention should also be drawn to the way the college is flittering money away i.e proposing spending 1.6million on a new track when the exisiting one could have been upgraded for a fraction of that. It might be worth forwarding this on to Shane Ross in the Sunday Independant as he has a good history of going after wasteful public bodies like FAS and the university authorities have been in his sights I would imagine.

donothoponpop

Very well written letter in todays IT summing up the direct impact this closure will have on athletes attending UCD:

MAIR&#201 wrote: »

Sir, – Just last April, UCD made a bid for the university to be considered by international teams as their pre-London 2012 Olympic training base. Indeed Martin Butler, the Vice President for Students, assured that funding for a new running track was a “key aspect” of that campaign.

Then, on November 22nd, less than 24 hours after notice was given of the historic running track’s closure due to “health and safety” concerns, the JCBs moved in. While the track has not been entirely demolished at the time of writing, trenches have been carved out at very deliberate intervals, such that anyone considering ignoring the “surface slippery when wet” warnings would be wasting their time; there isn’t a long enough uninterrupted stretch left to conduct any sort of meaningful training session. A new car park is proposed to stand in its place, to add to the expanse of concrete jungle that the campus is rapidly becoming.

I graduated from UCD last year, and so no longer have to rely on the facility. You might say I’m lucky. But I understand all too well the frustrations of everyone who feels cheated by those who made this decision. As a junior All-Ireland champion and Irish international athlete, I arrived at UCD in 2007 expecting to be offered a sports scholarship. I should have done as so many of my counterparts did and chosen DCU instead, because the largest university in Ireland provided just one athletics scholarship that year, and unfortunately I didn’t make the cut. Some 20 scholarships were assigned to rugby players, and a similar amount to GAA. That is not to take away from either of those sports, both of which have achieved fantastic things for the college. But the athletics club is the most successful in UCD’s history. It has produced more track and field Olympians than any other third-level institution in this country. So why is the funding always channelled elsewhere?

The powers-that-be at UCD didn’t care about athletics in 2007, and they don’t care about it now. I was saddened to learn from Ian O’Riordan’s article (Sport, November 26th) that young Ciara Mageean, who is only a couple of seconds off the Olympic qualifying time for the 1,500 metres, chose UCD over so many of the prestigious US universities that would have given both their arms and legs to have her. The closure of the running track at Belfield is an insult to her talent and dedication, and the talent and dedication of every other athlete that has graced UCD’s hallowed halls up through the years.

As for UCD becoming a training base in the Olympic year – I sincerely look forward to watching Usain Bolt dodge cars as he sprints through the new car park. – Yours, etc,

MAIRÉAD DEEVY

thirtyfoot

I think Eamon Coghlan summed up best by saying it was the sneaky underhanded way they did that has got the gripe of people. If they were more open about it the response may not have been as bad. Announce the track will close on such and such a date. Announce plans to build new track. In interim, alternative facilities will be made available in nearby Irishtown (until new track is built). Organise a once off final swan song meet in Belfield. Do it for GOAL, get the Senator on board, get Flynn, O' Mara, O' Sullivan if possible. Make it a celebration of the place. Create some good PR about something sad that is happening. Thats how I would have done it if closing the track was inevitable.

Separetly, on the issue of facilities. If you go to the 5 other tracks in the Dublin area on any given day (outside of maybe a 90 minute period say two/three nights a week) you will most likely find the tracks empty. We have loads of tracks.

Dublin has 4,331 registered athletes as of 30 Sep 2011. Thats 866 athletes per track.
Cork have 4,234 athletes per track (with Marydke out of use - will be 2,117 per track when back)
Meath have 2,337 per track
Galway have 2,337 per track
Kerry have 1,329 per track.
Wicklow have 1,015 per track
Waterford have 1,288 per track.
Counties with more than 866 athletes have no track.

Ok maybe swell the Dublin number x2 for students living in Dublin (which is an over exagerration), its still only 1,700 per track. Dublin has loads of, in the main, massively underused tracks.

mccarte2

thirtyfoot wrote: »

I think Eamon Coghlan summed up best by saying it was the sneaky underhanded way they did that has got the gripe of people. If they were more open about it the response may not have been as bad. Announce the track will close on such and such a date. Announce plans to build new track. In interim, alternative facilities will be made available in nearby Irishtown (until new track is built). Organise a once off final swan song meet in Belfield. Do it for GOAL, get the Senator on board, get Flynn, O' Mara, O' Sullivan if possible. Make it a celebration of the place. Create some good PR about something sad that is happening. Thats how I would have done it if closing the track was inevitable.

Separetly, on the issue of facilities. If you go to the 5 other tracks in the Dublin area on any given day (outside of maybe a 90 minute period say two/three nights a week) you will most likely find the tracks empty. We have loads of tracks.

Dublin has 4,331 registered athletes as of 30 Sep 2011. Thats 866 athletes per track.
Cork have 4,234 athletes per track (with Marydke out of use - will be 2,117 per track when back)
Meath have 2,337 per track
Galway have 2,337 per track
Kerry have 1,329 per track.
Wicklow have 1,015 per track
Waterford have 1,288 per track.
Counties with more than 866 athletes have no track.

Ok maybe swell the Dublin number x2 for students living in Dublin (which is an over exagerration), its still only 1,700 per track. Dublin has loads of, in the main, massively underused tracks.

Sorry to go over old ground, what are the 5 other tracks in Dublin? Irishtown, Santry and......?