Balbriggan Beach Shelters

Eoineo

It's on both the major community websites that the beach shelters (sitting below the train station on the main beach) are to be demolished.

Save Our Shelters – Our Intentions
We hope as many people as possible turn up this Sunday at 2.45pm for a photo of everyone at the shelters to be taken at 3pm sharp. Can we ask anyone who is a member of a club or organisation to see if they can get their fellow members to come along and show support for Balbriggan. We are going to make a PDF presentation and possibly a slide show to show the buildings we’ve lost to the demolition squad and to show how Skerries has fared better and give it to FCC on DVD or as a PDF. Another suggestion is Banners/Posters to display when we take the photograph on Sunday. Please please please also send an email to sos@balbriggan.net expressing your concern so we can include in the presentation. Not everyone is on Face Book or the web so please spread the word about Sunday to your family and friends. Those of you Briggers abroad, we are depending on you for support also, email us at the above address let FCC know your feelings. We look forward to seeing lots of you there at 2.45pm this Sunday at the Shelters. Thank you. 27.02.13

- quoted from balbriggan.net facebook page.

It's great to see that the community are pulling together - BUT.....

I can't for the life of me see any structural reports or information as to why they're being demolished? What the council intends to put there in their place? Why these shelters in particular should be protected?

There are a number of designated protected structures in the town which are neglected and I would have thought they were more important to our heritage to protect?

Am I wrong?

Morpheus

These are the 2 shelters that are used
A. as a lifeguard station during the summer months
and
B. as a shop during the summer?

Thought both were very securely locked up and being made of reinforced concrete were quite sturdy still?

Eoineo

Morpheus wrote: »

These are the 2 shelters that are used
A. as a lifeguard station during the summer months
and
B. as a shop during the summer?

Thought both were very securely locked up and being made of reinforced concrete were quite sturdy still?

Precisely. It seems odd to be organising a campaign without all the information to hand?

P_1

Strange decision to demolish them.

Having said that I wonder if its some misguided attempt to curb antisocial behavior.

cathy01

on one website , it said sometingalong the lines of this wouldnt be allowed happen in Skerries so we should give out.
I cant see the logic in that.
I think the people of Balbriggan should be told WHY something is happening, then they wont get so upset if they are agreeable.
But to just do something and not ask/inform is wrong in my book.
Protest is Sunday at 2.45 I think?People are asked to meet at the huts.

martinn123

Don't expect support from Alan Farrell

Twitter wrote:

Alan Farrell TD ‏@AlanFarrell
I'm sorry but I can't attend on a Sunday. Why not email your view and I can question the council?

hyperborean

martinn123 wrote: »

Don't expect support from Alan Farrell

He doesn't get any votes in Balbriggan, why would he bother?

Anyway its about time (probably a bit late) the local community organised to question Fingal County Councils planning, the job the town council are supposed to be doing but have failed to do for the last 20 years even if they are costing in excess of €250,000 per annum, useless yappers!

rpurfield

i dunno why they are being taken down but in terms of protesting about it imo the horse has bolted with some of the other stuff that wouldve been far nicer to look at and useful (ie the bandstand and diving board) getting demolished without any fuss.in terms of architecture the huts arent exactly masterpieces

RobFowl

I've seen a lot about the campign to save these but have not seen anything at all about them being demolished.
AFAIK there is no firm proposal to do anything with them at the moment. As they are listed surely planning permission would be required and to date has not even been applied for let alone granted.....

Eoineo

As far as I'm aware they're not protected structures. Not according to the latest Development Plan from Fingal CoCo anyway. Unless they were added after March 2011.

martinn123

Looks like people are now ''Outraged''

http://www.northcountyleader.ie/index.php?option=com_content&amp%3Bview=article&amp%3Bid=2730%3Aoutrage-over-plans-to-demolish-buildings&amp%3Bcatid=34%3Afront-page#.UTX9iKNPyJQ.twitter

RobFowl

Eoineo wrote: »

As far as I'm aware they're not protected structures. Not according to the latest Development Plan from Fingal CoCo anyway. Unless they were added after March 2011.

I thought they were but not sure where I got that from.
Certainly have yet to hear anywhere other than the protest groups releases that these are to be knocked.

sgarvan

http://www.balbriggan.info/balbriggan_town_council_discuss_beach_shelters_05mar13.shtml

Eoineo

sgarvan wrote: »

http://www.balbriggan.info/balbriggan_town_council_discuss_beach_shelters_05mar13.shtml

Very interesting. They were to be demolished last year but the Council didn't get around to it. The cost of demolishing seems very reasonable compared to the risk of a lifeguard or another getting injured & subsequent claim if there is a proven risk.

hyperborean

Eoineo wrote: »

The cost of demolishing seems very reasonable compared to the risk of a lifeguard or another getting injured & subsequent claim if there is a proven risk.

Is there a proven risk?

Eoineo

hyperborean wrote: »

Is there a proven risk?

According to the report linked above there have been incidents in the past. I would assume this qualifies as a risk? The lifeguards would be Council employees, albeit temporary ones for the Summer. They have a duty of care to their employees no?

The shelters aren't protected structures either so the Council is free to demolish them if they see fit I guess. I wonder where they propose to put the temporary lifeguard hut & shop instead now?

hyperborean

Eoineo wrote: »

According to the report linked above there have been incidents in the past. I would assume this qualifies as a risk? The lifeguards would be Council employees, albeit temporary ones for the Summer. They have a duty of care to their employees no?

The shelters aren't protected structures either so the Council is free to demolish them if they see fit I guess. I wonder where they propose to put the temporary lifeguard hut & shop instead now?

What report?

The link has a notice with 5 paragraphs of unsubstantiated prose?

I would like to see the list of legal action through accident and garda reports of incidents directly related to the shelters,

This reminds me of when they were queried about the roadworks at the graveyard and they released a statement about the adverse weather in November, last November being milder than usual didnt occur to them when they wrote the spoof document as they really dont respect the citizens,

Eoineo

Do they have to provide us with that information? I'm no politician so wouldn't know.

I would have thought that if the Council recognised a risk, then they are responsible for taking action to reduce that risk - just like any employer. The shelters aren't designated protected structures so they are free to do what they like with their own property.

While it's wonderful to see such great community spirit and people pulling together, I don't understand kerfuffle over 2 sheds which are used for 3 months of the year at a maximum.

P_1

Eoineo wrote: »

Do they have to provide us with that information? I'm no politician so wouldn't know.

I would have thought that if the Council recognised a risk, then they are responsible for taking action to reduce that risk - just like any employer. The shelters aren't designated protected structures so they are free to do what they like with their own property.

While it's wonderful to see such great community spirit and people pulling together, I don't understand kerfuffle over 2 sheds which are used for 3 months of the year at a maximum.

TBH I'd say most of the kerfuffle is down to the fact that the council haven't provided an adequate explanation as to why they want them knocked down

Eoineo

What's gas is according to the correspondence from the council, they were going to knock them in 2012 but never got around to it. They could have done it in 2012 and we would have been none the wiser until it was done. Or were there representatives aware of the issue last year?

I guess it depends on what you call an adequate explanation? I'm happy enough to assume that the Council act with our best interests in this case, but others aren't.

P_1

Eoineo wrote: »

What's gas is according to the correspondence from the council, they were going to knock them in 2012 but never got around to it. They could have done it in 2012 and we would have been none the wiser until it was done. Or were there representatives aware of the issue last year?

I guess it depends on what you call an adequate explanation? I'm happy enough to assume that the Council act with our best interests in this case, but others aren't.

I guess it depends on what you'd consider being 'in your best interest'.

Off the top of my head I can think of two main reasons why they'd want to knock them down.

1 - To cut down on teenagers knacker drinking there, personally I think they'd still do that with the shelters gone.

2 - To save money on anyone suing because they injured themselves by climbing on them, I don't think that has actually happened but am happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.


Personally I think its much a do over nothing, they've been there for years causing no harm. What's the point in knocking them down?

hyperborean

Eoineo wrote: »

What's gas is according to the correspondence from the council, they were going to knock them in 2012 but never got around to it. They could have done it in 2012 and we would have been none the wiser until it was done. Or were there representatives aware of the issue last year?

I guess it depends on what you call an adequate explanation? I'm happy enough to assume that the Council act with our best interests in this case, but others aren't.

I am the other side of the coin

It is my belief that FCC think it above themselves to engage with the population and when they are forced they are not equal to the task of honest and open debate.

They have given no real reasons for the destruction of these buildings, the "report" is of usual FCC standard, or sub as would be the general concensus.

I have engaged FCC in other matters of interest to me over the years and have found them wanting, both in competance and for their complete unwillingness to take on board constructive criticism. One word comes to mind when I think of FCC, arrogance!

The town council should be doing this anyway, they cost enough (over a €1,000,000 in the last 4 years to service the 9 of them) and it is their role to question FCC.

Maybe the Town council could be disbanded and the money spent on the upkeep o buildings like the shelter, maybe even put the diving board back together, the joys

RobFowl

hyperborean wrote: »

Maybe the Town council could be disbanded and the money spent on the upkeep o buildings like the shelter, maybe even put the diving board back together, the joys

AFAIK the plan is to abolish the town council as part of the local government reforms. Suspect any saving will go to bondholders rather than the community though

Cardinal Richelieu

RobFowl wrote: »

AFAIK the plan is to abolish the town council as part of the local government reforms. Suspect any saving will go to bondholders rather than the community though

Or those fellows on Government Quango Boards!:rolleyes:

Cardinal Richelieu

In fairness the shelters look like they were designed by the same guy who built all those bunkers in Albania. I don't know about the Summer shop but more than likely the Life Guard Shelter will be replaced by a mobile building(container) like they use on Donabate Beach that can be dropped and then removed at the end of summer to be stored in a council yard out of risk from vandals for the rest of the year.

P_1

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

In fairness the shelters look like they were designed by the same guy who built all those bunkers in Albania. I don't know about the Summer shop but more than likely the Life Guard Shelter will be replaced by a mobile building(container) like they use on Donabate Beach that can be dropped and then removed at the end of summer to be stored in a council yard out of risk from vandals for the rest of the year.

A lick of paint would sort that fairly quickly though

Cardinal Richelieu

P_1 wrote: »

A lick of paint would sort that fairly quickly though

For the short term but then due to vandalism how many times have you to paint it in a year to keep it looking in that condition?

P_1

TBH I'd say the metal box would fare worse in terms of vandalism