St Annes Park Planning Application

teddansonswig

On my ramble today I see that DCC are applying to build an all weather football pitch in by the tennis courts.

linktoDCC

I would like to object, purely because I think theres enough football provisions around the area.
My first time to enquire about objecting and I see theres an E20 euro fee to do so!
I cant believe it, for a public facility! they should be asking for opinions not charging! im raging...

any thoughts on the development?

carlmango11

<offtopic>

How are Government websites always so incredibly s**t!? Who are they paying to churn out such low-standard work? Guarantee they're paying through the nose too.

</offtopic>

Kiltennel

Is this going to be a Gaelic pitch or Soccer pitch? Football can mean either. There's no all weather soccer pitch in the park and the only all weather GAA pitches in the park are down by the Rose Gardens. I'd have no objection to this, the quality of the football pitches in St Annes park is pretty average at best, 1-2 top quality pitches wouldn't hurt at all.

Strumms

teddansonswig wrote: »

On my ramble today I see that DCC are applying to build an all weather football pitch in by the tennis courts.

linktoDCC

I would like to object, purely because I think theres enough football provisions around the area.
My first time to enquire about objecting and I see theres an E20 euro fee to do so!
I cant believe it, for a public facility! they should be asking for opinions not charging! im raging...

any thoughts on the development?

Anything that can give people a chance to remain active and play sports in the winter time when the regular pitches are in a bad state is ok with me. Your reason for objecting is a complete nonsense in my view. St Anne's is a huge public park and one all weather pitch is hardly encroaching on any other amenity within the park. If you have the time and 20 euros to waste on such an objection then knock yourself out. :rolleyes:

Alias G

I don't understand why anyone would want to object to this. Infrastructure such as this is ultimately money well spent by the state. And if an all-weather soccer facility doesn't already exist, then there clearly isn't the required provisions as you state. I know that out my way in Dún Laoghaire, any all-weather football pitches that have been built my the council are completely booked out all the time and they are far from cheap to rent.

January

IMO you can never have too many community facilities like this.

Lovely Bloke

"There's too much football" - what would you rather, a croquet circle? a tiddlywinks table? an ice-rink for Curling? All of which would be huge wastes of money as the uptake or interest in these sports would be minimal.

Seriously, the reason there is "so much" football facilities is because it is the largest participatory team sport in the country, it gets people out and playing sports, and a surface that isn't going to turn into a mudbath with a bit of rain is to be welcomed, imo. It will generate money for the council (average about €70 per hour for the rent of the pitch, probably a bit more. Every night of the week between 5-11, and it WILL be sold out, all you have to do is look at the astro facilities in Coolock to know this).

Christ almighty, such a ridiculous "objection".

Potatoeman

teddansonswig wrote: »

On my ramble today I see that DCC are applying to build an all weather football pitch in by the tennis courts.

linktoDCC

I would like to object, purely because I think theres enough football provisions around the area.
My first time to enquire about objecting and I see theres an E20 euro fee to do so!
I cant believe it, for a public facility! they should be asking for opinions not charging! im raging...

any thoughts on the development?

I take it you dont olay football but Im pretty sure they wont accept that as a valid objection.

chris85

teddansonswig wrote: »

On my ramble today I see that DCC are applying to build an all weather football pitch in by the tennis courts.

linktoDCC

I would like to object, purely because I think theres enough football provisions around the area.
My first time to enquire about objecting and I see theres an E20 euro fee to do so!
I cant believe it, for a public facility! they should be asking for opinions not charging! im raging...

any thoughts on the development?

Of course there is a fee, a fee to cover processing of the appeal. Also stops every little objection being put in. ONce people have to pay something, even if nominal, then they will always think further about it.

I think your objection is poor. This is already a football pitch and the planning is to change to artificial turf and add perimeter fence and floodlights. How can this be bad for the area?

I play for the local rugby club and we have so many issues with the poor weather over the last few months and we cannot get out to train much on grass pitches so we get limited use of an astro pitch at Clontarf Rd. Think about the number of football teams in the area who could benefit from using this in bad weather conditions.

Fully support and hope to see this get approval and be built. An excellent addition to a great local park.

ollaetta

Have to agree with the general consensus here. These all-weather facilities are much needed and welcome additions to our public parks. To be fair to the Dublin councils they are committed to spending the money and putting them in. There is a super new one in Marlay Park near me and it's fantastic to see the use it's getting. Only wish they were there when I was still playing!

teddansonswig

thanks for the replies !
Im only trying to open the debate, and giving my opinion.
Dont think theres any need for 'Christ almighty' thanks baldy.

carlmango11 - its rubbish alright but i guess if it aint broke dont fix it!

Kiltennel- Im not sure either, the app says 'synthetic all-weather football pitch ', my guess is its soccer as the GAA have their pitches. Is the quality of the rest of the pitches that bad? could they not be improved as they are?

Strumms- I whole heartedly agree! more sports fac, more investment! so please dont think im objecting on those grounds.
The location of the new AWFP is being built on the land where the tennis courts are, (not replacing all , but some) so in fact, it is encroaching on another amenity within the park. And again, why not spend some £ sorting out the facilities that are there.


Alias G- Thanks for that, again I'm not objecting to the facility, just its location. you raised an interesting point when you say the pitches out your way are ' far from cheap to rent'. does this not seem like a strange use of a public facility? doesn't it divide 'social football' into 2 camps, those who can afford the steep fees to play an hours FB and those who have to stay on the underfunded regular pitches? I'm not crazy about the park being used like that. would like to see all the pitches getting worked on and not just one (possibly) money making one.


Potatoeman- lol, guilty. prefer tennis! I am a local tho, so its not just about likes and dislikes in sports.

chris85- I think your confused as to the location. there is no pitch near the all saints road area.
Ill agree that it has its benefits for the larger community, I'm coming from the point of view that I live close by and am not a soccer super fan so, as much as it may upset folk my opinion is valid.
Thanks for talking about the planning fees tho, thats 1/2 the point of starting this thread. I fully support the idea that charging a fee stops every little objection, for most matters this is an obvious advantage. otherwise every planning decision would take 10 years I'm sure! My issue is , that this park was donated to the people of Dublin. Its not somebody's house that their extending, its a whole different ball game (excuse the pun).
Am i the only one who thinks its a different situation and that there should be a public consultation that doesn't involve a fee?





have a look at this map of the park, I count 35 football pitches. (not counting st paul's grounds) Im not here suggesting that they are removed and replaced with flowerbeds or anything, but to a non soccer player it seems like a huge amount of the park is already dedicated.
I don't know if there are any remaninig facilities for the players, there was 2 buildings before my time I think. how does that go down with the people who use the pitches? wonder would they prefer A) redoing the pitches as they stand and get a changing hut/shower block ect, or an AWFP that costs an arm to use

The development of the AWFP is replacing public tennis courts. As far as Im aware, there isn't so many of these facilities around. the courts have always been popular in the summer, especially Wimbledon week! should this really be sacrificed for football? One gripe I have with the players and clubs, (its not really relevant but hey) is that at the end of every busy footballing Saturday, there is an obscene amount of rubbish left all over the pitches. There doesn't seem to be any respect for the park from the clubs.
Also, adjacent to the car park on All Saints road, is a basketball court built on the location of the old playground (before it moved inside the park) This court is in bad need of resurfacing, theres puddles everywhere and the ground is coming away, I could be wrong but I don't think it has ever been resurfaced.
and what about hockey?

I have to admit that when I started this thread, I was under the impression that an AWFP would have a roof and be a large building. I'm sure thats not the case, as Chris85 said, it will involve fencing and floodlights. One issue I have is that there is no information in the planning app. to state the opening hours of such a facility. As the floodlights used are that of a thousand suns, as a neighbour Im wondering how late into the winter nights will my house be illuminated, and how late the noise will be. I think that info should be available to locals so they can make an informed objection/support the AWFP.

My position is that these facilities should be built everywhere! but not in st anns, beside a residential development.
Look at the locations of other AWFP, alfie byrne road ( not near residential) coolock lane astroturf (again, no residents) clontarf dart station (same again , its blocked from view of residents)
There is a lot of land around that could suit this proposal. Im thinking of the space that was used for the construction of the port tunnel on Colins Ave / Swords Road. I'd imagine this would be a great space for a large indoor football building or AWFP, some facility anyway. its more connected by bus's and there is a lack of green/ sports grounds around that area.
Theres also the old traffic school in clontarf, think thats still unused.

I hope i have dispelled the idea that I'm against the general idea of these facilities.

chris85

teddansonswig wrote: »

thanks for the replies !
Im only trying to open the debate, and giving my opinion.
Dont think theres any need for 'Christ almighty' thanks baldy.

carlmango11 - its rubbish alright but i guess if it aint broke dont fix it!

Kiltennel- Im not sure either, the app says 'synthetic all-weather football pitch ', my guess is its soccer as the GAA have their pitches. Is the quality of the rest of the pitches that bad? could they not be improved as they are?

Strumms- I whole heartedly agree! more sports fac, more investment! so please dont think im objecting on those grounds.
The location of the new AWFP is being built on the land where the tennis courts are, (not replacing all , but some) so in fact, it is encroaching on another amenity within the park. And again, why not spend some £ sorting out the facilities that are there.


Alias G- Thanks for that, again I'm not objecting to the facility, just its location. you raised an interesting point when you say the pitches out your way are ' far from cheap to rent'. does this not seem like a strange use of a public facility? doesn't it divide 'social football' into 2 camps, those who can afford the steep fees to play an hours FB and those who have to stay on the underfunded regular pitches? I'm not crazy about the park being used like that. would like to see all the pitches getting worked on and not just one (possibly) money making one.


Potatoeman- lol, guilty. prefer tennis! I am a local tho, so its not just about likes and dislikes in sports.

chris85- I think your confused as to the location. there is no pitch near the all saints road area.
Ill agree that it has its benefits for the larger community, I'm coming from the point of view that I live close by and am not a soccer super fan so, as much as it may upset folk my opinion is valid.
Thanks for talking about the planning fees tho, thats 1/2 the point of starting this thread. I fully support the idea that charging a fee stops every little objection, for most matters this is an obvious advantage. otherwise every planning decision would take 10 years I'm sure! My issue is , that this park was donated to the people of Dublin. Its not somebody's house that their extending, its a whole different ball game (excuse the pun).
Am i the only one who thinks its a different situation and that there should be a public consultation that doesn't involve a fee?





have a look at this map of the park, I count 35 football pitches. (not counting st paul's grounds) Im not here suggesting that they are removed and replaced with flowerbeds or anything, but to a non soccer player it seems like a huge amount of the park is already dedicated.
I don't know if there are any remaninig facilities for the players, there was 2 buildings before my time I think. how does that go down with the people who use the pitches? wonder would they prefer A) redoing the pitches as they stand and get a changing hut/shower block ect, or an AWFP that costs an arm to use

The development of the AWFP is replacing public tennis courts. As far as Im aware, there isn't so many of these facilities around. the courts have always been popular in the summer, especially Wimbledon week! should this really be sacrificed for football? One gripe I have with the players and clubs, (its not really relevant but hey) is that at the end of every busy footballing Saturday, there is an obscene amount of rubbish left all over the pitches. There doesn't seem to be any respect for the park from the clubs.
Also, adjacent to the car park on All Saints road, is a basketball court built on the location of the old playground (before it moved inside the park) This court is in bad need of resurfacing, theres puddles everywhere and the ground is coming away, I could be wrong but I don't think it has ever been resurfaced.
and what about hockey?

I have to admit that when I started this thread, I was under the impression that an AWFP would have a roof and be a large building. I'm sure thats not the case, as Chris85 said, it will involve fencing and floodlights. One issue I have is that there is no information in the planning app. to state the opening hours of such a facility. As the floodlights used are that of a thousand suns, as a neighbour Im wondering how late into the winter nights will my house be illuminated, and how late the noise will be. I think that info should be available to locals so they can make an informed objection/support the AWFP.

My position is that these facilities should be built everywhere! but not in st anns, beside a residential development.
Look at the locations of other AWFP, alfie byrne road ( not near residential) coolock lane astroturf (again, no residents) clontarf dart station (same again , its blocked from view of residents)
There is a lot of land around that could suit this proposal. Im thinking of the space that was used for the construction of the port tunnel on Colins Ave / Swords Road. I'd imagine this would be a great space for a large indoor football building or AWFP, some facility anyway. its more connected by bus's and there is a lack of green/ sports grounds around that area.
Theres also the old traffic school in clontarf, think thats still unused.

I hope i have dispelled the idea that I'm against the general idea of these facilities.

There is a pitch there. The location of this is south side of the small river running through the park and located directly south of the tennis courts. This is already a pitch. Check google maps. I also run by there often and definitely a pitch.

There is already lots of info in the plan about floodlighting. There are going to use hooded lights to reduce encroachment of light to outside and mentions this being 140m from nearest street there would be no issue. This location is not on the edge of the park, its a bit into it in fairness.

Why shouldnt they be built in a park. Your argument is they could be built anywhere. WHy not place them in the heart of the community where plenty of sports take place. By having this in the park it results in them not having to build a building for changing as mentioned in the application.

This is not replacing tennis courts. See the map again. The tennis courts are still located north of the proposed pitch.

schemingbohemia

teddansonswig wrote: »

On my ramble today I see that DCC are applying to build an all weather football pitch in by the tennis courts.

linktoDCC

I would like to object, purely because I think theres enough football provisions around the area.
My first time to enquire about objecting and I see theres an E20 euro fee to do so!
I cant believe it, for a public facility! they should be asking for opinions not charging! im raging...

any thoughts on the development?

So you've totally changed your tune from your OP....people can only respond to what you wrote not what you think you wrote or what was in your head.

Alias G

teddansonswig wrote: »

@ Alias G- Thanks for that, again I'm not objecting to the facility, just its location. you raised an interesting point when you say the pitches out your way are ' far from cheap to rent'. does this not seem like a strange use of a public facility? doesn't it divide 'social football' into 2 camps, those who can afford the steep fees to play an hours FB and those who have to stay on the underfunded regular pitches? I'm not crazy about the park being used like that. would like to see all the pitches getting worked on and not just one (possibly) money making one.

.

I think you have missed the point I was trying to make. I was merely pointing out that despite the high cost of renting an AWFP, they are still booked solid which is an indication of how poular they are and why more are required. The cost of rental however falls on a particular football club as a whole. This cost may be funded through membership fees or players may pay 5 euro or so every time they the use the facility. Certainly no individuals are priced out of it.

fleck

There is no 20 euro fee for submissions in regard to this, see here http://www.dublincity.ie/PLANNING/PLANNINGPERMISSION/Pages/ObjectSupport.aspx

"Please note that no fee will apply to a submission/observation on a Local Authority Works (LAW) application"

ozmo

Is this the same application? (if not might need a separate thread)

It seems St. Pauls School have sold off a large percentage of what I thought was St. Annes park for housing (220 houses and apartments).


The area they are in charge of is marked out in red with the green pin in this image:


So then proposed site - the area bordered by pitches 1, 2, 3 & 7 the Millennium Arboretum & the main avenue.

(Following is Not my facebook - but only info I have right now)

https://www.facebook.com/georginamooresmyth
"St. Paul's school have sold a big chunk of St. Annes Park to a developer who plans to seek planning to build 220 houses and apartments on the site. I had always believed that St. Annes was given to the citizens of Dublin/Dublin Corporation by the Guinness family on the basis that the St. Annes housing estate would be built for those who wished to move out of the inner city while the rest would remain as parkland, an amenity for all of the people of Dublin. There is a meeting on Friday (18 Sept 2015) in St. Pauls, not sure who is organising that but I will be going along to find out. Just thought all my friends, family and fellow Dubs should know - before it's all done and dusted."



Has anyone any more details of the above ?

whiskeyman

More info here:
http://www.clontarf.ie/news/sale-of-st-pauls-college-lands-cra-statement

http://www.herald.ie/news/vincentians-agree-to-sell-part-of-sports-grounds-for-25m-31062660.html

29 yr old developer!
We're back baby!

ozmo

Some more info:

If you browse to http://www.myplan.ie/viewer

You can see what that land is currently zoned for...

But to have paid 25 Million for the land - they must seem very sure they can have that changed to Housing...

Local Authority Zone:
Zone Z15: Community and Institutional Resource Lands (Education, Recreation, Community, Green Infrastructure and Health)

Local Authority Zone Description:
To provide for institutional, educational, recreational, community, green infrastructure, and health uses.

GZT Zone:
S5 - Mixed/general community services/facilities uses

Found some more information on it here: (edit - whiskeyman just posted this one now before me)

http://www.clontarf.ie/news/sale-of-st-pauls-college-lands-cra-statement

New Generation Homes confirms that it has contracted to buy lands at St Paul’s College Raheny, Dublin, from the Vincentian Order. The company intends to build private homes and improved sports and community facilities on the site, and will shortly begin the planning process in this regard.

Pete_Cavan

Surprised nobody has mentioned this, application has now been made to build 107 houses and 274 apartments on 15 acres formerly part of the playing fields of St Paul’s College secondary school. Link to application here.

There was an article about it and the developer, who considers himself as “the Ronaldo of the property market”, in the IT during the week;

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/almost-400-homes-proposed-for-lands-next-to-st-anne-s-park-1.2413401

It is worrying that land sold by from the then Dublin Corporation to the Vincentian order in the 1950s, which has provided sporting facilities to generations, can be now sold to a developer for housing. Although, unless there was a clause in the original sale about not reselling the land for development, there is probably nothing that can be done about it. Certainly sticks in the throat that the order can make so much money from selling the land now.

Hopefully the application will be rejected due to the zoning of the land in question. As per Ozmo's link above, the land is zoned Zone Z15: to protect and provide for Community and Institutional use. That zoning is to be retained according to the Draft Dublin City Development Plan, 2016-2022. I cant see how 107 houses and 274 apartments could fall under that category but, as said above, its hard to believe that someone would have paid such money unless they were sure they would get planning. Hopefully the sale was "subject to planning".

Perhaps our elected officials can stop worrying about drivers losing view of the sea for 30 seconds and focus on the loss of green space and sports facilities which could have far greater impact on the people of the area. Maybe this time they can step in at planning stage (when the scheme can be rejected or changes can be made at no cost) rather than half way through construction. Last Date for Observations on the planning application: 01-Dec-2015

ozmo

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

It is worrying that land sold by from the then Dublin Corporation to the Vincentian order in the 1950s, which has provided sporting facilities to generations, can be now sold to a developer for housing.

The developer and order is trying to placate the footballers by saying an all weather facility would be put in place to replace the pitches (astro turf? roofed?) - I imagine there would be charges to use these new facilities?

But its not all about the sports pitches - its a major incursion into the park used by many others - I hope there are some good residents associations in the area.

spurious

Where is it intended that all the cars from the development will access the road system?

Pete_Cavan

ozmo wrote: »

The developer and order is trying to placate the footballers by saying an all weather facility would be put in place to replace the pitches (astro turf? roofed?) - I imagine there would be charges to use these new facilities?

The new sports facilities will consist of 1 no. 134m x 85m multi-use pitch (a full sized GAA pitch with rugby play across half the pitch), 1 no. 32m x 54m soccer pitch (a 5-a-side pitch) and a multipurpose sports hall (1,467 sq. m.). A big step down from the 6 pitches there at present. With only one pitch shared between all sports, access to the pitch will be very limited. School sports will probably require the pitch most of the time so limited availability for outside clubs. The School Needs Assessment document as part of the planning application states "the future use of the school above its current pupil level does not require the extend of the existing sports pitch facilities". Basically they are going to have an extra 1,175 people living in the area (from the School Needs Assessment) but the loss of 5 sports pitches will be grand because the school will still be able to run their sports programme, pitches for clubs is DCCs problem. Charging for use of the pitch would be at the discretion of the Vicentians.

spurious wrote: »

Where is it intended that all the cars from the development will access the road system?

The most northern entrance into St Pauls will become the access road into the houses which will go between the college and the Vincentians building.

All documents relating to the planning application can be viewed using my link above under the View Documents tab. The site layout is;

http://www.dublincity.ie/AnitePublicDocs/00529923.pdf

a-ha

ozmo wrote: »

The developer and order is trying to placate the footballers by saying an all weather facility would be put in place to replace the pitches (astro turf? roofed?) - I imagine there would be charges to use these new facilities?

But its not all about the sports pitches - its a major incursion into the park used by many others - I hope there are some good residents associations in the area.

It is a huge incursion into the park and absolute disaster for the area. The authorities have a lot to answer for if this goes ahead. The idea of houses being constructed here is simply outrageous - this is one of Dublin's finest public parks although these lands have belonged to a religious order since the 1950s the public have always used them. My understanding is that there were originally restrictive covenants attached to this land, although I could be wrong (does anyone on this thread have information about this?) which were intended to preserve them as green spaces. The lands have certainly been used by local sports clubs for generations and were originally owned by DCC.

Here's an article about the local sports teams affected by the planned development:

http://www.herald.ie/news/underage-gaa-club-devastated-over-pitch-sale-31068709.html

a-ha

More about it here:

https://www.facebook.com/I-Love-St-Annes-161650950842503/?fref=ts

EB_2013

Sorry if going off topic but will the old St Paul's swimming pool site be included in the proposals. That sites been sitting empty now for quite a while.

I remember hearing about developing it into apartments but haven't heard anything recently.

Pete_Cavan

The same developer has had houses in Rathmines rejected as “sub-standard” for having tiny back gardens, hopefully he gets the same treatment with the St Annes Park development;

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/ronaldo-drops-the-ball-in-rathmines-1.2418648

EB_2013 wrote: »

Sorry if going off topic but will the old St Paul's swimming pool site be included in the proposals. That sites been sitting empty now for quite a while.

I remember hearing about developing it into apartments but haven't heard anything recently.

The proposed construction area as already been posted;

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

All documents relating to the planning application can be viewed using my link above under the View Documents tab. The site layout is;

http://www.dublincity.ie/AnitePublicDocs/00529923.pdf

AsianDub

Do you send your objection to planning@dublincity.ie quoting the Planning Application Reference number 3899/15 ?

There is a public meeting regarding this on Wednesday 18th in Raheny United Clubhouse with Aodhan O Riordain TD & Cllr Jane Horgan.

Edit: Nevermind.Info here http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/planning_permission/commenting_on_planning_application.html

Pete_Cavan

Planning application rejected on a technicality but developer has said he will reapply;

http://www.thejournal.ie/st-annes-park-planning-rejected-2481116-Dec2015/

odyssey06

The cynic in me wonders if the technicality was a genuine mistake on the part of the developer or an attempt to delay and take some of the steam out of the opposition campaign...

ozmo

odyssey06 wrote: »

The cynic in me wonders if the technicality was a genuine mistake on the part of the developer or an attempt to delay and take some of the steam out of the opposition campaign...

Its a fortunate time for them to enter a new planning application - over the Christmas holidays - would minimise the days people will be available or be in the mind to object I imagine...

wowy

ozmo wrote: »

Its a fortunate time for them to enter a new planning application - over the Christmas holidays - would minimise the days people will be available or be in the mind to object I imagine...

There's an approx 10-day period over the Christmas holidays which is not included as part of the planning application timeline; so if anything it's no benefit to the developer as the application will be live with notices up and open for objections/submissions for an additional 10 or so days than if they applied any other time of the year.

newacc2015

odyssey06 wrote: »

The cynic in me wonders if the technicality was a genuine mistake on the part of the developer or an attempt to delay and take some of the steam out of the opposition campaign...

I will imagine a genuine mistake. Having the land sit there while dealing with the planning is costing them money. Developers dont care about this local resident groups.

spurious

They often test the waters to see what sort of a ruckus there will be. Then slip in an application in Irish and stick the 'public' notices in a bush somewhere.

Gumbo

ozmo wrote: »

Its a fortunate time for them to enter a new planning application - over the Christmas holidays - would minimise the days people will be available or be in the mind to object I imagine...

Not really. Extra time allowed for objections. Some days over the break do not count towards the 8 week process.

Plus all the time you have site notices on the ground at risk of been removed/vandalised.

Pete_Cavan

Plus I read that DCC will be giving those who made submissions their money back so objectors wont be out of pocket on this being rejected, they can put the money towards objecting to the new application.

newacc2015

Where do these people objecting think Dubliners should live? That Dublin should keep sprawling like a mini-LA and continue on into Kildare and up as far as Cavan? Dublin already has a ridiculous amount of under utilised parks. Dubliners dont use their parks enough to justify every suburbs in Dublin having a few massive parks which are really only for relaxation(Most have footpath unsuitable for running and the parks are designed that park games arent generally possible. You arent allowed to play football even in the quiet greens in the city centre).

John_Rambo

newacc2015 wrote: »

Where do these people objecting think Dubliners should live? That Dublin should keep sprawling like a mini-LA and continue on into Kildare and up as far as Cavan?.

Nonsense post, plenty of empty spaces close to the city that yet have to be developed, look at the Irish Glass site for one.

newacc2015 wrote: »

Dublin already has a ridiculous amount of under utilised parks.

Who told you this? Dubliners love their parks and they’re used every day.

newacc2015 wrote: »

Dubliners dont use their parks enough to justify every suburbs in Dublin having a few massive parks which are really only for relaxation(Most have footpath unsuitable for running and the parks are designed that park games arent generally possible. You arent allowed to play football even in the quiet greens in the city centre).

What are you on about? This proposed development is on actual playing fields in the park!

Have you ever been to this park?

Pete_Cavan

newacc2015 wrote: »

Where do these people objecting think Dubliners should live? That Dublin should keep sprawling like a mini-LA and continue on into Kildare and up as far as Cavan? Dublin already has a ridiculous amount of under utilised parks. Dubliners dont use their parks enough to justify every suburbs in Dublin having a few massive parks which are really only for relaxation(Most have footpath unsuitable for running and the parks are designed that park games arent generally possible. You arent allowed to play football even in the quiet greens in the city centre).

There is a huge amount of underused land within the M50. Developers just want to build on flat greenfield sites like this at SAP because they are cheaper to develop and it maximises profit. There is 61 hectares of vacant or derelict land in Dublin, lack of land is not the problem, lack of ambition and/or coercion to develop it is. Allowing currently utilised green space to be developed for housing is not going to solve the housing shortage, it will only lead to a lack of recreational space in the future. There are currently 6 pitches on the area proposed development, this will be reduced to just one pitch but the local population will increase by more than 1,000 people. Not only is recreational space being lost, the remaining space has to serve a greater number of people. Any "quiet greens" where football is banned is most likely due to not having sufficient space to play football while also allowing for other recreation of the local population, I wonder how that situation arises? Vacant or derelict land should be developed to a suitable density with sufficient green space retained, not developing green space to allow some developer maximise his profits.

ozmo

newacc2015 wrote: »

I will imagine a genuine mistake. Having the land sit there while dealing with the planning is costing them money. Developers dont care about this local resident groups.

Oops - curious to see if it was resubmitted - and it seems I missed the objection date by a few days

looks like their plan, if it was a plan, worked.


https://www.facebook.com/I-Love-St-Annes-161650950842503/

New Planning Reference is 4185/15

newacc2015

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

There is a huge amount of underused land within the M50. Developers just want to build on flat greenfield sites like this at SAP because they are cheaper to develop and it maximises profit. There is 61 hectares of vacant or derelict land in Dublin, lack of land is not the problem, lack of ambition and/or coercion to develop it is. Allowing currently utilised green space to be developed for housing is not going to solve the housing shortage, it will only lead to a lack of recreational space in the future. There are currently 6 pitches on the area proposed development, this will be reduced to just one pitch but the local population will increase by more than 1,000 people. Not only is recreational space being lost, the remaining space has to serve a greater number of people. Any "quiet greens" where football is banned is most likely due to not having sufficient space to play football while also allowing for other recreation of the local population, I wonder how that situation arises? Vacant or derelict land should be developed to a suitable density with sufficient green space retained, not developing green space to allow some developer maximise his profits.

How long will 61 hectares be sufficient for Dublin's housing needs? It is a fraction of the land needed for housing in the city. It is not even 0.5% of the size of Dublin City. Where are Dubliners supposed to live when all of this land is developed? People seem to forget that Dublin is still growing. Even if all the vacant sites were developed tomorrow. There still would be a shortage of housing.

Change the by laws to permit allow ball games on the greens. There is that problem solved. The existing by laws of no ball games in DCC arent enforced anyway. Make a condition of the planning, that the developer needs to install a few more pitches in the park. Make them all weather so they are actually usable in this climate.

What good is keeping a massive park, if there is actually nothing to use in it?

spurious

newacc2015 wrote: »

What good is keeping a massive park, if there is actually nothing to use in it?

You really must never have been to St. Anne's. It's full of things to do. From Petanque courts to markets, to remote controlled cars, to dog runs, to children's playgrounds, tennis, pitch and putt, allotments... Far more than other parks.

OldGoat

...arborium, playing fields, river walk, wood sculptures, architectural follies, walled garden, the rose gardens...

tricky D

...shed loads of wildlife...

OldGoat

...shed loads of nightlife...

Gloomtastic!

tricky D wrote: »

...shed loads of wildlife...

Grey squirrels, rats and eh, eh, that's about it..... :rolleyes:

whiskeyman

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

Grey squirrels, rats and eh, eh, that's about it..... :rolleyes:

Mammals present in the park include badgers, hedgehogs, rabbits, fox, grey squirrels, house mice, field mice, pipistrelle bats and brown rats. Birds include sparrow hawk, woodcock and jay. The park has a greater than average diversity of bee species and is also notable for many species of butterflies. Also many ducks and swans in the parks ponds.

The park has a range of vegetation habitats and many historic trees. The plant collections are of national importance. There are also protected native plants and species of botanical interest

:rolleyes:

schemingbohemia

spurious wrote: »

You really must never have been to St. Anne's. It's full of things to do. From Petanque courts to markets, to remote controlled cars, to dog runs, to children's playgrounds, tennis, pitch and putt, allotments... Far more than other parks.

OldGoat wrote: »

...arborium, playing fields, river walk, wood sculptures, architectural follies, walled garden, the rose gardens...

tricky D wrote: »

...shed loads of wildlife...

whiskeyman wrote: »

Mammals present in the park include badgers, hedgehogs, rabbits, fox, grey squirrels, house mice, field mice, pipistrelle bats and brown rats. Birds include sparrow hawk, woodcock and jay. The park has a greater than average diversity of bee species and is also notable for many species of butterflies. Also many ducks and swans in the parks ponds.

The park has a range of vegetation habitats and many historic trees. The plant collections are of national importance. There are also protected native plants and species of botanical interest

:rolleyes:

But none of that is on the land which is the subject of the planning application. They're currently sports grounds, disused ones at that.

bren2001

schemingbohemia wrote: »

But none of that is on the land which is the subject of the planning application. They're currently sports grounds, disused ones at that.

They are not disused at all. The school uses them quite a bit for PE, rugby training and a small bit of GAA sport. Belgrove also use the pitches at the weekend for underage games, the juvenile and nursery of Clontarf GAA also uses the pitches on weekends. They are very much used.

John_Rambo

schemingbohemia wrote: »

But none of that is on the land which is the subject of the planning application. They're currently sports grounds, disused ones at that.

Who told you they're disused? Nonsense.

Had the pleasure to see a barn owl winging it's way over the playing fields tonight. There's been peregrine falcon, little egret and sightings in the park recently too. (Egrets on the playing fields and in the Nanakin)

KomradeBishop

Man this is fúcking ridiculous - a 5 week limit for planning objections? That law is totally setup, to allow developers to game the planning system - and that's exactly what this developer has done, by taking the wind out of planning objections through re-applying on a technicality! (and over the holiday season too)

Here is a petition page against this:
https://www.change.org/p/planning-department-dublin-city-council-say-no-to-building-on-st-paul-s-playing-fields-st-anne-s-park-raheny

Given that there is a General Election coming up in a couple of weeks, this is the perfect time to talk to local candidates running for election (regardless of whether you're going to vote for them or not), and tell them to support:
1: Blocking this residential development.
2: Repealing the law that allowed this land to be rezoned in the first place - this land should never have become eligible for development.
3: Repeal the law that puts a time-limit on planning objections.

Get all of the Dublin Bay North candidates (or those in your own area) to make public statements about this, and then plaster their response or non-response all over the park.

This isn't something to be a factor in deciding who to vote for, but it's an easy way to pile pressure on this issue.

schemingbohemia

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Man this is fúcking ridiculous - a 5 week limit for planning objections? That law is totally setup, to allow developers to game the planning system - and that's exactly what this developer has done, by taking the wind out of planning objections through re-applying on a technicality! (and over the holiday season too)

Here is a petition page against this:
https://www.change.org/p/planning-department-dublin-city-council-say-no-to-building-on-st-paul-s-playing-fields-st-anne-s-park-raheny

Given that there is a General Election coming up in a couple of weeks, this is the perfect time to talk to local candidates running for election (regardless of whether you're going to vote for them or not), and tell them to support:
1: Blocking this residential development.
2: Repealing the law that allowed this land to be rezoned in the first place - this land should never have become eligible for development.
3: Repeal the law that puts a time-limit on planning objections.

Get all of the Dublin Bay North candidates (or those in your own area) to make public statements about this, and then plaster their response or non-response all over the park.

This isn't something to be a factor in deciding who to vote for, but it's an easy way to pile pressure on this issue.

3 is just plain stupid sorry, how would any decision ever be made if there was no time limit on objections?

2 what law are you talking about? are you saying that no land should ever be rezoned? So that we should leave brownfield sites only for commercial/industrial forever? Or that underused or disused land should never ever be able to be built on? That's just not workable either, times change, needs change.
Your proposal would mean that we'd continue the bad planning whereby houses are built in a donut shape further and further outside the M50 which is what has led us to the problems we currently face, it would exacerbate the poxy planning we've seen in this country to date.