St Annes Park Planning Application

Seth Brundle

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Why are you people against new homes in a nice area close to town where people actually want to live?


To say your position is dumb and childish would be an understatement.

Many people would say it's NIMBYism!

forgottenhills

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Why are you people against new homes in a nice area close to town where people actually want to live?


To say your position is dumb and childish would be an understatement.

I am in favour of homes being built on suitable sites but not in parks, sporting grounds or communal or environmentally sensitive green spaces which are needed for our people. There is nothing dumb or childish about that.

wowy

forgottenhills wrote: »

The site location as shown on the photos at Facebook page is precisely as per the Site Location Map in the planning application documents and shows the site running along the main central avenue of the park. So its an integral part of the entire St Anne's green space. Why don't you inform yourself or are you just spinning?

You're the one claiming that privately-owned land is part of the park, but I'm the one spinning? Right....

JustAThought

You seem to have missed the entire backstory about this piece of land in the park, how the school asked for it to be fenced off to allow for protection against glass being smashed on the fields after nighttime revellers - how they then secretly did a runner and sold the parkland - how it was still zoned as habitable for only a small gatekeper or night watchman hut or similar and yet deapite al of this, and it sutting in the middle of a conservation are, a UNESCO heritage site for wildlife and also being the feeding and winter nesting site for an internationally protected species of bird that planning for multiple houses and 8 storey blocks of appartments were somehow granted in repeat appeals and applications by the boyos for the new Indian billonaire owners. But dont let multiple sets of corruption and breeches of multiple heritage, environmental and zoning laws and eu conventions get in the way.

Beta Ray Bill

Marcusm wrote: »

I think some of you are misreading the denial which is solely on the basis of a failure to document the impact of any which the development would have on Brent geese and other protected species in Dublin Bay. Isn’t this site on the inland side of the park? I suspect the renewed application will be submitted once the appropriate consideration under the Habitats Directive is undertaken.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

It is not in a park at all!

I depends on who you ask, as to whether the area is part of the park or not.
Originally it belonged to the park, but was "given(ish)" to St Pauls School (they did not purchase it) to set up pitches for the school kids.

But the Pauls sold it a few years back, which they really should not have done, if they didn't want the pitches anymore they should have given them back to the Park.
Note: Clontarf GAA have also objected on the grounds there is major shortage of pitches in the area at the moment.

The area they wish to build is very much "within" park. (red)



Note they also sold the local swimming pool grounds a few years back which was an amenity we'll never get back (blue)

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Jokes on you, you don't know how the planning system works. This is not the end of it.

Applicant will just put in another application shortly (hopefully with even more units)

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind they will, however there is enough Solicitors living around that area to ensure it'll be years and years in the courts.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Many people would say it's NIMBYism!

I have no problem at all with people building private or social housing in the correct areas.
9 story tall buildings belong in the city centre (At the moment), not the suburbs.
The closest non city centre building to it's height would be the hotel in Ballymun, which is 3.6 miles away, it's ridiculous



This business of builders/developers getting planning permission for whatever they want because "Housing Crisis" is so stupid!
They've gone building like crazy in Clongriffin/Belmayne despite major problems both in design, infra capacity planning, and the major social issues they have there. More fuel is being added to the fire. because "Housing Crisis"

The same applies to Clarehall Village, which was the biggest rip off of all. The developer couldn't sell 2 whole blocks of apartments. So they ended up getting sold to a Housing charity (at cost) who in turn moved a large number of scumbags in (Not all scummers but enough to cause a major problem).
Imagine being in your mid 20's and scraping together €30k over a few years for a deposit on an apartment in there, only for 2 whole blocks of people getting their apartments for free and turning the place into a kip

And these places are kips, anyone I know that has a house or apartment (via a mortgage) in Clongriffin or Clarehall can't wait to get out.

People are NIMBYs for sure, I agree with you on that point, but the thing is that have very good reason to be. It's their area, they have to live their. They've worked their whole lives to earn living there, and they don't want it wrecked by some developer looking to turn a quick buck because "Housing Crisis".

I live close to Kilbarrack Dart station. The area has been quiet for years. But in the last 6/7 years they've moved in "the wrong people" to Berach's Place, and now we have MAJOR anti social problems again. No one wants social housing anywhere near them.

dubrov

It's either private land or part of the public park. Which is it?

L1011

dubrov wrote: »

It's either private land or part of the public park. Which is it?

Its private land which basically operated as if it was part of the public park for so long that it will be impossible to tell people locally that it isn't.

If they'd put more effort in to the obviously challengable bits of the application it wouldn't have got thrown out either time .

dubrov

L1011 wrote: »

Its private land which basically operated as if it was part of the public park for so long that it will be impossible to tell people locally that it isn't.

It is the first public park I have seen that is fenced off with no access to the public.

noodler

If they ever try and build in St Anne's then I'll be up in arms.

This isn't in the park.

It's an area of green space with pitches fenced off from the park the public previously had to spend significant sums of money per hour to use.

L1011

dubrov wrote: »

It is the first public park I have seen that is fenced off with no access to the public.

It wasn't originally.

The main issue isn't the objectors, though - its that the planning application was faulty, twice.

It is nice to know its not just government bodies that can make that type of cockup

Sleeper12

forgottenhills wrote:

I am in favour of homes being built on suitable sites but not in parks, sporting grounds or communal or environmentally sensitive green spaces which are needed for our people. There is nothing dumb or childish about that.

I'm against the development but it's not in the park. It has never been in the park. DCC sold this land to the school several years before St Anne's became a park. It is beside the park and not in the park

Marcusm

L1011 wrote: »

It wasn't originally.

The main issue isn't the objectors, though - its that the planning application was faulty, twice.

It is nice to know its not just government bodies that can make that type of cockup

That’s what I was trying to say uptgread. Once the environmental study is undertaken, I would be shocked if it is determined that the redevelopment of playing pitches has a significant impact on the particular fowl in Dublin Bay. Even if they have occupied parts of the park, it is unlikely to be the in wooded areas and I cannot see them sterilising land which seems to be 1km or more from the bay. It shows why Irish construction and development is so inefficient and costly, however.

Beta Ray Bill

Marcusm wrote: »

...
It shows why Irish construction and development is so inefficient and costly.

^^^This^^^

IE: They have no clue on what they're doing.
They just think: Ah sure we'll build there, that'll be grand like. Don't see any problem at all with 9 story apartment blocks which is surrounded by a public park and 3/4 bed semi-D's, with the closest building of similar height over 3 miles away. The residents won't mind 25% of the build going to social housing at all, why would they like? And sure why would they mind their own property being devalued by such a development? We're building homes for people like!, do they not understand that!?
yeah we're ripping up one of their amenities, but so what like, it's not like they all use it.

Developers would build on a graveyard if they thought they'd get planning permission.

The planning authority hasn't a notion, nor do the councils and nor do the politicians.
Like how could planning permission be given to something like this originally where there is so much opposition to it, and people can't getting planning permission for Log Cabins in their back Garden for the kids that are in their late 20's/early 30's.
How has this happened like? How have we arrived in this situation?

Developers are chancers!
Public sector haven't a f**king clue!

An Bord Pleanála is not fit for purpose, needs to be scrapped and start again.
At the very least the power/authority should be given to local councils.
IE The decisions on what's being built is being controlled to some degree by the people said structure will directly affect.

forgottenhills

L1011 wrote: »

It wasn't originally.

The main issue isn't the objectors, though - its that the planning application was faulty, twice.

It is nice to know its not just government bodies that can make that type of cockup

You simply don't seem to get the issue at stake here.

Its not that the planning application is faulty. Its the fact that developers are looking to build on what is an environmentally sensitive site, a site that is part of a larger green space and that should be available as pitches to the local clubs and community as it was previously. There are a severe lack of such pitches locally and taking pitches and green space away and adding more people only makes the situation worse.

Otherwise if it is just a matter of getting a faultless application then if that is the case the right application should allow developers to build housing on Croke Park, St Stephens Green, Bull Island etc etc.

Do you and the developer community place literally no value on ecological or community welfare issues? Are the developer community and hangers on simply driven by greed to the point of losing all other human values? Sometimes it seems that way.

As another poster asked - what is the obsession with building on this site? Can developers not find other sites that are not important green spaces? High rise should belong in the city centre. Surveys have shown that there are enough suitable sites available in Dublin right now for 50 years worth of building. This isn't one of them.

L1011

I entirely understand what the local objections are - but they are never going to stop the site being built on.

The planning has been overturned twice because of faulty applications and nothing else.


The lesson for the future - don't ever trust religious organisations with what should be public property.

forgottenhills

L1011 wrote: »

I entirely understand what the local objections are - but they are never going to stop the site being built on.

The planning has been overturned twice because of faulty applications and nothing else.


The lesson for the future - don't ever trust religious organisations with what should be public property.

The main objection is not local - its a global ecological issue relating to a protected species Brent Geese. You haven't explained how a new application will solve the inconvenient problem of large numbers of Brent geese using the site, assuming the developer's tactic of allowing the grass on the site to grow long and thus banishing the geese is rightly thrown out by the courts, and even if Bord Pleanala somehow once again accept this ruse.

ixoy

Planning permission has been granted. Further pressure on traffic and public transport in the area, not to mention being completely out of kilter with the rest of the local skyline.

hots

Where's the michael scott snipsnap.gif when you need it

Larbre34

This is good news, finally. We need quality housing in mature communities with amenities and facilities to strengthen the City inside the M50.

Raheny isn't sacred, these types of development have been coming on stream in Dundrum and Milltown and Blackrock and Leopardstown and Castleknock and D4 and D6 and all the other nice leafy spots to live. Its excellent news for investment in local schools and for small businesses in the Community.

odyssey06

Larbre34 wrote: »

Raheny isn't sacred,

There has been recent development on that very road and ongoing development in different parts of Raheny.
The objections here were different for obvious reasons.
You appear not to have a notion of the area.

Seth Brundle

odyssey06 wrote: »

There has been recent development on that very road and ongoing development in different parts of Raheny.
The objections here were different for obvious reasons.
You appear not to have a notion of the area.

The objection was principally because people kept claiming that it was part of St. Anne's Park; which it never was.

odyssey06

Seth Brundle wrote: »

The objection was principally because people kept claiming that it was part of St. Anne's Park; which it never was.

That was one of the reasons. It was not the reason why Dublin City Council objected for example.
There was also concern about the specific size of the development given how built-up the area already is.
There are also the ecological concerns and concerns about its impact on the park itself as an amenity (noise during building, visual amenity etc).

For example, if it had been proposed to put in a low impact community facility or amenity on the site, such as an eco hotel, I don't think there would have been nearly as many objections.

roycon111

Seth Brundle wrote: »

The objection was principally because people kept claiming that it was part of St. Anne's Park; which it never was.

It is part of the original grounds of the Guinness family house and was essentially given to the Vincentian fathers to open a school and grounds while the park was given to the people of Dublin so the whole thing is a bit of a grey area.

I can see both sides of the argument but lets look on the bright side. More housing to help ease the housing crisis and lower rents as well

roycon111

Blaming the Vincentian fathers is a bit of an easy out, its not them who decides what gets built or not built and they are certainly not exactly flush with cash unlike say Marlet or the residents of Vernon Avenue

odyssey06

roycon111 wrote: »

Blaming the Vincentian fathers is a bit of an easy out, its not them who decides what gets built or not built and they are certainly not exactly flush with cash unlike say Marlet or the residents of Vernon Avenue

Did they explore selling the land back to DCC I wonder?

Given the position of responsibility they were put into in the community with the land sale to them in the 1950s, and their own declared standards, their behaviour does seem to have put money above all other considerations.

Seth Brundle

odyssey06 wrote: »

That was one of the reasons. It was not the reason why Dublin City Council objected for example.

I was referring to the point about objections "here"...

Seth Brundle wrote: »

odyssey06 wrote: »

There has been recent development on that very road and ongoing development in different parts of Raheny.
The objections here were different for obvious reasons.
You appear not to have a notion of the area.

The objection was principally because people kept claiming that it was part of St. Anne's Park; which it never was.

odyssey06 wrote: »

There was also concern about the specific size of the development given how built-up the area already is.
There are also the ecological concerns and concerns about its impact on the park itself as an amenity (noise during building, visual amenity etc).

For example, if it had been proposed to put in a low impact community facility or amenity on the site, such as an eco hotel, I don't think there would have been nearly as many objections.

In terms of size, this was a bit of a waffle because the developerd reduced the overall height if I recall correctly.
The use of the Birds Directive was clutching at straws to be honest.
As for noise, one could be forgiven for thinking that the objectors were just taking the piss at that stage!

Thelonious Monk

I'm from the area and still live nearby and use the park regularly. It doesn't bother me that these were given planning permission, I hope they might inject a bit of life into the area, maybe we'll get a decent bar and more cafes sooner or later, if there are more young professionals around.
We need more of these developments as close to the city centre as possible. People living here should be able to cycle to the city centre in about 25 mins, hopefully the infrastructure will have improved by the time this development is built.
They'll also be out of most people's price range, I would imagine these will mostly be bought by people from Clontarf and the nicer parts of Raheny. I know I would never be able to afford one, especially if you go on the astronomical prices they wanted for the Sybil Hill development.

roycon111

The more housing that get built the lower the prices. I imagine they'll be coming in somewhere around €500k for the smaller units

JustAThought

Appalling - luxury houses in a public park where the zoned development was Class Z -
only for a caretaker cottage or dwelling to care for the olaying pitches. Disgusting what a multi billion company can ‘persuade’ liwly paid planners to do.

I doubt if CAB will be on this soon - I wonder though why its not in their power to investigate such questionable decisions.

Seth Brundle

JustAThought wrote: »

Appalling - luxury houses in a public park where the zoned development was Class Z -

The. Development. Is. Not. In. A. Public. Park.
Stop reading Facebook crap please!

JustAThought wrote: »

Disgusting what a multi billion company can ‘persuade’ liwly paid planners to do.

Are you suggesting corruption?
Which planners were biught out but the billionare developers? :rolleyes:

JustAThought wrote: »

I doubt if CAB will be on this soon - I wonder though why its not in their power to investigate such questionable decisions.

I doubt that CAB would be on it soon either.
Maybe because nothing illegal is going on despite the conspiracy theory tripe in your post!