St Annes Park Planning Application

dubrov

JustAThought wrote:

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.

So much misinformation. It is not part of the public park but adjacent to it. It has no playing pitches on it and is in private ownership.

The council would have to purchase it to make available to the public. Given the amenities already available in st. Anne's, this would be a poor use of resources

roycon111

Let us break down your comment

1.) Not a public park (although arguably it has many of the characteristics of a public park and can be used by the public)
2.) Not a multi billion company
3.) This is a libelous comment
4.) it is in the courts power and it has been reviewed by them already twice


I suggest you review the Dublin development plan

All zoned "Z15 - To protect and provide for institutional and community uses" - https://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/Planning/DublinCityDevelopmentPlan/MapsetB.pdf

Open for Consideration under Z15
"Open for Consideration Uses
Bed and breakfast, car park ancillary to main use,
conference centre, funeral home, guest house,
hostel, hotel, municipal golf course, residential,
student accommodation, training centre."

odyssey06

roycon111 wrote: »

I suggest you review the Dublin development plan
All zoned "Z15 - To protect and provide for institutional and community uses" - https://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/Planning/DublinCityDevelopmentPlan/MapsetB.pdf

Open for Consideration under Z15
"Open for Consideration Uses
Bed and breakfast, car park ancillary to main use,
conference centre, funeral home, guest house,
hostel, hotel, municipal golf course, residential,
student accommodation, training centre."

"Z15 - To protect and provide for institutional and community uses."

This is not an institutional and community uses.
DCC objected as it is contrary to the Dublin development plan: ""The proposed development is not considered to be consistent with the Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022."

This is a primarily residential use.

Residential in this zoning was intended to mean accomodation to support the institutional use only such as student accomdation, conference accomodation, religious order accomodation. Not a housing estate.

roycon111

odyssey06 wrote: »

"Z15 - To protect and provide for institutional and community uses."

This is not an institutional and community uses.
DCC objected as it is contrary to the Dublin development plan: ""The proposed development is not considered to be consistent with the Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022."

This is a primarily residential use.

Residential in this zoning was intended to mean accomodation to support the institutional use only such as student accomdation, conference accomodation, religious order accomodation. Not a housing estate.

Residential is "Open to Consideration" it says. It was openly considered .... and then permitted.

It doesn't say anything about supporting institutional use you have alas made that part up. I suggest you have a detailed read through the plan. It is very very detailed.

roycon111

Lol at the people from Clontarf trying to play the elitist card, This will be some of the cheapest accommodation you can get in clontarf

odyssey06

roycon111 wrote: »

Residential is "Open to Consideration" it says. It was openly considered .... and then permitted.

It doesn't say anything about supporting institutional use you have alas made that part up. I suggest you have a detailed read through the plan. It is very very detailed.

There's a history to Z15:
The High Court ruled that a ban on private residential development on all institutional lands in the city's current development plan was too restrictive and quashed the zonings known as Z15. A special meeting of councillors tonight agreed to a city manager's report that redefined Z15 zoning to state that residential is "open to consideration".
https://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0128/364987-dublin-city-council-zoning/

dubrov

John_Rambo wrote:

The site is in Raheny, not Clontarf. Interesting to see the address being "upgraded" though.

In fairness, there isn't much between the proposed site's proximity to existing housing in Clontarf and Raheny.

I'd say there are a similar number of objections from both areas

ixoy

It doesn't seem like there's any planned upgrade of existing infrastructure though and that should be a mandatory part of any such large-scale building project. The public transport is creaking at the seams in the area - anyone who claims that it's perfect as it has the DART obviously hasn't taken it in a while from Harmonstown / Killester (pre-pandemic!) at rush hour. Buses on the Howth Road similarly busy enough as well as the 130.

So all that congestion, unless rectified, will impact myself (FWIW, I'm about 10 minutes walk from the park so close enough) and I'm sure others will have the same, or issues around schooling, etc.

tricky D

Mod: The Killester/Raheny/wherever the line in the sand in drawn, debate is of so little importance to the actual matter at hand and not worth having a spat over, so no more of that thank you.

Posts removed.

If you have a problem with a post: report, do not respond.

Do not respond to this message in thread.

Thelonious Monk

ixoy wrote: »

It doesn't seem like there's any planned upgrade of existing infrastructure though and that should be a mandatory part of any such large-scale building project. The public transport is creaking at the seams in the area - anyone who claims that it's perfect as it has the DART obviously hasn't taken it in a while from Harmonstown / Killester (pre-pandemic!) at rush hour. Buses on the Howth Road similarly busy enough as well as the 130.

So all that congestion, unless rectified, will impact myself (FWIW, I'm about 10 minutes walk from the park so close enough) and I'm sure others will have the same, or issues around schooling, etc.

In fairness what developments have been built alongside upgraded infrastructure? Haven't they also green lighted a sh*t load of apartments on the old Chivers site on the Malahide road? 550 apartments I just read. The Malahide road is at total capacity with traffic and buses all the time pretty much.

We don't do infrastructure upgrades along with housing in this country, I can only hope that these developments and the strain they put on existing infrastructure will get the powers that be to get the finger out.

L1011

There's significant bus capacity enhancement projects under planning/consultation for some time. The DART line will get attention in turn, looking at 8-10 years for anything except maybe longer DARTs

Thelonious Monk

L1011 wrote: »

There's significant bus capacity enhancement projects under planning/consultation for some time. The DART line will get attention in turn, looking at 8-10 years for anything except maybe longer DARTs

Nothing you can do with the dart really unless they add extra tracks for the northern trains.

odyssey06

L1011 wrote: »

There's significant bus capacity enhancement projects under planning/consultation for some time. The DART line will get attention in turn, looking at 8-10 years for anything except maybe longer DARTs

That might help Malahide Road developments, but I don't see any increased capacity covering Howth Road?
And even saying that, the increased bus capacity there is just going to meet actual current demand.
It'll quickly be exceeded unless WFH sticks.

It's just not good enough for a major development to point 'DART' as a reason for why it can be sited where it is when the dogs on the street know it's already maxxed out.

deandean

Unfortunately, as has happened in almost all large apartment developments in Dublin in the last year, most or even all these new apartments will probably be purchased in bulk by some overseas investment fund, and be supplied to the rental market only. Rents will be about 1/3 more than a private buyer's mortgage. And the new owners will prefer to leave any amount of the apartments vacant if they don't get their high rent - as is happening at present.

Seth Brundle

deandean wrote: »

Unfortunately, as has happened in almost all large apartment developments in Dublin in the last year, most or even all these new apartments will probably be purchased in bulk by some overseas investment fund, and be supplied to the rental market only. Rents will be about 1/3 more than a private buyer's mortgage. And the new owners will prefer to leave any amount of the apartments vacant if they don't get their high rent - as is happening at present.

High rents are an outcome of a property shortage in a high-demand area.
But most people on here that object to the development obviously prefer the idea of less properties in the greater Raheny area.
It's simply ridiculous to think that an area so close to a thriving city centre cannot handle developments such as this one. If anything, we need a lot more of them rather than NIMBYists getting.
On the flip side, many people cannot afford to buy the low density properties in the likes of Raheny and are therefore pushed further afield which encourages urban sprawl, land hoarding by wealthy developers (which in itself drives up property prices), difficulties in getting basics services such as schools and public transport.

Thelonious Monk

Seth Brundle wrote: »

High rents are an outcome of a property shortage in a high-demand area.
But most people on here that object to the development obviously prefer the idea of less properties in the greater Raheny area.
It's simply ridiculous to think that an area so close to a thriving city centre cannot handle developments such as this one. If anything, we need a lot more of them rather than NIMBYists getting.
On the flip side, many people cannot afford to buy the low density properties in the likes of Raheny and are therefore pushed further afield which encourages urban sprawl, land hoarding by wealthy developers (which in itself drives up property prices), difficulties in getting basics services such as schools and public transport.

Exactly. I'm from the area, still live there, and for a place so close to the city centre it's very low density and totally lacking in character and life. It needs more development and people.

expectationlost

https://twitter.com/lostexpectation/status/1305864490374836224

Thelonious Monk

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/high-court-overturns-new-planning-permission-for-657-apartments-for-st-annes-park-in-raheny-40398470.html

Having been going here nearly every day since the pandemic began, have to say I'm pleased with this, regardless of my previous posts! I don't know anyone who'd have been able to afford the no doubt astronomical prices they'd charge anyway.

odyssey06

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/high-court-overturns-new-planning-permission-for-657-apartments-for-st-annes-park-in-raheny-40398470.html

Having been going here nearly every day since the pandemic began, have to say I'm pleased with this, regardless of my previous posts! I don't know anyone who'd have been able to afford the no doubt astronomical prices they'd charge anyway.

The decision is a pretty damning indictment of the basic competence of An Bord Pleanála in how it came to its decision, and for me raises wider questions about how fit for purpose it is.
People shouldn't have to go to the High Court to get a state body to do its job properly.

Mr Justice Humphreys said the Z15 zoning stated the developer was “required to demonstrate” the criteria are met and that “certainly has not been done”.
The board’s inspector, and the board, erred in how they approached this matter and the inspector’s analysis was fundamentally flawed, he held.

Excellent win for the community. The usual acquisitions of NIMBY-ism from people who probably live nowhere near it we’re to be expected but the tide is changing now and this development would have been an obnoxious example of a large developer backed by international funds maxing out their speculative land purchase to sell the most amount of apartments for the BTR market.

Thelonious Monk

I never actually appreciated the park properly until I started jogging there last year. I live much closer to the Chivers site than St Anne's, and development there doesn't bother me at all but with the lack of green spaces around here this is a welcome decision.

bren2001

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I never actually appreciated the park properly until I started jogging there last year. I live much closer to the Chivers site than St Anne's, and development there doesn't bother me at all but with the lack of green spaces around here this is a welcome decision.

The development at the Chivers site bothers me because I have no idea how the local infrastructure is going to cope with that many new units. Traffic is already horrendous around there. However, I wouldn't object to it. It'll sort itself out in time (maybe).



St Annes is a different kettle of fish I strongly object to!

Thelonious Monk

bren2001 wrote: »

The development at the Chivers site bothers me because I have no idea how the local infrastructure is going to cope with that many new units. Traffic is already horrendous around there. However, I wouldn't object to it. It'll sort itself out in time (maybe).



St Annes is a different kettle of fish I strongly object to!

I don't drive very often so I guess that's why I don't care, but I understand your concern. They'd want to get bus connects up and running properly on the Malahide Road asap to cater for the new development.

dubrov

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/high-court-overturns-new-planning-permission-for-657-apartments-for-st-annes-park-in-raheny-40398470.html

Having been going here nearly every day since the pandemic began, have to say I'm pleased with this, regardless of my previous posts! I don't know anyone who'd have been able to afford the no doubt astronomical prices they'd charge anyway.

Strange rationale. Don't build supply as prices are too high anyway.

Thelonious Monk

dubrov wrote: »

Strange rationale. Don't build supply as prices are too high anyway.

Well homes that the vast majority of us could never afford being built in the park doesn't excite me too much, it would be harder to object if they were social or affordable housing.

downtheroad

bren2001 wrote: »

The development at the Chivers site bothers me because I have no idea how the local infrastructure is going to cope with that many new units. Traffic is already horrendous around there.

Could say exactly the same thing about the proposed development at St Anne's. Traffic at Sybil Hill/Howth Road/Brookwood Avenue is appalling, inadequate supply of busses along the Howth Road corridor that will be lessening with BusConnects, and Darts that were at capacity on arrival at Harmonstown/Killester stations pre covid.

downtheroad

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I never actually appreciated the park properly until I started jogging there last year. I live much closer to the Chivers site than St Anne's, and development there doesn't bother me at all but with the lack of green spaces around here this is a welcome decision.

To leave the city behind as soon as you walk through the gates beside St Paul's is so peaceful. This development would have extended to the first left hand turn off the main avenue and ruined the park.

Thelonious Monk

downtheroad wrote: »

To leave the city behind as soon as you walk through the gates beside St Paul's is so peaceful. This development would have extended to the first left hand turn off the main avenue and ruined the park.

Yeah there would have been apartments looking down onto the avenue, that seems just wrong, would kind of ruin it. It's the jewel of the northside imo, the Phoenix Park is a giant traffic jam half the time but St Anne's is just bliss.

forgottenhills

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Well homes that the vast majority of us could never afford being built in the park doesn't excite me too much, it would be harder to object if they were social or affordable housing.

No, its vital for current and future generations that we do not build in parks and on sports grounds used by communities and schools. These are vital amenities and once they are gone they are gone. There is already a massive shortage of grass pitches in many of the well-developed parts of the city and suburbs. There is plenty of land zoned for development elsewhere. A scandal of the whole SHD planning scenario is that only a fraction of the sites that have already been approved under SHD legislation have actually been built as many developers sit on this land and look to flip the sites rather than build anything.

Beta Ray Bill

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/high-court-overturns-new-planning-permission-for-657-apartments-for-st-annes-park-in-raheny-40398470.html

Having been going here nearly every day since the pandemic began, have to say I'm pleased with this, regardless of my previous posts! I don't know anyone who'd have been able to afford the no doubt astronomical prices they'd charge anyway.

10 rounds of legal proceedings!!!!!!!! :eek:

This is just going to keep going around and around.
A permanent solution is required.

Perhaps the council make and offer to the developer to buy the land?
or perhaps a trade on some piece of land in Dublin that requires development?

there'd need to be some sort of tie in though that would ensure that no one ever again places a fence around a section in the park.