St Annes Park Planning Application

forgottenhills

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

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.

Or a permanent solution might be that the developer gets stung on this transaction and other developers in future never try it on again in terms of attempting to develop school grounds or other community assets? DLR are looking to protect all school grounds in their next development plan and more power to them.

Beta Ray Bill

forgottenhills wrote: »

Or a permanent solution might be that the developer gets stung on this transaction and other developers in future never try it on again in terms of attempting to develop school grounds or other community assets? DLR are looking to protect all school grounds in their next development plan and more power to them.

That's a fair point too.
Its was fairly thick of them to think there would be no opposition to that.
I'd say there's a heap of solicitors and barristers living around that area. May as well have tried to do the same on Marley Park really.

Fred Cryton

Disgraceful decision by this judge. Hardly impartial.

This country is now known as a basket case for investment thanks to the legal/planning nexus and lefty populism.

Infuriating. The Irish are just such an infantile race and deserve everything coming their way.

odyssey06

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Disgraceful decision by this judge. Hardly impartial.

Claim utterly without foundation.
How was it not an impartial decision?
The judge found that ABP did not do their job properly.
I guess it is easier to throw out spurious claims of partiality than to challenge any of the specific findings of the judge's decision?
Multiple times now ABP decisions have come before the courts and their decisions have been reversed, not on techicalities or complex case law but the courts finding ABP did not follow their own basic processes.
If you want to talk about partiality, whether that indicates either fundamental failings in the comptence or integrity of ABP staff and processes.

This country is now known as a basket case for investment thanks to the legal/planning nexus and lefty populism.

Because of this decision?
Zero evidence of any of this.

Infuriating. The Irish are just such an infantile race and deserve everything coming their way.

Now you are just coming out with a racist rant.

Thelonious Monk

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Disgraceful decision by this judge. Hardly impartial.

This country is now known as a basket case for investment thanks to the legal/planning nexus and lefty populism.

Infuriating. The Irish are just such an infantile race and deserve everything coming their way.

Should you not be focusing your ire on the pedestrianisation plans announced this week and the fines for parking on footpaths and in cycle lanes? Don't take on too much at once.

bren2001

downtheroad wrote: »

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.

The new light sequence doesn't help in the mornings getting onto the Howth Road! Sybill Hill is mental, I cannot understand why parking is allowed on both sides (or either). It should be double yellow lines all the way to the park and beyond.

Thelonious Monk

There should be a cycle lane on sybill hill to the sea given all the schools around here, will never happen though

SC024

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'd like to object to you objecting for the sake of it. Where can I do that?

Seth Brundle

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

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.

...but the fence is on private property. They didn't fence off anything in the park.

forgottenhills

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Disgraceful decision by this judge. Hardly impartial.

This country is now known as a basket case for investment thanks to the legal/planning nexus and lefty populism.

Infuriating. The Irish are just such an infantile race and deserve everything coming their way.

Ridiculous comment. It sounds like you are associated with developers. In that case why don't you guys proceed post haste to build the large amount of land already approved under SHD applications rather than sitting back attempting to flip it to investment funds like you seem to be concentrating on right now? And get on with this rather than trying to assemble even larger land banks by seeking to obtain planning permission on school lands and football pitches. Do you even know the history, potential impact and exact location of the St Anne's site in question?

And by the way I am not a "lefty" by a long shot but there comes a time when enough is enough.

Beta Ray Bill

Seth Brundle wrote: »

...but the fence is on private property. They didn't fence off anything in the park.

There originally was an agreement between the council and the school.
The school was given exclusive use of a number of pitches in the park.

As time went on the school decided to put up a fence around the pitches (not the fence that's there now, that's a new fence) to keep the pupils in during school time and to keep people out at night time, a lot of teens drink in the park.

The law basically is: if you put a fence around a piece of land, that is adjacent to land you already own and it's not challenged and is in place for years, you effectively own that land. You can see examples of this all over Dublin in areas that were built in the 70s and 80s, particularly along the railway line.

The land was never given to the school in an official sense.

I'm fairly sure the fence went up in the 80's/90's when I was a kid.
it was one of those fences with the concrete pillars that had a curve on the top, with that crappy criss cross mesh between the pillars

downtheroad

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

There should be a cycle lane on sybill hill to the sea given all the schools around here, will never happen though

Send a suggestion to Councillor Catherine Stocker, I sent her a similar idea as part of her request for suggestions of North Dublin cycling infrastructure.

A cycle lane along Brookwood Avenue and Sybil Hill/Vernon Avenue to connect Malahide Road, Howth Road and the Clontarf cycle lane would be fantastic for the area.

ixoy

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Yeah there would have been apartments looking down onto the avenue, that seems just wrong, would kind of ruin it.

I've really come to appreciate it in the last year, feeling that you're cut off from suburban sprawl as soon as you get inside the gates. And now, every Saturday, the nice trek down to the market. Would have felt spoiled if they had built next to this.

dubrov

If I read the independent article right, one of the planning permissible was approved by ABP which was then overturned in the high court. In light of this ABP then refused permission

The developer then challenged this ABP decision to refuse the application in the high court and was successful.

If true, that's completely broken system that only serves to enrich the legal profession

deandean

I very much hope that ABP will have to pay the legal fees of the resident's association.
ABP has, yet again, shot itself in the foot.

donspeekinglesh

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

I'm fairly sure the fence went up in the 80's/90's when I was a kid.
it was one of those fences with the concrete pillars that had a curve on the top, with that crappy criss cross mesh between the pillars

There was no fence when I was in school there in the late 90s, just a slightly raised ditch.

nj27

Delighted with the decision. I live across the road from St Anne’s and I love the peace. Hopefully the field in question can be incorporated to the park immediately!

roddney

dubrov wrote: »

If I read the independent article right, one of the planning permissible was approved by ABP which was then overturned in the high court. In light of this ABP then refused permission

The developer then challenged this ABP decision to refuse the application in the high court and was successful.

If true, that's completely broken system that only serves to enrich the legal profession

There’s 2 separate applications to ABP at this stage. The 1st one went back to ABP for reasons to be given for its rejection which was the last court ruling. I’m unsure of exactly where that one is at. ABP could be waiting for outcome of court case just released.

This ruling from court is on the 2nd and latest higher density application.

The bigger point is that ABP will need to follow the guidance on all current and future planning applications unless appealed and overturned.

Fred Cryton

forgottenhills wrote: »

Ridiculous comment. It sounds like you are associated with developers. In that case why don't you guys proceed post haste to build the large amount of land already approved under SHD applications rather than sitting back attempting to flip it to investment funds like you seem to be concentrating on right now? And get on with this rather than trying to assemble even larger land banks by seeking to obtain planning permission on school lands and football pitches. Do you even know the history, potential impact and exact location of the St Anne's site in question?

And by the way I am not a "lefty" by a long shot but there comes a time when enough is enough.

Actually who are you to tell the private owners of that land what to do with it?



Would you accept if others told you what to do with your house or car?

donvito99

A recent major development near me with 200+ units has lead to exactly F all impact on traffic. This common complaint by NIMBY residents needs to be put to bed.

Hopefully the developer comes back with something to placate a court and inject much needed supply to the market. If you can annoy large numbers of hypocritical NIMBYs at the same time, even better.

downtheroad

donvito99 wrote: »

A recent major development near me with 200+ units has lead to exactly F all impact on traffic. This common complaint by NIMBY residents needs to be put to bed.

Hopefully the developer comes back with something to placate a court and inject much needed supply to the market. If you can annoy large numbers of hypocritical NIMBYs at the same time, even better.

Was this recent major development adjacent to over 500metres of pathway in a secluded park with absolutely no other buildings or infrastructure in the area?

John_Rambo

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Actually who are you to tell the private owners of that land what to do with it?



Would you accept if others told you what to do with your house or car?

We have every right to. If I was doing something to my house and was refused planning I'd accept it. As you would.

markpb

nj27 wrote: »

Delighted with the decision. I live across the road from St Anne’s and I love the peace. Hopefully the field in question can be incorporated to the park immediately!

What makes you think that will happen? The field is still owned by the developer, the chances of them never getting planning permission for anything is slim.

nj27

markpb wrote: »

What makes you think that will happen? The field is still owned by the developer, the chances of them never getting planning permission for anything is slim.

I'll just show up to the meeting stark naked and start throwing digs.

Marcusm

John_Rambo wrote: »

We have every right to. If I was doing something to my house and was refused planning I'd accept it. As you would.

By that logic, the Guildford 4 would still be in jail. Anyone refused planning permission by a local authority has a right of appeal to ABP and thence to the High Court and so on if necessary. To suggest otherwise would be a perversion of natural justice. It seems in this case ABP has made significant procedural errors which undermine the validity of its decision. That is not to say that once the appeal is properly considered that the same conclusion will not be reached.

roddney

Marcusm wrote: »

By that logic, the Guildford 4 would still be in jail. Anyone refused planning permission by a local authority has a right of appeal to ABP and thence to the High Court and so on if necessary. To suggest otherwise would be a perversion of natural justice. It seems in this case ABP has made significant procedural errors which undermine the validity of its decision. That is not to say that once the appeal is properly considered that the same conclusion will not be reached.

It’s an interesting case in that it sets legal precedent for Z15 lands where there was community use. In this case the developer bought and stopped community use to build case to allow development. The court has established that regardless there is an established community use which must be considered in planning. This makes it very hard to get planning now as they are used sports fields.

I’d imagine this will be appealed all the way though

hamburgham

forgottenhills wrote: »

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.

The church lands, eg Clonliffe college, various convent grounds etc are also all being built on. There is never a word about this even though the parkland is often in practice an unoffficial park. I though there might be more of an appreciation of the value of green space after the last year.

hamburgham

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

That's a fair point too.
Its was fairly thick of them to think there would be no opposition to that.
I'd say there's a heap of solicitors and barristers living around that area. May as well have tried to do the same on Marley Park really.

Big mistake taking on the residents of Clontarf.

odyssey06

hamburgham wrote: »

Big mistake taking on the residents of Clontarf.

They cut that wall down to size too.

Marcusm

roddney wrote: »

It’s an interesting case in that it sets legal precedent for Z15 lands where there was community use. In this case the developer bought and stopped community use to build case to allow development. The court has established that regardless there is an established community use which must be considered in planning. This makes it very hard to get planning now as they are used sports fields.

I’d imagine this will be appealed all the way though

It is an interesting one as there are very significant institutional lands which are being used for housing including the Central Mental Hospital site in Dundrum. Z15 is institutional and community use; whether the Raheny land was institutional or community I do not know as it was attached to an institution (school). This judgement will likely have ramifications far beyond this particular site where private development is being undertaken on such lands. This might point to errors at local authority and ABP level.