St Annes Park Planning Application

ozmo

John_Rambo wrote: »

Have you seen the architectural abomination that is Raheny (catholic) church?

It’s quite nice inside as modern churches go (can anyone name one modern Dublin building - anything - that they would consider really good..??) - but outside it did look much better before they took all the nice green stone from the spire.

But that’s health and safety in Ireland for ya.

John_Rambo

ozmo wrote: »

Got married there

Ah, good memories then... I hope your marriage lasts longer than the church Ozmo!!

ozmo wrote: »

It’s quite nice inside as modern churches go (can anyone name one modern Dublin building - anything - that they would consider not an architectural abomination..??) -

Yes, absolutely, loads of them, but that's for another thread.

downtheroad

ozmo wrote: »

downtheroad wrote: »

... using, what is in my opinion, wasted land that the church happen to own...

It may seem wasted to some - but to others its the heart of the village you would be ripping out.

We don't want to build on absolutely every square of space of Dublin- I thinking of the horrible concrete jungles of some UK and USA cities - and worse in other countries - sure you can get lots in - but would your residents be happy living there then?

I said downsize the church, not remove it completely. The church in Raheny has been mentioned and sits on a huge site, adjacent to a DART station and is being wasted for the numbers of people that attend church services on a regular basis.

Clontarf has 3 churches. Gabriels is a monstrosity of a church on a huge site, while Johns and Anthonys are both in prime locations on the seafront. These are just examples, with a bit of thought could accommodate many houses and apartments in areas that people desire to live.

odyssey06

downtheroad wrote: »

Clontarf has 3 churches. Gabriels is a monstrosity of a church on a huge site, while Johns and Anthonys are both in prime locations on the seafront. These are just examples, with a bit of thought could accommodate many houses and apartments in areas that people desire to live.

Gabriels and Anthonys are not just churches, but host many community activities. There are old and new apartments within 5 minutes of both.

St Johns sits on a very small site.

The suggestion that they are somehow impediments to downsizing is neither here nor there.

Clontarf has 3 churches, and how many schools? Does it need a rugby and cricket club? Maybe it should only have 1 pub and 1 restaurant.

This is a red herring proposal.

downtheroad

odyssey06 wrote: »

downtheroad wrote: »

Clontarf has 3 churches. Gabriels is a monstrosity of a church on a huge site, while Johns and Anthonys are both in prime locations on the seafront. These are just examples, with a bit of thought could accommodate many houses and apartments in areas that people desire to live.

Gabriels and Anthonys are not just churches, but host many community activities. There are old and new apartments within 5 minutes of both.

St Johns sits on a very small site.

The suggestion that they are somehow impediments to downsizing is neither here nor there.

Clontarf has 3 churches, and how many schools? Does it need a rugby and cricket club? Maybe it should only have 1 pub and 1 restaurant.

This is a red herring proposal.

That's your opinion. I would suggest that the schools, rugby club, cricket club, pubs and restaurants are used by a lot more people, and are making far more efficient use of the land that they occupy. In my opinion the same cannot be said for the 3 catholic churches in the area.

And the reason that I brought up churches in the first place was because somebody asked where to find land in various suburbs and areas across Dublin. It's not an anti-church perspective, it just happens to be an organisation that has land in most towns and in this day and age is not making efficient use of the space that it is occupying.

Pawwed Rig

If they won't use All Saints church why not renovate the old church on the corner. Both All Saints and the old derelict are nicer buildings than Devine Grace and more appropriately sized to accommodate the future congregation (catholic anyway).

L

downtheroad wrote: »

In my opinion the same cannot be said for the 3 catholic churches in the area.

To be fair, he's not wrong about St John's - that site is about half an acre. It's literally the church and room to park a half dozen cars.

St Anthony's is more complicated - the issue with that site is the road frontage is a listed building (the old Clontarf Town hall) so you're limited in the access you can get. Aside from that, the church isn't the only thing on the site - there's a community centre and daycare there as well.

St Gabriels is probably the one that could go.

The weirdest bit of all this is that until the 1960s they were all one parish with a single church (which is its own nasty enough thing - why the hell was the church building palatial churches on the back of community donations when the country was dead broke?).

You could probably get the congregations into St Johns again at this point with a push.

ozmo

So some updates happening on this - apparently the developer is contacting Councillors directly complaining about how he is not allowed to build homes for all the homeless in the park and how costly the courts are going to be to him - does anyone have a link to the Irish Times article they ran on Monday? Cannot find it myself...

https://www.facebook.com/ilovestannes/posts/797438807263711

..
"This challenge has, at least for the time being, stopped the development of housing at St Paul’s. In the next few months hundreds of thousands of euros will be spent on consultants and lawyers (including by the State) as we move into the next round of the court process to show that the geese from Canada are happily feeding in alternative feeding grounds."

Sleeper12

ozmo wrote: »

So some updates happening on this - apparently the developer is contacting Councillors directly complaining about how he is not allowed to build homes for all the homeless in the park and how costly the courts are going to be to him - does anyone have a link to the Irish Times article they ran on Monday? Cannot find it myself...

https://www.facebook.com/ilovestannes/posts/797438807263711

..
"This challenge has, at least for the time being, stopped the development of housing at St Paul’s. In the next few months hundreds of thousands of euros will be spent on consultants and lawyers (including by the State) as we move into the next round of the court process to show that the geese from Canada are happily feeding in alternative feeding grounds."

We've had a few rough sleepers in the park over the decades but none due to a homeless crisis. They are usually local men with drink or mental issues



https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/developer-accused-of-emotional-blackmail-over-raheny-housing-site-1.3772498?fbclid=IwAR2Wtwg3ZasElhuEGqO1hrS4xq9VYBweSru9VdKqcwJ5YTQWtDPEzbXy624

Sleeper12

Another interesting thing. I just found out where these rough sleepers are. Directly across from the proposed development. In the 50 odd years I'm on this planet I've never seen rough sleepers in this spot. There is high footfall here. Traditionally they like to go into the woods away from the public.

It's very peculiar that they picked this spot beside the development. If any media was looking at the preposed development site they would almost trip over the tents. Very interesting choice of site for the tents.

The plot thickness.

Gloomtastic!

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Another interesting thing. I just found out where these rough sleepers are. Directly across from the proposed development. In the 50 odd years I'm on this planet I've never seen rough sleepers in this spot. There is high footfall here. Traditionally they like to go into the woods away from the public.

It's very peculiar that they picked this spot beside the development. If any media was looking at the preposed development site they would almost trip over the tents. Very interesting choice of site for the tents.

The plot thickness.

There’s been a tent under this trees by the big gates for a good few years....

Sleeper12

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

There’s been a tent under this trees by the big gates for a good few years....

Not my regular entrance but I was doing the mile (not a mile) walk there a few times per week at one stage but never noticed tents there. I'll have to have a better look

spurious

I've never seen them either, where exactly is the tent?

Gloomtastic!

spurious wrote: »

I've never seen them either, where exactly is the tent?

As you walk in the big gates, on your left hand side, under the trees. It was pretty well hidden as the tree canopies come right down to the ground.

spurious

My partner came across a tent in the open a little bit further down from where you describe during the summer that had what she described as 'two Italian lads' in it. They looked like tourists to her. She warned them about how dangerous it could be and didn't see them after a while.
I must have a better look when I'm up there this weekend.

Pawwed Rig

I found some tents during the search for that young lad a couple of weeks ago. There is one very close to the seafront side of the park but you would have to be looking for it to see it.

Sleeper12

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I found some tents during the search for that young lad a couple of weeks ago. There is one very close to the seafront side of the park but you would have to be looking for it to see it.

Do you think they are being used or discarded tents?

Pawwed Rig

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Do you think they are being used or discarded tents?

It was being used alright. there was a full bag in it.

Sleeper12

The last rough sleeper I saw in the park lived in a cave structure along the river on the way to the pond. That must have been two years ago now.

odyssey06

Theres rough sleeper along alfie byrne road. Does that mean it should get automatic planning approval for a hundred houses.

More nonsense from the developer.

Wheeliebin30

Can someone explain why everyone here is objectiing to this?

Sleeper12

Wheeliebin30 wrote:

Can someone explain why everyone here is objectiing to this?

I assume you aren't from the area. This plot of land was part of the park but sold to the school for playing pitches. The school sold it to the developer. The developer wants a massive development on this land. Almost 700 homes. It's not zoned for housing. Despite what some try to tell you it is NOT part of the park. It was but it not anymore but it is almost enclosed by the park. It isn't a suitable place for a large development. It would definitely spoil that part of the park.

I'm don't usually get involved in things like this. There is 68 homes going in behind my home and I'm happy for them. This development beside the park is totally different. We have to protect the park as it is. This is so unique that every Councillor & every TD, bar one is against this development. I've never seen cross party support to this extent before.

Gloomtastic!

^ And they only won their planning appeal because of some excuse about being a place for the Brent Geese to graze. Funnily enough the geese returned this winter and because they have wings, they flew elsewhere for their grazing. :rolleyes:

A bit of creative thinking on behalf of the council/developer may have helped this along.

The developer/council could have swapped the playing fields attached to St Paul’s School with the pitch further along the Howth Road opposite what used to be the Texaco garage (is it still?).

The geese don’t go near that corner of the park and very few people walk along there plus the entrance would be directly onto the Howth Road allaying a lot of traffic fears.

Sleeper12

Gloomtastic! wrote:

^ And they only won their planning appeal because of some excuse about being a place for the Brent Geese to graze. Funnily enough the geese returned this winter and because they have wings, they flew elsewhere for their grazing.

According to a Councillor in the Herrald there were more reasons than the Brent Geese given for the refusal. It goes against the city development plan according to DCC. Its not zoned for housing

We'll find out soon enough. The developer has invested a lot of money into this. I see many court cases ahead of us. The land that they paid millions for will be worthless by comparison if they can't get planning for building.

High stakes poker

tricky D

The Brent Geese issue was the issue most likely to succeed in the Courts. That is why that issue was chosen considering such action costs anything north of €30k. The manner in which the judge threw out the planning is telling.

The problem arises from the Strategic Housing Development legislation which simply guts local democracy and has turned An Bord Pleannala into a rubber stamping body. In the cases of both St Annes and the Baily Court/Edros in Howth, it appears that pretty much all observations were just ignored. As a result, the developer is now in what looks to me like a feeding frenzy. The original plans for Howth were for around 4 dozen units. I and many others are not aware of any public objections to this so accusations of NIMBYism do not hold up, despite what the developer and some politicians are saying. They have persistently misrepresented the public's concerns. Now the approved plans are for about 3 times the scale which involves cramming as much as possible into the site.

More on the Howth issues which should give you an idea of how this type of stuff is (not) working out:

• The plan is to remove a huge volume of soil/sand. This volume is around 4 times the volume which by law requires a Environmental Impact Assessment, yet no authority has enforced this and approval was granted without this requirement being fulfilled.
• The whole site's design is based on a single borehole into what is a complicated esker which suffers slope failures regularly. That is totally inadequate. Note that when the site for Asgard Park which lies south of this site was prepared for construction, doens if not hundreds of tonnes of sand washed down through Howth village so there is precedent.
• They want to do pile driving which will shake the whole mass. Can't see that being any good.
• They are using urban parking ratios for a suburban location. Generally in suburbs one plans for around 1.4 spaces per unit. In urban locations you can go down to 0.7. They seem to think that being close to the DART and bus will sort this, but neglect the fact that a large amount of services and amenities (banks, 2ndary schools, petrol, supermarkets...) are now miles away, thus increasing the need for cars. Howth already has a parking problem with car parks and the village being generally full. Plenty of people travel from well beyond Howth for the free parking. Then more cars equals even more delays at Sutton Cross where long traffic jams are commonplace on any half decent day. My longest was 110 mins to do 4 kms which is a walk of half that. Emergency services are also concerned.
• There are bats in the area if not in the actual Edros building so that means EIA under Habitats Directive. This requirement has been ignored and not enforced.

Then there is the Techcrete site to come which looks like being 2-3 times bigger.

It is nuts.

bren2001

Planning permission granted for this as per:

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2020/0218/1116034-st-annes-park-development/

Beta Ray Bill

bren2001 wrote: »

Planning permission granted for this as per:

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2020/0218/1116034-st-annes-park-development/

Just seen this myself...
Plenty of Solicitors and Legal people living out that way.
Nothing will ever get built, thankfully.

If the School no longer wanted the pitches, they should have given them back to the Park... not sold them.

Sleeper12

Beta Ray Bill wrote:

If the School no longer wanted the pitches, they should have given them back to the Park... not sold them.

This land was never part the park. They were sold to the school/religious order at the current market price. No special conditions were attached to the land. This was the early 50s. It didn't become a park for another 6 years or so.

I'm not in favour of the development but it was never part of the park & it's not in the park today.

odyssey06

Sleeper12 wrote: »

This land was never part the park. They were sold to the school/religious order at the current market price. No special conditions were attached to the land. This was the early 50s. It didn't become a park for another 6 years or so. I'm not in favour of the development but it was never part of the park & it's not in the park today.

You are right there were no special conditions on that piece of land.

However, it was assumed by Dublin City Council (Corporation) at the time that the zoning restrictions that were in force on the land (and similar institutional lands) meant it would be for community use and not residential development.
I guess they couldn't envisage more than 50 years into the future/...

Belfunk

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'm not in favour of the development but it was never part of the park & it's not in the park today.

It is in the park it is St. Anne's Park. Until that fence was erected in late 2001/02 this land was part of St. Anne's Park. How can you say a green field with St. Ann's Park to the left, right and behind it is not St. Anne's park.