St. Annes Park - Planning for 381 Houses/Apartments

KomradeBishop

There is an active planning application, which seems to have just passed its first hurdle now, for converting a privately owned part of the park into a huge residential development:
http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=4185/15&theTabNo=2

Making a new thread on this, as the old thread is misleading - it was originally about a much older planning application, for just football pitches - the current planning application would put a massive new residential development in the park.




The decision made on the planning application above - requesting more information from the developer - highly suggests that some form of development will be going ahead, but with modifications to suit the requests of the planning authorities.

The land was sold to the local church in the 1950's for just £4000 - about ~€150,000 inflation adjusted - and, some years after church-lobbied rezoning (or rather, alteration of zoning law), sold on to a property developer for €25 million.
Previously the land zoning was not eligible for residential building, but church lobby groups got the law changed, and now the 'Z15' status for this land allows residential development.


This is a pretty huge disaster as far as the park and the integrity of public spaces go - there is no way this should be allowed to go through, but it looks like it will in some form or other now, unless a lot of political pressure is brought to bear.

KomradeBishop

The planning process for this is back under review/consideration now - presumably the developer has resubmitted the proposal with modifications:
http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=4185/15&theTabNo=2

The local council also had a vote to rezone the land back to Z9 (which would prohibit residential development) - but this vote did not pass, and the developers had to be officially warned for lobbying council members:

Developers behind a plan to build housing beside a park in Dublin have been warned over lobbying activities.

A meeting on the city's new development plan beside St Anne's Park heard that a developer and representatives of local sports clubs have been contacting councillors about a motion designed to stop a planning application for 381 homes.

Anti-Austerity Alliance Councillor Michael O'Brien had proposed a motion to rezone the lands from institutional use (Z15) which allows some housing on a case by case basis to open space (Z9) which at present does not allow development.

A number of councillors told the meeting that they had received a large number of communications from supporters of the development.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0531/792420-dublin-city-council/


It looks to me, like there is still a high chance that this development will go ahead - and a big chunk will be taken out of St. Annes park.

expectationlost

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The planning process for this is back under review/consideration now - presumably the developer has resubmitted the proposal with modifications:
http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=4185/15&theTabNo=2

The local council also had a vote to rezone the land back to Z9 (which would prohibit residential development) - but this vote did not pass, and the developers had to be officially warned for lobbying council members:

Developers behind a plan to build housing beside a park in Dublin have been warned over lobbying activities.

A meeting on the city's new development plan beside St Anne's Park heard that a developer and representatives of local sports clubs have been contacting councillors about a motion designed to stop a planning application for 381 homes.

Anti-Austerity Alliance Councillor Michael O'Brien had proposed a motion to rezone the lands from institutional use (Z15) which allows some housing on a case by case basis to open space (Z9) which at present does not allow development.

A number of councillors told the meeting that they had received a large number of communications from supporters of the development.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0531/792420-dublin-city-council/


It looks to me, like there is still a high chance that this development will go ahead - and a big chunk will be taken out of St. Annes park.

if you consider it to be St Anne's Park

the motion failed then

KomradeBishop

In all public maps, yes, it is St Anne's Park.

expectationlost

KomradeBishop wrote: »

In all public maps, yes, it is St Anne's Park.

http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-recreation-culture-dublin-city-parks-visit-park/st-annes-park

odyssey06

Morally it's an absolute disgrace what the Church are doing. That land would not have been sold to them at the time had it been known they would do this with it - and they well know it. Another example of their moral bankruptcy, at this stage, they should allow themselves to go financially bankrupt and be done with it than engage in these shenanigans. Amazing how they never practice when they preach, when there is money on the line, out comes the calculator, there goes the moral compass...

Phoebas

KomradeBishop wrote: »

In all public maps, yes, it is St Anne's Park.

In real life it isn't.
It's cut off from St. Anne's by a large security fence. It is adjacent to St. Anne's, not part of it.

Squeaksoutloud

I had to laugh at the hysterical reaction of clontarf.IE to this proposal originally. A lot of scaremongering and misinformation leading people to believe DCC were planning on building houses in the park. This land is not in the park and is privately owned...for good or bad at this stage. Its tough to call...I love st Anne's park but I do realise there is a serious housing shortage in this city with people forced to commute long distances..not many young people can afford to buy in this area without help from parents etc. We need more housing within the city boundaries and I think local people don't like the idea of change here. Interesting to see how it foes but there are proposals for pitches etc..most of the pitches in st Anne's are empty most of the time anyway so maybe better use of them can be organised.

Dublin is so badly planned now that I think it will get critical in next few years wrt transport and long distance commutes..we need more sustainable development within city and higher rise in certain areas too..higher than what we are doing.

Personally I don't think it will have a huge effect on the integrity of the park..it will be nice to see a new community form nearby.

KomradeBishop

There is no shortage of land in the city - there is absolutely no need to be taking a chunk out of St. Annes:
"More than 60 hectares of vacant land, spread across 280 sites, recorded in Dublin city"
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/names-of-those-hoarding-land-to-be-published-on-register-1.2545729

https://brianmlucey.wordpress.com/2016/06/11/site-tax-the-bejazuz-out-of-them/


This is not a tough call. The zoning for that land in St. Annes explicitly did not include residential building - the zoning law was only changed after heavy church lobbying.

Phoebas

KomradeBishop wrote: »

There is no shortage of land in the city - there is absolutely no need to be taking a chunk out of St. Annes:
"More than 60 hectares of vacant land, spread across 280 sites, recorded in Dublin city"
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/names-of-those-hoarding-land-to-be-published-on-register-1.2545729

https://brianmlucey.wordpress.com/2016/06/11/site-tax-the-bejazuz-out-of-them/


This is not a tough call. The zoning for that land in St. Annes explicitly did not include residential building - the zoning law was only changed after heavy church lobbying.

I think it been explained to you that this land isn't in St. Anne's.

odyssey06

The land is in *St Annes*. It is not in the park grounds today but it was part of the St Annes estate.
If a part of Fairview Park was given to Joeys school today for pitches, and they put a wall around it and 25 years tried to claim it wasn't part of the park and wanted to put houses on it they'd be laughed at.
How it this case any different?
So in conclusion, the land is part of St Annes Park.

Phoebas

odyssey06 wrote: »

The land is in *St Annes*. It is not in the park grounds today but it was part of the St Annes estate.
If a part of Fairview Park was given to Joeys school today for pitches, and they put a wall around it and 25 years tried to claim it wasn't part of the park and wanted to put houses on it they'd be laughed at.
How it this case any different?
So in conclusion, the land is part of St Annes Park.

The land is in what was 'St Anne's Estate'. Also in the original estate is the entire grounds of St. Paul's and about 200 acres of what is now housing. Are we now going to have to demolish a good chunk of Raheny and return it to parkland?

The park comprises only about half of the original estate, so to claim that the site in question is part of the park is really meaningless. The site itself has been owned by St. Paul's since 1952, so it hasn't been part of the park for 64 years.

If the development goes ahead, it'll be a great place to live. The area has got some good infrastructure, including a really nice park right next door.

neris

Phoebas wrote: »

The park comprises only about half of the original estate, so to claim that the site in question is part of the park is really meaningless. The site itself has been owned by St. Paul's since 1952, so it hasn't been part of the park for 64 years.

I think the original estate was a lot bigger then twice the size of the park. The old St Anns estate used to extend as far out as what is now Bayside and up to donaghmede and into near Killester. The Guiness family over time had leased lands (and maybe bought it eventually) from the Howth estate and the Clontarf estate.

newacc2015

KomradeBishop wrote: »

There is no shortage of land in the city - there is absolutely no need to be taking a chunk out of St. Annes:
"More than 60 hectares of vacant land, spread across 280 sites, recorded in Dublin city"
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/names-of-those-hoarding-land-to-be-published-on-register-1.2545729

https://brianmlucey.wordpress.com/2016/06/11/site-tax-the-bejazuz-out-of-them/


This is not a tough call. The zoning for that land in St. Annes explicitly did not include residential building - the zoning law was only changed after heavy church lobbying.

60 Hectares seems like a fair amount of land until you realise that size of Dublin City is about 115 km sq. Meaning all this free land is barely even 0.5% of the city's total areas. It is just over 6 and half St Stephens Green

What is the point of having a city full of parks if everyone has to commute 90 mins each way to get to work as there is no land to build it? DCC and Dubliners in general are obsessed with parks and green space. But compared to the New Yorkers or German's we dont use them at all. German park are full of beer gardens, running tracks, basketball courts etc. Yet DCC has a most a dodgy footpath and a playground. What is the point of massive parks if DCC aren't willing to provide things to do in them? ie running tracks, basketball courts, tennis courts, etc. Even squares in Dublin 1/2 ban ballgames. What is the point of having vast parks in Dublin if you can literally only sit in them? You dont need massive parks for that

return guide

I would like to disagree with newacc2015.

I am just back from a run in St Annes. Part of that run took place on a newly laid tarmac path, past the par 3 golf course, new tennis courts, numerous playing fields -soccer, GAA and even cricket - the cafe, the allotments and the playground with picnic facilities.

I think you are being unfair to DCC, there is a lot more to do in St Annes than just sit.

Phoebas

return guide wrote: »

I would like to disagree.

With what?

return guide wrote: »

I am just back from a run in St Annes. Part of that run took place on a newly laid tarmac path, past the par 3 golf course, new tennis courts, numerous playing fields -soccer, GAA and even cricket - the cafe, the allotments and the playground with picnic facilities.

I think you are being unfair to DCC, there is a lot more to do in St Annes than just sit.

I agree with all of that. St. Anne's is a great park. I use it maybe 3 times a week. That's how I know that this site is not part of it.

return guide

Phoebas wrote: »

With what?



I agree with all of that. St. Anne's is a great park. I use it maybe 3 times a week. That's how I know that this site is not part of it.

Sorry was on the phone earlier. I was objecting to another posters idea that there was nothing to do in St Annes.

The parcel of land has been part of St Pauls for as long as I can remember, I recall cross country schools competitions in the early 80's taking place on what are now the fenced off football pitches.

Still I think it would be shame to lose those pitches and have houses encroaching on the Avenue imo.

newacc2015

return guide wrote: »

I would like to disagree with newacc2015.

I am just back from a run in St Annes. Part of that run took place on a newly laid tarmac path, past the par 3 golf course, new tennis courts, numerous playing fields -soccer, GAA and even cricket - the cafe, the allotments and the playground with picnic facilities.

I think you are being unfair to DCC, there is a lot more to do in St Annes than just sit.

Maybe St Annes is an outliers. Go to any other DCC parks in the North City eg Albert College, Drumcondra, Mountjoy Sq and there is minimal things to do other than sit on a graffiti covered bench or a playground from 2002.

You outlined there is plenty of things to do in the existing park. Why does the park need to any bigger when the existing park is fine? How much bigger does the park need to be for people to be content at the expense of people having to commute for tens of miles to the city? I dont think someone having to commute 90 mins each way everyday to Dublin City will agree that a park needs to be bigger for the sake of it.

Dublin has tons of parks. Why in the middle of a housing crisis do people think we need more of them? We already limit construction to 'protect the skyline of the city'. Dublin is literally becoming a city that only is concerned with the lucky majority who brought when housing was affordable doesnt care about the younger generations trying to live in the city

ProudDUB

newacc2015 wrote: »

60 Hectares seems like a fair amount of land until you realise that size of Dublin City is about 115 km sq. Meaning all this free land is barely even 0.5% of the city's total areas. It is just over 6 and half St Stephens Green

What is the point of having a city full of parks if everyone has to commute 90 mins each way to get to work as there is no land to build it? DCC and Dubliners in general are obsessed with parks and green space. But compared to the New Yorkers or German's we dont use them at all. German park are full of beer gardens, running tracks, basketball courts etc. Yet DCC has a most a dodgy footpath and a playground. What is the point of massive parks if DCC aren't willing to provide things to do in them? ie running tracks, basketball courts, tennis courts, etc. Even squares in Dublin 1/2 ban ballgames. What is the point of having vast parks in Dublin if you can literally only sit in them? You dont need massive parks for that

Is this for real? The only thing to do in St Annes Park, is sit in it? Seriously like. Have you ever spent even 5 minutes in St Anne's Park? Serious question.

KomradeBishop

You don't start stripping down the cities greenspace, just because there is a housing shortage - if anything, as the city becomes more dense in the future, it becomes ever more important to preserve greenspace within the city.

The only sustainable solutions in the long run, are higher density and better transport access - stripping away greenspace is not sustainable long-term - and you don't make housing planning (and public space) decisions based on the short-term.

Dr Crayfish

None of this housing will be affordable for your average working man or woman. This isn't really going to help anyone but the already well off. What do the church even do with the money?

ProudDUB

There are plenty of very average people living in Raheny.

snickerpuss

ProudDUB wrote: »

There are plenty of very average people living in Raheny.

Well the houses are all getting to be worth half a million so there won't be any average people there for very long. Don't forget under the new mortgage rules to get a house worth €500,000 your annual joint salary needs to be €142,000 a year.

This land was given by Dublin City Council to the school for community use. Not to sell for a profit. Once we concrete over our green spaces we can't get them back.

ProudDUB

Sure you can say that about half the suburbs of Dublin. It doesn't mean they are all unhabited by posh toffs, looking down their noses at the peasantry.

Page 1 of Raheny properties for sale on Daft for under €350,000

There are most definitely homes available for under half a million in Raheny. The greater Raheny area is quite large. As long as you are not looking for a five bedroom, detached house, with sea views, or directly across the road from the park, it is affordable for average people on a decent income. It has never been a cheap place to live, but it certainly ain't no Ballsbridge, Killiney or Howth.

Sleeper12

neris wrote:

I think the original estate was a lot bigger then twice the size of the park. The old St Anns estate used to extend as far out as what is now Bayside and up to donaghmede and into near Killester. The Guiness family over time had leased lands (and maybe bought it eventually) from the Howth estate and the Clontarf estate.

St Anne's estate never reached these areas. Apart from the park area it used to include saint Anne's housing estate up as far but not including main street Raheny.
There is a wonderful book by Jane usher Sharkey 'St Anne's The Story of A Guinness estate". It gives in great detail the full history of the estate

Remember there were lots of estates with big houses at the time. Bettyglen estate, the Jamison house is still there. Moywood Estate. Fox estates to name just a few

snickerpuss

ProudDUB wrote: »

Sure you can say that about half the suburbs of Dublin. It doesn't mean they are all unhabited by posh toffs, looking down their noses at the peasantry.

Page 1 of Raheny properties for sale on Daft for under €350,000

There are most definitely homes available for under half a million in Raheny. The greater Raheny area is quite large. As long as you are not looking for a five bedroom, detached house, with sea views, or directly across the road from the park, it is affordable for average people on a decent income. It has never been a cheap place to live, but it certainly ain't no Ballsbridge, Killiney or Howth.

I would love to know how many of those 'cheaper' houses are in Edenmore, Kilbarrack, Harmonstown... Even at €350,000 you're talking a €100,000 joint income. That's not average. I'm not suggesting people from Raheny are snobbish just that it's turning into a very different area to what it was.

Sleeper12

snickerpuss wrote: »

I would love to know how many of those 'cheaper' houses are in Edenmore, Kilbarrack, Harmonstown... Even at €350,000 you're talking a €100,000 joint income. That's not average. I'm not suggesting people from Raheny are snobbish just that it's turning into a very different area to what it was.

It is average for an area where most of the homes were built in the 50s & 60s

New estates tend to be cheaper till they are there a few decades. Its then sold as a well settled area.

Phoebas

snickerpuss wrote: »

Well the houses are all getting to be worth half a million so there won't be any average people there for very long. Don't forget under the new mortgage rules to get a house worth €500,000 your annual joint salary needs to be €142,000 a year.

This is Raheny we're talking about. It's full of 'average' people. The development includes a mix of apartments and houses, so it's likely that many of the apartments will be bought by first time buyers under the CBI rules.

There will be a lot of average people looking to either trade up or trade down into these.

snickerpuss wrote: »

This land was given by Dublin City Council to the school for community use. Not to sell for a profit. Once we concrete over our green spaces we can't get them back.

Given to? Do you mean sold to, the same as the original plot was sold to the Vincentians in the first place?

Sleeper12

Phoebas wrote:

This is Raheny we're talking about. It's full of 'average' people. The development includes a mix of apartments and houses, so it's likely that many of the apartments will be bought by first time buyers under the CBI rules.

There won't be too many first time buyers being able to afford these.

Phoebas wrote:

Given to? Do you mean sold to, the same as the original plot was sold to the Vincentians in the first place?

The land in question was sold for a token amount because the land was being used for sports fields.


The big thing here is that it's not zoned for development. It should be turned down on those grounds alone. Once it is rezoned it's just about how many apartments

Phoebas

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The land in question was sold for a token amount because the land was being used for sports fields.

That's news to me. Can you provide evidence for this?

newacc2015

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You don't start stripping down the cities greenspace, just because there is a housing shortage - if anything, as the city becomes more dense in the future, it becomes ever more important to preserve greenspace within the city.

The only sustainable solutions in the long run, are higher density and better transport access - stripping away greenspace is not sustainable long-term - and you don't make housing planning (and public space) decisions based on the short-term.

How many parks does Dublin need? It is probably the greenest medium sized city in Europe and you think it needs more parks? The inner suburbs wont become more dense, as they are already developed. Why should expanding an already large park be favoured our more housing? Parks are lovely, but you cant live in them

Dublin doesnt need more parks, it needs more services. Green space is nice, but it serves little utility compared to better libraries, gyms, community halls, basketball courts, tennis courts etc.

They are great suggestions expect DCC wont higher density and funding better public transport wont happen. It is ridiculous that you are suggesting more greenspace and basically force people to commute into the city is a better for the overall well being of society.

I am not suggesting taking away existing parks. I just think it is absurd that people that people think expanding parks for more greenspace as it is basically 'nice' is the best idea. Go to any park in Dublin 1/2 in the winter or even the summer versus a gym and tell me if you really think more greenspace is needed. Parks are great, but in our climate indoor services are important, if not more important. Irish people don't use parks enough. Go to a park in Munich or Berlin and it is full of people. Go to a park in Dublin, where ball games are probably banned and if it is Phoenix Park, it is a shortcut for town with a park attached.

Phoebas

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The big thing here is that it's not zoned for development. It should be turned down on those grounds alone. Once it is rezoned it's just about how many apartments

It's zoned Z15 which allows for residential development.

Dublin City Council wrote:

Where there is no longer an identified need for an existing institutional and community use (such as a school, or hospital) on lands zoned Z15 and where the land is to be redeveloped, in whole or in part, for open for consideration uses (such as residential) and/or other uses including permissible uses, then a masterplan shall be prepared by the proposer and/or owner.

Phoebas

Sleeper12 wrote: »

There won't be too many first time buyers being able to afford these.

Not too many. Just the right amount. There's a load of 1 and 2 bed apartments included.

And 20% of it will go to the social and affordable housing requirement. So, that's all to the good.

Sleeper12

KomradeBishop wrote:

The planning process for this is back under review/consideration now - presumably the developer has resubmitted the proposal with modifications:

It was originally turned down because the developer put the wrong name on it. This is a common ploy by some developers. Usually the amount of objections drop off considerably second time round as you have to pay for each objection. Big planning application close to my house has the wrong road name on it. It'll be turned down and lots of objectors will drop out

odyssey06

Phoebas wrote: »

It's zoned Z15 which allows for residential development.

Only as a result of a court case... this was not a conscious decision by DCC to allow development but their hand was forced. This land is not zoned Z1 which I think should be reserved for this scale of development.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0427/318754-sisters-of-mercy-win-case-against-z15-zoning/

KomradeBishop

newacc2015 wrote: »

How many parks does Dublin need? It is probably the greenest medium sized city in Europe and you think it needs more parks? The inner suburbs wont become more dense, as they are already developed. Why should expanding an already large park be favoured our more housing? Parks are lovely, but you cant live in them

Dublin doesnt need more parks, it needs more services. Green space is nice, but it serves little utility compared to better libraries, gyms, community halls, basketball courts, tennis courts etc.

They are great suggestions expect DCC wont higher density and funding better public transport wont happen. It is ridiculous that you are suggesting more greenspace and basically force people to commute into the city is a better for the overall well being of society.

I am not suggesting taking away existing parks. I just think it is absurd that people that people think expanding parks for more greenspace as it is basically 'nice' is the best idea. Go to any park in Dublin 1/2 in the winter or even the summer versus a gym and tell me if you really think more greenspace is needed. Parks are great, but in our climate indoor services are important, if not more important. Irish people don't use parks enough. Go to a park in Munich or Berlin and it is full of people. Go to a park in Dublin, where ball games are probably banned and if it is Phoenix Park, it is a shortcut for town with a park attached.

Not stripping existing greenspace does not equal adding more greenspace.

I agree that the city needs more services - particularly proper transport incl. public transport expansion - that is the primary way to provide sustainable long-term development/expansion and access in the city.

Stripping greenspace does not resolve the problem of people having to commute etc. and live further outwards from the city - it's permanently removing greenspace from the city, which needs to be preserved for current and future generations in perpetuity (something not to be taken lightly at all...certainly not to be done for meeting a short-term need), in return for a number of dwellings which is small enough to not really do anything to counter the need for further outward expansion and public transport access.

I don't want to see the cities greenspace replaced with e.g. gyms etc., thanks - plenty of people use these parks all through the year, and more and more people will be using these greenspaces centuries into the future too.

KomradeBishop

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It was originally turned down because the developer put the wrong name on it. This is a common ploy by some developers. Usually the amount of objections drop off considerably second time round as you have to pay for each objection. Big planning application close to my house has the wrong road name on it. It'll be turned down and lots of objectors will drop out

Indeed, yes - they did that for the first submission - I've been keeping an eye on this second submission, and it got stalled for a bit while the council requested modifications to the plan - which I think have been submitted now.

ProudDUB

newacc2015 wrote: »

Dublin doesnt need more parks, it needs more services. Green space is nice, but it serves little utility compared to better libraries, gyms, community halls, basketball courts, tennis courts etc.

You are contradicting yourself. St Anne's Park already provides loads of green space for outdoor exercise such as bike riding, walking on their walking trails, jogging, the elderly walking their dogs, kids playing football and GAA on their numerous pitches, gardening aficionados digging the Rose Garden etc etc. The very same kinds of physical exercise that gyms, basketball courts and tennis courts provide. They are just different sides to the same exercise coin.

Park your car on Watermill Rd on any evening or weekend day and, you'll see loads of people unloading their cars of hurls, sliotars, footballs, kids & adults bikes, rollerblades and what not. It's very much an active persons park. It's not like St Stephens Green, where office workers just sit around and admire the ducks and flowers on their lunch breaks. So I'm not seeing the logic of saying doing away with St Anne's (and other parks just like it) so that we can build more gyms. St Anne's Park is already a massive gym, of sorts. An outdoor one !

And I haven't even touched on its importance to the local community for events such as the annual Christmas Market, the summer Rose Garden Festival, the weekend activities around the Red Stables, or events like the big Brian Boru/Battle of Clontarf Commemorative Anniversary festivities. Parks aren't just blank green canvases that you could bulldoze and build houses on instead. They are a living, breathing part of the very communities that they exist within. Dublin would be A LOT poorer without them.

snickerpuss wrote: »

I would love to know how many of those 'cheaper' houses are in Edenmore, Kilbarrack, Harmonstown... Even at €350,000 you're talking a €100,000 joint income. That's not average. I'm not suggesting people from Raheny are snobbish just that it's turning into a very different area to what it was.

That is all well and good to throw out numbers, but I know 3 families who live in Raheny. I have no idea what they paid for their homes.

Couple 1. He's a Guard. She is a teacher. She is not working now, but she will go back to work once her eldest starts primary school next year.

Couple 2. He is an accountant. She used to have her own interiors business, but it went belly up after the crash. She got a part time job as a receptionist in a city centre hotel & has worked her way up to management. She's been there nearly 10 years, so I imagine she's on decent money now. She'd want to be. She works 70 hrs a week during busy match/concert weekends. Their 2 teenage kids have part time jobs in the hotel.

Couple 3. He's worked at Dublin Airport for over 20 years. He starting working there when he left school. She works for one of the employment agencies in town, that provides temp workers for the health care industry. She used to be a nurse in Beaumont.

Yes, they are all (or have been) double income families, but they are also very average families too, in my eyes, at least. Maybe we just have differing views on what constitutes "average."

KomradeBishop

The planning link for this was updated with a further request for information/modifications again:
http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=4185/15&theTabNo=2

As stated in the first post, the planning authorities seem likely to let this project go ahead, once sufficient modifications are made to satisfy them.

spurious

Concerns such as effect on traffic in the area will be listened to in a case like this.

Are they all to be exiting the estate somewhere close to the existing park gates?

If they turn right on exit, the lights sequence at Sybil Hill will have to be adjusted, creating a longer wait for traffic going directly out the Howth Road. This junction already backs up very easily.

If they go left on exit, they will either end up on Castle Avenue, or squashing down Vernon Avenue. Again, more traffic fun.

Either way three hundred odd extra cars, or even two hundred odd, will have a noticeable effect on current local traffic.

The Planning Dept in DCC won't listen to arguments about parks etc. unless you quote their own decisions back at them. Pressure on infrastructure (traffic, drainage, sewage, water pressure) is an easier case to make, especially if backed up with figures.

MarkAnthony

ProudDUB wrote: »

Sure you can say that about half the suburbs of Dublin. It doesn't mean they are all unhabited by posh toffs, looking down their noses at the peasantry.

Page 1 of Raheny properties for sale on Daft for under €350,000

There are most definitely homes available for under half a million in Raheny. The greater Raheny area is quite large. As long as you are not looking for a five bedroom, detached house, with sea views, or directly across the road from the park, it is affordable for average people on a decent income. It has never been a cheap place to live, but it certainly ain't no Ballsbridge, Killiney or Howth.

snickerpuss wrote: »

I would love to know how many of those 'cheaper' houses are in Edenmore, Kilbarrack, Harmonstown... Even at €350,000 you're talking a €100,000 joint income. That's not average. I'm not suggesting people from Raheny are snobbish just that it's turning into a very different area to what it was.

I almost bought a five bed detached in Kilbarrack for 360K, in the end I went with a 4 bed semi for around 270k. Lovely area and very affordable.

jon1981

Build away I say, sure otherwise the land will just sit there Ideal? Dublin needs homes, what's the problem? The park will be untouched. NIMBY's are the problem.

John_Rambo

jon1981 wrote: »

Build away I say, sure otherwise the land will just sit there Ideal? Dublin needs homes, what's the problem? The park will be untouched. NIMBY's are the problem.

Ah, Ireland's answer to everything. Build on a much used park and don't develop on any of the hundreds of acres of vacant land closer to the city.

https://www.google.ie/maps/place/East+Wall,+Dublin/@53.3559088,-6.2306218,227m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x48670ef404df5cf9:0x2600c7a7bb390c92!8m2!3d53.3543216!4d-6.2341133

alexjk

John_Rambo wrote: »

Ah, Ireland's answer to everything. Build on a much used park and don't develop on any of the hundreds of acres of vacant land closer to the city.

https://www.google.ie/maps/place/East+Wall,+Dublin/@53.3559088,-6.2306218,227m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x48670ef404df5cf9:0x2600c7a7bb390c92!8m2!3d53.3543216!4d-6.2341133

That map is outdated now, there's a Lidl across from the Aldi now, with a McDonalds and a Starbucks coming too. Having said that, you have a point. In an ideal world, large sections of East Wall would be flattened, and the area would be high rise residential and offices, the way the Docklands was intended to be.

I also think Amiens Street all the way out to Fairview should be high density. It couldn't have better transport, with Clontarf Road and Connolly Stations, as well as about 13 bus routes passing on that stretch of road on an almost constant basis.

Knowing Dublin though, the powers that be will decide everyone needs to live in Mulhuddart and The Naul.

Phoebas

John_Rambo wrote: »

Ah, Ireland's answer to everything. Build on a much used park and don't develop on any of the hundreds of acres of vacant land closer to the city.

Except the site isn't a much used park.
Let's try and keep the discussion fact based.

John_Rambo

alexjk wrote: »

That map is outdated now, there's a Lidl across from the Aldi now, with a McDonalds and a Starbucks coming too

That area I've highlighted is acres of derelict land. Nobody uses it. Even though Aldi, Lidl, McDonalds, Starbucks, ESB, Gardai are moving in.

Phoebas wrote: »

Except the site isn't a much used park.
Let's try and keep the discussion fact based.

It's never used. Ever. No cars ever park on it. It's a derelict site. That's fact based.

jon1981

John_Rambo wrote: »

Ah, Ireland's answer to everything. Build on a much used park and don't develop on any of the hundreds of acres of vacant land closer to the city.

https://www.google.ie/maps/place/East+Wall,+Dublin/@53.3559088,-6.2306218,227m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x48670ef404df5cf9:0x2600c7a7bb390c92!8m2!3d53.3543216!4d-6.2341133

It is not a used park!!!!!

It's a perfect location for housing:

Schools nearby
access to numerous villages
Bus/dart
parks
close to the coast
loads of other amenities ...

Putting the wrong argument "it's a park , you can't build there" to one side ...why shouldn't they build in a location that already has all the necessary amenities?

and by the way I own my home in the area and I'm ok with it. It's pure NIMBY, the "can't build on a park" argument is just a smokescreen for other reasons.

spurious

AFAIK, that is the land 'acquired' from the Corporation 'for use as playing fields' in 1952.

I would be checking the legal documents to see a) who actually owns it, and b) were there any conditions put down in 1952 about it?

Just saying 'it's a park, boohoo' will not stop something like this.
If people want to stop it, you have to do it legally, or with evidence of a major environmental impact.

Chinasea

jon1981 wrote: »

It is not a used park!!!!!

Putting the wrong argument "it's a park , you can't build there" to one side ...why shouldn't they build in a location that already has all the necessary amenities?

Joni:

"I wrote 'Big Yellow Taxi' on my first trip to Hawaii. I took a taxi to the hotel and when I woke up the next morning, I threw back the curtains and saw these beautiful green mountains in the distance. Then, I looked down and there was a parking lot as far as the eye could see, and it broke my heart... this blight on paradise. That's when I sat down and wrote the song.
The song is known for its environmental concern – "They paved paradise to put up a parking lot" The line "They took all the trees, and put 'em in a tree museum / And charged the people a dollar and a half just to see 'em" refers to Foster Botanical Garden in downtown Honolulu, which is a living museum of tropical plants, some rare and endangered.


Trees and green space by the way are silently working and helping you stay alive: Trees absorb odors and pollutant gases (nitrogen oxides, ammonia, sulfur dioxide and ozone) and filter particulates out of the air by trapping them on their leaves and bark.

Suggested read:
Top 22 Benefits of Trees | TreePeople
https://www.treepeople.org/resources/tree-benefits

jon1981

Chinasea wrote: »

Joni:

"I wrote 'Big Yellow Taxi' on my first trip to Hawaii. I took a taxi to the hotel and when I woke up the next morning, I threw back the curtains and saw these beautiful green mountains in the distance. Then, I looked down and there was a parking lot as far as the eye could see, and it broke my heart... this blight on paradise. That's when I sat down and wrote the song.
The song is known for its environmental concern – "They paved paradise to put up a parking lot" The line "They took all the trees, and put 'em in a tree museum / And charged the people a dollar and a half just to see 'em" refers to Foster Botanical Garden in downtown Honolulu, which is a living museum of tropical plants, some rare and endangered.


Trees and green space by the way are silently working and helping you stay alive: Trees absorb odors and pollutant gases (nitrogen oxides, ammonia, sulfur dioxide and ozone) and filter particulates out of the air by trapping them on their leaves and bark.

Suggested read:
Top 22 Benefits of Trees | TreePeople
https://www.treepeople.org/resources/tree-benefits

http://www.architecturefoundation.ie/news-item/mapping-tree-canopy-cover-in-dublin/

The roads and neighbourhoods in and around St Annes i.e. Dublin 5 and 3 have the most Tree coverage in North city Dublin! Nearly every road has huge trees lining the road, I don't think this development would reduce that coverage by any significant amount.

John_Rambo

jon1981 wrote: »

It is not a used park!!!!!

It is a much used park.