nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Pat Kenny NIMBYism

M.Cribben

I would just like to preface that I think Pat Kenny is one of the most professional broadcasters in the country, and have been listening to his radio/tv shows for decades. And I have no problem with people making reasonable objections to planning applications, where it's obviously not the right property/business/conditions for the area.

However, given the chronic property supply shortage and homelessness emergency we're experiencing, this type of rubbish makes my blood boil:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/pat-kenny-lodges-16page-objection-to-illthought-apartment-block-plan-next-to-dalkey-home-37498602.html

They state that planning permission should be refused as “this development is ill-thought and appears based on the quest for density alone with scant other consideration”.

It's 19 apartments and 7 houses ffs. Hardly an Indian mega slum.

The Kennys are opposing the plan on a number of grounds - density, scale and massing, design, traffic impact, impact on trees and habitat and residential amenity.

How can 26 properties cause any meaningful impact on local traffic?

The objection adds: “It would also set a precedent that could ultimately seriously damage the character of the area.”

Living beside apartment blocks with a small % social housing, oh the horror.

It just seems every time developers try to build anywhere in Dublin, the locals kick up. It's more prevalent in the affluent parts from what I've seen.

Makes for some funny reading though:

Another reason for refusal put forward by the Kennys is that the proposal by reason of its scale, height and design would have an overbearing visual impact and be seriously injurious to the setting, amenity and appreciation of neighbouring properties.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Sciprio

Grayson wrote: »

How the fcuk does a thread about Pat Kenny turn into a thread about immigration. Seriously, you have issues.

Edit: Not as many issues as this guy

The thread is about not allowing stuff/people being near you while you say others would be bad for doing so. "We don't want social housing here" "We don't want travellers here" "We don't want lots of unvetted third world immigration near us" Build them up or down the country...What they don't want it!? They're right winged racist fascist and i won't stand for it as only i am right and if you don't agree then you're a nazi! I don't have issues apart from others making rules and won't suffer the consequences.

2smiggy

Sciprio wrote: »

This is what is frustrating. They have nice areas and homes and want that to remain. They don't want their houses to lose value or the area receiving a bad name, And to be honest that's fine, eveyone wants a nice peaceful place.

Yet these are the same people who are most in favour of mass immigration and other people shouldn't be "racist" to travellers because it makes it makes them feel good and to show how tolerant they are.

They mean good but they don't want the fruits of seeds that they planted in other areas. Out of sight, out of mind. Other areas will have to put up with it and accept it and to question anything to do with it deems you racist for questioning their noble causes. It's not them competing for places in low end jobs,housing and health.

Agree completely, don't think Pat is one of those thou. Land them next door to Ciara Kelly or Ray D'Arcy IMO. They seem to have no problem economic immigrants.

homerjay2005

hypocrite Ireland strikes again! and its amazing anytime somebody screams about housing crisis its covered in the media but (unless its high profile in this instance) when theres objections to all forms of housing, its mostly ignored.

theres 1000s of people every year objecting and the reason it isnt more widespread is simply because theres only a limited number of sites and thus people involved.

start throwing up social housing all over Dublin and we will really see the true nature of people.

Marty Bird

AllForIt wrote: »

What difference does it make where I live. Dalkey is a lovely spot to visit on a nice day which I've done many times. I dont want it spoilt. Like I dont want Dun Laoghraigh spoilt by drug addicts hanging around shop fronts because of the methadone clinic that opened there.

You don’t know Dalkey well so as Dalkey already has social housing estates a few more would benefit the wider community.

Mrsmum

Big big mistake not to buy it himself. That's the only way you can really control who ends up there. Golden opportunity missed.

mikeymouse

I wonder if Gerard Charlton has anything to do with this.

(Edit after Tretorn's post)

Ah yes, now I see.
I went back to the planning link and saw the name.

tretorn

Mrsmum wrote: »

Big big mistake not to buy it himself. That's the only way you can really control who ends up there. Golden opportunity missed.

The family probably wouldnt have sold it to him after all the bad blood between neighbours.

Also the property owners daughter had an adjoining site which made the site much more attractive to developers. The developers probably bought the two sites together and even an ex RTE jobsworth with a huge salary wouldnt be able to compete with the developers.

If I was Pat I might think about selling my pile to the developer too, you would get good money now and property prices could crash to the floor in a few years.

It really is all about location and this area isnt going to be devalued by travellers or indirect provision for economic migrants who will eventually be housed in disadvantaged areas.

Ush1

Assetbacked wrote: »

These sort of developments would really ignite new life into areas where there are traditionally large houses with lots of space separating one another. There is no reason why a relatively small development of housing should be prevented just because someone in their ivory tower is worried about a bedroom window that might look at an apartment. It would be such a crazy decision to refuse planning on reasons for "intrusiveness" and "out of character with the area" when dozens of people could be housed in a beautiful area like Dalkey at the minor irritation of one old man.

Kenny can take a hike.

The residents of Dalkey have no interest in "igniting new life" in their area.

Ush1

Sciprio wrote: »

This is what is frustrating. They have nice areas and homes and want that to remain. They don't want their houses to lose value or the area receiving a bad name, And to be honest that's fine, eveyone wants a nice peaceful place.

Yet these are the same people who are most in favour of mass immigration and other people shouldn't be "racist" to travellers because it makes it makes them feel good and to show how tolerant they are.

They mean good but they don't want the fruits of seeds that they planted in other areas. Out of sight, out of mind. Other areas will have to put up with it and accept it and to question anything to do with it deems you racist for questioning their noble causes. It's not them competing for places in low end jobs,housing and health.

Diversity is for the little people.

[Deleted User]

Ush1 wrote: »

Diversity is for the little people.

and Social housing is for the wealthy

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/dalkey-developer-seeks-516-400-per-social-housing-apartment-1.3213313?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fsocial-affairs%2Fdalkey-developer-seeks-516-400-per-social-housing-apartment-1.3213313

Grayson

Sciprio wrote: »

The thread is about not allowing stuff/people being near you while you say others would be bad for doing so. "We don't want social housing here" "We don't want travellers here" "We don't want lots of unvetted third world immigration near us" Build them up or down the country...What they don't want it!? They're right winged racist fascist and i won't stand for it as only i am right and if you don't agree then you're a nazi! I don't have issues apart from others making rules and won't suffer the consequences.

It's about planning permission and someone who wants to keep his view. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with immigration or travelers. They're not setting up a halting site or a centre for asylum seekers. If they were then you might have a point. It's about someone who's rich and doesn't want anyone living next door.

You have a one track mind.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Grayson wrote: »

It's about planning permission and someone who wants to keep his view. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with immigration or travelers. They're not setting up a halting site or a centre for asylum seekers. If they were then you might have a point. It's about someone who's rich and doesn't want anyone living next door.

You have a one track mind.

So the rich get to protect their view and all the apartments, the housing and even the halting sites are pushed out past the M50. That’s convenient.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Aegir wrote: »

and Social housing is for the wealthy

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/dalkey-developer-seeks-516-400-per-social-housing-apartment-1.3213313?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fsocial-affairs%2Fdalkey-developer-seeks-516-400-per-social-housing-apartment-1.3213313

The cost of the housing is pricey. The people living there will be subject to the same social welfare criteria as anybody else.

Spanish Eyes

Personally I think anyone one of us, no matter where we live might have a problem with multiple windows looking into our property.

It is not always about right and privilege of a location in SCD, it is about invasion of privacy.

I would bloody well hate a few windows from many apartments looking in to my property. And I am just an ordinary Joe.

Anyone can object to planning applications even if they don't live adjacent to the proposed development. PK is just exercising his right to do this.

If I had been him, I would have sold the house two years ago, and fecked off into the sunset. He had that option, chose not to do so, so there he is now. the Charltons are having a good laugh over a cappucino now. They are quids in. PK still has to fight.

I don't want to know what the bad blood was, but the writing was on the wall re the Charlton House. I am surprised the Kenny's stayed.

But before I am sued or whatever, just saying my piece!

awec

There is not a home owner in the land who would not object to this if they were in this situation. Anyone saying otherwise is a liar.

This is one of the reasons we have planning laws, to avoid these sort of situations as much as possible.

Franz Von Peppercorn

awec wrote: »

There is not a home owner in the land who would not object to this if they were in this situation. Anyone saying otherwise is a liar.

This is one of the reasons we have planning laws, to avoid these sort of situations as much as possible.

Pretty sure there’s an appartment being built near me and I didn’t object. Naw. Most objections are from the well heeled.

awec

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Pretty sure there’s an appartment being built near me and I didn’t object. Naw. Most objections are from the well heeled.

Is it being built right next door overlooking your house? The apartments are less than 15 metres from their house at the closest point. That is close.

Spanish Eyes

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Pretty sure there’s an appartment being built near me and I didn’t object. Naw. Most objections are from the well heeled.

How near is near for you? Just wondering.

lawred2

I wouldn't want an apartment block overlooking our back yard and it isn't Dalkey we're living in.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

How near is near for you? Just wondering.

Across the road.

awec

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Across the road.

Not really the same thing then, is it?

"Near me", "across the road" are very vague terms.

Grayson

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

So the rich get to protect their view and all the apartments, the housing and even the halting sites are pushed out past the M50. That’s convenient.

It's not right but it happens. Personally I think the thing should be assessed on it's merits. There are times when planning permission should be refused and times when it shouldn't. In this case I barely know any facts but I haven't heard anything to say it should be refused.

Grayson

awec wrote: »

Is it being built right next door overlooking your house? The apartments are less than 15 metres from their house at the closest point. That is close.

To be fair, pretty much every property built in Dublin is next to someone elses property.

Harry Palmr

Victory for the little man against wealthy developers.

[Deleted User]

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Victory for the little man against wealthy developers.

Remind us again Pat about the housing crisis, and epidemic of homelessness.

Assetbacked

It's about time the government declared a state of emergency with the housing crisis and implemented temporary overarching powers to get the houses built. Short term pain for the NIMBYs but long term gain for a more secure, housed society.

ted1

Assetbacked wrote: »

It's about time the government declared a state of emergency with the housing crisis and implemented temporary overarching powers to get the houses built. Short term pain for the NIMBYs but long term gain for a more secure, housed society.

Rubbish there’s load of land available. Dalkey is a heritage town and can’t handle all the infill sites being developed

Assetbacked

ted1 wrote: »

Rubbish there’s load of land available. Dalkey is a heritage town and can’t handle all the infill sites being developed

Such tripe.

Bringing a new crop of working individuals and families to an area like Dalkey is a good thing, it is a lovely area and people should not be deprived from living there in a time of crisis over some feudal mindset land fascists like Kenny and other ivory tower NIMBYs.

patrickbrophy18

I posted this on Facebook and might as well post it here too. This whole talk about "seriously injurious to the setting, amenity and appreciation of neighbouring properties" comes off as though the site in question should also be treated as an extension of amenities to neighbouring residents.

I would like to remind the residents of "neighbouring properties" that the only amenities they own are those WITHIN the confines of their walls. I had a look at the plans which weren't bad looking. They were quite smart looking actually. It will be very rich (no pun intended) to hear the head objector complaining about the housing crisis in future NewsTalk broadcasts.

blinding

An opportunity to place a Halting Site or a Refugee Centre has become available .

I certainly hope this opportunity is not over looked .