St Annes Park Planning Application

Belfunk wrote: »

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.

You aren't old enough to remember to the original fence obviously. In the 70s & early 80s there was the original fence that was erected in the 50s. When we had a cross country run to do for PE we would run out onto the playing field & turn right. We'd follow the school wall down to where it meets the park. There was a gap in the fence here for us to get into the park.



Are you suggesting that if I have a fence around my garden that my garden is part of my neighbors garden? Just because a squirrel can hop from my garden to another doesn't mean that my garden is "in" someone else's garden. You do see how ridiculous that logic is right?


It's a bad idea to have a development here but jasus lets not make things up that aren't true. Call it what you want. The land registry disagrees with you. According to them it's never been part of the park & it's beside the park.

All i can think of is trying to get a DART

odyssey06 wrote: »

Who are you going to believe, the packed buses and DARTs and roads you see on that route with your own lying eyes OR the planners who said there is ample spare capacity in the area.
I think the planners think these new developments come with their own transporter devices, they probably do their study at 11 o'clock on a Tuesday morning.

Unfortunately some filthy rich developer is going to want a return on his investment.

I think the site will be built on. Maybe delayed, but inevitable. Just like the fast tracked site in Chapelizod (there is a thread on it). Lovely site, backing on to Phoenix Park close to town and all that. The design of the building is the problem, that and the fact that there will not be any affordable properties there, all social.

Anyway, everyone wants more housing, but not next to me thank you very much, and some politicians have not come out smelling of roses either.

FWIW I live in a house that backs on to GAA playing fields and a nice walking circuit. Bet that will be gone soon too. But hey ho that's life.

odyssey06 wrote: »

Who are you going to believe, the packed buses and DARTs and roads you see on that route with your own lying eyes OR the planners who said there is ample spare capacity in the area.
I think the planners think these new developments come with their own transporter devices, they probably do their study at 11 o'clock on a Tuesday morning.

I've seen planners reports where they do the traffic studies at 7am on Sunday mornings and it's taken as gospel that everything is ok, madness

neris wrote: »

in the case of the developments in howth thats something along the lines of what they done. Traffic at sutton cross late in the morning during school holidays and it was all hunky dory according to the planners

I take your point, but people just will not get out of their cars. I do realise that PT is abysmal in Dublin, but people will still drive everywhere even with DART/LUAS on the doorstep.

Those who do not have DART or LUAS are in a much worse position. There is no choice for them other than Bus, however we can only hope that places like Terenure, Templeogue, Lucan and so on will benefit from Bus Connects, if it ever goes ahead with all the objections.

Sometimes in my dreams I'd wish a dictator came along and said, look, this is how it is, it's what we are doing for the good of the capital. Shut the feck up now, it is in everyone's interests, not just yours.

Well I just woke out of my slumber sharpish there anyway!

If this development goes ahead there will be 20 percent more homes in this small plot of land than there is in the entire St Anne's housing estate. This really is a high density development

Belfunk wrote: »

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.

So you describe what happened, and when, to make it not part of the Park and then say its still part of the Park. Confusing.

Suffice to say it is not, in fact, part of the Park. There are a couple of very separate things going on here. There is the dereliction of duty on the part of Dublin City Council when disposing of the piece of land that they did not include a perpetuity clause, that it be retained as an amenity. There is the cynical move on the part of the College authorities to sell it on, knowing what was always intended for the land to be. There is the developer taking a punt on this opportunity to exploit the new bias of planning law. This all may be pretty repugnant to people, but though distasteful, none of it is illegal, or improper from a Planning point of view. And I say that as a town planner with 20 years experience.

The problem here is the laws, the development framework and the balance of both. However, I can say that I have bad news for the "thankfully this will never happen" brigade. Yes people may fund a judicial review, but that only deals with petitions that claim the Board erred in law in some fashion, they cannot rule on the Planning aspects, where are now decided. This WILL be built, sooner or later, I can think of many similar examples of the precedent and I wouldn't waste any more energy on it.

ixoy wrote: »

Killester is already a near nightmare after 8. Yet apparently 650 new accommodation units can service it alongside a reduced bus route? How do planners not have to factor the reality of public transport : it can't be sufficient to just say it's there without knowing it's got sufficient capacity.

I don't know what your problem is. There's lots of capacity on the 1037 DART according to the genius managing DART capacity so that's the one you should be getting and it's your own fault for trying to use public transport to get to work.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Accepted. And I hope that will be the case. It is more about location though really.
However the bleating going on about the need for housing is not being supported much by many objectors from what I can see.
Ok if it is out in the sticks somewhere, but don't you dare build in MY area.
Can't have it both ways. Time to put up or shut up now.

I think in Howth they welcomed the development to get rid of an eye sore until they saw the scale of what was proposed. Which seems like a reasonable position.

It's actually outrageous that more people should be denied the chance to live 5km from O'Connell Bridge, near a DART station (with additional stock and the City Centre Resignalling coming down the line) and three spines under Bus Connects.

People are being forced to live in an outer commuter hell for fear of inconveniencing residents.

Big fan of this development. Need more of them in the inner suburbs.

Since when did the area have "a reduced bus route" as some have mentioned here?

bazza1 wrote: »

SF are mandated to build 100000 houses....heres 700 homes to start!.....discuss!

Not there or anywhere with clout either I'd suggest.

I doubt that a reverse system would work either, i.e. 80% social and 20% affordable.

It's all down to where you live. That has to be stopped. But I doubt the St. Anne's and Howth developments would be within the affordable group (mortgage) even with 20% social included. So you see, location really matters.

tricky D wrote: »

We welcome proportionate and responsible development but not this grab as much with shoddy practices and non-enforcements.

What is disproportionate and irresponsible about this particular and much needed development in the midst of a housing crisis?