St Annes Park Planning Application

Ardilaun Court, a new development next to this site, had 3 bedroom houses for sale at €665,000. 1 bedroom apartments were €375,000 and 2 bedroom units for €540,000.

Great to get more properties built in Dublin but these units will not be affordable for most, if they are even made available for sale. If not they will be rented at huge cost and the moaning will move from we don't build enough to we charge too much.

dubrov wrote: »

In fairness, if you don't believe this development will meet the demands of its new residents then you won't believe anywhere in Dublin will.

With a massive local park, high desirability and proximity to the dart station, I would have thought it's exactly the sort of place where building should occur

The parking spaces being provided with the St Anne's development will not in any way match expected car ownership in these expensive apartments. So there will be up to 200 extra cars parked along local roads blocking access to St Anne's Park.

The lands being developed are important feeding grounds for Brent geese. There are numerous brownfield sites that could be developed for apartment living in Dublin without impacting on ecology and important green spaces. There is already a shortage of pitches in many parts of Dublin and the population is still increasing.

We need to preserve our parks and pitches for the next generation. By your logic why not build on Croke Park, St Stephens Green and the Aviva?

dubrov wrote: »

I go to St Anne's all the time. This development will have zero impact on my enjoyment of the park.

Let's be honest here,. Objections will be from locals only apart from those who go from cause to cause constantly objecting

It will if you cannot find a parking place in the vicinity. This development is not providing nearly enough parking places for the expected car ownership of the new residents. So they will be parking their cars wherever they can in roads around the park.

There are plenty of development sites in Dublin without resorting to building on parks and pitches and on important ecological sites which are crucial for a healthy society.

tricky D wrote: »

You do realise that the SHD legislation has removed many sensible requirements for developments over 100 units, removed the appeals process, can now ignore established planning principles and orders, apply urban rules inappropriately in suburban locations, ignore legal requirements, are unable to see basic issues in applications due to removal of skilled planners in favour of political appointees/cronies.


Issues in ABP and in development in general have been with us or decades and little has ever changed for the better.

That is complete nonsense. ABP heard the appeals so going straight to them only cuts out the middle man and speeds up getting to the same end decision. And ABP are far more qualified to make these decisions than county council staff.

Do you have examples of political appointees/cronies in ABP or are you just hitting the anti-establishment buzz words? Many County Development Plans have been shown to be totally inadequate. They were approved by Councillors who have been open to outside influences and corruption. The executive side of CoCos wanted houses everywhere regardlessof proper planning so they can collect charges and levies which they were reliant on for their funding. Overruling that and having national guidelines is far more transparent.

If left in the hands of CoCos, almost all new housing would be on greenfields so the Councillors don't have to listen to complaints. That model is totally unsustainable and has led to the poor infrastructure provision we see. We just couldn't keep going until all of Meath, Kildare and Wicklow are build on with car dependant estates. The refocus towards development in urban areas and densification is needed but it was never going to come from CoCos.

dubrov wrote: »

I go to St Anne's all the time. This development will have zero impact on my enjoyment of the park.

I hope you live within cycling distance Dubrov. It's going to be different park from here on if this development goes ahead.

It's no secret that new entrances and exits will need to be build within a couple of years through the park for traffic management, breaking up and fragmenting the park with further tree felling and wildlife habitation loss and general parkland loss.

Thin end of the wedge, if you enjoy the park like the rest of us you should have objected.

tricky D wrote: »

Yes.



You do realise that the SHD legislation has removed many sensible requirements for developments over 100 units, removed the appeals process, can now ignore established planning principles and orders, apply urban rules inappropriately in suburban locations, ignore legal requirements, are unable to see basic issues in applications due to removal of skilled planners in favour of political appointees/cronies.


Issues in ABP and in development in general have been with us or decades and little has ever changed for the better.

The same planning principles and all other laws are the exact same. The only difference is that ABP are making the direct decision and taking into account the opinion of DCC rather than the submission going initially to the council and then to ABP at the approval stage.

As for political appointees/cronies - that is a fairly wild allegation. ABP operates entirely independently not from government appointees.

If Fine Gael were in charge of corruptly appointing people then they haven't done a great job of it as we only managed to build about 22,000 houses in Ireland last year!!

forgottenhills wrote: »

The parking spaces being provided with the St Anne's development will not in any way match expected car ownership in these expensive apartments. So there will be up to 200 extra cars parked along local roads blocking access to St Anne's Park.

The lands being developed are important feeding grounds for Brent geese. There are numerous brownfield sites that could be developed for apartment living in Dublin without impacting on ecology and important green spaces. There is already a shortage of pitches in many parts of Dublin and the population is still increasing.

We need to preserve our parks and pitches for the next generation. By your logic why not build on Croke Park, St Stephens Green and the Aviva?

You are missing the point. This is privately owned land and will have no impact on the existing number of pitches or any other public amenity.

I am not opposed to the council buying land for public amenity where it is required.

noodler wrote: »

I've never seen so many latch onto faux outrage over the "Brent Geese" over what is essentially a NIMBY issue.

I love that park and if anyone ever tries to built on it proper I'll be out. This ain't that.

The geese thing is surely just the easiest "winnable" legal defense route? It's fairly low down on the list of most people's objections I'd guess, I would expect literally every development has an environmental impact of some sort.

noodler wrote: »

I've never seen so many latch onto faux outrage over the "Brent Geese" over what is essentially a NIMBY issue.

I love that park and if anyone ever tries to built on it proper I'll be out. This ain't that.

Yeah I agree. The land was never part of the park anyway, just adjacent to it.

This thread has been a good example of why we have a housing crisis in Ireland. Everyone wants housing but not in their area. This is absolutely the right place for a medium sized development like this. It’s private land that’s not accessible to the general public. It won’t affect the park in anyway. It’s a 10 minute walk to a Dart station with a new 10 minute frequency and more carriages being added. Better bus frequencies will be needed but that’s easy to do. It’s a 20 minute cycle to the Docklands which is adding thousands of jobs. Much of that cycle will be on a dedicated cycle track too and not on the edge of the road.

Traffic congestion is a problem in every corner of Dublin. That’s not a valid objection because then every development should be blocked in that case. Of course there needs to be good traffic management plans put in place, light sequencing changed etc but hopefully most people will avail of alternatives to the car like I outlined above.

forgottenhills wrote: »

The parking spaces being provided with the St Anne's development will not in any way match expected car ownership in these expensive apartments. So there will be up to 200 extra cars parked along local roads blocking access to St Anne's Park.

If there is no underground car park and its 1.5 parking spaces allocated per unit then the surrounding area can expect increased volumes of cars looking to park, and not just for a couple of hours.

is_that_so wrote:

Yeah I agree. The land was never part of the park anyway, just adjacent to it.

I am against the development but can confirm the above is 100 fact.

I hate the lies. It was never fenced in. It is in the park. It was gifted, loaned or it was sold cheap on the condition that blah, blah, blah. This nonsense does not help the case AND the planners have all of the facts and land registry deeds going back 100 years.

is_that_so wrote: »

Yeah I agree. The land was never part of the park anyway, just adjacent to it.

Absolutely.

For years there has been no public access to the private area in question unless you were renting one of the astro pitches.