St Annes Park Planning Application

forgottenhills · 07-05-2021 6:52pm

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

10 rounds of legal proceedings!!!!!!!! :eek:

This is just going to keep going around and around.
A permanent solution is required.

Perhaps the council make and offer to the developer to buy the land?
or perhaps a trade on some piece of land in Dublin that requires development?

there'd need to be some sort of tie in though that would ensure that no one ever again places a fence around a section in the park.

Or a permanent solution might be that the developer gets stung on this transaction and other developers in future never try it on again in terms of attempting to develop school grounds or other community assets? DLR are looking to protect all school grounds in their next development plan and more power to them.

Beta Ray Bill · 07-05-2021 6:59pm

forgottenhills wrote: »

Or a permanent solution might be that the developer gets stung on this transaction and other developers in future never try it on again in terms of attempting to develop school grounds or other community assets? DLR are looking to protect all school grounds in their next development plan and more power to them.

That's a fair point too.
Its was fairly thick of them to think there would be no opposition to that.
I'd say there's a heap of solicitors and barristers living around that area. May as well have tried to do the same on Marley Park really.

Fred Cryton · 07-05-2021 7:03pm

Disgraceful decision by this judge. Hardly impartial.

This country is now known as a basket case for investment thanks to the legal/planning nexus and lefty populism.

Infuriating. The Irish are just such an infantile race and deserve everything coming their way.

odyssey06 · 07-05-2021 7:15pm

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Disgraceful decision by this judge. Hardly impartial.

Claim utterly without foundation.
How was it not an impartial decision?
The judge found that ABP did not do their job properly.
I guess it is easier to throw out spurious claims of partiality than to challenge any of the specific findings of the judge's decision?
Multiple times now ABP decisions have come before the courts and their decisions have been reversed, not on techicalities or complex case law but the courts finding ABP did not follow their own basic processes.
If you want to talk about partiality, whether that indicates either fundamental failings in the comptence or integrity of ABP staff and processes.

This country is now known as a basket case for investment thanks to the legal/planning nexus and lefty populism.

Because of this decision?
Zero evidence of any of this.

Infuriating. The Irish are just such an infantile race and deserve everything coming their way.

Now you are just coming out with a racist rant.

Thelonious Monk · 07-05-2021 7:18pm

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Disgraceful decision by this judge. Hardly impartial.

This country is now known as a basket case for investment thanks to the legal/planning nexus and lefty populism.

Infuriating. The Irish are just such an infantile race and deserve everything coming their way.

Should you not be focusing your ire on the pedestrianisation plans announced this week and the fines for parking on footpaths and in cycle lanes? Don't take on too much at once.

bren2001 · 07-05-2021 7:20pm

downtheroad wrote: »

Could say exactly the same thing about the proposed development at St Anne's. Traffic at Sybil Hill/Howth Road/Brookwood Avenue is appalling, inadequate supply of busses along the Howth Road corridor that will be lessening with BusConnects, and Darts that were at capacity on arrival at Harmonstown/Killester stations pre covid.

The new light sequence doesn't help in the mornings getting onto the Howth Road! Sybill Hill is mental, I cannot understand why parking is allowed on both sides (or either). It should be double yellow lines all the way to the park and beyond.

Thelonious Monk · 07-05-2021 7:28pm

There should be a cycle lane on sybill hill to the sea given all the schools around here, will never happen though

SC024 · 07-05-2021 7:41pm

teddansonswig wrote: »

On my ramble today I see that DCC are applying to build an all weather football pitch in by the tennis courts.

linktoDCC

I would like to object, purely because I think theres enough football provisions around the area.
My first time to enquire about objecting and I see theres an E20 euro fee to do so!
I cant believe it, for a public facility! they should be asking for opinions not charging! im raging...

any thoughts on the development?

I'd like to object to you objecting for the sake of it. Where can I do that?

Seth Brundle · 07-05-2021 8:33pm

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

there'd need to be some sort of tie in though that would ensure that no one ever again places a fence around a section in the park.

...but the fence is on private property. They didn't fence off anything in the park.

forgottenhills · 07-05-2021 8:34pm

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Disgraceful decision by this judge. Hardly impartial.

This country is now known as a basket case for investment thanks to the legal/planning nexus and lefty populism.

Infuriating. The Irish are just such an infantile race and deserve everything coming their way.

Ridiculous comment. It sounds like you are associated with developers. In that case why don't you guys proceed post haste to build the large amount of land already approved under SHD applications rather than sitting back attempting to flip it to investment funds like you seem to be concentrating on right now? And get on with this rather than trying to assemble even larger land banks by seeking to obtain planning permission on school lands and football pitches. Do you even know the history, potential impact and exact location of the St Anne's site in question?

And by the way I am not a "lefty" by a long shot but there comes a time when enough is enough.

Beta Ray Bill · 07-05-2021 8:55pm

Seth Brundle wrote: »

...but the fence is on private property. They didn't fence off anything in the park.

There originally was an agreement between the council and the school.
The school was given exclusive use of a number of pitches in the park.

As time went on the school decided to put up a fence around the pitches (not the fence that's there now, that's a new fence) to keep the pupils in during school time and to keep people out at night time, a lot of teens drink in the park.

The law basically is: if you put a fence around a piece of land, that is adjacent to land you already own and it's not challenged and is in place for years, you effectively own that land. You can see examples of this all over Dublin in areas that were built in the 70s and 80s, particularly along the railway line.

The land was never given to the school in an official sense.

I'm fairly sure the fence went up in the 80's/90's when I was a kid.
it was one of those fences with the concrete pillars that had a curve on the top, with that crappy criss cross mesh between the pillars

07-05-2021 9:17pm

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

There should be a cycle lane on sybill hill to the sea given all the schools around here, will never happen though

Send a suggestion to Councillor Catherine Stocker, I sent her a similar idea as part of her request for suggestions of North Dublin cycling infrastructure.

A cycle lane along Brookwood Avenue and Sybil Hill/Vernon Avenue to connect Malahide Road, Howth Road and the Clontarf cycle lane would be fantastic for the area.

ixoy · 07-05-2021 9:18pm

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Yeah there would have been apartments looking down onto the avenue, that seems just wrong, would kind of ruin it.

I've really come to appreciate it in the last year, feeling that you're cut off from suburban sprawl as soon as you get inside the gates. And now, every Saturday, the nice trek down to the market. Would have felt spoiled if they had built next to this.

dubrov · 07-05-2021 10:35pm

If I read the independent article right, one of the planning permissible was approved by ABP which was then overturned in the high court. In light of this ABP then refused permission

The developer then challenged this ABP decision to refuse the application in the high court and was successful.

If true, that's completely broken system that only serves to enrich the legal profession

deandean · 08-05-2021 11:21am

I very much hope that ABP will have to pay the legal fees of the resident's association.
ABP has, yet again, shot itself in the foot.

donspeekinglesh · 08-05-2021 1:27pm

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

I'm fairly sure the fence went up in the 80's/90's when I was a kid.
it was one of those fences with the concrete pillars that had a curve on the top, with that crappy criss cross mesh between the pillars

There was no fence when I was in school there in the late 90s, just a slightly raised ditch.

nj27 · 08-05-2021 1:43pm

Delighted with the decision. I live across the road from St Anne’s and I love the peace. Hopefully the field in question can be incorporated to the park immediately!

roddney · 08-05-2021 2:24pm

dubrov wrote: »

If I read the independent article right, one of the planning permissible was approved by ABP which was then overturned in the high court. In light of this ABP then refused permission

The developer then challenged this ABP decision to refuse the application in the high court and was successful.

If true, that's completely broken system that only serves to enrich the legal profession

There’s 2 separate applications to ABP at this stage. The 1st one went back to ABP for reasons to be given for its rejection which was the last court ruling. I’m unsure of exactly where that one is at. ABP could be waiting for outcome of court case just released.

This ruling from court is on the 2nd and latest higher density application.

The bigger point is that ABP will need to follow the guidance on all current and future planning applications unless appealed and overturned.

Fred Cryton · 08-05-2021 3:31pm

forgottenhills wrote: »

Ridiculous comment. It sounds like you are associated with developers. In that case why don't you guys proceed post haste to build the large amount of land already approved under SHD applications rather than sitting back attempting to flip it to investment funds like you seem to be concentrating on right now? And get on with this rather than trying to assemble even larger land banks by seeking to obtain planning permission on school lands and football pitches. Do you even know the history, potential impact and exact location of the St Anne's site in question?

And by the way I am not a "lefty" by a long shot but there comes a time when enough is enough.

Actually who are you to tell the private owners of that land what to do with it?

Would you accept if others told you what to do with your house or car?

donvito99 · 08-05-2021 3:51pm

A recent major development near me with 200+ units has lead to exactly F all impact on traffic. This common complaint by NIMBY residents needs to be put to bed.

Hopefully the developer comes back with something to placate a court and inject much needed supply to the market. If you can annoy large numbers of hypocritical NIMBYs at the same time, even better.

08-05-2021 6:49pm

donvito99 wrote: »

A recent major development near me with 200+ units has lead to exactly F all impact on traffic. This common complaint by NIMBY residents needs to be put to bed.

Hopefully the developer comes back with something to placate a court and inject much needed supply to the market. If you can annoy large numbers of hypocritical NIMBYs at the same time, even better.

Was this recent major development adjacent to over 500metres of pathway in a secluded park with absolutely no other buildings or infrastructure in the area?

John_Rambo · 08-05-2021 8:05pm

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Actually who are you to tell the private owners of that land what to do with it?

Would you accept if others told you what to do with your house or car?

We have every right to. If I was doing something to my house and was refused planning I'd accept it. As you would.

markpb · 08-05-2021 8:11pm

nj27 wrote: »

Delighted with the decision. I live across the road from St Anne’s and I love the peace. Hopefully the field in question can be incorporated to the park immediately!

What makes you think that will happen? The field is still owned by the developer, the chances of them never getting planning permission for anything is slim.

nj27 · 08-05-2021 9:29pm

markpb wrote: »

What makes you think that will happen? The field is still owned by the developer, the chances of them never getting planning permission for anything is slim.

I'll just show up to the meeting stark naked and start throwing digs.

Marcusm · 08-05-2021 10:01pm

John_Rambo wrote: »

We have every right to. If I was doing something to my house and was refused planning I'd accept it. As you would.

By that logic, the Guildford 4 would still be in jail. Anyone refused planning permission by a local authority has a right of appeal to ABP and thence to the High Court and so on if necessary. To suggest otherwise would be a perversion of natural justice. It seems in this case ABP has made significant procedural errors which undermine the validity of its decision. That is not to say that once the appeal is properly considered that the same conclusion will not be reached.

roddney · 08-05-2021 10:21pm

Marcusm wrote: »

By that logic, the Guildford 4 would still be in jail. Anyone refused planning permission by a local authority has a right of appeal to ABP and thence to the High Court and so on if necessary. To suggest otherwise would be a perversion of natural justice. It seems in this case ABP has made significant procedural errors which undermine the validity of its decision. That is not to say that once the appeal is properly considered that the same conclusion will not be reached.

It’s an interesting case in that it sets legal precedent for Z15 lands where there was community use. In this case the developer bought and stopped community use to build case to allow development. The court has established that regardless there is an established community use which must be considered in planning. This makes it very hard to get planning now as they are used sports fields.

I’d imagine this will be appealed all the way though

hamburgham · 08-05-2021 10:57pm

forgottenhills wrote: »

No, its vital for current and future generations that we do not build in parks and on sports grounds used by communities and schools. These are vital amenities and once they are gone they are gone. There is already a massive shortage of grass pitches in many of the well-developed parts of the city and suburbs. There is plenty of land zoned for development elsewhere. A scandal of the whole SHD planning scenario is that only a fraction of the sites that have already been approved under SHD legislation have actually been built as many developers sit on this land and look to flip the sites rather than build anything.

The church lands, eg Clonliffe college, various convent grounds etc are also all being built on. There is never a word about this even though the parkland is often in practice an unoffficial park. I though there might be more of an appreciation of the value of green space after the last year.

hamburgham · 08-05-2021 10:59pm

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

That's a fair point too.
Its was fairly thick of them to think there would be no opposition to that.
I'd say there's a heap of solicitors and barristers living around that area. May as well have tried to do the same on Marley Park really.

Big mistake taking on the residents of Clontarf.

odyssey06 · 09-05-2021 9:17am

hamburgham wrote: »

Big mistake taking on the residents of Clontarf.

They cut that wall down to size too.

Marcusm · 09-05-2021 10:47am

roddney wrote: »

It’s an interesting case in that it sets legal precedent for Z15 lands where there was community use. In this case the developer bought and stopped community use to build case to allow development. The court has established that regardless there is an established community use which must be considered in planning. This makes it very hard to get planning now as they are used sports fields.

I’d imagine this will be appealed all the way though

It is an interesting one as there are very significant institutional lands which are being used for housing including the Central Mental Hospital site in Dundrum. Z15 is institutional and community use; whether the Raheny land was institutional or community I do not know as it was attached to an institution (school). This judgement will likely have ramifications far beyond this particular site where private development is being undertaken on such lands. This might point to errors at local authority and ABP level.

roddney · 09-05-2021 12:11pm

Marcusm wrote: »

It is an interesting one as there are very significant institutional lands which are being used for housing including the Central Mental Hospital site in Dundrum. Z15 is institutional and community use; whether the Raheny land was institutional or community I do not know as it was attached to an institution (school). This judgement will likely have ramifications far beyond this particular site where private development is being undertaken on such lands. This might point to errors at local authority and ABP level.

In this case the land was community football pitches used by the school and and local soccer, Gaelic and rugby clubs at junior and senior level and they were evicted rather than voluntarily gave up use. This case specifically deals with this type of case. Basically where an institution decides to sell off lands for housing that currently have community use. Housing is still fine on institutional lands where there wasn’t established community use such as general grounds of a religious order who have vacated. This was the original intent of the zoning

Strumms · 09-05-2021 12:40pm

hamburgham wrote: »

Big mistake taking on the residents of Clontarf.

Errr, what are you on about ? I don’t think ‘taking on’ anybody was in the minds of those building the facilities. It’s a sporting amenity FOR people.

As I said a few years ago in this thread... giving people, young people the ability to engage in a sport they love and remain active and healthy by being able to play it all throughout the year when the main grass pitches are in a state and light would be an issue.....is an overwhelmingly positive thing. It would have been an absolutely class and valued amenity, on a social, health and fitness as well as sporting level.

The individuals who failed to approve this should be ashamed of themselves. And as for the people objecting....:rolleyes:

roddney · 09-05-2021 2:40pm

Strumms wrote: »

Errr, what are you on about ? I don’t think ‘taking on’ anybody was in the minds of those building the facilities. It’s a sporting amenity FOR people.

As I said a few years ago in this thread... giving people, young people the ability to engage in a sport they love and remain active and healthy by being able to play it all throughout the year when the main grass pitches are in a state and light would be an issue.....is an overwhelmingly positive thing. It would have been an absolutely class and valued amenity, on a social, health and fitness as well as sporting level.

The individuals who failed to approve this should be ashamed of themselves. And as for the people objecting....:rolleyes:

Unfortunately the remaining pitch it an important feeding ground for migratory Brent geese, which is protected. Those who objected did so due to loss of other 5 pitches rather than this specifically.

The problem was this was used as carrot to justify not needing the other 5 pitches.

Nothing to stop the school going back for permission for a grass all weather pitch with underground drainage if they mitigated affect on birds by say doing works exclusively in summer months.

John_Rambo · 09-05-2021 3:39pm

John_Rambo wrote: »

We have every right to. If I was doing something to my house and was refused planning I'd accept it. As you would.

Marcusm wrote: »

By that logic, the Guildford 4 would still be in jail. Anyone refused planning permission by a local authority has a right of appeal to ABP and thence to the High Court and so on if necessary. To suggest otherwise would be a perversion of natural justice. It seems in this case ABP has made significant procedural errors which undermine the validity of its decision. That is not to say that once the appeal is properly considered that the same conclusion will not be reached.

Very interesting.

The point remains, you can't "do what you want with your land" and people have the right to object.

Marcusm · 09-05-2021 7:44pm

John_Rambo wrote: »

Very interesting.

The point remains, you can't "do what you want with your land" and people have the right to object.

Your statement was that any person (right minded, I suspect you meant) should give up at the first challenge. I am simply stating that this is not a fair assertion. It's not. ado what you want approach, it's a seek vindication of your rights approach. Neither the land owner/developer nor the objectors have been well served by the local authority/ABP. To suggest that they should give up a falsely grounded refusal is facile on the part of either group.

Gloomtastic! · 10-05-2021 11:20am

So, is that it? Or can the developer go back to court to try and overrule the judgment?

Marcusm · 10-05-2021 12:00pm

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

So, is that it? Or can the developer go back to court to try and overrule the judgment?

It will not be over until something is constructed on it. The decision is that ABP did not follow correct procedures in determining whether it was appropriate to override the Z15 zoning. That will now have to be considered. Something will be built upon it eventually.

10-05-2021 12:32pm

Marcusm wrote: »

It will not be over until something is constructed on it. The decision is that ABP did not follow correct procedures in determining whether it was appropriate to override the Z15 zoning. That will now have to be considered. Something will be built upon it eventually.

Hopefully a playground, a coffee shop, a duck pond, basketball courts, or something else befitting a park. Dublin city council should do a land swap with the developer.

Seth Brundle · 10-05-2021 1:00pm

downtheroad wrote: »

Hopefully a playground, a coffee shop, a duck pond, basketball courts, or something else befitting a park. Dublin city council should do a land swap with the developer.

Well the developer won't build the aformentioned items.
As for a land swap, given that the developers stand to make millions from this, what parcels of land can the council swap that would offer the a similar return as the 16 or so acres in Raheny?

Gloomtastic! · 10-05-2021 2:04pm

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Well the developer won't build the aformentioned items.
As for a land swap, given that the developers stand to make millions from this, what parcels of land can the council swap that would offer the a similar return as the 16 or so acres in Raheny?

There’s a couple of playing fields next to this site that are maybe used one day a week and have access to the Howth Road as opposed to Sybil Hill. They’d be away from the park avenue that everyone mentions. They would have been a much better site but that would have required joined-up thinking. :rolleyes:

Thelonious Monk · 10-05-2021 2:36pm

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

There’s a couple of playing fields next to this site that are maybe used one day a week and have access to the Howth Road as opposed to Sybil Hill. They’d be away from the park avenue that everyone mentions. They would have been a much better site but that would have required joined-up thinking. :rolleyes:

That would ruin that side of the park though, regardless of whether sports are played on them or not.
I'm not up to scratch with all the legalities here, but is this just a delay as opposed to a final ruling on the site?

odyssey06 · 10-05-2021 2:54pm

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

That would ruin that side of the park though, regardless of whether sports are played on them or not.
I'm not up to scratch with all the legalities here, but is this just a delay as opposed to a final ruling on the site?

It's more than a delay. Possibly I've misinterpreted it, but while something could still be built the High Court ruling seems to constrain what that could be in terms of maintaining community use, and em, geese flight path heights.
High Court seems to suggest the same level of community use i.e. multiple pitches. It's not enough to say well there will be some community use e.g. 1 pitch.

Also the High court ruled this wasn't a strategic development so couldn't be progressed under those criteria. Not sure if that gives DCC more powers?

bren2001 · 10-05-2021 3:00pm

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Well the developer won't build the aformentioned items.
As for a land swap, given that the developers stand to make millions from this, what parcels of land can the council swap that would offer the a similar return as the 16 or so acres in Raheny?

Stand to make nothing without planning permission.

roddney · 10-05-2021 4:30pm

Marcusm wrote: »

It will not be over until something is constructed on it. The decision is that ABP did not follow correct procedures in determining whether it was appropriate to override the Z15 zoning. That will now have to be considered. Something will be built upon it eventually.

The ruling is more than just not following correct procedures. It would appear to be substantial and it sets a precedent.

It is stating that community use cannot just be extinguished, when land is sold on. ABP or any council must consider the community use as existing. In this case they must consider as if there are 5 football pitches being played on day to day and a developer wants to build on them.

Also, they also cannot consider general apartment blocks as strategic development as they are just standard housing.

I think this is very significant and will make it hard to ever get planning permission here, considering the demand from local sports clubs to get use of these pitches back again. All of them submitted objections stating difficulty getting alternative facilities.

I would guess it will be appealed though, as it is a very significant ruling.

Marcusm · 11-05-2021 12:53pm

roddney wrote: »

The ruling is more than just not following correct procedures. It would appear to be substantial and it sets a precedent.

It is stating that community use cannot just be extinguished, when land is sold on. ABP or any council must consider the community use as existing. In this case they must consider as if there are 5 football pitches being played on day to day and a developer wants to build on them.

Also, they also cannot consider general apartment blocks as strategic development as they are just standard housing.

I think this is very significant and will make it hard to ever get planning permission here, considering the demand from local sports clubs to get use of these pitches back again. All of them submitted objections stating difficulty getting alternative facilities.

I would guess it will be appealed though, as it is a very significant ruling.

What it is stating is that the change from a Z15 zoning needs to be justified. In the circumstances, the apartment building should be allowed to proceed in its current physical form but retained for the sole use of own-door accommodation for those awaiting an asylum decision. That would satisfy community or ibstitutional use and meet an objective of the government to phase out direct provision. Market might be happy to do it as a build to rent for the DoJ.

roddney · 11-05-2021 3:04pm

Marcusm wrote: »

What it is stating is that the change from a Z15 zoning needs to be justified. In the circumstances, the apartment building should be allowed to proceed in its current physical form but retained for the sole use of own-door accommodation for those awaiting an asylum decision. That would satisfy community or ibstitutional use and meet an objective of the government to phase out direct provision. Market might be happy to do it as a build to rent for the DoJ.

Replacing kids football pitches with flats for direct provision. That would certainly be an interesting one to try to get by the local residents. From a vested interest perspective, I think it would be difficult to make a profit, so hard to see a developer wanting to do that. In terms of a public build with elected representatives it's hard to see what benefit any would get from pushing this, given local people vote for them.

Best outcome for all would be for the developer to do a deal to sell land to council and for it to be run as rented pitches, to cover cost.

ozmo · 11-05-2021 3:27pm

I believe the SHD scheme will expire February 2022.
Hopefully (and I hear unlikely) it won't be renewed and we will see an end to this very undemocratic pushing of unsuitable developments on communities.

odyssey06 · 11-05-2021 3:30pm

ozmo wrote: »

I believe the SHD scheme will expire February 2022.
Hopefully (and I hear unlikely) it won't be renewed and we will see an end to this very undemocratic pushing of unsuitable developments on communities.

The High Court said something to the effect this wasn't a strategic development ... is there an impact of that?
"there was no material on foot of which the board could have held the proposed development to be of strategic or national importance."

markpb · 11-05-2021 3:53pm

roddney wrote: »

Best outcome for all would be for the developer to do a deal to sell land to council and for it to be run as rented pitches, to cover cost.

I can't see any developer doing that. It crystallises a huge loss for them. The alternative, if they can afford it, is to sit on the land for another few years and see what happens with the planning requirements and political situation. They would be likely to keep the site unused during that time which could make it easier to avoid any existing-use problems it might have.

We've seen developers sit on empty land and half-completed buildings (I'm looking at you, Sandyford Sentinel!) for many years so this isn't an unlikely scenario.

dubrov · 11-05-2021 4:05pm

roddney wrote:

Best outcome for all would be for the developer to do a deal to sell land to council and for it to be run as rented pitches, to cover cost.

What's the land worth?
I'd say the pitch rental fees would have to be astronomical to cover the cost

St Annes Park Planning Application

Comments