Larbre34 wrote: » The full report on the submissions received is on the Council website now. In terms on the 70% approval, there are a whole heap of box ticking approvers in the list, whereas the 30% disapproval contains detailed submissions, many from businesses in the town, pleading that this not proceed and precise reasons why. I think anyone who is blindly in favour of this experiment would do well to read the report, it's sobering. I find it hard to understand why the Council is so intent on going against the wishes of local businesses, just at the moment they are trying to return from the worst challenge to their existence in their history. A wonderful new public plaza is now open adjacent to George's Street, closing the street itself to public transport etc is punitive and redundant.
Larbre34 wrote: » The full report on the submissions received is on the Council website now.
ted1 wrote: » No it wouldn’t. It’d be a farce snd dangerous. A half arsed attempt. What a stupid suggestion. Do you think taxes should be allowed down Grafton street too?
Mav11 wrote: » Hang on a second now, if you approve of a proposal you approve of it because it is correct in your opinion and you agree with it. You don't need to issue volumes stating why you agree. If you disagree with a proposal you give reasons for your disapproval. In other words you make your argument against. So less of your "whole heap of box ticking approvers" rubbish, please. These people have taken the time to consider the proposal and democratically indicate their approval. You may not be a big fan of the democratic process when it doesn't suit your views, but you'll just have to learn to live with it.
Larbre34 wrote: » You need to relax a small bit Ted. 1. Even as we speak, there is traffic going down it. Reducing it to buses and taxis to improve the ambience wouldnt be dangerous or stupid, it would just reduce the frequency a bit and make the existing outdoor seating on the street more pleasant.
wowy wrote: » I don't know enough about this scheme and its knock-on effects yet to comment on the pros/cons, but I will say that road closures & traffic changes aren't supposed to be put to a simple majority democratic vote - proposals are put out for public consultation and the feedback is fed into the final design. If the Council are using 70% support as a justification for simply pushing ahead with their pre-determined scheme without taking into account the detailed submissions of the 30%, that would appear to be a problem.
L1011 wrote: » Claimed by the person looking to have it overturned, fairly sure I've never seen that claimed anywhere else.
Larbre34 wrote: » With the anger I'm hearing reported from some local businesses in DL, I wouldnt be too shocked to hear of a similar action in that regard, or at least some intervention at Council level.
Larbre34 wrote: » Take a look at some of the submissions from various businesses in the report. I don't know what business you were in, but non-hospitality businesses are evidently not impressed.
Larbre34 wrote: » I'm not debating it, I'm saying there are non-hosp businesses objecting in the report.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Thoughts and prayers for Ann urgently please;https://twitter.com/OConnorOisin/status/1410498025642938371
Tabnabs wrote: » Interesting the timing of this as access to the sea is a key feature of the newly published National Marine Planning Framework. The closest public transport from the 40 Foot is 500m away and the closest public car-park is 1km away.
Tabnabs wrote: » Interesting the timing of this as access to the sea is a key feature of the newly published National Marine Planning Framework. The closest public transport from the 40 Foot is 500m away and the closest public car-park is 1km away. It's all well and good shouting down the opinions of people who you disagree with, but a wider debate on public access to marine recreational areas is absolutely necessary and, for some, vehicular access is necessary. Access to the sea for recreational use is not the preserve of the lucky few who live within sight of it.
Tabnabs wrote: » the closest public car-park is 1km away