Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

St Annes Park Planning Application

Options
24567…24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    newacc2015
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭newacc2015


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    The cynic in me wonders if the technicality was a genuine mistake on the part of the developer or an attempt to delay and take some of the steam out of the opposition campaign...

    I will imagine a genuine mistake. Having the land sit there while dealing with the planning is costing them money. Developers dont care about this local resident groups.


  • Options
    #33
    spurious
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 27,153 CMod ✭✭✭✭spurious


    They often test the waters to see what sort of a ruckus there will be. Then slip in an application in Irish and stick the 'public' notices in a bush somewhere.


  • Options
    #34
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,758 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    ozmo wrote: »
    Its a fortunate time for them to enter a new planning application - over the Christmas holidays - would minimise the days people will be available or be in the mind to object I imagine...

    Not really. Extra time allowed for objections. Some days over the break do not count towards the 8 week process.

    Plus all the time you have site notices on the ground at risk of been removed/vandalised.


  • Options
    #35
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users Posts: 6,786 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    Plus I read that DCC will be giving those who made submissions their money back so objectors wont be out of pocket on this being rejected, they can put the money towards objecting to the new application.


  • Options
    #36
    newacc2015
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭newacc2015


    Where do these people objecting think Dubliners should live? That Dublin should keep sprawling like a mini-LA and continue on into Kildare and up as far as Cavan? Dublin already has a ridiculous amount of under utilised parks. Dubliners dont use their parks enough to justify every suburbs in Dublin having a few massive parks which are really only for relaxation(Most have footpath unsuitable for running and the parks are designed that park games arent generally possible. You arent allowed to play football even in the quiet greens in the city centre).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    John_Rambo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,590 ✭✭✭John_Rambo


    newacc2015 wrote: »
    Where do these people objecting think Dubliners should live? That Dublin should keep sprawling like a mini-LA and continue on into Kildare and up as far as Cavan?.

    Nonsense post, plenty of empty spaces close to the city that yet have to be developed, look at the Irish Glass site for one.
    newacc2015 wrote: »
    Dublin already has a ridiculous amount of under utilised parks.

    Who told you this? Dubliners love their parks and they’re used every day.
    newacc2015 wrote: »
    Dubliners dont use their parks enough to justify every suburbs in Dublin having a few massive parks which are really only for relaxation(Most have footpath unsuitable for running and the parks are designed that park games arent generally possible. You arent allowed to play football even in the quiet greens in the city centre).

    What are you on about? This proposed development is on actual playing fields in the park!

    Have you ever been to this park?


  • Options
    #38
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users Posts: 6,786 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    newacc2015 wrote: »
    Where do these people objecting think Dubliners should live? That Dublin should keep sprawling like a mini-LA and continue on into Kildare and up as far as Cavan? Dublin already has a ridiculous amount of under utilised parks. Dubliners dont use their parks enough to justify every suburbs in Dublin having a few massive parks which are really only for relaxation(Most have footpath unsuitable for running and the parks are designed that park games arent generally possible. You arent allowed to play football even in the quiet greens in the city centre).

    There is a huge amount of underused land within the M50. Developers just want to build on flat greenfield sites like this at SAP because they are cheaper to develop and it maximises profit. There is 61 hectares of vacant or derelict land in Dublin, lack of land is not the problem, lack of ambition and/or coercion to develop it is. Allowing currently utilised green space to be developed for housing is not going to solve the housing shortage, it will only lead to a lack of recreational space in the future. There are currently 6 pitches on the area proposed development, this will be reduced to just one pitch but the local population will increase by more than 1,000 people. Not only is recreational space being lost, the remaining space has to serve a greater number of people. Any "quiet greens" where football is banned is most likely due to not having sufficient space to play football while also allowing for other recreation of the local population, I wonder how that situation arises? Vacant or derelict land should be developed to a suitable density with sufficient green space retained, not developing green space to allow some developer maximise his profits.


  • Options
    #39
    ozmo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,862 ✭✭✭ozmo


    newacc2015 wrote: »
    I will imagine a genuine mistake. Having the land sit there while dealing with the planning is costing them money. Developers dont care about this local resident groups.

    Oops - curious to see if it was resubmitted - and it seems I missed the objection date by a few days :/

    looks like their plan, if it was a plan, worked.


    https://www.facebook.com/I-Love-St-Annes-161650950842503/

    New Planning Reference is 4185/15

    “Roll it back”



  • Options
    #40
    newacc2015
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭newacc2015


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    There is a huge amount of underused land within the M50. Developers just want to build on flat greenfield sites like this at SAP because they are cheaper to develop and it maximises profit. There is 61 hectares of vacant or derelict land in Dublin, lack of land is not the problem, lack of ambition and/or coercion to develop it is. Allowing currently utilised green space to be developed for housing is not going to solve the housing shortage, it will only lead to a lack of recreational space in the future. There are currently 6 pitches on the area proposed development, this will be reduced to just one pitch but the local population will increase by more than 1,000 people. Not only is recreational space being lost, the remaining space has to serve a greater number of people. Any "quiet greens" where football is banned is most likely due to not having sufficient space to play football while also allowing for other recreation of the local population, I wonder how that situation arises? Vacant or derelict land should be developed to a suitable density with sufficient green space retained, not developing green space to allow some developer maximise his profits.

    How long will 61 hectares be sufficient for Dublin's housing needs? It is a fraction of the land needed for housing in the city. It is not even 0.5% of the size of Dublin City. Where are Dubliners supposed to live when all of this land is developed? People seem to forget that Dublin is still growing. Even if all the vacant sites were developed tomorrow. There still would be a shortage of housing.

    Change the by laws to permit allow ball games on the greens. There is that problem solved. The existing by laws of no ball games in DCC arent enforced anyway. Make a condition of the planning, that the developer needs to install a few more pitches in the park. Make them all weather so they are actually usable in this climate.

    What good is keeping a massive park, if there is actually nothing to use in it?


  • Options
    #41
    spurious
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 27,153 CMod ✭✭✭✭spurious


    newacc2015 wrote: »
    What good is keeping a massive park, if there is actually nothing to use in it?

    You really must never have been to St. Anne's. It's full of things to do. From Petanque courts to markets, to remote controlled cars, to dog runs, to children's playgrounds, tennis, pitch and putt, allotments... Far more than other parks.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    OldGoat
    Registered Users Posts: 12,633 ✭✭✭✭OldGoat


    ...arborium, playing fields, river walk, wood sculptures, architectural follies, walled garden, the rose gardens...

    I'm older than Minecraft goats.



  • Options
    #43
    tricky D
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,700 ✭✭✭tricky D


    ...shed loads of wildlife...


  • Options
    #44
    OldGoat
    Registered Users Posts: 12,633 ✭✭✭✭OldGoat


    ...shed loads of nightlife... ;)

    I'm older than Minecraft goats.



  • Options
    #45
    Gloomtastic!
    Registered Users Posts: 8,375 ✭✭✭Gloomtastic!


    tricky D wrote: »
    ...shed loads of wildlife...

    Grey squirrels, rats and eh, eh, that's about it..... :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #46
    whiskeyman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,564 ✭✭✭✭whiskeyman


    Gloomtastic! wrote: »
    Grey squirrels, rats and eh, eh, that's about it..... :rolleyes:

    Mammals present in the park include badgers, hedgehogs, rabbits, fox, grey squirrels, house mice, field mice, pipistrelle bats and brown rats. Birds include sparrow hawk, woodcock and jay. The park has a greater than average diversity of bee species and is also notable for many species of butterflies. Also many ducks and swans in the parks ponds.

    The park has a range of vegetation habitats and many historic trees. The plant collections are of national importance. There are also protected native plants and species of botanical interest

    :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #47
    schemingbohemia
    Registered Users Posts: 5,606 ✭✭✭schemingbohemia


    spurious wrote: »
    You really must never have been to St. Anne's. It's full of things to do. From Petanque courts to markets, to remote controlled cars, to dog runs, to children's playgrounds, tennis, pitch and putt, allotments... Far more than other parks.
    OldGoat wrote: »
    ...arborium, playing fields, river walk, wood sculptures, architectural follies, walled garden, the rose gardens...
    tricky D wrote: »
    ...shed loads of wildlife...
    whiskeyman wrote: »
    Mammals present in the park include badgers, hedgehogs, rabbits, fox, grey squirrels, house mice, field mice, pipistrelle bats and brown rats. Birds include sparrow hawk, woodcock and jay. The park has a greater than average diversity of bee species and is also notable for many species of butterflies. Also many ducks and swans in the parks ponds.

    The park has a range of vegetation habitats and many historic trees. The plant collections are of national importance. There are also protected native plants and species of botanical interest

    :rolleyes:

    But none of that is on the land which is the subject of the planning application. They're currently sports grounds, disused ones at that.


  • Options
    #48
    bren2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,185 ✭✭✭bren2001


    schemingbohemia wrote: »
    But none of that is on the land which is the subject of the planning application. They're currently sports grounds, disused ones at that.

    They are not disused at all. The school uses them quite a bit for PE, rugby training and a small bit of GAA sport. Belgrove also use the pitches at the weekend for underage games, the juvenile and nursery of Clontarf GAA also uses the pitches on weekends. They are very much used.


  • Options
    #49
    John_Rambo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,590 ✭✭✭John_Rambo


    schemingbohemia wrote: »
    But none of that is on the land which is the subject of the planning application. They're currently sports grounds, disused ones at that.

    Who told you they're disused? Nonsense.

    Had the pleasure to see a barn owl winging it's way over the playing fields tonight. There's been peregrine falcon, little egret and sightings in the park recently too. (Egrets on the playing fields and in the Nanakin)


  • Options
    #50
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Man this is fúcking ridiculous - a 5 week limit for planning objections? That law is totally setup, to allow developers to game the planning system - and that's exactly what this developer has done, by taking the wind out of planning objections through re-applying on a technicality! (and over the holiday season too)

    Here is a petition page against this:
    https://www.change.org/p/planning-department-dublin-city-council-say-no-to-building-on-st-paul-s-playing-fields-st-anne-s-park-raheny

    Given that there is a General Election coming up in a couple of weeks, this is the perfect time to talk to local candidates running for election (regardless of whether you're going to vote for them or not), and tell them to support:
    1: Blocking this residential development.
    2: Repealing the law that allowed this land to be rezoned in the first place - this land should never have become eligible for development.
    3: Repeal the law that puts a time-limit on planning objections.

    Get all of the Dublin Bay North candidates (or those in your own area) to make public statements about this, and then plaster their response or non-response all over the park.

    This isn't something to be a factor in deciding who to vote for, but it's an easy way to pile pressure on this issue.


  • Options
    #51
    schemingbohemia
    Registered Users Posts: 5,606 ✭✭✭schemingbohemia


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Man this is fúcking ridiculous - a 5 week limit for planning objections? That law is totally setup, to allow developers to game the planning system - and that's exactly what this developer has done, by taking the wind out of planning objections through re-applying on a technicality! (and over the holiday season too)

    Here is a petition page against this:
    https://www.change.org/p/planning-department-dublin-city-council-say-no-to-building-on-st-paul-s-playing-fields-st-anne-s-park-raheny

    Given that there is a General Election coming up in a couple of weeks, this is the perfect time to talk to local candidates running for election (regardless of whether you're going to vote for them or not), and tell them to support:
    1: Blocking this residential development.
    2: Repealing the law that allowed this land to be rezoned in the first place - this land should never have become eligible for development.
    3: Repeal the law that puts a time-limit on planning objections.

    Get all of the Dublin Bay North candidates (or those in your own area) to make public statements about this, and then plaster their response or non-response all over the park.

    This isn't something to be a factor in deciding who to vote for, but it's an easy way to pile pressure on this issue.

    3 is just plain stupid sorry, how would any decision ever be made if there was no time limit on objections?

    2 what law are you talking about? are you saying that no land should ever be rezoned? So that we should leave brownfield sites only for commercial/industrial forever? Or that underused or disused land should never ever be able to be built on? That's just not workable either, times change, needs change.
    Your proposal would mean that we'd continue the bad planning whereby houses are built in a donut shape further and further outside the M50 which is what has led us to the problems we currently face, it would exacerbate the poxy planning we've seen in this country to date.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    There was never any time limit to planning objections prior to 2001 - it worked perfectly fine without time limits, for more than half a century.

    The laws related to Z15 zoning, the amendments of which allowed this land to be zoned residential, were achieved through church lobby groups who stood to benefit from that - with e.g. the church here, having bought the land from local authorities for £4000 in the 1950's, and having sold it for €25 million to the current property developers.

    I inherently reject your idea of turning what should be public spaces - owned by and benefiting the public, not churches/property-developers - into new residential developments; our major public spaces like St. Annes, need to be circled off and protected, not broken up in piecemeal and sold off to private interests, for later property development.


  • Options
    #53
    Dodge
    Registered Users Posts: 10,210 ✭✭✭✭Dodge


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    There was never any time limit to planning objections prior to 2001 - it worked perfectly fine without time limits, for more than half a century.

    You seriously can't believe that planning here worked "perfectly fine" before 2001?


  • Options
    #54
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Dodge wrote: »
    You seriously can't believe that planning here worked "perfectly fine" before 2001?
    You know full well that I was talking about the time limit on objections.


  • Options
    #55
    Dodge
    Registered Users Posts: 10,210 ✭✭✭✭Dodge


    But it's part of the problem. Planning needed to change and the 5 week limit was one of the issues.


  • Options
    #56
    schemingbohemia
    Registered Users Posts: 5,606 ✭✭✭schemingbohemia


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    There was never any time limit to planning objections prior to 2001 - it worked perfectly fine without time limits, for more than half a century.

    The laws related to Z15 zoning, the amendments of which allowed this land to be zoned residential, were achieved through church lobby groups who stood to benefit from that - with e.g. the church here, having bought the land from local authorities for £4000 in the 1950's, and having sold it for €25 million to the current property developers.

    I inherently reject your idea of turning what should be public spaces - owned by and benefiting the public, not churches/property-developers - into new residential developments; our major public spaces like St. Annes, need to be circled off and protected, not broken up in piecemeal and sold off to private interests, for later property development.

    I'm not advocating a total change to planning of all public spaces at all, I don't want Dublin to turn (further) into a concrete jungle. But a blanket ban on the opposite isn't appropriate either in all cases.


  • Options
    #57
    ozmo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,862 ✭✭✭ozmo


    From Irish Times Today: (link)

    "The council has now ordered the developers to make significant changes to the scheme, including scrapping two of the six blocks of apartments and redesigning others that had the potential to “create areas of anti-social behaviour”.
    It has also expressed concern about the loss of the existing sports facilities and the quality of life of future residents."


    Should have been totally rejected, not modified - but they have given them 6 months to modify their plans.

    “Roll it back”



  • Options
    #58
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Yea posted about that in a new thread on this forum as well - this means the project is going to go ahead, most likely, once sufficient modifications are made to satisfy the council.

    The article highlights 'grave concerns', but this is just posturing really, as the signal given by the council here, is that the plan can go ahead in modified form.


  • Options
    #59
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users Posts: 6,786 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    this means the project is going to go ahead, most likely, once sufficient modifications are made to satisfy the council.

    I wouldn't be so sure. The developers will have to seriously reduce the number of apartments, DCC having rejected two blocks, questioning the length of others and also saying the layout of the houses and apartments was unacceptable. The council also said the new school sports facilities could not be considered as satisfying the public open space requirements of the development, questioned how they were going to provide replacement sporting facilities for nonschool users of the old pitches and said some houses were too close to the proposed new football pitch with problems in terms of noise and light pollution.

    Basically the developers are going to have to seriously reduce the number of units they want to build. The whole project might not be economical for them at that point. Hopefully they bought the site subject to planning so can pull out and will just go away now.


  • Options
    #60
    spurious
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 27,153 CMod ✭✭✭✭spurious


    The question of access to roads will be interesting.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    I wouldn't be so sure. The developers will have to seriously reduce the number of apartments, DCC having rejected two blocks, questioning the length of others and also saying the layout of the houses and apartments was unacceptable. The council also said the new school sports facilities could not be considered as satisfying the public open space requirements of the development, questioned how they were going to provide replacement sporting facilities for nonschool users of the old pitches and said some houses were too close to the proposed new football pitch with problems in terms of noise and light pollution.

    Basically the developers are going to have to seriously reduce the number of units they want to build. The whole project might not be economical for them at that point. Hopefully they bought the site subject to planning so can pull out and will just go away now.
    It's almost impossible for the project to not be economical for them - reduced units or not, the barriers to them going ahead with building there, are very small.

    The response of the planning authorities is in no way anywhere close to a rejection - the developers pretty much have this in the bag already, they just need to adjust the plan.


Advertisement