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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

St Annes Park Planning Application

189111314

Comments

  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 17,994 Mod ✭✭✭✭ixoy


    The Howth Road only became a spine under Bus Connect after people objected to its service being reduced under the original plan. So kind of the opposite of NIMBYism here under the route directly affected by the development.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,273 ✭✭✭downtheroad


    ixoy wrote: »
    The Howth Road only became a spine under Bus Connect after people objected to its service being reduced under the original plan. So kind of the opposite of NIMBYism here under the route directly affected by the development.

    The worst of all the spines. Doesn't cross the Liffey, dumps passengers out at Talbot St/Abbey St area, has very little bus lane between Raheny and Fairview. A serious change is needed to the H Spine plan.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,983 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    if there are no delays when would this be completed?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,424 ✭✭✭garhjw




  • Registered Users Posts: 2,940 ✭✭✭Sweet.Science


    garhjw wrote: »


    Terrible


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,200 ✭✭✭hots


    Fingers crossed at least BusConnects gets through and works well before people are in. On the bright side, more houses is always good news, I just wish there was a bit of thinking done before these ones.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,273 ✭✭✭downtheroad


    hots wrote: »
    Fingers crossed at least BusConnects gets through and works well before people are in. On the bright side, more houses is always good news, I just wish there was a bit of thinking done before these ones.

    All that Bus Connects has done for the Howth Road is rename the 29A, 31 and 32 as H1, H2 and H3.

    The H3 (31) will run at a frequency of every 30 minutes, as will the H2 (32). The 29A(H1) will run every 10-15 minutes.

    Overall a pretty poor service along the Howth Road.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,477 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    In fairness , there is a lot of pensioners in Edenmore who need that bus route . Long live the 27A

    I'll forever be a 42B man


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,591 ✭✭✭raheny red


    I'll forever be a 42B man

    28!


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,287 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    I always loved getting a 36DD


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,477 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    The buses on the Howth Road have always been atrocious. Very infrequent. I'm not even sure if Bus Connects will be on the Howth road but with all the rich people living there there wont be any sway or tree felling or garden shortening anyway, so I'm not sure how they could improve bus services.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,273 ✭✭✭downtheroad


    The buses on the Howth Road have always been atrocious. Very infrequent. I'm not even sure if Bus Connects will be on the Howth road but with all the rich people living there there wont be any sway or tree felling or garden shortening anyway, so I'm not sure how they could improve bus services.

    It is designated as the H Spine in bus connects plan but as I mentioned a couple of posts above the planned service is abysmal, 1 bus every 30 minutes for 2 of the 3 services. And the H Spine will not cross the Liffey, will continue to leave passengers at Talbot/Abbey St facing on onward journey for many commuters.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,477 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    It is designated as the H Spine in bus connects plan but as I mentioned a couple of posts above the planned service is abysmal, 1 bus every 30 minutes for 2 of the 3 services. And the H Spine will not cross the Liffey, will continue to leave passengers at Talbot/Abbey St facing on onward journey for many commuters.

    I grew up closer to the howth road than the malahide road and over the course of a few decades I probably took a bus from the howth road 2 or 3 times, just because you can be waiting for 45 minutes or so sometimes. Maybe Dublin Bus just aren't bothered on this route because there are dart stations too.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,130 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    I grew up closer to the howth road than the malahide road and over the course of a few decades I probably took a bus from the howth road 2 or 3 times, just because you can be waiting for 45 minutes or so sometimes. Maybe Dublin Bus just aren't bothered on this route because there are dart stations too.

    The current poor bus service is designed by some evil genius.
    29A leaves Baldoyle.
    31 leaves Howth.
    32 leaves Malahide.

    They all converge and hit Raheny-Killester at the same time.
    Happens way too much for it to be coincidence.

    So if you miss this convoy you miss all the buses in that slot.

    And forget about the 31 going out of town on sunny summer weekends!

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,273 ✭✭✭downtheroad


    I grew up closer to the howth road than the malahide road and over the course of a few decades I probably took a bus from the howth road 2 or 3 times, just because you can be waiting for 45 minutes or so sometimes. Maybe Dublin Bus just aren't bothered on this route because there are dart stations too.

    Similar, I grew up using the Howth Road buses and would often be waiting ages for a bus (pre app days) but have recently moved and am closer to Malahide Road where I wouldn't even both checking the app because you know a bus will be along in 5 minutes maximum.

    I think I read on 1 of the BusConnects forums that some Howth residents asked for less frequency on the 31 routes.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,130 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Similar, I grew up using the Howth Road buses and would often be waiting ages for a bus (pre app days) but have recently moved and am closer to Malahide Road where I wouldn't even both checking the app because you know a bus will be along in 5 minutes maximum.

    I think I read on 1 of the BusConnects forums that some Howth residents asked for less frequency on the 31 routes.

    Howth residents who never take the bus!
    Probably there's a stop outside their house or something.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,700 ✭✭✭tricky D


    I think I read on 1 of the BusConnects forums that some Howth residents asked for less frequency on the 31 routes.
    I haven't heard that from anyone, so dunno where that came from but their proposal to reduce to 30 mins freq was pointed out as folly as was the notion to split the corridor, now rightly scrapped.


    One of these planners also had no idea that there are anything up to 1000 homes between Sutton X and the Baily. There was a bit of comedy when the Chair of Howth Sutton Community Council corrected him and his colleague agreed.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,273 ✭✭✭downtheroad


    High Court challenge brought against proposed development of 650 apartments in Raheny https://jrnl.ie/5051577


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,287 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    High Court challenge brought against proposed development of 650 apartments in Raheny https://jrnl.ie/5051577
    Some of the comments to that Journal article
    Look at the bigger picture. Building out is the solution.
    :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,452 ✭✭✭garrettod


    Maybe Dublin Bus just aren't bothered on this route because there are dart stations too.

    Good point, about the Howth Road route...

    We need to put extra Darts on during peak hours though.

    Thanks,

    G.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,497 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    The legal battles you need tonight to build anything here.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,130 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    noodler wrote: »
    The legal battles you need tonight to build anything here.

    The legal battles you need to fight to stop builders from wrecking your area.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,424 ✭✭✭garhjw


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    The legal battles you need to fight to stop builders from wrecking your area.

    Hopefully the objection is dismissed so this much needed development can proceed.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,452 ✭✭✭garrettod


    There's plenty of grass fields to go build housing on elsewhere... What's the obsession with this particular location?

    Why not protest about the government and its state agencies not building enough social and affordable housing across all of its under utilised properties nationwide?

    Why not protest against the government not doing more to force owners of private land banks zoned for residential housing, to develop them immediately?

    Who not protest against those who are responsible for re-zoning, town and county planning, for not doing more to see proper housing developments, supported by appropriate infrastructure?

    Thanks,

    G.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,609 ✭✭✭dubrov


    garrettod wrote:
    There's plenty of grass fields to go build housing on elsewhere... What's the obsession with this particular location?

    Because it's a very suitable plot for residential development and is still tied up in red tape. It is symptomatic of the problems with whole NIMBY planning system


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,130 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    dubrov wrote: »
    Because it's a very suitable plot for residential development and is still tied up in red tape. It is symptomatic of the problems with whole NIMBY planning system

    Almost like there should be a city development plan taking into account developments in conjunction with transport capacity, schools etc
    Expect this is contrary to that plan, say the people who put together that plan.

    Quote
    "The proposed development is not considered to be consistent with the Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022."
    End quote.

    So it's not suitable at all for the development proposed.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,609 ✭✭✭dubrov


    odyssey06 wrote:
    So it's not suitable at all for the development proposed.


    Why don't you just post a link instead of extracting a piece that could be referenced out of context?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Beta Ray Bill


    Permission for 657 apartments near St Anne's Park overturned on consent

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/permission-for-657-apartments-near-st-anne-s-park-overturned-on-consent-1.4276709?fbclid=IwAR2SbS4HEPXES5tPcfV6zdqGCKbspK2w4yX5r1dT47QkxfCLo8jKMK9kHNg

    Absolutely amazing news!!!

    Well done to everyone that protested. :D

    For the: "What about social housing brigade"
    These were never going to be social housing, these units would have been coming in close to €750,000 a shot.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,497 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    Permission for 657 apartments near St Anne's Park overturned on consent

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/permission-for-657-apartments-near-st-anne-s-park-overturned-on-consent-1.4276709?fbclid=IwAR2SbS4HEPXES5tPcfV6zdqGCKbspK2w4yX5r1dT47QkxfCLo8jKMK9kHNg

    Absolutely amazing news!!!

    Well done to everyone that protested. :D

    For the: "What about social housing brigade"
    These were never going to be social housing, these units would have been coming in close to €750,000 a shot.

    I sincerely doubt they'd have been that expensive, even the top end ones.

    On the brigade comment, social housing requires the developer to provide 25% of the properties or an equivalent financial amount to the Council. That's the direct benefit.

    The indirect benefit, people completely miss, is that an increase in supply has a positive effect on price, each "rich" person who buys one of these is another property available for someone lower down the ladder.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Beta Ray Bill


    noodler wrote: »
    I sincerely doubt they'd have been that expensive, even the top end ones.

    https://www.sherryfitz.ie/buy/house/dublin/raheny/ardilaun-court-sybil-hill-road-raheny-dublin-5-24789

    Built on the grounds of St Pauls swimming pool.
    3 Bed Penthouse Apartment is €695,000

    It's likely the 3 bed apartments in the other place would have been very close to that.
    Not trying to be smart with you, but they would have been going for top dollar.
    noodler wrote: »
    On the brigade comment, social housing requires the developer to provide 25% of the properties or an equivalent financial amount to the Council. That's the direct benefit.

    I originally thought it was only 10%. Suppose that's the reason they're building High Rise Apartment blocks way out in the Suburbs, and basically abandoned house building. They have to make money I suppose.
    noodler wrote: »
    The indirect benefit, people completely miss, is that an increase in supply has a positive effect on price, each "rich" person who buys one of these is another property available for someone lower down the ladder.

    Nah I don't think so. If I was moving house now (And had my €150k deposit) I'd get a brand new mortgage and rent out the other house, IE I'd use it as collateral for the bank. You're guaranteed a minimum €1950 month for a 3 bed semi-D nearly anywhere in Dublin because HAP has increased demand significantly.

    Every time the government get involved and give out charity (HAP and Social housing are basically charity) the rich just get richer, and the regular Joe is kept down.

    Like I believe in social policies, people should be housed, but if they don't work, they certainly don't need to be housed in Dublin.

    In any case I'd say the developers don't really care at this stage because Covid has destroyed the tourism sector and hence the housing issue should be solved now. (hopefully)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 441 ✭✭forgottenhills


    noodler wrote: »
    I sincerely doubt they'd have been that expensive, even the top end ones.

    On the brigade comment, social housing requires the developer to provide 25% of the properties or an equivalent financial amount to the Council. That's the direct benefit.

    The indirect benefit, people completely miss, is that an increase in supply has a positive effect on price, each "rich" person who buys one of these is another property available for someone lower down the ladder.

    You are missing the real problem with this development in that it is in the middle of a park and has a large environmental impact.

    There are many many sites where social housing can be built that are not important green spaces such as parks or sports pitches. We have seen during this pandemic how structural changes such as a loss in demand for Airbnb accommodation can suddenly increase accommodation availability. So for instance building more cheap hotels could increase rental availability. The answer is better planning across the sector rather than building top of the market apartments on important green spaces.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,427 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    I think some of you are misreading the denial which is solely on the basis of a failure to document the impact of any which the development would have on Brent geese and other protected species in Dublin Bay. Isn’t this site on the inland side of the park? I suspect the renewed application will be submitted once the appropriate consideration under the Habitats Directive is undertaken.


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,287 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    You are missing the real problem with this development in that it is in the middle of a park and has a large environmental impact.
    It is not in a park at all!
    There are many many sites where social housing can be built that are not important green spaces such as parks or sports pitches. We have seen during this pandemic how structural changes such as a loss in demand for Airbnb accommodation can suddenly increase accommodation availability. So for instance building more cheap hotels could increase rental availability. The answer is better planning across the sector rather than building top of the market apartments on important green spaces.
    So you'd be happy with a cheap hotel there instead of apartments?


  • Registered Users Posts: 441 ✭✭forgottenhills


    Marcusm wrote: »
    I think some of you are misreading the denial which is solely on the basis of a failure to document the impact of any which the development would have on Brent geese and other protected species in Dublin Bay. Isn’t this site on the inland side of the park? I suspect the renewed application will be submitted once the appropriate consideration under the Habitats Directive is undertaken.

    How are they going to fix the impact of a major development on geese and other wildlife in another resubmission?

    As I understand it the first application was turned down because of the impact on Brent geese. For this current planning resubmission they tactically let the grass grow on the site and said that the Brent geese have fecked off elsewhere so its not a problem anymore as there is loads of short grass elsewhere. That approach is hardly going to be accepted by any court in the land. If that is the case any developer can get rid of any environmental problem by bulldozing sites and saying that there are no geese, bats, newts or whatever there any more so give me my approval.


  • Registered Users Posts: 990 ✭✭✭Fred Cryton


    Permission for 657 apartments near St Anne's Park overturned on consent

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/permission-for-657-apartments-near-st-anne-s-park-overturned-on-consent-1.4276709?fbclid=IwAR2SbS4HEPXES5tPcfV6zdqGCKbspK2w4yX5r1dT47QkxfCLo8jKMK9kHNg

    Absolutely amazing news!!!

    Well done to everyone that protested. :D

    For the: "What about social housing brigade"
    These were never going to be social housing, these units would have been coming in close to €750,000 a shot.


    Jokes on you, you don't know how the planning system works. This is not the end of it.



    Applicant will just put in another application shortly (hopefully with even more units)


  • Registered Users Posts: 441 ✭✭forgottenhills


    It is not in a park at all!


    So you'd be happy with a cheap hotel there instead of apartments?

    Yes it is in the park. Go onto the I Love St Annes Facebook site and have a look at the photos showing the outline of the site. Its right in the park.

    And no I wouldn't be happy with hotels there, what on earth would make you suggest that? Hotels should be built on appropriate sites which are not parks or sports grounds important for communities and wildlife. There are plenty of vacant sites in the city centre that are not being used and can be recycled.


  • Registered Users Posts: 441 ✭✭forgottenhills


    Jokes on you, you don't know how the planning system works. This is not the end of it.



    Applicant will just put in another application shortly (hopefully with even more units)

    And every application they make will eventually not succeed in the courts because of the environmental impact. This is the developers second round of applications. No matter how pushy and greedy developers and their hangers on are the laws of the land should prevail.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 709 ✭✭✭wowy


    Yes it is in the park. Go onto the I Love St Annes Facebook site and have a look at the photos showing the outline of the site. Its right in the park.

    Or, instead of relying on incorrect claims on the facebook page of one of the campaigning opponents, one could refer to the planning application drawings lodged with ABP (available here: https://stpaulsshd2.ie/) and note that the site is in fact privately-owned land adjacent to St Anne's Park.


  • Registered Users Posts: 990 ✭✭✭Fred Cryton


    And every application they make will eventually not succeed in the courts because of the environmental impact. This is the developers second round of applications. No matter how pushy and greedy developers and their hangers on are the laws of the land should prevail.


    Why are you people against new homes in a nice area close to town where people actually want to live?


    To say your position is dumb and childish would be an understatement.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 441 ✭✭forgottenhills


    wowy wrote: »
    Or, instead of relying on incorrect claims on the facebook page of one of the campaigning opponents, one could refer to the planning application drawings lodged with ABP (available here: https://stpaulsshd2.ie/) and note that the site is in fact privately-owned land adjacent to St Anne's Park.

    The site location as shown on the photos at Facebook page is precisely as per the Site Location Map in the planning application documents and shows the site running along the main central avenue of the park. So its an integral part of the entire St Anne's green space. Why don't you inform yourself or are you just spinning?


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,287 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Why are you people against new homes in a nice area close to town where people actually want to live?


    To say your position is dumb and childish would be an understatement.
    Many people would say it's NIMBYism!


  • Registered Users Posts: 441 ✭✭forgottenhills


    Why are you people against new homes in a nice area close to town where people actually want to live?


    To say your position is dumb and childish would be an understatement.

    I am in favour of homes being built on suitable sites but not in parks, sporting grounds or communal or environmentally sensitive green spaces which are needed for our people. There is nothing dumb or childish about that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 709 ✭✭✭wowy


    The site location as shown on the photos at Facebook page is precisely as per the Site Location Map in the planning application documents and shows the site running along the main central avenue of the park. So its an integral part of the entire St Anne's green space. Why don't you inform yourself or are you just spinning?

    You're the one claiming that privately-owned land is part of the park, but I'm the one spinning? Right....


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,324 ✭✭✭JustAThought


    You seem to have missed the entire backstory about this piece of land in the park, how the school asked for it to be fenced off to allow for protection against glass being smashed on the fields after nighttime revellers - how they then secretly did a runner and sold the parkland - how it was still zoned as habitable for only a small gatekeper or night watchman hut or similar and yet deapite al of this, and it sutting in the middle of a conservation are, a UNESCO heritage site for wildlife and also being the feeding and winter nesting site for an internationally protected species of bird that planning for multiple houses and 8 storey blocks of appartments were somehow granted in repeat appeals and applications by the boyos for the new Indian billonaire owners. But dont let multiple sets of corruption and breeches of multiple heritage, environmental and zoning laws and eu conventions get in the way.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Beta Ray Bill


    Marcusm wrote: »
    I think some of you are misreading the denial which is solely on the basis of a failure to document the impact of any which the development would have on Brent geese and other protected species in Dublin Bay. Isn’t this site on the inland side of the park? I suspect the renewed application will be submitted once the appropriate consideration under the Habitats Directive is undertaken.
    It is not in a park at all!

    I depends on who you ask, as to whether the area is part of the park or not.
    Originally it belonged to the park, but was "given(ish)" to St Pauls School (they did not purchase it) to set up pitches for the school kids.

    But the Pauls sold it a few years back, which they really should not have done, if they didn't want the pitches anymore they should have given them back to the Park.
    Note: Clontarf GAA have also objected on the grounds there is major shortage of pitches in the area at the moment.

    The area they wish to build is very much "within" park. (red)

    516159.png

    Note they also sold the local swimming pool grounds a few years back which was an amenity we'll never get back (blue)
    Jokes on you, you don't know how the planning system works. This is not the end of it.

    Applicant will just put in another application shortly (hopefully with even more units)

    There is absolutely no doubt in my mind they will, however there is enough Solicitors living around that area to ensure it'll be years and years in the courts.
    Many people would say it's NIMBYism!

    I have no problem at all with people building private or social housing in the correct areas.
    9 story tall buildings belong in the city centre (At the moment), not the suburbs.
    The closest non city centre building to it's height would be the hotel in Ballymun, which is 3.6 miles away, it's ridiculous

    516160.PNG

    This business of builders/developers getting planning permission for whatever they want because "Housing Crisis" is so stupid!
    They've gone building like crazy in Clongriffin/Belmayne despite major problems both in design, infra capacity planning, and the major social issues they have there. More fuel is being added to the fire. because "Housing Crisis"

    The same applies to Clarehall Village, which was the biggest rip off of all. The developer couldn't sell 2 whole blocks of apartments. So they ended up getting sold to a Housing charity (at cost) who in turn moved a large number of scumbags in (Not all scummers but enough to cause a major problem).
    Imagine being in your mid 20's and scraping together €30k over a few years for a deposit on an apartment in there, only for 2 whole blocks of people getting their apartments for free and turning the place into a kip

    And these places are kips, anyone I know that has a house or apartment (via a mortgage) in Clongriffin or Clarehall can't wait to get out.

    People are NIMBYs for sure, I agree with you on that point, but the thing is that have very good reason to be. It's their area, they have to live their. They've worked their whole lives to earn living there, and they don't want it wrecked by some developer looking to turn a quick buck because "Housing Crisis".

    I live close to Kilbarrack Dart station. The area has been quiet for years. But in the last 6/7 years they've moved in "the wrong people" to Berach's Place, and now we have MAJOR anti social problems again. No one wants social housing anywhere near them.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,609 ✭✭✭dubrov


    It's either private land or part of the public park. Which is it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,537 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    dubrov wrote: »
    It's either private land or part of the public park. Which is it?

    Its private land which basically operated as if it was part of the public park for so long that it will be impossible to tell people locally that it isn't.

    If they'd put more effort in to the obviously challengable bits of the application it wouldn't have got thrown out either time .


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,609 ✭✭✭dubrov


    L1011 wrote: »
    Its private land which basically operated as if it was part of the public park for so long that it will be impossible to tell people locally that it isn't.

    It is the first public park I have seen that is fenced off with no access to the public.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,497 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    If they ever try and build in St Anne's then I'll be up in arms.

    This isn't in the park.

    It's an area of green space with pitches fenced off from the park the public previously had to spend significant sums of money per hour to use.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,537 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    dubrov wrote: »
    It is the first public park I have seen that is fenced off with no access to the public.

    It wasn't originally.

    The main issue isn't the objectors, though - its that the planning application was faulty, twice.

    It is nice to know its not just government bodies that can make that type of cockup


  • Advertisement
Advertisement