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

Knocknacara Houses knocked for access?

2

Comments

  • #52
    Unrealistic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,300 ✭✭✭Unrealistic


    Adam Crashing Beefsteak wrote: »
    What absolute nonsense. Majority rules and non-locals should have no say in what happens in an area. Particularly for people who own their homes and have invested a lot of money in living in an area they should have control over what happens in the area.
    So I take it you will now support the people in Dangan and Castlegar having an absolute veto over any bypass ploughing through the area and demolishing their homes? Surely if you believe communities should have a veto over people just walking through their estates you couldn't possibly deny them the right to prevent people driving through their homes? I mean you couldn't be the same Adam Crashing Beefsteak who managed to produce 32 different posts in the Bypass thread telling the people who were set to lose their homes that it was just their tough $hit because people from outside their area needed to pass through.


  • #53
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Allison Shy Industry wrote: »
    What absolute nonsense. Majority rules and non-locals should have no say in what happens in an area. Particularly for people who own their homes and have invested a lot of money in living in an area they should have control over what happens in the area.

    I would be massively against the opening up of an estate I was living in. One way in one way out makes for a much nicer, quieter place to live and cuts out people passing through the estate who have no business being there other than walking through it.

    Reasons like the above is why I want to build my own house in the country where I dont have to put up with any of this crap and can have a big gate to stop people entering and surrounded by our own land so no passers by either and no one being able to have any control over what happens in my surrounds only ourselves.

    Modern Irish society in three paragraphs.


  • #54
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Unrealistic wrote: »
    So I take it you will now support the people in Dangan and Castlegar having an absolute veto over any bypass ploughing through the area and demolishing their homes? Surely if you believe communities should have a veto over people just walking through their estates you couldn't possibly deny them the right to prevent people driving through their homes? I mean you couldn't be the same Wren Ashy Stubbornness who managed to produce 32 different posts in the Bypass thread telling the people who were set to lose their homes that it was just their tough $hit because people from outside their area needed to pass through.

    You're on to something there.
    Wren Ashy Stubbornness wrote: »
    If there is one thing that annoys me its residents complaining about pearse stadium.
    Wren Ashy Stubbornness wrote:
    a lot of residents are not really being inconvenienced at all by matches and probably just have something against the gaa or just like kicking up a fuss.
    Wren Ashy Stubbornness wrote:
    Come on there is about 2 or 3 matches a year in pearse that parking/traffic could be a problem are you really that awkward that you cannot but up with a bit of inconvenience for a few hours a couple of Sundays a year. I dont even see the problem with people parking around the area once they dont block drive ways etc.

    The flood lights should be granted also. It will make for a nice evening out to watch a game on a saturday evening and will cause little of no inconvience. I'm afraid if you want to live in a city you have to be prepared to accept progress and development.
    Wren Ashy Stubbornness wrote: »
    If it is a public road then the residents have no claim on the parking spaces even right in front of their house, any member of the public is just as entitled as them to park there, they obviously have too much time on their hands if they are getting bothered about you parking for a few mins. Ignore them or tell them where to go.
    Wren Ashy Stubbornness wrote:
    I am as entitled to use the public road outside your house as you are and vice versa. That will never change unless we turn into a communist or a fascist state in the future.
    Wren Ashy Stubbornness wrote: »
    And who cares of it is or it isn't, I certainly wouldn't give a damn, I use any available route to make my journey quicker be it back roads, side roads, housing estates, shopping centre car parks etc etc.

    And so on ad nauseam...


  • #55
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Unrealistic wrote: »
    So I take it you will now support the people in Dangan and Castlegar having an absolute veto over any bypass ploughing through the area and demolishing their homes?

    There are of course always exceptions and the bypass is one of them (as are the motorways linking up different parts of the country which were also build through peoples land including some of our family owned land).

    The bypass is of vital importance and will benefit thousands and thousands of people every single day.


  • #56
    L'Enfer du Nord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 587 ✭✭✭L'Enfer du Nord


    The walls between residential areas are a product of developers, house buyers/ public opinion/ culture and lack of intervention by planners. Developers build what they think there is a market for. As illustrated by this thread there is a market for houses in estates that won't have 'randomers' walking past. This is driven by fear of crime, fear of anti social behaviour and possibly tenagers in general. Also a kind of trupence vs tupence halfpenny snobbery. There's a certain amount of people who won't buy a house next or near a lane, or by extension some where with a lot of pedestrian through traffic. Others may be in favour of permiability. I know I am. Why don't I F**k of and by a house somewhere where there is more permiabilty? Because paradoxically those parts of the city are also the most desirable and most expensive so I can't afford to. Unless the predominant attitude changes from 'keep randomers out' to 'I want my kids to be able to walk to school and I want to be able to walk to the shops and Bus stop in less than 5 minutes' you'll continue to get Developers building walls around housing estates.


  • #57
    L'Enfer du Nord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 587 ✭✭✭L'Enfer du Nord


    Allison Shy Industry wrote: »
    What absolute nonsense. Majority rules and non-locals should have no say in what happens in an area. Particularly for people who own their homes and have invested a lot of money in living in an area they should have control over what happens in the area.

    I would be massively against the opening up of an estate I was living in. One way in one way out makes for a much nicer, quieter place to live and cuts out people passing through the estate who have no business being there other than walking through it.

    Reasons like the above is why I want to build my own house in the country where I dont have to put up with any of this crap and can have a big gate to stop people entering and surrounded by our own land so no passers by either and no one being able to have any control over what happens in my surrounds only ourselves.

    So walled estates are suited to people who don't want to live in urban areas in the first place.


  • #58
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    L'Enfer du Nord wrote: »
    So walled estates are suited to people who don't want to live in urban areas in the first place.

    Or maybe people who want to live in an urban area but maintain privacy and minimise the amount of people passing by their front door.


  • #59
    Zzippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,166 ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    Allison Shy Industry wrote: »
    Or maybe people who want to live in an urban area but maintain privacy and minimise the amount of people passing by their front door.

    All of which discourages people from walking - making journeys to school, shops, doctor etc multiple distances of what they should be. Encourages car use and unnecessary car journeys. Reduces exercise taken by the population as whole. Just because some people want something doesn't mean it's good for society.

    As for your earlier point - locals should be the only ones who have a say :rolleyes: - as you've stated you live outside Galway and want to live in a one-off house outside Galway, what are you doing posting on this thread and telling Galway people what they should do?


  • #60
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    L'Enfer du Nord wrote: »
    So walled estates are suited to people who don't want to live in urban areas in the first place.

    Interesting perspective. Maybe walled estates are preferred by those who want to carve out some semblance of a private estate on public space, so that they can enjoy the publicly-funded benefits (street lights, green spaces etc) but can avoid having to buy a ride-on lawnmower or pay annual fees to a management company.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Allison Shy Industry wrote: »
    Or maybe people who want to live in an urban area but maintain privacy and minimise the amount of people passing by their front door.

    I didn't previously form the impression that you cared much about the amount of traffic passing by people's front door, given your insistence on your right to use public roads and and to take any available route to make your journey quicker, "be it back roads, side roads, housing estates, shopping centre car parks etc etc."

    Oh, and here's another beauty:
    Allison Shy Industry wrote: »
    These are all public roads (apart from shopping centers) and I have as much right to drive on them and my taxes contribute to their up keep exactly the same as the people living in the area.

    If I cared or not is irrelevant as I have no grounds to complain and I know it and as I would have no problem doing the same in other areas I simply would accept that I gain by doing it in other areas and other people gain by doing it in my area.


  • #62
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I didn't previously form the impression that you cared much about the amount of traffic passing by people's front door, given your insistence on your right to use public roads and and to take any available route to make your journey quicker, "be it back roads, side roads, housing estates, shopping centre car parks etc etc."

    Oh, and here's another beauty:

    This discussion is about opening areas which are secluded. I have no problem using any route which I find convenient to get places but it doesn't mean I would live in one of the areas I happily pass through. I would seek out a place to live that did not have people passing through regularly particularity if I was investing hundreds of thousands of euro buying a place. If I were living in a nice quiet cul de sac and there was talk of opening a through route for pedestrians I'd fight it tooth and nail.


  • #63
    fergiesfolly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,407 ✭✭✭fergiesfolly


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Interesting perspective. Maybe walled estates are preferred by those who want to carve out some semblance of a private estate on public space, so that they can enjoy the publicly-funded benefits (street lights, green spaces etc) but can avoid having to buy a ride-on lawnmower or pay annual fees to a management company.

    And these people don't pay taxes??!!
    I suppose private motorists shouldn't expect access to public roads?
    They don't pay any taxes either, I suppose???!!
    Get over yourself ffs


  • #64
    Crumbs868
    Closed Accounts Posts: 438 ✭✭Crumbs868


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Public roads are for the public good. If people want to live out of the way in private enclaves then they can pay for it themselves, although I would also argue that the 'gated community' mindset, imported from the USA or some such bastion of conservative individualism, is also bad for social capital.

    Hold on a second chap, maybe the fact that the houses are in a cul de sac was initially reflected in the house price and was the reason for people buying


  • #65
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Crumbs868 wrote: »
    Hold on a second chap, maybe the fact that the houses are in a cul de sac was initially reflected in the house price and was the reason for people buying

    Exactly, houses at the end of cud de sacs are worth more and rightly so as they are a much more pleasant place to live. Why should my house be devalued because either you won't walk the extra distance required to use the road provided (which you knew was the route when you bought or rented your house) or are too stubborn to being the car.


  • #66
    L'Enfer du Nord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 587 ✭✭✭L'Enfer du Nord


    The funny thing about these walls between estates is theres hardly an area in Ireland with a flatter 'class' structure than Knocknacara. The 'elite' don't live there they for thr most part live in one off houses or in suburbs with better shortcuts like Salthill. I'm sure there are some poor people living there but you be hard presed to identify any disadvantaged areas. The size of the houses doesn't vary that much. Crime in my experience is fairly low. All this boils down to is people don't want pedestrians walking past their houses. I really think this stems from an unease with urban or indeed suburban living. As it happens I lived for five years next to one of these walls. It was a barrier to me but it wasn't a barrier to kids who just climbed over it. The biggest crime I was exposed to was a some shorter kids knicking/borrowing my wheelie bins to help them scale the wall.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    L'Enfer du Nord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 587 ✭✭✭L'Enfer du Nord


    Allison Shy Industry wrote: »
    Exactly, houses at the end of cud de sacs are worth more and rightly so as they are a much more pleasant place to live. Why should my house be devalued because either you won't walk the extra distance required to use the road provided (which you knew was the route when you bought or rented your house) or are too stubborn to being the car.

    For a start my destination e.g. School my kids attend or Super market may not have existed when I moved in.

    I may not have a car. I May be too young to drive, I may be too old to drive, I may not be able to afford a car, my partner may need our car for work while I have to collect the kids from school.

    As an aside cul-de-sac estates are a product of cars. If you look at suburban housing before c. 1970 thete are very few cul-de-sacs. They were introduced because increased traffic made it unsafe for kids to play on the streets. Cul de ssc estates still usually had lanes or paths across greens to people could walk to school, bus stops, shops. By c. 2000 this had died out because people just expect to drive everywhere and because of fear of the 'randomer'.


  • #68
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    L'Enfer du Nord wrote: »
    I may not have a car. I May be too young to drive, I may be too old to drive, I may not be able to afford a car, my partner may need our car for work while I have to collect the kids from school.

    Or you may own a car but, perhaps because you don't want to contribute to or get caught up in traffic congestion, you choose to leave it at home in favour of public transport, walking or cycling. Then maybe you start to notice the attitude that seems to pervade the socio-political culture, which is that motorists are "the people that matter" and that by walking, cycling or taking the bus you have become part of an underclass. Irish transport policy is just one of the two-tier systems we seem to delight in creating.

    L'Enfer du Nord wrote: »
    As an aside cul-de-sac estates are a product of cars. If you look at suburban housing before c. 1970 thete are very few cul-de-sacs. They were introduced because increased traffic made it unsafe for kids to play on the streets. Cul de ssc estates still usually had lanes or paths across greens to people could walk to school, bus stops, shops. By c. 2000 this had died out because people just expect to drive everywhere and because of fear of the 'randomer'.

    Interesting point. Perhaps it's a bit of both? Decades ago, the original purpose of cul-de-sac development was to exclude through traffic. However, increasing motorisation was encouraged, not controlled, so that cars came to dominate everywhere. The inevitable decline in sustainable transport then served to justify even greater levels of car-dependent "planning". Certainly that has been the case in Galway, for instance in situations where cycle hostile "planning" decisions were justified on the grounds that less than 3% of the population cycles to work.

    Likewise, fear of "randomers" may well have been generated by cul-de-sac developments: certainly in my neck of the woods, climbing over the wall is seen as inherently transgressive, even though there's nothing random or suspicious about it at all, because the climbers are just taking a short cut. I've already mentioned the 'Community' Garda who suggested taking photos of the 'offenders' -- imo that's a small illustration of the way in which our police "service" and local government cultures have combined to create a two-tier system in which pedestrians, cyclists and bus users are second-class citizens. It's not as bad as the USA, of course, where you can come to the attention of the police just by walking (especially while black).

    Incidentally, I find it bizarre that motorists and local authority officials/members often oppose traffic calming because of the alleged adverse effects on emergency vehicles, yet they defend cul-de-sac layouts, which are known to delay police, fire and ambulance services by forcing them to take convoluted routes.

    That said, it's perfectly possible to have cul-de-sacs that stop through traffic but which also have 'filtered permeability' for pedestrians and cyclists. Perhaps planners can now be forced to change their out-of-date habits, and all future developments will be permeable. However, how do we deal with current levels of impermeability as well as the suspicious and reactionary mindset which sees the car as king and the cul-de-sac as a kingdom to be defended at all costs?


  • #69
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    fergiesfolly wrote: »
    And these people don't pay taxes??!!
    I suppose private motorists shouldn't expect access to public roads?
    They don't pay any taxes either, I suppose???!!
    Get over yourself ffs

    1366406692_gary-coleman-sass.jpg

    Crumbs868 wrote: »
    Hold on a second chap, maybe the fact that the houses are in a cul de sac was initially reflected in the house price and was the reason for people buying
    Allison Shy Industry wrote: »
    Exactly, houses at the end of cud de sacs are worth more and rightly so as they are a much more pleasant place to live. Why should my house be devalued because either you won't walk the extra distance required to use the road provided (which you knew was the route when you bought or rented your house) or are too stubborn to being the car.



    House prices change.

    In any case, research shows that greater 'walkability' in a neighbourhood correlates with higher house prices:

    http://www.citylab.com/design/2014/12/growing-evidence-shows-walkability-is-good-for-you-and-for-cities/383612/
    https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/tfl-improving-walkability.pdf

    It's not just about money money money though. There are also numerous social and health-related co-benefits to making communities more walkable:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448008/
    http://www.planetizen.com/node/61128

    The evidence is clear. The reactionary mindset has nothing supporting it other than wilful ignorance and suspicion.


  • #70
    fergiesfolly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,407 ✭✭✭fergiesfolly


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    1366406692_gary-coleman-sass.jpg








    House prices change.

    In any case, research shows that greater 'walkability' in a neighbourhood correlates with higher house prices:

    http://www.citylab.com/design/2014/12/growing-evidence-shows-walkability-is-good-for-you-and-for-cities/383612/
    https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/tfl-improving-walkability.pdf

    It's not just about money money money though. There are also numerous social and health-related co-benefits to making communities more walkable:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448008/
    http://www.planetizen.com/node/61128

    The evidence is clear. The reactionary mindset has nothing supporting it other than wilful ignorance and suspicion.

    You could be helpful and highlight the points in those links that support your argument. Haven't time to go through all of it.
    The one from Galway is interesting.
    Is there anything more recent, as it's 14 years old.


  • #71
    Crumbs868
    Closed Accounts Posts: 438 ✭✭Crumbs868


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    1366406692_gary-coleman-sass.jpg








    House prices change.

    In any case, research shows that greater 'walkability' in a neighbourhood correlates with higher house prices:

    http://www.citylab.com/design/2014/12/growing-evidence-shows-walkability-is-good-for-you-and-for-cities/383612/
    https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/tfl-improving-walkability.pdf

    It's not just about money money money though. There are also numerous social and health-related co-benefits to making communities more walkable:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448008/
    http://www.planetizen.com/node/61128

    The evidence is clear. The reactionary mindset has nothing supporting it other than wilful ignorance and suspicion.

    Unable to argue ones case so flood the thread with random statistics from irrelevant surveys to suit ones argument and drive participators away, where have I seen that before?


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    pmasterson95
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,074 ✭✭✭pmasterson95


    Crumbs868 wrote: »
    Unable to argue ones case so flood the thread with random statistics from irrelevant surveys to suit ones argument and drive participators away, where have I seen that before?

    If I answer correctly whats my prize?


  • #73
    L'Enfer du Nord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 587 ✭✭✭L'Enfer du Nord


    Crumbs868 wrote: »
    Unable to argue ones case so flood the thread with random statistics from irrelevant surveys to suit ones argument and drive participators away, where have I seen that before?


    Well if anyone has any evidence that increasing permiability i.e. allowing pedestrians and cyclist pass through cul-de-sacs reduces house prices please post it.


  • #74
    pmasterson95
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,074 ✭✭✭pmasterson95


    L'Enfer du Nord wrote: »
    Well if anyone has any evidence that increasing permiability i.e. allowing pedestrians and cyclist pass through cul-de-sacs reduces house prices please post it.

    Its a bit odd how you now want specified "on topic" answers when ye decided to bring into the thread nox's posts on an unrelated issue solely to discredit him.

    Crumbs was merely aliluding to those stunts combinded with Iwannahurls tendency to post large pdf documents.


  • #75
    L'Enfer du Nord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 587 ✭✭✭L'Enfer du Nord


    pmasterson95 wrote: »
    Its a bit odd how you now want specified "on topic" answers when ye decided to bring into the thread nox's posts on an unrelated issue solely to discredit him.

    Crumbs was merely aliluding to those stunts combinded with Iwannahurls tendency to post large pdf documents.

    Where have I quoted unrelated treads? Or indeed post off topic. There was an asertion that permiability in cul-de-sacs reduces property values. No evidemce for this has been posted. All thats happened is prople have complained when evidence to the contrary has been posted.


  • #76
    John_Rambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,875 ✭✭✭John_Rambo


    Allison Shy Industry wrote: »
    Exactly, houses at the end of cud de sacs are worth more and rightly so as they are a much more pleasant place to live. Why should my house be devalued because either you won't walk the extra distance required to use the road provided (which you knew was the route when you bought or rented your house) or are too stubborn to being the car.

    It's not stubbornness, you're being either naive or obtuse here. Some people don't have cars, can't afford cars, don't want to use them all the time, can't afford to use them all the time when there's a free alternative. Some people can't drive, others are too old, too young, physically or mentally restricted. We can't have a country devoted to car drivers ignoring anyone that is restricted from car driving.

    I lived in a 70's cul de sac estate (road signs graffitied to pul de sac frequently:D) for a while. They're grand for families with very young kids, but once they get older and have to travel three kilometres to the nearest shop or even main road (which is actually a couple of hundred metres away) it's not suitable. I hated it. Grey, and closed in.. very little freedom. Plus, as pointed out before, walled cul de sac estates are impossible to police and in my opinion encourages alfa families, bullying, over familiarity, highly internalised and very defined communities. There's a sheep herd effect.

    As you say yourself
    Allison Shy Industry wrote: »
    I don't care what the weather is like, I'd think twice about cycling 3km myself never mind forcing a child to do it.
    So, why force a kid to make a three kilometre trek when it's 100 metres with direct pedestrian and cycle roads? It's healthier for families to get out of the car and go to shops/sports/gym/parks/beaches/bus stops/ameneties by foot or bike instead of piling in to the car for every single journey.

    It's perfectly reasonable to knock houses with CPO's for this reason, as much as it is for any other transport systems. Probably more of a case in some reasons. Open them up. It will open the communities up and get then out of the forced car culture.

    (By the way, I have a three year old that daily cycles 3k on a balance bike, man up ;))


  • #77
    L'Enfer du Nord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 587 ✭✭✭L'Enfer du Nord


    You know all this F##k you just get a car/save me and my house price from the randomer hordes and their two wheeled cavalry would be funney if it wasn't acually a reflexion of oficial policy. Funnily enough the people with money and power in Galway are laughing at you. Many times I've heard Knocknacarra descrided as just a load of houses or refered to has Knocknatalla. Which is in fact unfair on Tallaght. You think any developers live in Knocknacarra? I doubt many planners do either. Anyone with the money to do so in Galway either lives in one of the older permiable suburbs, a one off house or a semirural idle like Menlo or Barna. There's actually a concept in the US of a place where you have to drive to buy a pint of milk. This usually an Exurb with MacMansions on acre sites. Thats the trade off space vs proximity to services. Galway has created such a place 4 km from the city centre with 3 bed room houses and small gardens.


  • #78
    nuac
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,769 ✭✭✭nuac


    John_Rambo wrote: »
    It's not stubbornness, you're being either naive or obtuse here. Some people don't have cars, can't afford cars, don't want to use them all the time, can't afford to use them all the time when there's a free alternative. Some people can't drive, others are too old, too young, physically or mentally restricted. We can't have a country devoted to car drivers ignoring anyone that is restricted from car driving.

    I lived in a 70's cul de sac estate (road signs graffitied to pul de sac frequently:D) for a while. They're grand for families with very young kids, but once they get older and have to travel three kilometres to the nearest shop or even main road (which is actually a couple of hundred metres away) it's not suitable. I hated it. Grey, and closed in.. very little freedom. Plus, as pointed out before, walled cul de sac estates are impossible to police and in my opinion encourages alfa families, bullying, over familiarity, highly internalised and very defined communities. There's a sheep herd effect.

    As you say yourself So, why force a kid to make a three kilometre trek when it's 100 metres with direct pedestrian and cycle roads? It's healthier for families to get out of the car and go to shops/sports/gym/parks/beaches/bus stops/ameneties by foot or bike instead of piling in to the car for every single journey.

    It's perfectly reasonable to knock houses with CPO's for this reason, as much as it is for any other transport systems. Probably more of a case in some reasons. Open them up. It will open the communities up and get then out of the forced car culture.

    (By the way, I have a three year old that daily cycles 3k on a balance bike, man up ;))

    I don't agree that it is perfectly reasonable to use CPOs to knock houses for the reason stated.

    I presume that area was laid out as a cul-de-sac pursuant to planning permissions. Those who bought houses in it would have relied on the PP. While there are pros and cons re such layouts, many valued the privacy and safety.

    Nobody likes a rat-run through a hitherto secluded estate either by bikes or on foot. While every body likes to facilitate small kids, the new path will be used by all sorts at all times, including loutish drunken teenagers who may well decide to party near some of the houses near the new path.

    Any application for a CPO for a new path thru the estate, or indeed for acquisition of a house to knock for such access, would be made by a successor to the planning authority which granted permission for the original estate. Likely to be successfully challenged


  • #79
    John_Rambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,875 ✭✭✭John_Rambo


    nuac wrote: »
    I don't agree that it is perfectly reasonable to use CPOs to knock houses for the reason stated.

    I presume that area was laid out as a cul-de-sac pursuant to planning permissions. Those who bought houses in it would have relied on the PP. While there are pros and cons re such layouts, many valued the privacy and safety.

    Nobody likes a rat-run through a hitherto secluded estate either by bikes or on foot. While every body likes to facilitate small kids, the new path will be used by all sorts at all times, including loutish drunken teenagers who may well decide to party near some of the houses near the new path.

    Any application for a CPO for a new path thru the estate, or indeed for acquisition of a house to knock for such access, would be made by a successor to the planning authority which granted permission for the original estate. Likely to be successfully challenged

    Rat running is the practice of car/van drivers using secondary roads, or residential side streets instead of the intended main roads in urban or suburban areas even where there are traffic calming measures to discourage them. It can be dangerous and they tend to hit speeds on roads that aren't designed for speed.

    Pedestrians and cyclists aren't rat runners, they're walking or cycling.

    Loutish and drunks can be dealt with as access is clear. It's ok. Don't fear paths, they're a good thing.

    I now live on a main road, to the back of me is a well designed small estate with no cul de sacs. We have parks and communal areas. We don't suffer from drunken louts as they get moved on or taken off in the back of a Garda car. The area is very easy to police. There's no walls at the end of dead ends for easy escape. There's a healthy flow of pedestrians, families, walk/cycle/skate to schoolers and it works well. Burglars, dodgy types etc are spotted quickly as there's more people out and about on foot instead of cooped up in cars.


  • #80
    FortySeven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,296 ✭✭✭FortySeven


    Lots of people on here who are scared of people. Would do them good to get out of the protection of the car and walled estate to meet some people.


  • #81
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,490 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Allison Shy Industry wrote: »
    These walk through paths are a hot spot for anti-social behaviour also, threads often pop up in the accommodation and property form with people wondering how to deal with youths in these alley ways etc.
    Bollocks.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    FortySeven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,296 ✭✭✭FortySeven


    Victor wrote: »
    Bollocks.

    That's not very moderate Victor. :eek:

    :P


  • #83
    John_Rambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,875 ✭✭✭John_Rambo


    FortySeven wrote: »
    That's not very moderate Victor. :eek:

    :P

    He's moderately right though! :)


  • #84
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    FortySeven wrote: »
    Lots of people on here who are scared of people. Would do them good to get out of the protection of the car and walled estate to meet some people.

    People wanting more privacy and being afraid of people are very different. Why on earth would you want people walking passed your house who have no business in the estate or being near your house?

    I've no interest in mixing with random strangers, hence why my house will have high electric gates and only friends and family members will be able access.
    Victor wrote: »
    Bollocks.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=96507192


  • #85
    FortySeven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,296 ✭✭✭FortySeven


    Allison Shy Industry wrote: »
    People wanting more privacy and being afraid of people are very different. Why on earth would you want people walking passed your house who have no business in the estate or being near your house?

    I've no interest in mixing with random strangers, hence why my house will have high electric gates and only friends and family members will be able access.



    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=96507192


    And everyone else on estates should suffer inconvenience because you can't afford to go and build your anti-social castle in the country?


  • #86
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    FortySeven wrote: »
    And everyone else on estates should suffer inconvenience because you can't afford to go and build your anti-social castle in the country?

    Where did I say I can't afford to build my own house in the country? I fully intend to in the coming years on our own land where I will be surrounded by fields and next door to other family members houses. No passing randomers, no one passing my door who I don't want, a strange car or walker on the road watched like a hawk by everyone around etc.

    But if I'd bought a house in an estate in a cul de sac I wouldn't not just lie down and allow it to be opened up to passing pedestrians and cyclists which is the point I'm making.


  • #87
    Zzippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,166 ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    Allison Shy Industry wrote: »
    t in mixing with random strangers, hence why my house will have high electric gates and only friends and family members will be able access.

    You sound delightful. And despite the fact that you grew up in isolation and intend to live long-term in isolation you feel qualified to advise people who grew up and live in suburban estates how they should plan their neighbourhoods. That's like urban dwellers telling you that one-off houses are a blight on the countryside, are unsustainable, and that planning laws should be changed so you can't build one. I'm sure you'd listen alright...


  • #88
    John_Rambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,875 ✭✭✭John_Rambo


    Allison Shy Industry wrote: »
    Where did I say I can't afford to build my own house in the country? I fully intend to in the coming years on our own land where I will be surrounded by fields and next door to other family members houses. No passing randomers, no one passing my door who I don't want, a strange car or walker on the road watched like a hawk by everyone around etc.

    And we wonder why rural communities are falling apart, the elderly are exposed and vulnerable, burglaries are on the rise. You don't even want to know each other, let alone live near each other.

    Is this what you think happens? Do you honestly believe that everyone around you is watching you like a hawk? That's reaching new levels of paranoia.


  • #89
    FortySeven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,296 ✭✭✭FortySeven


    No passing randomers, no one passing my door who I don't want, a strange car or walker on the road watched like a hawk by everyone around etc.

    Thank god it is not like that where I live, in rural Galway.

    I can just imagine you now, hiding in a bush with a pair of night vision goggles waiting for the next unsuspecting jogger to dare to darken your driveway.


  • #90
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    FortySeven wrote: »
    Thank god it is not like that where I live, in rural Galway.

    I can just imagine you now, hiding in a bush with a pair of night vision goggles waiting for the next unsuspecting jogger to dare to darken your driveway.

    The road is a dead end, if you aren't one of the people who own land on the road then you have no business on the road.

    Thankfully things are like this, we don't lock our houses and leave the keys in the ignition of the car as no thief would get anywhere without being spotted and confronted.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    FortySeven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,296 ✭✭✭FortySeven


    Allison Shy Industry wrote: »
    The road is a dead end, if you aren't one of the people who own land on the road then you have no business on the road.

    Thankfully things are like this, we don't lock our houses and leave the keys in the ignition of the car as no thief would get anywhere without being spotted and confronted.

    Thankfully the advent of the motor car has enabled a generation or two to take a dip in the gene pool. This kind of attitude will be gone by the time my kids grow up. The days of locals v blow-ins and established families ruling rural areas are coming to an end sir. Get with the program.


  • #92
    John_Rambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,875 ✭✭✭John_Rambo


    Allison Shy Industry wrote: »
    The road is a dead end, if you aren't one of the people who own land on the road then you have no business on the road


    Ha! GERROFF MOY LAND!! Do you own the road too?


  • #93
    zarquon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,734 ✭✭✭zarquon


    Allison Shy Industry wrote: »
    If you aren't one of the people who own land on the road then you have no business on the road.
    .

    Says the man who openly admits to parking outside people's houses in private estates that by your admission you have no business being in, for GAA matches. You're happy to invade the privacy of others for your convenience while insisting that no one else should do the same.

    I assume you take those little lanes and shortcuts too that you want closed while making your merry way to pearse?


  • #94
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    zarquon wrote: »
    Says the man who openly admits to parking outside people's houses in private estates that by your admission you have no business being in, for GAA matches. You're happy to invade the privacy of others for your convenience while insisting that no one else should do the same.

    I assume you take those little lanes and shortcuts too that you want closed while making your merry way to pearse?

    But I have business being in the roads around Pearce stadium as I'm attending a match. Someone coming in our road who doesn't live on the road or have a reason like visiting someone etc had no business on the road and have the potential to be caging the area for a robbery. There are a number of farms including our own with lots of high value machinery and equipment so strangers are watched closely for very good reason.


  • #95
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,084 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    Allison Shy Industry wrote: »
    But I have business being in the roads around Pearce stadium as I'm attending a match.

    No you don't.

    You have business being in the stadium, and in the designated car-parks, and on foot on the main roads in between. You have no business being in non-designated car-parking areas.


  • #96
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    No you don't.

    You have business being in the stadium, and in the designated car-parks, and on foot on the main roads in between. You have no business being in non-designated car-parking areas.

    Once I am legally parked then I am fully entitled to park in the areas surrounds the stadium.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    zarquon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,734 ✭✭✭zarquon


    Allison Shy Industry wrote: »
    Once I am legally parked then I am fully entitled to park in the areas surrounds the stadium.

    So for instance, if i business in a near by shop or park i can just pass through and park in any cul de sac that i wish that has a short cut to my destination.

    I'm amazed you cannot see the contradictions and the hypocricy of your posts in this thread!
    Allison Shy Industry wrote: »
    Why on earth would you want people walking passed your house who have no business in the estate
    Allison Shy Industry wrote: »
    The road is a dead end, if you aren't one of the people who own land on the road then you have no business on the road.
    Allison Shy Industry wrote: »
    . Why should my house be devalued because either you won't walk the extra distance required to use the road
    :pac:
    Allison Shy Industry wrote: »

    I would be massively against the opening up of an estate I was living in. One way in one way out makes for a much nicer, quieter place to live and cuts out people passing through the estate who have no business being there other than walking through it.

    hypocrisy2.jpg


  • #98
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    I notice that the aptly-named OP hasn't had a word to say on the subject since August 14.

    The "April 1st" innuendo is also apt, but not as the OP intended.

    And while I'm at it, here's another example of (certified) hypocrisy:
    Allison Shy Industry wrote: »
    This discussion is about opening areas which are secluded. I have no problem using any route which I find convenient to get places but it doesn't mean I would live in one of the areas I happily pass through. I would seek out a place to live that did not have people passing through regularly particularity if I was investing hundreds of thousands of euro buying a place. If I were living in a nice quiet cul de sac and there was talk of opening a through route for pedestrians I'd fight it tooth and nail.

    Such as Highfield, for example, a cul-de-sac estate where GAA supporters like to park, usually on the footpath, before walking to Pearse Stadium: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056951980&page=14

    Of course the cul-de-sac parkers are motorists, ie "the people that matter", so that's entirely different and AOK.


  • #99
    Zzippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,166 ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    Allison Shy Industry wrote: »
    Once I am legally parked then I am fully entitled to park in the areas surrounds the stadium.

    Once I am legally taxed and insured then I am fully entitled to use your road too, park up and have a good look at your curtain-twitching clan's houses, stroll up and down checking out your wonderful expensive machinery, lean on a gate and blow smoke up your a$$. But according to you I have no business there so I shouldn't be there. Hypocrisy much?


  • #100
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Zzippy wrote: »
    Once I am legally taxed and insured then I am fully entitled to use your road too, park up and have a good look at your curtain-twitching clan's houses, stroll up and down checking out your wonderful expensive machinery, lean on a gate and blow smoke up your a$$. But according to you I have no business there so I shouldn't be there. Hypocrisy much?

    You would have a very limited scope for walking around that wasn't entering private property.

    If you were acting like that though the assumption would be you were up to no good and you'd be confronted fairly fast and asked to explain yourself.

    Walking back and forth on a narrow road looking into people yards and gardens does not fall under the heading of "having business there". Going to a match or any of the other amenities in salthill on the other had is a legitimate reason to be in the area.


  • #101
    jugger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 375 ✭✭jugger


    Nox no one on a public road needs to explain themselves to you and yours in your opinion you might think they do but they dont


  • Advertisement
Advertisement