St Annes Park Planning Application

KomradeBishop · 10-02-2016 3:35pm

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.

Dodge · 10-02-2016 3:42pm

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?

KomradeBishop · 10-02-2016 3:50pm

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.

Dodge · 10-02-2016 4:11pm

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

schemingbohemia · 10-02-2016 5:10pm

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.

ozmo · 16-02-2016 11:55am

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.

KomradeBishop · 16-02-2016 4:23pm

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.

Pete_Cavan · 27-02-2016 3:35pm

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.

spurious · 27-02-2016 3:46pm

The question of access to roads will be interesting.

KomradeBishop · 27-02-2016 4:33pm

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.

Pete_Cavan · 03-03-2016 9:42am

KomradeBishop wrote: »

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.

The developer is paying €7m for the land, is paying substantial design costs which has just jumped up again due to need to redesign, there will be significant levies and contributions to be paid, part of the land purchase agreement was that the developer build a new sports hall and all weather pitch for the school plus there are site development and infrastructure costs. There is more than €10m worth of fixed cost to the developer regardless of the number of units they get approval for. If the number of units is significantly reduced, then those fixed costs increase per unit, if sales prices remain the same then it eats into any profit.

If the number of units is halved, then the fixed cost per unit doubles (the actual construction cost per unit probably increases a bit due to reduced economy of scale). There is a point where the development becomes uneconomical, if DCC cant reject the development outright, hopefully they are pushing the number of units approved down to that level.

KomradeBishop · 03-03-2016 1:33pm

The original plan was 400 homes, lets say that goes down to 200 at €300,000 (which is low estimate given the state of the property market) - that'd be at least €60 million.

Good luck trying to show that being uneconomical.

ozmo · 05-02-2018 11:37am

Just a heads up - this project is back...

With a very swish website and documents:

"...the loss of 15 acres of playing fields at St. Paul's college in St. Anne's park. That planning application was withdrawn following hundreds of objections but it's back and it's bigger than before. This new proposal will have a catastrophic impact on St. Anne's from which the park will never recover. You can view the planning documents here..."

Read full update here:
https://www.change.org/p/4870114/u/22314339

Their website:
http://www.stpaulsshd.ie/

There are a lot of documents there - one I found interesting was the Photomontage - which very carefully selected locations are chosen to suggest the buildings are almost totally invisible from all angles... very crafty editing there.

http://www.stpaulsshd.ie/environmental-impact-assessment-form/photomontages/

MisterDrak · 05-02-2018 5:57pm

ozmo wrote: »

There are a lot of documents there - one I found interesting was the Photomontage - which very carefully selected locations are chosen to suggest the buildings are almost totally invisible from all angles... very crafty editing there.

http://www.stpaulsshd.ie/environmental-impact-assessment-form/photomontages/

Basically 20% of the green space will be lost in the top section of St Annes park.

Agree with you point around the carefully selecting spots to show the impact on the views in the park. Only the last 3-4 photos give an indication of the lately impact. A narrow red line drawing showing the high of the structure does not describe how a 3-4 story slab of concrete with actually look, through the trees.

wakka12 · 07-02-2018 11:53am

I really hope those apartments aren't built

Building on public green space would set a very poor precedent for the city

odyssey06 · 07-02-2018 12:22pm

There's 440 hectares zoned using the primary residential zoning in Dublin City, that's apparently enough for 50,000 houses.
The land at St Annes was detached from the park but was always intended primarily for community use in their hands of the religious order, maybe with some small residential section e.g. for members of the order to live on, or educational lands that would have student accomodation.
It was never intended that the land would become primarily residential.
It's disgraceful that some religious instiutions used legal loophole to challenge this zoning.

ozmo · 07-02-2018 1:10pm

"How are sports facilities ever a bad thing? In such a large park too? I think you have no rational basis for objection!"

A huge apartment block complex - imposing over the park - with a small section will be made pay per play.

There is enough brown field unused land in the area they could use for building without cutting into parkland intended for the use by all.

wakka12 · 07-02-2018 1:22pm

ozmo wrote: »

A huge apartment block complex - imposing over the park - with a small section will be made pay per play.

There is enough brown field unused land in the area they could use for building without cutting into parkland intended for the use by all.

I edited didn't know apartments were being built when I read OP, thought it was just fields

jon1981 · 07-02-2018 4:59pm

I'm on the fence about this development. I believe the location would be great for many reasons, close to town, alot of transport options and also would be good for the area in terms of driving local business (shops, cafe...etc.).

The land is there but there's been no plan to develop it for the Z15 conditions mentioned. So, now a guy turns up with a plan, offering homes (house crisis tick) , jobs ( Economy tick) and PR for the government (tick tick tick).

At a time when there's a perceived suitable home shortage in Dublin , no politician is going to get behind this , they might give lip service to it but I don't see them making a song and dance about it. It would harm their image.

I would like to see the development scaled down but I do believe there is space there for homes.

Gloomtastic! · 07-02-2018 5:58pm

The main bone of contention for me is the loss of my son's football and rugby club pitches. However, the developers have offered to build 2 all weather pitches. That seems like a fair deal. You get so much more play out of an all weather pitch compared to grass.

The objectors are just NIMBYs, the park hasn't been part of St Anne's for decades.

bren2001 · 07-02-2018 8:18pm

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

The main bone of contention for me is the loss of my son's football and rugby club pitches. However, the developers have offered to build 2 all weather pitches. That seems like a fair deal. You get so much more play out of an all weather pitch compared to grass.

The objectors are just NIMBYs, the park hasn't been part of St Anne's for decades.

The fence was put up around 2001. It was effectively part of the park until then i.e. if you didn't know it wasn't, you wouldn't guess.

ozmo · 07-02-2018 10:28pm

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

...the developers have offered to build 2 all weather pitches. .

That you will pay them each time you want to use...

Gloomtastic! · 07-02-2018 10:47pm

ozmo wrote: »

That you will pay them each time you want to use...

Didn’t the football and rugby clubs pay for the grass pitches?

kona · 07-02-2018 10:51pm

jon1981 wrote: »

I'm on the fence about this development. I believe the location would be great for many reasons, close to town, alot of transport options and also would be good for the area in terms of driving local business (shops, cafe...etc.).

The land is there but there's been no plan to develop it for the Z15 conditions mentioned. So, now a guy turns up with a plan, offering homes (house crisis tick) , jobs ( Economy tick) and PR for the government (tick tick tick).

At a time when there's a perceived suitable home shortage in Dublin , no politician is going to get behind this , they might give lip service to it but I don't see them making a song and dance about it. It would harm their image.

I would like to see the development scaled down but I do believe there is space there for homes.

The houses being built there are not for normal people working normal jobs.
They are for social and people who can afford 400k plus.

jon1981 · 08-02-2018 12:46am

kona wrote: »

The houses being built there are not for normal people working normal jobs.
They are for social and people who can afford 400k plus.

Ok, but this is not why people are protesting.

Also, the location is quite a sought after location given the proximity to the city, public transport and local amenities. Why wouldn't the developer price them accordingly? They are not a charity.

kona · 08-02-2018 10:12am

jon1981 wrote: »

Ok, but this is not why people are protesting.

Also, the location is quite a sought after location given the proximity to the city, public transport and local amenities. Why wouldn't the developer price them accordingly? They are not a charity.

No people are protesting because its a ****in stupid place to build houses.
Zero access, its a massive amount of soakage for rain, its used by hundreds of kids every week, the local roads wont handle that traffic as it currently cannot handle whats going thru there at the moment.

As for the type of houses, of course you charge accordingly but im responding to your point about the housing crisis, these houses aint for the great unwashed. Well maybe 30%.

Seth Brundle · 08-02-2018 10:15am

kona wrote: »

As for the type of houses, of course you charge accordingly but im responding to your point about the housing crisis, these houses aint for the great unwashed. Well maybe 30%.

Whether or not they are for the great unwashed is irrelevant. If you reduce demand in one segment e.g. those that wash, it will have knock on effects on other segments e.g. the unwashed

bren2001 · 08-02-2018 10:45am

kbannon wrote: »

Whether or not they are for the great unwashed is irrelevant. If you reduce demand in one segment e.g. those that wash, it will have knock on effects on other segments e.g. the unwashed

While this is technically true, building luxury accommodation or accommodation for the more elite will reduce house prices for low to middle earning families due to less demand, it is very minimal. Its effectively a form of trickle down economics which doesn't work. This does very little to address the housing crisis in Dublin. The housing crisis does not effect its target market.

However, rich people still need houses too. I never really understood this portion of the argument. Not every development will tackle the crisis. We can't just build houses for low to middle income families. Unfortunately, due to the approach the government has taken, I expect to see a lot more of this stuff as its much more profitable for developers.

Saying that, I'm against the proposed development for a variety of other reasons.

jon1981 · 08-02-2018 11:26am

kona wrote: »

No people are protesting because its a ****in stupid place to build houses.
Zero access, its a massive amount of soakage for rain, its used by hundreds of kids every week, the local roads wont handle that traffic as it currently cannot handle whats going thru there at the moment.

I agree with the traffic situation , which is why I said I would like to see it scaled down (by the way, I live in the affected area)

kona wrote: »

As for the type of houses, of course you charge accordingly but im responding to your point about the housing crisis, these houses aint for the great unwashed. Well maybe 30%.

There's still sufficient demand in that market to see these being sold out. This will relieve pressure elsewhere, i.e. someone paying 400k for a property in a less desirable area because they have no choice. The housing crisis is not just hitting low income earners.

Would you be ok if this were 100% social housing?

kona · 08-02-2018 5:11pm

jon1981 wrote: »

I agree with the traffic situation , which is why I said I would like to see it scaled down (by the way, I live in the affected area)

There's still sufficient demand in that market to see these being sold out. This will relieve pressure elsewhere, i.e. someone paying 400k for a property in a less desirable area because they have no choice. The housing crisis is not just hitting low income earners.

Would you be ok if this were 100% social housing?

Id prefer if it was zero % social housing to be honest. Sounds like you would like.to live in this development! Ive no doubt they will sell out!

But this politics is not my point. My point is build them elsewhere, too much development in dublin. Rural areas need investment more to be honest.
Also if they sell this part of the park, whats next? Kids getting coaches to P.E out in westmeath?

expectationlost · 06-04-2018 9:55pm

is the decision to be found here ? http://www.pleanala.ie/

Gloomtastic! · 06-04-2018 10:26pm

expectationlost wrote: »

is the decision to be found here ? http://www.pleanala.ie/

Try here https://www.clontarf.ie/news/planning-permission-granted-for-st-pauls-playing-fields-st-annes

expectationlost · 06-04-2018 10:30pm

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

Try here https://www.clontarf.ie/news/planning-permission-granted-for-st-pauls-playing-fields-st-annes

thanks would love to know how to find that from the front page of the ABP site

Gloomtastic! · 06-04-2018 11:15pm

expectationlost wrote: »

thanks would love to know how to find that from the front page of the ABP site

It’s a public service website. Why would they let you to find something you want? :rolleyes:

Seth Brundle · 07-04-2018 10:01am

I'm on a phone and it was very easy to find...

06/04/2018 - Decision issued for Strategic Housing Development application for residential accommodation at lands east of St. Paul's College, Sybil Hill Road, Raheny, Dublin 5 (Case reference: ABP-300559-18).

Sleeper12 · 07-04-2018 10:06am

Not a good decision for the area. The fast track planning is deeply flawed. DCC were against this development

expectationlost · 07-04-2018 2:20pm

kbannon wrote: »

I'm on a phone and it was very easy to find...

06/04/2018 - Decision issued for Strategic Housing Development application for residential accommodation at lands east of St. Paul's College, Sybil Hill Road, Raheny, Dublin 5 (Case reference: ABP-300559-18).

how did you find it?

cunavalos · 08-04-2018 5:29pm

expectationlost wrote: »

how did you find it?

Its fairly prominent in the news section

Seth Brundle · 08-04-2018 7:09pm

expectationlost wrote: »

how did you find it?

A simple glance at the homepage made it straightforwards!

expectationlost · 13-04-2018 1:10pm

kbannon wrote: »

A simple glance at the homepage made it straightforwards!

yeah I want to know it exists outside of the newsfeed, I looking in the strategic hsouing section and couldn't find it

Seth Brundle · 13-04-2018 2:13pm

expectationlost wrote: »

yeah I want to know it exists outside of the newsfeed, I looking in the strategic hsouing section and couldn't find it

Well I answered your original query.
However, why would you expect to see a decision outside of their newsfeed on a page that outlines how to make an application and also contains a list of current applications of which St. Anne's is not?
This page doesn't appear to announce details of any applications so, unsurprisingly, the St. Anne's decision isn't there!

expectationlost · 13-04-2018 2:24pm

kbannon wrote: »

Well I answered your original query.
However, why would you expect to see a decision outside of their newsfeed on a page that outlines how to make an application and also contains a list of current applications of which St. Anne's is not?
This page doesn't appear to announce details of any applications so, unsurprisingly, the St. Anne's decision isn't there!

it has to exist somewhere other their their newsfeed.

Seth Brundle · 13-04-2018 2:38pm

expectationlost wrote: »

it has to exist somewhere other their their newsfeed.

Why?
What are you looking for exactly from ABP?

expectationlost · 13-04-2018 2:44pm

kbannon wrote: »

Why?
What are you looking for exactly from ABP?

i don't think it had been listed when I looked I see it in New and Decided cases now http://www.pleanala.ie/lists/2018/index.htm wasn't there before

Seth Brundle · 13-04-2018 2:54pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Not a good decision for the area.

Why is this not a good decision for the area?
I'm struggling to see what people are complaining about - many of those who I personally have heard complaining about it were previously complaining about the government not solving the housing problem :rolleyes:

subpar · 13-04-2018 3:01pm

These new properties are badly wanted particularly as they will be situated so close to the city and close to top class amenities and transport links.

Those living nearby should be pleased as the new development can only increase the value of properties in the Killester / Raheny / Clontarf areas.

ozmo · 13-04-2018 4:16pm

So its there anything being done - any appeal in process - or is that the final result?

Seth Brundle · 13-04-2018 4:36pm

ozmo wrote: »

So its there anything being done - any appeal in process - or is that the final result?

On what grounds?
Anyhow, you'd be looking at a High Court judicial review based on legal issues around the validity of the ABP decision.
Like I said earlier, I'm struggling to see a problem with the development so for what reason would you appeal?

ozmo · 13-04-2018 5:08pm

kbannon wrote: »

On what grounds?

I have a problem with all the issues already stated - namely...

• Conflicts with Z15 Zoning
• Loss of open space/active recreational grounds (in-combination losses, including previous loss of swimming pool)
• Loss of habitats for Birds/SPA (AA issues/Habitats Directive)
• Impact on Biosphere
• Traffic & Transportation: lack of carrying capacity of local road network, lack of capacity on bus network/services, greater than 500m from Dart station (inaccurate distances indicated)
• Height/Visual Impact vis a vis :
- St. Anne’s Park
- Protected Structure (Sybil Hill House)
- surrounding two-storey housing
• Privatisation of a public asset;
• By-pass/subversion of correct planning process (re zoning and application) – note planning history 3777/17
• Loss of sporting amenity
• Loss of educational amenity/facility
• Impact on Naniken Stream /SUDs/Flooding
• Brent Geese, black tailed godwit
• CGIs – don’t accurately reflect nature and scale of development
• Impact on Sybill Hill House
• Development will not assist in addressing current housing shortages
• Alternative lands available for such housing (in particular Z1 lands)
• Loss of habitat and light pollution impacting on bats
• Loss of habitat for Curlews, oyster catchers (no details)
• Question the adequacy of mitigation measures
• Lack of cre places (as well as lack of primary and secondary school places)
• Compliance with required masterplan
• Material contravention of zoning objective
• St Anne’s Park is a designated ‘quiet area’ (by Minister Hogan in 2013)
• Impact on tourism and business as a result of loss of St. Anne’s Park
• Water pressure issues will worsen as a result of the proposed development
• Noise
• Light pollution
• Loss of trees and associated impact on climate/air quality (oxygen levels)
• Integrity of information and full disclosure by applicant (see Inspector’s Report Page 18 of 126)
• Safety of senior citizens (as a result of road traffic)
• Urban Greenery and mental health (climate for health and WHO referenced) - limited details (NH230)
• Part V provision on site
• Parking provision inadequate
• Pedestrian access to park
• No provision for expansion of the school
• Inappropriate to make decision on this case until such time as decision made on 3777/17
• Impacts on visual and residential amenity of The Meadows
• Impacts on Millennium Arboretum and Rose Garden
• Design of shared courtyard area to proposed housing
• Absence of public consultation
• Strain on local services
• Dominate skyline/over-intensification of use
• Setting of undesirable precedent for development on Z15 lands
• Inadequacy of proposed facilities on adjoining lands (DCC Ref. 3777/17)
• Existing shortage of pitches in St. Anne’s Park

Think thats it...

schemingbohemia · 13-04-2018 5:10pm

You could probably just reduce that to NIMBY

St Annes Park Planning Application

Comments