Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
21-03-2020, 15:58   #526
garrettod
Registered User
 
garrettod's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,593
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?

Last edited by garrettod; 21-03-2020 at 16:03.
garrettod is offline  
(4) thanks from:
Advertisement
21-03-2020, 16:34   #527
dubrov
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by garrettod
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
dubrov is online now  
21-03-2020, 17:17   #528
odyssey06
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by dubrov View Post
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.
odyssey06 is offline  
(5) thanks from:
21-03-2020, 17:37   #529
dubrov
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by odyssey06
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?
dubrov is online now  
12-06-2020, 08:22   #530
Beta Ray Bill
Registered User
 
Beta Ray Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,477
Permission for 657 apartments near St Anne's Park overturned on consent

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

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crim...fCLo8jKMK9kHNg

Absolutely amazing news!!!

Well done to everyone that protested.

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.
Beta Ray Bill is offline  
Advertisement
12-06-2020, 11:26   #531
noodler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 22,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beta Ray Bill View Post
Permission for 657 apartments near St Anne's Park overturned on consent

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crim...fCLo8jKMK9kHNg

Absolutely amazing news!!!

Well done to everyone that protested.

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.

Last edited by noodler; 12-06-2020 at 11:31.
noodler is offline  
12-06-2020, 11:51   #532
Beta Ray Bill
Registered User
 
Beta Ray Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by noodler View Post
I sincerely doubt they'd have been that expensive, even the top end ones.
https://www.sherryfitz.ie/buy/house/...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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by noodler View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by noodler View Post
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)
Beta Ray Bill is offline  
12-06-2020, 12:27   #533
forgottenhills
Registered User
 
forgottenhills's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by noodler View Post
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.

Last edited by forgottenhills; 12-06-2020 at 12:34.
forgottenhills is offline  
12-06-2020, 15:29   #534
Marcusm
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,442
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.
Marcusm is online now  
Advertisement
12-06-2020, 15:31   #535
Seth Brundle
Error: 404 Personality Not Found
 
Seth Brundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 26,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by forgottenhills View Post
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!

Quote:
Originally Posted by forgottenhills View Post
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?
Seth Brundle is offline  
12-06-2020, 15:38   #536
forgottenhills
Registered User
 
forgottenhills's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcusm View Post
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.
forgottenhills is offline  
12-06-2020, 15:41   #537
Fred Cryton
Registered User
 
Fred Cryton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beta Ray Bill View Post
Permission for 657 apartments near St Anne's Park overturned on consent

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crim...fCLo8jKMK9kHNg

Absolutely amazing news!!!

Well done to everyone that protested.

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)
Fred Cryton is offline  
12-06-2020, 15:43   #538
forgottenhills
Registered User
 
forgottenhills's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seth Brundle View Post
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.
forgottenhills is offline  
12-06-2020, 15:49   #539
forgottenhills
Registered User
 
forgottenhills's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Cryton View Post
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.
forgottenhills is offline  
12-06-2020, 15:57   #540
wowy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 665
Quote:
Originally Posted by forgottenhills View Post
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.
wowy is offline  
(3) thanks from:
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet