St Annes Park Planning Application

ozmo · 13-04-2018 5:21pm

schemingbohemia wrote: »

You could probably just reduce that to NIMBY

I don't live there - But I do really like that park.

I do respect the 1102 objections sent in - and the 7000 names on the petition sent in - plus the objections of the Dublin City Council (chief executive Owen Keegan).

Basically It's better left as parklands - green space to be shared by the people - there are plenty of building areas they could have built on in the area - eg. Belcamp site etc.

Gloomtastic! · 13-04-2018 9:40pm

ozmo wrote: »

Basically It's better left as parklands - green space to be shared by the people - there are plenty of building areas they could have built on in the area - eg. Belcamp site etc.

But it’s NOT part of the park. It’s beside the park, behind a 10 foot high fence that the people cannot access.

Seth Brundle · 13-04-2018 9:49pm

ozmo wrote: »

I have a problem with all the issues already stated - namely...
...snip...
Think thats it...

Obviously you copied these from somewhere but assuming you actually have the same viewpoint maybe elaborate on some of these...
Why should the previous loss of the swimming pool be a factor in this objection?
How is this "Privatisation of a public asset"?
How will this development "not assist in addressing current housing shortages"?
Where is the nearest site of "alternative lands available for such housing"?
Can you quantify the specific "impact on tourism and business as a result of loss of St. Anne’s Park"?

Seth Brundle · 13-04-2018 9:57pm

ozmo wrote: »

I do respect the 1102 objections sent in - and the 7000 names on the petition sent in - plus the objections of the Dublin City Council (chief executive Owen Keegan).

That's fine.
Should planning permission be based purely on NIMBYism and the objection by a county manager?
I can think of several examples where people were highly critical of Keegans views (take Dun Laoghaire library for example). Is he just better at offering advice to Northside developments?

ozmo wrote: »

Basically It's better left as parklands - green space to be shared by the people - there are plenty of building areas they could have built on in the area - eg. Belcamp site etc.

But it's not a park. It's private property!
Where are the plenty of building areas in the area that would accommodate a similar number of homes? If the alternatives are that good a location then surely they are lined up for development anyhow?

Raheny and all areas close to the city centre including my native Clontarf need to house more people and stop the endless urban sprawl.

Sleeper12 · 14-04-2018 8:33am

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

But it’s NOT part of the park. It’s beside the park, behind a 10 foot high fence that the people cannot access.

It was part of the park & was given to the school for sports grounds. I can't say how long the fence is up but it wasn't there when I went to the school. For cross country runs as part of PE we ran through the field & into the park without ever having to scale a fence. I'm sure you'll find the fence put up in recent years to make it easier for the planning application.

This is a unique site. Every member of DCC is against this. When was the last time you heard that.

spurious · 14-04-2018 9:16am

That's what I would be looking at too. The original intent when given to the school. Dig out the old documents from 1952.

There wouldn't be an issue if they were using part of the land that was bequeathed to St. Paul's College in 1950, but they are using the old 1952 Corporation land which as I understand it was given to be used for playing fields, not to make a few bob in the future.

Sleeper12 · 14-04-2018 9:25am

There is another development being built as we speak only a few hundred meters up the road on the grounds of the old St Pauls swimming pool. More apartments. The point is that this development got little resistance by comparence. The one beside St Annes is seen by locals as being part of the park. Hence the backlash

expectationlost · 14-04-2018 7:38pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The one beside St Annes is seen by locals as being part of the park. Hence the backlash

hence people pointing out they are wrong

expectationlost · 14-04-2018 7:40pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It was part of the park & was given to the school for sports grounds. I can't say how long the fence is up but it wasn't there when I went to the school. For cross country runs as part of PE we ran through the field & into the park without ever having to scale a fence. I'm sure you'll find the fence put up in recent years to make it easier for the planning application.

This is a unique site. Every member of DCC is against this. When was the last time you heard that.

was really given to the school for "sports grounds"? anyway it was zoned z15 and court case was taken and won that z15 could include residential. so there you, go they can try in the courts again if they like.

Sleeper12 · 14-04-2018 7:47pm

expectationlost wrote:

hence people pointing out they are wrong

Totally agree that they are wrong. I like the facts to be factual. It most definitely is not st Anne's Park. It was part of the park but that was 50 years ago. I'm against the building but I'm always wary of people making claims they know not to be true. When I see a leaflet saying that it's st Anne's Park I wonder what else isn't true in the leaflet. Doing the cause more harm than good imo

John_Rambo · 14-04-2018 7:53pm

schemingbohemia wrote: »

You could probably just reduce that to NIMBY

Ah... Nimby-ism. The smarmy millennials keyboard warrior insult used to denigrate local activism and ignore valid points.

If it was NIMBY there'd be backlashes against the other developments in the area (of which there are a few)... but no, just this one. And for good reason. It was part of the park to be used as sports grounds. Not to fill greedy religious orders and developers pockets.

It's the thin edge of the stick. I reckon they'll need another exit/entrance, further encroaching and dividing the park. It will be picked off like a broken biscuit. Shameful stuff.

Seth Brundle · 14-04-2018 7:57pm

John_Rambo wrote: »

Ah... Nimby-ism. The smarmy millennials keyboard warrior insult used to denigrate local activism and ignore valid points.

Firstly I'm far too old to be a millennial.
Secondly, how about you having a go elaborating the objections previously used...

kbannon wrote: »

Obviously you copied these from somewhere but assuming you actually have the same viewpoint maybe elaborate on some of these...
Why should the previous loss of the swimming pool be a factor in this objection?
How is this "Privatisation of a public asset"?
How will this development "not assist in addressing current housing shortages"?
Where is the nearest site of "alternative lands available for such housing"?
Can you quantify the specific "impact on tourism and business as a result of loss of St. Anne’s Park"?

John_Rambo · 14-04-2018 8:00pm

kbannon wrote: »

Firstly I'm far too old to be a millennial.

Well, you're doing a great job acting like a sneering millennial.

kbannon wrote: »

Secondly, how about you having a go elaborating the objections previously used...

I don't need to elaborate, they're valid concerns and objections, they speak for themselves.

Seth Brundle · 14-04-2018 8:34pm

John_Rambo wrote: »

Well, you're doing a great job acting like a sneering millennial.

I don't need to elaborate, they're valid concerns and objections, they speak for themselves.

So because you cant defend the daft reasons for objection you resort to insulting me?
:rolleyes:

John_Rambo · 14-04-2018 8:55pm

kbannon wrote: »

So because you cant defend the daft reasons for objection you resort to insulting me?
:rolleyes:

I don't need to defend them, they're valid concerns and objections. I understand them. If you can go through them one by one and invalidate them instead of lazily saying "NIMBY" go for it.

I'm sorry for insulting you.

Seth Brundle · 14-04-2018 9:14pm

John_Rambo wrote: »

I don't need to defend them, they're valid concerns and objections. I understand them. If you can go through them one by one and invalidate them instead of lazily saying "NIMBY" go for it.

There's nothing lazy about it.
There are genuine concerns and reasons for objection. There are also many spurious ones like those I quoted and these were given the attention they deserve (The fact that they are still being used reduces the overall argument against the project). I don't need to invalidate these as they easily do that themselves.

Anyhow, the project has gone through the various planning stages. It has undergone an EIA. It has been reviewed by ABP. At this point the objections have been deemed as insufficient reasons to block the project.
Due process was followed in a completely transparent manner. The minority against the project lost. The thousands who are looking for a home and hoping for more developments around Dublin which will increase supply levels towards demand levels won.
It has shown that our low density suburbs can be enhanced to allow higher numbers live there. Young people from Raheny now have a higher likleihood of being able to live in the area they grew up in: an option not open to me when I first went on the property ladder.
It means five hundred households won't now have to live in Meath, Kildare or wherever and spend long times commuting, etc. thus reducing carbon emissions, stress, etc.
The greater good, I guess!

John_Rambo · 14-04-2018 9:23pm

kbannon wrote: »

There's nothing lazy about it.
There are genuine concerns and reasons for objection. There are also many spurious ones like those I quoted and these were given the attention they deserve (The fact that they are still being used reduces the overall argument against the project). I don't need to invalidate these as they easily do that themselves.

Anyhow, the project has gone through the various planning stages. It has undergone an EIA. It has been reviewed by ABP. At this point the objections have been deemed as insufficient reasons to block the project.
Due process was followed in a completely transparent manner. The minority against the project lost. The thousands who are looking for a home and hoping for more developments around Dublin which will increase supply levels towards demand levels won.
It has shown that our low density suburbs can be enhanced to allow higher numbers live there. Young people from Raheny now have a higher likleihood of being able to live in the area they grew up in: an option not open to me when I first went on the property ladder.
It means five hundred households won't now have to live in Meath, Kildare or wherever and spend long times commuting, etc. thus reducing carbon emissions, stress, etc.
The greater good, I guess!

You haven't disproved on single objection that was listed.

Sleeper12 · 14-04-2018 9:25pm

kbannon wrote:

Anyhow, the project has gone through the various planning stages. It has undergone an EIA. It has been reviewed by ABP. At this point the objections have been deemed as insufficient reasons to block the project. Due process was followed in a completely transparent manner. The minority against the project lost. The thousands who are looking for a home and hoping for more developments around Dublin which will increase supply levels towards demand levels won. It has shown that our low density suburbs can be enhanced to allow higher numbers live there. Young people from Raheny now have a higher likleihood of being able to live in the area they grew up in: an option not open to me when I first went on the property ladder. It means five hundred households won't now have to live in Meath, Kildare or wherever and spend long times commuting, etc. thus reducing carbon emissions, stress, etc. The greater good, I guess!

It's going to court. Not sure how that might work but the motion is being tabled on Monday judicial review I think it's called

odyssey06 · 14-04-2018 9:33pm

kbannon wrote: »

The minority against the project lost. The thousands who are looking for a home and hoping for more developments around Dublin which will increase supply levels towards demand levels won.
It has shown that our low density suburbs can be enhanced to allow higher numbers live there. Young people from Raheny now have a higher likleihood of being able to live in the area they grew up in: an option not open to me when I first went on the property ladder.
It means five hundred households won't now have to live in Meath, Kildare or wherever and spend long times commuting, etc. thus reducing carbon emissions, stress, etc.
The greater good, I guess!

Regardless of the merits of this particular case, you make a pretty good argument for fascism right there.

Your arguments could be used to justify covering St Annes with 6 storey apartments.

Seth Brundle · 14-04-2018 9:36pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It's going to court. Not sure how that might work but the motion is being tabled on Monday judicial review I think it's called

A High Court Judicial Review will review the technical aspects of the appeal but not the grounds or the objections (i.e. the legality of the secision).
See
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/environment/environmental_law/judicial_review_in_planning_and_environmental_matters.html

Sleeper12 · 14-04-2018 9:43pm

kbannon wrote:

A High Court Judicial Review will review the technical aspects of the appeal but not the grounds or the objections (i.e. the legality of the secision). See

I do wonder is there really a chance for success or are the councillors playing to the crowd knowing the outcome. They have egg on their faces after the sea wall nonsense.

Seth Brundle · 14-04-2018 9:45pm

John_Rambo wrote: »

You haven't disproved on single objection that was listed.

Firstly you don't disprove an objection. You deem how valid it is against the overall project and the planning process decides if the objection(s) are sufficient to change or block the project. Did the objections contradict the EIA? I dont know as i havent read the objections. Ive just been given a blurb copied from some lobby groups website. There is no indicarion if this list if rrasons contradict the scientific evaluation or are they simply NIMBY waffle.
Anyhow, I don't need to and never suggested that I would "disprove" them. I asked for reasons to convince me that it wasn't NIMBYism!
Some of the posted reasons are so outright daft that they can't be deemed as legitimate.
Despite me asking posters to elaborate on their claims, they haven't. Now you want me to disprove them?

Seth Brundle · 14-04-2018 9:47pm

odyssey06 wrote: »

Regardless of the merits of this particular case, you make a pretty good argument for fascism right there.

Your arguments could be used to justify covering St Annes with 6 storey apartments.

Jaysus :rolleyes:

Seth Brundle · 14-04-2018 9:48pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I do wonder is there really a chance for success or are the councillors playing to the crowd knowing the outcome. They have egg on their faces after the sea wall nonsense.

It's hardly the councillors who are driving the Judicial review (if there will be one). It will be privately funded objectors (and it will cost a fair bit).

Sleeper12 · 14-04-2018 9:54pm

kbannon wrote:

It's hardly the councillors who are driving the Judicial review (if there will be one). It will be privately funded objectors (and it will cost a fair bit).

The councillors are tabling the motion on Monday. What that means or who funds it I don't know.

tricky D · 14-04-2018 10:18pm

OK. Getting out of hand so closed for a bit. Some folks need to pause and think more before hitting the post button.

odyssey06 · 28-06-2018 2:19pm

Latest update:
http://www.thejournal.ie/an-bord-pleanala-permission-mistake-4096926-Jun2018/

I think serious questions need to be asked about An Bord Pleanala... GAA level goings on here.
Doesn't seem like an organisation that is ready for enhanced powers.

lambayire · 28-06-2018 2:28pm

That's remarkable!

tricky D · 28-06-2018 2:42pm

The whole SHD thing is a farce. St Annes was opposed by the councillors, council CEO and the City Manager yet was passed giving the developers everything they wanted. It is just a mechanism for railroading excessive and badly thought out schemes which greedy developers are salivating over.

I am in the middle of objecting to the Howth SHD http://www.howthshd.ie which is the next attempt by this lot. The incompetence and shoddiness of the whole scheme beggars belief and apart from the inevitable worsening of the traffic and parking nightmare, seriously risks damaging houses and the Martello due to the already unstable site. But that's probably better in an another thread.

ozmo · 28-06-2018 2:48pm

Oh fair play to An Bord Pleanala for backing down so early and not going through all the proceedings. With so many High Court challenges against that decision it could have become very messy.

There are plenty of places nearby to build the needed houses on - important in-use parkland and pitches don't have to be dug up for it.

Wheeliebin30 · 28-06-2018 2:50pm

ozmo wrote: »

Oh fair play to An Bord Pleanala for backing down so early and not going through all the proceedings. With so many High Court challenges against that decision it could have become very messy.

There are plenty of places nearby to build the needed houses on - important in-use parkland and pitches don't have to be dug up for it.

Where abouts?

John_Rambo · 28-06-2018 2:51pm

Hopefully it will be quashed now.

Embarrassing for ABP and the developer fanboys posting here.

ozmo · 28-06-2018 3:01pm

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Where abouts?

Sure - You can find all the appropriately zoned locations for the area and all Ireland on the site: http://www.myplan.ie

Wheeliebin30 · 28-06-2018 3:02pm

ozmo wrote: »

Sure - You can find all the appropriately zoned locations for the area and all Ireland on the site: http://www.myplan.ie

Just asking as you seemed so certain there is plenty of land nearby for houses.

I’m guessing you don’t know of the top of your head.

odyssey06 · 28-06-2018 3:08pm

Obviously, it's not all nearby but there's 440 hectares zoned using the primary residential zoning within Dublin City Council boundaries, that's apparently enough for 50,000 houses.

28-06-2018 4:11pm

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Just asking as you seemed so certain there is plenty of land nearby for houses.

I’m guessing you don’t know of the top of your head.

Sure, I'll take that challenge.

The land sold by the Vincentians in St Annes is 15 hectares which is ballpark 60k M2.

The grounds of Manresa house on the Clontarf seafront are about that by themselves.

Edenmore Park is multiple times that size.

There's 6 houses nearby on Seafield Road which have 20k M2 in back gardens between them (4 up the Castle end, 1 by Seafield Avenue, 1 by St Gabriel's).

That's all within 15 minutes walk of the St Anne's playing pitches btw.

All of those would be awful to see built on (well, bar the Seafield Road houses - those are just massively expensive) but noticeably less bad than building on the second largest park in the city. They're not going to make another St Annes when it's gone. We'll just have one less city park.

ozmo · 28-06-2018 5:16pm

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

I’m guessing you don’t know of the top of your head.

Again - its all on the map - choose any disused bown-field site.

If I was to single out some land it would be all the land the Airport has said no one can build on - From Charlie Haughey's old house down to the M50 end is all blocked from anyone but the airport from building on it.

Some boundary is sensible - but this boundary is Massive and could be reviewed if it needs to be this extensive.

I believe Santry gocarts was prevented from putting a roof over their go cart track under these restrictions - but the Airport went then and built a huge hotel themselves even closer since.

Sleeper12 · 28-06-2018 6:27pm

The developer paid top dollar for this land. Land zoned for housing. This isn't over yet

Pigeon Reaper · 28-06-2018 8:07pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Land zoned for housing.

It's not and never has been zoned for housing. It's zoned as Z15 for community and institutional use.

John_Rambo · 28-06-2018 9:36pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The developer paid top dollar for this land. Land zoned for housing. This isn't over yet

Incorrect. It may not be over, but the land was clearly zoned Z15, not for housing. (try and get it right

)

The spirited and caring communities that got up and acted whom were accused of nimbyism by distanced, ill informed keyboard warriors on their sofas were clearly vindicated today.

Serious questions need to be asked of the erroneous actions of ABP to have let it get this far.

Sleeper12 · 28-06-2018 10:19pm

John_Rambo wrote:

Serious questions need to be asked of the erroneous actions of ABP to have let it get this far.

John there is no doubt in my mind that ABP acted the way they did at the request /demand of the government shamed by the mounting homeless numbers.

ABP have no credibility after this. They obviously are not independent & to be honest can't be trusted with the fast track planning process.

John_Rambo · 28-06-2018 10:26pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

John there is no doubt in my mind that ABP acted the way they did at the request /demand of the government shamed by the mounting homeless numbers.

ABP have no credibility after this. They obviously are not independent & to be honest can't be trusted with the fast track planning process.

Yeah, It's a serious and significant backtrack that questions their integrity. The fact remains that the land was zoned Z15 and questions have to be asked how someone in APB thought it was ok to give a go-ahead for this build.

moleyv · 28-06-2018 10:40pm

Fact check: Residential development is 'open for considerstion' on z15 land. Z9 is for open space and amenities.

ozmo · 29-06-2018 12:38am

moleyv wrote: »

Fact check: Residential development is 'open for considerstion' on z15 land. Z9 is for open space and amenities.

Fact check the Fact Check...

Just for completness: https://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/Planning/DublinCityDevelopmentPlan/Documents/AdoptedTextMay2013.pdf

"Open for Consideration Uses
Bed and breakfast, ...Residential...."

yes - but - has to be to be within the following parameters...

"...any proposed development for open for consideration” uses on part of the landholding, shall be required to demonstrate ...... how it secures the retention of the main institutional and community uses on the lands, ... how it secures the retention of existing functional open space e.g. school playing fields; " (see link above for full text)

Bit in bold is imho what it isnt doing.... how can it retain its purpose when its sold off and built on.

But anyway, that's an aside - reason given to court so far seems to be not considering the wildlife habitat destruction it would cause rather than anything else.

moleyv · 29-06-2018 8:01am

ozmo wrote:

But anyway, that's an aside - reason given to court so far seems to be not considering the wildlife habitat destruction it would cause rather than anything else.

Exactly, and what is likely to happen is it will be sent back to ABP, and they will ask for further information to address the point or just simply reword their order.

ABP admitting the mistake just sped up the inevitable decision. No doubt it will be JR'd again

roycon111 · 05-07-2018 5:03pm

There have been plenty of houses and apartments built on land zoned Z15 or its previous equivalents in the Dublin area in recent times and this is not only permitted but encouraged as long as other uses are also facilitated. I don't think there is any doubt that there is ample space for pitches (45+ in St. Anne's Park alone still of which I will be using some at least in future.)
It is different to the issue with selling the lands at Clonkeen College where there are no other facilites available for the school in the immediate area and virtually all of the lands will be sold off.
In the Clontarf case there are more than enough facilities available for the school and the public in the immediate area.
I can of course understand why people don't want more buildings near their house because of the noise and traffic this creates but this development is legally sound, of a high standard and very much needed in the area at the moment. It is also near existing public transport links and it makes sense for housing to be provided for here.
It is also relatively low density considering how close it is the to the city so I don't think it could seriously be considered over development.

Sleeper12 · 05-07-2018 6:33pm

roycon111 wrote: »

There have been plenty of houses and apartments built on land zoned Z15 or its previous equivalents in the Dublin area in recent times and this is not only permitted but encouraged as long as other uses are also facilitated. I don't think there is any doubt that there is ample space for pitches (45+ in St. Anne's Park alone still of which I will be using some at least in future.)
It is different to the issue with selling the lands at Clonkeen College where there are no other facilites available for the school in the immediate area and virtually all of the lands will be sold off.
In the Clontarf case there are more than enough facilities available for the school and the public in the immediate area.
I can of course understand why people don't want more buildings near their house because of the noise and traffic this creates but this development is legally sound, of a high standard and very much needed in the area at the moment. It is also near existing public transport links and it makes sense for housing to be provided for here.
It is also relatively low density considering how close it is the to the city so I don't think it could seriously be considered over development.

You miss the point totally with the Raheny site.

The developer can't move the long term lease or rights of clubs from their site to the public park that is St Annes park. The developer must "rehouse" these clubs that have a right to use these grounds

You are comparing apples & oranges. The granting of planning on this site "Beside" the park was flawed. ABP recognized this in court.

John_Rambo · 13-09-2018 11:08am

Developer is goosed again.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/plan-to-build-more-than-500-homes-near-dublin-s-st-anne-s-park-rejected-1.3627993

Good news for Dubliners.

Sleeper12 · 13-09-2018 11:14am

John_Rambo wrote:

Developer is goosed again.

John_Rambo wrote:

Good news for Dubliners.

The right desision for this particular site. The land was never intended for development.

St Paul's school or the religious order has also lot to answer to

odyssey06 · 13-09-2018 12:04pm

John_Rambo wrote: »

Developer is goosed again.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/plan-to-build-more-than-500-homes-near-dublin-s-st-anne-s-park-rejected-1.3627993
Good news for Dubliners.

+1

Shouldn't have come to a judicial review though. I hope the costs are borne by ABP for their obvious mistakes.

St Annes Park Planning Application

Comments