Please READ: Due by Friday 27th

Marcais

future_plans wrote:

I agree gstonesmx5. However, when the information posted is done so responsibly, then this is an important channel for the residents of Charlesland and surrounding areas. Quite a few residents in the area are not in the locality for 12 or more hours a day. This is one way of keeping in tune to what is going on in their area. So I would encourage people to continue posting accurate information, opinions and meeting minutes etc on this site.

Would it be possible for a public meeting to be organised for the residents of Charlesland where we can meet with all the local councillors, mayor, town planner and developers so we can get an accurate picture of what is planned for the area. In my opinion, much of what is said here can be scaremongering. This would also allow residents to have their voice heard.

That is what should have been done i.e. with representatives for and against. This should also have been done for the Marina:( instead of invitations for individuals and small groups of people to meet with individual councillors.

As residents, although some may have experience in these matters, any group can tell us anything they want and unless we have individuals who are au fait with the background to local planning developments/proposals we can't make informed choices.

The first post on this topic contains some content which has been described as odd and I would agree that it should not form part of a submission i.e. re "spin" and re. Dick Roche's support. This was addressed to the councillors and Minister who were copied in and not inteneded as part of the submission. It would have been more appropriate to keep this separate from the submission but again put that down to a learning curve.

The many issues raised however should all be addressed at not just cherry picked so I would call on anybody responding to do so, but this may not be the place for it as pointed out above. The place for it should be a PUBLIC meeting where I would assume that anybody who would consider themselves a member of the public would feel welcome to attend and not expect a written invitation.

Issues like this are much more far reaching than buses, ATMs, fees etc. and we should all be notified by mail of any proposals. We all receive plenty of circulars from politicians telling us how good a job they are doing, surely we should also expect to be consulted before such big decisions are made and given at least a few months to discuss the proposals.

Marcais

Anyone reading the Bray People or Wicklow times won't be surprised to see that the Councillors are still telling us what we need built beside us and what is for the good of Charlesland. Absolutely no mention of the letters of objections (I would say at least 100) that were submitted by Charlesland Residents and committees. I can guarantee that if these submissions were in favour of the residential zoning, they would have been highlighted.

Bring on the replies "well we did ask you to come around to our houses and we'd discuss the issues with you" !! We know what the issues are, we don't like being patronised and we don't like being told what we need. We said they would not heed our objections and again we were proven correct.

AGAIN..THEY ARE NOT LISTENING.

The only guarantee is that Zapi wil be given permission to build more houses. They are rezoning an area earmarked for employment for residential and scaremongering with "well you don't want 10m high warehousing now do ya!" Nothing short of blackmail. If they can rezone as residential they can just as well rezone for something we may actually want behind our houses.

By the way, Rumsfeld lost what he thought was a very secure position yesterday as did many US Republicans.

future_plans

Indeed the silence has been very notable since the suggestion that all interested parties and stakeholders in the area of Charlesland/Greystones meet to openly discuss the area's future. This is of paramount importance. One only has to look at the overbuilding that has occurred in West Dublin, Kildare and Meath over the last few years. The congestion is horrendous, also the lack of facilities, lack of schools, etc. The government will be playing "catch up" to the much of the non-existent or careless planning in those areas for years to come in these areas.

Bertie

Get a grip futureplans nobody is under any obligation to meet or get together this is a freemarket democracy we live in.If industrial units were going in you guys would object to this too because they were an inch too high.The Harbour, Charlesland,phone masts, The meridian centre you and fiachra were probably up at the glen of the downs but I saw no protest for the s.a.r. or Eden wood planning was up last year no hubub not a word was said. This represents a a move towards development towards kilcoole and if it continues along the Kilcoole road eventually and not too distantly we'll see a conurbation of Kilcoole, Eden Gate ,Charlesland GC, Charlesland and Greystones.Not an objection in sight.All I see from the negative side is developments being objected to as they arise and no long term vision from you or fiachra if you have lets hear about it.I suppose you both missed the planning for 3 houses on bray head up the Cliff road between and below a certain musician who is currently in the charts house and Cliff Manor. Bet u any money this has set a precedent. Yet our Green saviours were focussing on Charlesland and the harbour which like it or not are going to end up with some type of development instead at looking at other green field sites and trying to ringfence their preservation.

Question for both Fiachra and marcais have either of you seen Three trouts stream as it fronts charlesland Wood There must be about 20 truckfulls of builders rubble scaffolding and piping in the river itself. It has since attracted more dumping old dishwashers washing machines etc. which have not come from Charlesland as all the stuff is spanking new there.The council have conceeded that its bad and have agreed to provide a truck for a number of days to help remove it and want residents to remove it some of the material is hazardous insulation and fibreglass where are you guys on this issueResidents clean up a river thats on council property and contains an illegal dump

tomflynn

I have to disagree with some of the 'objections' that are now arising in response to development proposals in Charlesland. You can't have a veto over every development proposal if you don't like it. When those properties originally got planning permission, the entire area (with the exception of the Golf Course) had been zoned for development i.e. the property rights had been allocated to the landowners with those areas earmarked for development.

The right to consultation enshrined in legislation does not provide for a private meeting with every objector and for every objectors wishes to be complied with. It provides that each submission, observation, objection to each proposal is considered and a response provided by the county manager (assisted by planners). The councillors consider all that information and make a decision - that is all that is provided for in statutory consultation. But once the statutory processes have been property proceeded through you cannot go on to claim, as some posters suggest, that there have been irregularities in the system. The fact that you don not like the decision does not make it wrong but the decision was more than likely made for all the right reasons. (Perhaps it may ultimately be shown to be a poor decision but you could get 100 experts and each may have a different view - economists, retail managers, planners, sociologists, archaeologists etc.)

Furthermore, everyone is again consulted every local election and make a choice. Again you don't necessarily get who you want as your preference may not be elected but that is a further opportunity to give your preferred choice a mandate.

With regard to the shopping centre proposal, I would argue that a major shopping centre is welcome in the Greystones area. I would have prefer it not to be located so far from the main town centre as it may have a detrimental effect on the vitality and 'community spirit' of the existing town centre by creating two town centres instead of one. My 'personal preference' would be for the shopping centre to be located at the park and ride, old sewerage works or IDA lands - ie as close as possible to a contiguous main street as possible. But everyone can't be kept happy and if Charlesland is the only site suitable for the scale of shopping centre neccesary to attract major anchor tenants and deliver the critical mass of shops necessary to retain residants and attract additional shoppers to
the town then so be it. Any suggestion that existing shops will all go bust and it will be bad for existing community groups in terms of sponsorship (as suggested by some councillors, see Bray People/Wicklow Times) is misguided. The councillors role is not to prevent competition but to assist in its regulation. In my opinion, the town and environs would benefit from additional shopping facilities. The town is no longer a village. It has a resident population of 16,000 people with a very significant spending power. This spending power should be retained in Greystones where its benefits could be maximised.

future_plans

Bertie wrote:

Get a grip futureplans nobody is under any obligation to meet or get together this is a freemarket democracy we live in.If industrial units were going in you guys would object to this too because they were an inch too high.

Relax there Bertie. My God you are active on here this lunch time! I have a perfect grip on things. I did not state that I was pro or anti development in the post you refer to. As any project manager would tell you, the consultation of all stakeholders (including local community) involved during the planning is vital to the end success of the project. This is also applicable to development (residential or insutrial) projects. In fact, I have stated before on these discussions that I am very much in favour of development in the area. But there must be a proper and transparent planning process.

Of course, as you thankfully pointed out, we live in a "freemarket democracy" and this type of process normally does not take place because developers in the past have wanted to get in, make the money and get out asap without putting proper structures & facilities for that new community. This has had a profound affect on the areas I mentioned above. Take Newbridge for example - No primary school places left....

That's all I'm saying.....

Bertie

Well said Tom Flynn Hear Hear A person with rational commonsense who lives on the planet:D

Sparks

tomflynn wrote:

With regard to the shopping centre proposal, I would argue that a major shopping centre is welcome in the Greystones area.

There's Tesco and Supervalu and the new centre up near the Royal Park; and Woodies and DID out by the southern cross. What need would such a fourth/fifth shopping center serve, realistically?,

My 'personal preference' would be for the shopping centre to be located at the park and ride

Have you actually looked into the P&R carpark during the day? Greystones is a dormitory town, with most of it's population working in Dublin. Eliminate that carpark and you'll put an extra hundred or two cars on the N11 every morning. How does that fit in with support for public transport?

the critical mass of shops necessary to retain residants

Not to be insulting, but the residents are there to sleep in between working in Dublin, for the most part. The shops would be handy, but frankly that need is served already by shops within a two minute stroll from the train station for those on foot and by a heck of a lot more for those using cars.
Greystones has certainly gotten larger in the past ten years; I just don't think the population has the same needs as they would have had ten years ago. When I first got here ('84-85), it was a retirement town. You came here (forgive the bluntness) to while away your last years in a quiet place. The demographics have changed since, dramatically. Thinking that people will live here, as opposed to sleeping here during the week... I don't think it's quite accurate enough.

Marcais

Sparks wrote:

There's Tesco and Supervalu and the new centre up near the Royal Park; and Woodies and DID out by the southern cross. What need would such a fourth/fifth shopping center serve, realistically?,


Have you actually looked into the P&R carpark during the day? Greystones is a dormitory town, with most of it's population working in Dublin. Eliminate that carpark and you'll put an extra hundred or two cars on the N11 every morning. How does that fit in with support for public transport?


Not to be insulting, but the residents are there to sleep in between working in Dublin, for the most part. The shops would be handy, but frankly that need is served already by shops within a two minute stroll from the train station for those on foot and by a heck of a lot more for those using cars.
Greystones has certainly gotten larger in the past ten years; I just don't think the population has the same needs as they would have had ten years ago. When I first got here ('84-85), it was a retirement town. You came here (forgive the bluntness) to while away your last years in a quiet place. The demographics have changed since, dramatically. Thinking that people will live here, as opposed to sleeping here during the week... I don't think it's quite accurate enough.

Absolutely Sparks, makes perfect sense and the previous "you can't object to everything" statement is not even worth addressing. Putting in bluntly but appropriately so in this case "who the hell do you think you are telling us what we can and can't object to?"

Charlesland residents have purchased houses backing on to what was supposed to be an area for employment, the people who are most directly effected by these plans are the ones who are objecting. THE TOWN PLANNERS ARE OPPOSED TO THIS REZONING, why have town planners in place trying to put some control on greedy developers who would build a Casino in the Vatican if they were let, when Councillors completely ignore their recommendations to allow developers build houses where ever they wish? Charlesland Residents Committee had the foresight to support their views of those most directly affected and you would hope that all Charlesland Residents would do so, remembering that their are a lot of pockets around Charlesland which could be targeted next and you may need our support someday.

If you NEED a shopping centre for the good of Greystones then build it in IDA lands, anybody I spoke to in Seabourne View (more blow-ins of course) who were aware of the plans for a Shopping centre of this scale beside their residences are appalled and the ones who were not aware are more appalled because they were not made aware.

As to Bertie’s attack on “Future Plans” and rambling rant full of illogical leaps the only part of it making sense is “and not too distantly we'll see a conurbation of Kilcoole, Eden Gate ,Charlesland GC, Charlesland and Greystones. Not an objection in sight” What do you think this objection is about?!!! If we allow them rezone E2 for housing, this will be the start and your prediction will come to pass. You are asking for objections to everything whilst at the same time saying “you can object to everything” “get a grip” indeed.

Fiachra2

you and fiachra were probably up at the glen of the downs but I saw no protest for the s.a.r. or Eden wood


I cant speak for Marcais but I wasnt in the Glen of the Downs. There is actually a reasonable school of thought that to some extent supports those protestors -take look at the Al Gore film if you want an explanation. However its not an area I want to get in to.

With regard to the SAR and Eden Wood I did indeed object to both as the were in breach of the National Spatial Strategy.

With regard to the long term view. As a town councillor several years ago along with Evelyn Cawley, we tried to put in train a process to ensure that the 2006 plan would reflect the communitie's views. This involved a process of public meetings and meetings with interest groups (Clubs, chamber of commerce, landowners etc) to try and arrive at a consensus of the future of the town. The other members of the Council refused to help us, refused to endorse the initative and refused to allow us to use council facilities or resources. Their justification was that this "was not the way to do things" When we pressed ahead with the initiative without their blessing they attacked us in the media.

With regard to the Harbour we have also prepared a small scale plan which the Councilors has refused to consider.

With regard to the houses on Bray head that aplication has been in the pipline for years. As a member of the Bray based Save Our Head organisation I campaigned against those houses for exactly your reason. That they set a dangerous precedent. Unfortunately SOHO ran out of steam and I dint have the energy to do it all myself. However if you would like to organise an objection I would be more than willing to help.

Im not sure what you mean about the rubbish in the stream. I certainly think its utterly wrong. I am also aware that WCC has an appaling record with regard to illegal dumping. However I am not a public representative so there is little I can do.

I think your criticism of Marcais and myself as "objectors to everything" is unfair.
Firstly there is a presumption that all these proposals are the result of careful planning. In most cases they are not. Indeed As I have mentioned above they are often in Breach of national guidlines. The initiative in most cases comes from commercial developers. Personally I dont believe that peoples lives should not be dominated by comercial interests. I believe it is the function of public representatives to curb the demands of developers in the interest of ensuring the quality of life of the electorate.

Secondly as I also mentioned above, the public are rarely if ever afforded the opportunity to put forward a proposal that really benefits themselves. If this werre to happen then I am sure Marcais and myself would support them (eg communiy center, swimming pool)

So for these reasons we frequently find ourselves objecting to construction projects. I think we are perfectly in order to defend out interests. Just as the builders have a right to try and make money out of construction.

Annasopra

Is there any update on this as to what is actually planned or zoned beside Seabourne view - I'm thinking of buying an apartment there

I've looked at the local area plan but I'm not greaton figuring out maps

future_plans

There is a shopping centre in the pipeline for the land between the Fairways and the Gym. However, that is probably a few years away yet.

Marcais

future_plans wrote:

There is a shopping centre in the pipeline for the land between the Fairways and the Gym. However, that is probably a few years away yet.

You reckon