Rezoning for new Gaelscoil in Mayfield refused

professore

Let me first say I am a parent of 2 children in the above Gaelscoil so that people can see I have an obvious vested interest and am not hiding this. I would like to present the facts as I see them and let people judge for themselves. If any piece of this post is factually incorrect I am open to correction but I do not believe I am.

The current Gaelscoil is housed in prefabs beside Brian Dillons GAA club in prefabs, many of which leak when it rains. Some classes have up to 35 children. The teachers and staff are excellent and all are welcome as it is a non-denominational school for children of people within about a 1 mile radius of the school. The school has been looking for a suitable site that meets the criteria of both An Bord Pleanala and the Department of Education for 15 years now, and this is the first site they have found in that time. The land is owned by the Corporation and comprises 11 1/2 acres of land containing 2 GAA pitches known popularly as the "Tank Field".

2 acres of this land was to be rezoned to build a state of the art gaelscoil, basically in an area behind the goalposts of one of the fields. The goalpost would be moved about 20 metres and the rest of the 11 1/2 acres was not in question for rezoning. The GAA club would also get a new clubhouse and an all-weather pitch as part of the deal. The area where the new school is to be built is disused and currently a haven for teenagers to drink and litter.

Unfortunately there was ferocious resistance from the local Residents Association (it is not at all obvious to me how many residents were actually against the development, as many have children going to the school.). 200 signatures were collected to this effect, as opposed to 800 in favour. 2 members of the RA are parents of children in the school were not invited anymore to RA meetings since the objection started. It is a puzzle to me why there was such resistance as a school like this can only be good for an area - plus there is still a large green area remaining for all as an amenity.

Last Monday was the council vote for the rezoning. All the major parties were split down the middle - in itself very suspicious - which is a no since 70% for was needed to approve the rezoning. So now the school is in limbo because of the intransigence of local residents committee. I have put up a poll to see what people think of this issue.

pro_gnostic_8

Il Professore,

I sympathise with and understand your frustration on this issue.

But, and a very big but, the residents of Murmount have made it very clear (and I know this -- regardless of any "opinion poll" figures that you are quoting) that they are dead set against this application. Why they are so determined in their opposition is not known to me. But I would venture to guess that it may be something to do with the fact that they are used to , and have quite grown fond after 40 years, of having a lovely green-field area on their doorstep.

Genuinely, only those individuals (like your own good self) with a vested interest -- i.e. with children attending the school -- would want this scheme to proceed. (In this regard -- would it be too impertinent of me to enquire if you are a resident of the area yourself or if you are from some remove from the Tank Field? ) If the latter is the case, then in all honesty, I don't believe your have the right or the entitlement to condemn those residents who are so inclined to vigorously protect and defend the status quo of the environment to which they are accustomed.

simu

I'd be in favour of the school. It's a disgrace that the school has had to use prefabs for so long. If people want lots of greenery, they should head for the country!

professore

pro_gnostic_8 wrote:

Il Professore,

I sympathise with and understand your frustration on this issue.

But, and a very big but, the residents of Murmount have made it very clear (and I know this -- regardless of any "opinion poll" figures that you are quoting) that they are dead set against this application. Why they are so determined in their opposition is not known to me. But I would venture to guess that it may be something to do with the fact that they are used to , and have quite grown fond after 40 years, of having a lovely green-field area on their doorstep.

Firstly it is not an opinion poll it was 2 petitions, one organised by the school and one by the RA. It was told to us by a Tim Brosnan (a FF councillor) who is against the school rezoning (even though he has 3 children in the school and his wife is for it :eek: ) at a meeting in the school. I don't know what the petition of the RA actually said as I didn't see it - but obviously was against the rezoning. As you can see from my own rather exaggerated poll it is possible to twist something in such a way as to make it hard to vote the other way from what the poll is saying.

According to Cllr Brosnan:
200 Murmont residents signed the petition against the school.
800 people signed the petition in favour of the school. Of these approximately 200 were Murmont residents.

1. They are not losing the green area, only a small part of it.
2. The lovely green field area is currently a haven for drinking youths and general antisocial behaviour.
3. I have no problem with their right to protest - just as it is mine to disagree with them - I just think it is short sighted of the percentage of residents to object to the school - one day they or their children will have kids.
4. As for the residents - are you telling me that no one in the Murmont area sends their children to the school? That all the residents are against the school? I know for a fact this is not the case.
5. The school management has made every effort to accommodate the residents association's wishes to no avail - to the extent of building a walkway around the new school to facilitate residents and allowing evening classes to be run there. "Not one bench will be put there" was the reply.
6. And finally, do children have no rights? Obviously not. We all know it will be years, if ever, before another site will be found and approved, in the meantime the children will remain in their cramped leaking stinking prefabs.

pro_gnostic_8 wrote:

Genuinely, only those individuals (like your own good self) with a vested interest -- i.e. with children attending the school -- would want this scheme to proceed.

I think we all should have a vested interest in the welfare of children. Even from a purely selfish viewpoint this reversal will affect property values in the area. If I was looking to buy a house in the area and was planning a family I certainly would think twice.

pro_gnostic_8 wrote:

(In this regard -- would it be too impertinent of me to enquire if you are a resident of the area yourself or if you are from some remove from the Tank Field? ) If the latter is the case, then in all honesty, I don't believe your have the right or the entitlement to condemn those residents who are so inclined to vigorously protect and defend the status quo of the environment to which they are accustomed.

I appreciate your sympathy however the status quo that continues to allow children to go to makeshift schools in rotting leaking overcrowded prefabs. People blame the government - but they are only respecting the wishes of their electorate, or at least the ones that make the most noise. I suppose you like the status quo of patients dying in our hospitals as well. I am sick of the NIMBY attitude. I am a very mild-mannered person normally but when faced with this attitude of give us our rights but not our responsibilities it makes me sick. The status quo means poor public services, 18% unemployment and mass emigration. Welcome to the 21st century. I want a better Ireland - and we have made many steps in that direction already.

I personally live in Ballyvolane about 1/2 mile away. My kids go to the school, which is the only Gaelscoil in the area and personally if there was to be a school built in a green area in Ballyvolane I would have no problems with it if it was well planned and thought out - however IF I was against it I would not suggest that someone from Murmont with children in that school criticising me for objecting had no right to do so. By your logic only people living beside a road should decide who drives on it? Anyway there were over 200 signatures in favour of the school from Murmont residents. My kids also use the pitch with the Brian Dillons juvenile teams and also practically every day when in school. If based on use alone the children use the school much more than the vast majority of adult residents.

In fact I was involved in trying to get a youth centre built in Ballyvolane - another endeavour that was shot down by local residents - with the result that the youth now drink in the bushes and around the site of the proposed youth centre - but that's a whole other thread.

flo8s967qjh0nd

OP, it's not a poll if it doesn't allow the voter to disagree with you!

Rezoning of public open space is wrong, no matter what the reason. End of story!

Getting in a huff because a democratically elected body decided against you, is not reasonable.

lostexpectation

is the school going to right across the road from their houses?

are they worried about traffic, its mayhem at most schools at collection time?

pro_gnostic_8

simu wrote:

I'd be in favour of the school. If people want lots of greenery, they should head for the country!

And if they feel they should'nt have to go ................ forcibly re-locate them I suppose? While we're at it, why not have them concentrated into As Gaeilge re-education camps whilst in the country? Iarnrod Eireann could provide the cattle wagons I presume.

Much as you might wish it, this country thankfully yet has to go down the road of Mugabe's Zimbabwe or become a mirror of the Cambodia of Pol Pot.

pro_gnostic_8

professore wrote:

1. They are not losing the green area, only a small part of it.
2. The lovely green field area is currently a haven for drinking youths and general antisocial behaviour.
3. I have no problem with their right to protest - just as it is mine to disagree with them - I just think it is short sighted of the percentage of residents to object to the school - one day they or their children will have kids.
4. As for the residents - are you telling me that no one in the Murmont area sends their children to the school? That all the residents are against the school? I know for a fact this is not the case.
5. The school management has made every effort to accommodate the residents association's wishes to no avail - to the extent of building a walkway around the new school to facilitate residents and allowing evening classes to be run there. "Not one bench will be put there" was the reply.
6. And finally, do children have no rights? Obviously not. We all know it will be years, if ever, before another site will be found and approved, in the meantime the children will remain in their cramped leaking stinking prefabs.

In reply:

1) ..... Death by a thousand cuts! Citizens surrender an inch and and gradually the creeping erosion become overwhelming and complete. That, unfortunately nowadays, is the nature of bureacracy and local government.

2) ..... As are many other green-field areas. Are you suggesting that all such leisure areas should be tarmac-ed over to combat youth drinking and anti-social behaviour? There are other, less invasive methods to negate this curse.

3) ..... Good! We live in a democracy after all, so don't go giving yourself medals for "tolerating" the residents right to disagree with this proposal.

4) ..... Obviously not all the residents are against the school, but a sizeable majority of them apparently ARE against the development. See above remark re the democratic process.

5) ..... The one thing that the School Management could do to accomodate the wishes of the residents is to listen to their wish -- i.e., they DON'T WANT IT !

6) ..... Of course children have rights ............ it's enshrined in the constitution ffs. Em, so do the residents have rights. But, "human rights" does not necessarily preclude a dictatorship of the minority over the majority. And, if the children have to put up with "cramped, leaking, stinking pre-fabs" then please address this issue to the relevant responsible State agencies rather than using it as a stick to beat the local residents with.

I suppose you like the status quo of patients dying in our hospitals as well.

What this topic has to do with hospital waiting lists etc., is beyond me! So please don't go there ......... or if you must then start another thread on that issue. When I used the term "status quo" it was in the framework of ENVIRONMENT as well you know. Please, if you must quote my words at least do so in the proper context.

simu

pro_gnostic_8 wrote:

And if they feel they should'nt have to go ................ forcibly re-locate them I suppose? While we're at it, why not have them concentrated into As Gaeilge re-education camps whilst in the country? Iarnrod Eireann could provide the cattle wagons I presume.

Much as you might wish it, this country thankfully yet has to go down the road of Mugabe's Zimbabwe or become a mirror of the Cambodia of Pol Pot.

Quite the old melodrama you have going there.

People who live in cities should expect to see features of city life like traffic and built up areas. It's nice to have some green spaces but sacrificing a small part of a green area for an important a function as education will hardly turn Mayfield into a killing field.

professore

lostexpectation wrote:

is the school going to right across the road from their houses?

are they worried about traffic, its mayhem at most schools at collection time?

Yes and yes ... but the new school has dedicated offstreet parking, and the current prefab school (right beside the proposed new school) there is only onstreet parking. The parents of the school are paying for someone to manage the parking in the morning for the benefit of the residents - I don't see this happening anymore so parking will be much worse. Also the school is going to remain where it is for 5+ years now anyway.

bill_ashmount

What is the point in having a poll if it is going to be totally slanted towards the OPs opinions?

professore

pro_gnostic_8 wrote:

In reply:

1) ..... Death by a thousand cuts! Citizens surrender an inch and and gradually the creeping erosion become overwhelming and complete. That, unfortunately nowadays, is the nature of bureacracy and local government.

I would not be at all surprised if a housing development or a new supermarket gets built there in the future. The U-turns on this issue by some councillors and the city manager were quite amazing.

pro_gnostic_8 wrote:

2) ..... As are many other green-field areas. Are you suggesting that all such leisure areas should be tarmac-ed over to combat youth drinking and anti-social behaviour? There are other, less invasive methods to negate this curse.

NO - of course not. Yes other things like providing proper facilities like good schools.

pro_gnostic_8 wrote:

3) ..... Good! We live in a democracy after all, so don't go giving yourself medals for "tolerating" the residents right to disagree with this proposal.

Why are you quoting me as saying "tolerating" ? I didn't say that. I respect everyone's wishes to say what they want.

pro_gnostic_8 wrote:

4) ..... Obviously not all the residents are against the school, but a sizeable majority of them apparently ARE against the development. See above remark re the democratic process.

Apparently a majority?????? How do you know this????? Where was the referendum on the issue? As I said before the only thing we have are the petition results which on every measure even excluding people not in the immediate area still shows more in favour than against. So it is more likely that you are in the minority.

pro_gnostic_8 wrote:

5) ..... The one thing that the School Management could do to accomodate the wishes of the residents is to listen to their wish -- i.e., they DON'T WANT IT !

A lot of residents do want it - their kids are in the school !!!!!

pro_gnostic_8 wrote:

6) ..... Of course children have rights ............ it's enshrined in the constitution ffs. Em, so do the residents have rights. But, "human rights" does not necessarily preclude a dictatorship of the minority over the majority. And, if the children have to put up with "cramped, leaking, stinking pre-fabs" then please address this issue to the relevant responsible State agencies rather than using it as a stick to beat the local residents with.

We have been for 15 years. This is the last chance for at least another 5 years of getting a suitable site.

What this topic has to do with hospital waiting lists etc., is beyond me! So please don't go there ......... or if you must then start another thread on that issue. When I used the term "status quo" it was in the framework of ENVIRONMENT as well you know. Please, if you must quote my words at least do so in the proper context.

Only making the point that maintaining the status quo is often not a good thing.

professore

Fatima Rotten Coliseum wrote:

OP, it's not a poll if it doesn't allow the voter to disagree with you!

Rezoning of public open space is wrong, no matter what the reason. End of story!

Getting in a huff because a democratically elected body decided against you, is not reasonable.

On the poll, you can disagree - just click NO - I don't want anything built. I don't seriously expect anyone to choose the other options.

So what then? Just sit there and say how great it is that my children sit in an old prefab because there was not a 70% in favour vote by the councillors? There is nothing I can do about it except make my opinions known. I am not about to stage a socialist revolution

dahamsta

professore wrote:

On the poll, you can disagree - just click NO - I don't want anything built. I don't seriously expect anyone to choose the other options.

Perhaps you should remove them then. If you want an actual, fair poll, it should be Yes or No.

professore

bill_ashmount wrote:

What is the point in having a poll if it is going to be totally slanted towards the OPs opinions?

There's a YES and a NO option- I tried to edit the other 3 out but I don't seem to be allowed.

professore

dahamsta wrote:

Perhaps you should remove them then. If you want an actual, fair poll, it should be Yes or No.

Fair point - but I can't remove them anymore.

Its So Easy

The bit behind the goal will go ? Sorry but its more than that. The club will be losing from the 65 metre line to the end of the green backing onto montenotte. So basically they wont have a pitch anymore. And i've seen the mark on the wall where it was to start.

professore

Its So Easy wrote:

The bit behind the goal will go ? Sorry but its more than that. The club will be losing from the 65 metre line to the end of the green backing onto montenotte. So basically they wont have a pitch anymore. And i've seen the mark on the wall where it was to start.

The pitch is to be moved so there will be still a pitch. They also get a new all-weather pitch and clubhouse. The club are strongly in favour of the development.

Its So Easy

Actually something i have wondered. As the land is still zoned as sport and recreation, why is there a school on that land ? Well the tank field has been here longer than any of us and i'm glad it's staying.

Raskolnikov

Typical Irish, "not-in-my-backyard" nonsense.

• Nuclear power, NO!
• Wind farms, NO!
• High-rise (and by high-rise, I mean anything over 3 stories), NO!
• Incinerators, NO!
• Motorways, NO!
• Gas pipelines, NO!
• etc. . .

Now we have people objecting against children being taught in proper buildings. It just goes to show, that we Irish people simply do not have a clue when it comes to planning. Planning objections seem to be always made on the basis of hysteria and parochial politics.

You have my sympathies professore.

flo8s967qjh0nd

Why send kids to a school which does not have the facilities to cope with them? Surely you knew the school was housed in prefabs when you made the decision to send your child there.

professore wrote:

On the poll, you can disagree - just click NO - I don't want anything built. I don't seriously expect anyone to choose the other options.

So what then? Just sit there and say how great it is that my children sit in an old prefab because there was not a 70% in favour vote by the councillors? There is nothing I can do about it except make my opinions known. I am not about to stage a socialist revolution

professore

Fatima Rotten Coliseum wrote:

Why send kids to a school which does not have the facilities to cope with them? Surely you knew the school was housed in prefabs when you made the decision to send your child there.

It's the only gaelscoil in the area. We also knew at the time that the school had funding in place to get new buildings (this is 5 years ago) and naively assumed that it was a temporary situation.

professore

Its So Easy wrote:

Actually something i have wondered. As the land is still zoned as sport and recreation, why is there a school on that land ? Well the tank field has been here longer than any of us and i'm glad it's staying.

I don't know - but as far as I know the land was only officially taken into Corporation ownership a few years ago - before that was "unowned" land. Fair enough that's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. BTW the whole field was never in jeopardy.

Its So Easy

professore wrote:

I don't know - but as far as I know the land was only officially taken into Corporation ownership a few years ago - before that was "unowned" land. Fair enough that's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. BTW the whole field was never in jeopardy.

Well then why didn't Brian Dillons buy the land if it was "unowned". And i live in the area, less than five minutes from the tank field and while I do think a new school is needed as the prefebs look shocking. Why should the tank field be the place ? And i know the whole field was in jeopardy but the corporation have voted so nothing can bve done in the near future.

professore

Its So Easy wrote:

The bit behind the goal will go ? Sorry but its more than that. The club will be losing from the 65 metre line to the end of the green backing onto montenotte. So basically they wont have a pitch anymore. And i've seen the mark on the wall where it was to start.

Looking at my original post I said the goalposts were going to be moved. And I did say I was open to correction if any of my facts were wrong (I was not directly involved in any of the discussions, just attended some of the meetings)

2 acres of this land was to be rezoned to build a state of the art gaelscoil, basically in an area behind the goalposts of one of the fields. The goalpost would be moved about 20 metres and the rest of the 11 1/2 acres was not in question for rezoning.

professore

Raskolnikov wrote:

Typical Irish, "not-in-my-backyard" nonsense.

• Nuclear power, NO!
• Wind farms, NO!
• High-rise (and by high-rise, I mean anything over 3 stories), NO!
• Incinerators, NO!
• Motorways, NO!
• Gas pipelines, NO!
• etc. . .

Now we have people objecting against children being taught in proper buildings. It just goes to show, that we Irish people simply do not have a clue when it comes to planning. Planning objections seem to be always made on the basis of hysteria and parochial politics.

You have my sympathies professore.

I would agree with you on this Raskolnikov. We are heading back to the good old days of the 80's IMHO. I emigrated then - will probably have to do so again. Normally I don't have time for this (as most parents struggling to pay a mortgage and raise a family don't) - and I let most things slide. But this really is completely over the top. The "Save the Tank Field" campaign was very carefully organised (professional graphically designed posters on every pole - I kid you not) . It took a lot of time, money and organisation to mount a campaign like that - time that people like me don't have. No surprise then that a child of neighbour of ours who attends a different school gave out to my daughter saying that their school would have nowhere to play camogie anymore if the school was built (when in fact the facilities would be BETTER !!!!). There was a blatant campaign of misinformation.

professore

Its So Easy wrote:

Well then why didn't Brian Dillons buy the land if it was "unowned". And i live in the area, less than five minutes from the tank field and while I do think a new school is needed as the prefebs look shocking. Why should the tank field be the place ? And i know the whole field was in jeopardy but the corporation have voted so nothing can bve done in the near future.

I don't know why - perhaps you can't legally buy land that's unowned? Someone has to own it first - plus how much would 11 1/2 acres of land in that area cost ?. More than a junior GAA club could afford I should think. But I am speculating.

As for the whole field being under threat - no it wasn't !!!!! Who told you that? I would love to know. Do you think Brian Dillons would agree to that ? Why would the school need 11 1/2 acres ???? I have seen the plans. To be honest at this stage I don't believe the school would stay in the area anyway due to the level of hostility experienced from the Residents Association. I do not feel comfortable when someone jumps out of a car and starts taking photographs of parents dropping their children at the school. I have seen this myself. My wife was also abused by one of the residents using foul language in front of the children when dropping off our children. I am not tarring everyone here - I have friends who live in the area.

flo8s967qjh0nd

professore wrote:

I would agree with you on this Raskolnikov. We are heading back to the good old days of the 80's IMHO. I emigrated then - will probably have to do so again. Normally I don't have time for this (as most parents struggling to pay a mortgage and raise a family don't) - and I let most things slide. But this really is completely over the top. ........

You're going to emigrate??? And you accuse the other side or being "over the top".:D

For the record, I have no connection whatsoever to either side of this debate, but I have to say, its developed into this ridiculous carry on where (if you believe the opposition) one side wants to ban all developments and plant fields of daffodils and sunflowers and hug a few trees, while at the same time, being fiercely anti-children and wanting them rounded up.
On the other side you have the group that wants to "tear down paradise and out up a parking lot", and maybe a shopping centre and illegal narcotics den!

Its gone way out of proportion totally. Thats why it had to be left to city council to make a decision on this matter. No matter which side you are on, both sides have contributed to forcing CCC to make a decision, and it had to end badly for one side.

Its So Easy

professore wrote:

I don't know why - perhaps you can't legally buy land that's unowned? Someone has to own it first - plus how much would 11 1/2 acres of land in that area cost ?. More than a junior GAA club could afford I should think. But I am speculating.

As for the whole field being under threat - no it wasn't !!!!! Who told you that? I would love to know. Do you think Brian Dillons would agree to that ? Why would the school need 11 1/2 acres ???? I have seen the plans. To be honest at this stage I don't believe the school would stay in the area anyway due to the level of hostility experienced from the Residents Association. I do not feel comfortable when someone jumps out of a car and starts taking photographs of parents dropping their children at the school. I have seen this myself. My wife was also abused by one of the residents using foul language in front of the children when dropping off our children. I am not tarring everyone here - I have friends who live in the area.

Yes sorry i meant to say that the whole field was under threat.

Its So Easy

professore wrote:

We are heading back to the good old days of the 80's IMHO. I emigrated then - will probably have to do so again.

Ah for gods sake. you're going to have to emigrate because the school won't be built.

professore

Fatima Rotten Coliseum wrote:

You're going to emigrate??? And you accuse the other side or being "over the top".:D

For the record, I have no connection whatsoever to either side of this debate, but I have to say, its developed into this ridiculous carry on where (if you believe the opposition) one side wants to ban all developments and plant fields of daffodils and sunflowers and hug a few trees, while at the same time, being fiercely anti-children and wanting them rounded up.
On the other side you have the group that wants to "tear down paradise and out up a parking lot", and maybe a shopping centre and illegal narcotics den!

Its gone way out of proportion totally. Thats why it had to be left to city council to make a decision on this matter. No matter which side you are on, both sides have contributed to forcing CCC to make a decision, and it had to end badly for one side.

I'm not going to emigrate over this issue - was a more general comment. But I take your point on the OTT bit. As I said the CCC have made their decision and we all have to live with it - that's how democracy works. I also think that it is desirable to retain as many green areas as possible and there should be a damn good reason for decreasing the size of a green area in a city - BUT I think this is one of them - the others being maybe a playground or sports facility where there is a lack of similar facilities in an area, and ample green space would remain. If there was an alternative suitable site the school would be there long ago - do you think they want this hassle?

Unlike pro_gnostic_8 I am not going to tell you its none of your business