Summerfield estate to the Blanch centre - why no pedestrian route through the wall??

brianwilliams82

Hi there,

I've been living in the Summerfield estate for about 15 months now, just across the wall from the West End roundabout (near Next, Heaven, etc) and one thing I've always wondered is just why the hell there's no pedestrian entrance/exit through the wall to get to the Blanch centre?

There's usually a trolley stacked up on either side so getting across isn't a problem per-se for any able-bodied individual, but (for example) a mother with a pram isn't going to get across. Also, as you'd expect, it gets very mucky during the winter.
Hopping the wall literally cuts 20 minutes of walking time getting to the centre. Everybody does it, so why not just knock a section of the wall and put in a pedestrian route? Put bollards or a gate there if they don't want cars/motorbikes gaining access.

What do other people think?

Cathmandooo

I remember that road & wall being built (live in blanch all my life), the wall was put up with local residents approval, they didn't want an access through it as it would intice unwanted people cutting through their estate, I know you can hop the wall, I've done it myself ONCE!! (never again, I don't like climbing high walls). They didn't want a monitored gate for it either (i.e. to be locked at night by residents) as it was a relatively new estate and I don't think they could trust all their neighbours to keep it locked.

Maybe bring up the issue with some local TD's Brian Lenihan, Leo Varadkar, Joan Burton and it might get proposed to the residents, who should now know each other a lot better than when it was built (about 10 years ago if my memory serves me well)

shane86

All the new estates around here are a pain in the hole when it comes to fences and walls, wtf are they for? I can understand maybe as a car theft prvention but a tiny walkway would not impact on this.

Have a mate lives in Castlecurragh, someone regularly cuts down part of the fence which, if you live on one half of the estate, cuts maybe 3 mins off your walking time, yet the management crowd always replace the fence within a few days. You have to either walk around the long way or walk a little usually muddy track along a side wall and have the inconvenience of hopping the fence (something Im not particularly fond of if my shoes are already wet/muddy)Take a hint ffs, people dont want to travel halfway around Blanch to get where they want to go. Forcing people to climb fences and walls is dangerous nonsense, Im surprised there bhavent been injury claims yet.

Its ironic as well that they will replace the unwanted fencing in a day or two yet didnt they have to fight tooth and nail to get the grassy areas cut or something?

DublinDilbert

The reason they don't want a pedistrian entrance is to limit through traffic, incase of an increase in crime etc..

But to be honest the type of person who will break into your car or cause vandilisim will have no bother climbing any wall...

A gate with a code lock on it would probably be a good compromise.

Naos

The reason there is no entrance in the wall is to stop traffic coming through the estate.

People who couldn't get parking in the centre would park their cars in the estate.

Stark

That's not exactly a valid reason anymore. The parking situation in the centre is much improved. Also, a lot of the people using the centre seem to be totally lazy and irrational when it comes to walking, as in they'll circle the red or the green car park for ages hunting for a space, when there are half empty car parks just across the way.

Dublin 15 in general seems to have a problem with pedestrian accesses and high walls/fences freaking everywhere. Had a few falls myself trying to climb over stuff to save 15-20 mins walking here and there. Must be very frustrating trying to get from here to there for someone who's not 100% able bodied and doesn't have a car. I think it's to curb anti-social behaviour or something, bit of a "punish everyone" solution for a lack of policing in the area. I don't think one small Garda station is adequate at all given the population of the area.

Zaph

Stark wrote: »

I think it's to curb anti-social behaviour or something

Yeah, that's the excuse given for lack of access to estates from the new Ongar Road.

Pat Dunne

In almost all of the housing developments along the Ongar Road. It was the residents representitive groups that objected to pedestrian access into their areas from the Ongar Road because of anti social behaviour.

In situations where pedestrian access is required, Fingal Co.Co are the public body to contact. However, I would first check with your local residents representitive group, as they should be aware of any previous history on matters of this sort.

You will need the written support and consenses of the vast majority of residents in your area to get Fingal Co. Co to provide a facility, such as a pedestrian entrance. However the timespan as to when it is phyisically in place will be governed by the monies available to Fingal Co.Co. for such facilities.

Cathmandooo

Stark wrote: »

I don't think one small Garda station is adequate at all given the population of the area.

I wouldn't accuse Blanch Garda Station of being small It's a lot bigger than most garda stations. Plus the traffic department is based there too.

tibor

Cathooo wrote: »

Plus the traffic department is based there too.

Seriously?

The irony of having the traffic department located right beside one of the worst planned junctions in Dublin...

Cathmandooo

tibor wrote: »

Seriously?

The irony of having the traffic department located right beside one of the worst planned junctions in Dublin...

Yeah they're based in Blanch and Dublin Castle :rolleyes:

I actually think that junction works well, mind you I'm never there in peak traffic.

Pat Dunne

If there were awards for the greatest "lash up" of a junction ever concieved and implemented. The one beside Tractamotors, has to be awarded that accolade

Errr...... have we not gone a bit off topic here.

the dee

Pat Dunne wrote: »

If there were awards for the greatest "lash up" of a junction ever concieved and implemented. The one beside Tractamotors, has to be awarded that accolade

Errr...... have we not gone a bit off topic here.

I agree, that junction is insane. I too hate that wall. How come I can see the centre from my house but have to walk for 30mins to get there.

What bugs me are the people who put grease paint and tar etc on top of the wall to stop people jumping over. wtf?

PauloMN

If I lived there, especially close to where you would place the gap, I'd want that wall up, and I think a lot of people would feel the same. I wonder how many of the people who want the gap actually own houses in the estate rather than rent? There's a big difference in how people feel about anti-social behaviour in their areas when they own a property in that area rather than when they rent one and can leave at the drop of a hat.

Anyway if the neighbours up there are putting paint/grease on top of the wall, there's no chance of them agreeing to put in a gap. Think you'll just have to get used to it.

Stark

the dee wrote: »

What bugs me are the people who put grease paint and tar etc on top of the wall to stop people jumping over. wtf?

Wtf indeed? Are these residents who do it? Sounds like you could easily take a civil case for injury against whoever did it anyway. (Sounds like a similar situation to putting traps in your home to injure burglars.)

PauloMN

Stark wrote: »

Wtf indeed? Are these residents who do it? Sounds like you could easily take a civil case for injury against whoever did it anyway. (Sounds like a similar situation to putting traps in your home to injure burglars.)

Ahhh, an example of the Irish claim mentality at its finest! :rolleyes:

Would you also claim off the person who originally left the trolley there? It is partially their fault if you fall off the wall and break your leg as they encouraged your actions.

Arcadian

PauloMN wrote: »

Would you also claim off the person who originally left the trolley there? It is partially their fault if you fall off the wall and break your leg as they encouraged your actions.

I think there's a difference between someone leaving a trolley against a wall and some scum bag setting out to damage people and their property by covering the wall with paste or paint.

PauloMN

Arcadian wrote: »

I think there's a difference between someone leaving a trolley against a wall and some scum bag setting out to damage people and their property by covering the wall with paste or paint.

People wouldn't get their clothes destroyed (or worse like injuring themselves) if they didn't attempt to climb across high walls though. Personally I couldn't care less if someone damages themselves or their property by doing so, but attempting to claim for something that happened as a result of your own stupidity is ridiculous in my view.

Just like I'd not have any sympathy for someone that injured themselves while trying to break into a property (although I don't think the two scenarios are really comparable).

As for the trolley, whoever left that there obviously stole it from somewhere, and is guilty of littering.

Why did people move into the area if they knew there was no direct access to the centre from the estate? That wall is there years at this stage.

Stark

PauloMN wrote: »

Ahhh, an example of the Irish claim mentality at its finest! :rolleyes:

Would you also claim off the person who originally left the trolley there? It is partially their fault if you fall off the wall and break your leg as they encouraged your actions.

So it's okay in your opinion to deliberately injure someone as long as they were doing something "naughty"? How "naughty" do you have to be exactly, considering "hopping a fence" isn't exactly up there on the list of scumbag crimes.

Vigilante mentality at its finest tbh.

PauloMN

Stark wrote: »

So it's okay in your opinion to deliberately injure someone as long as they were doing something "naughty"? How "naughty" do you have to be exactly, considering "hopping a fence" isn't exactly up there on the list of scumbag crimes.

Vigilante mentality at its finest tbh.

Erm, where did I say it was ok to deliberately injure someone hopping over a wall? Deliberately injuring someone and not having sympathy for someone are two very different things.

I never hinted that hopping over a wall was a "scumbag crime". Like I said, each to their own - if you want to risk injuring yourself hopping over high walls, that's your choice. If you want to potentially get yourself covered in all sorts of ****e because someone has taken it upon themselves to cover the wall in grease, that's your choice. If the person putting stuff on the wall bothers you, tell the guards and see what they say. I just think the idea of someone claiming off someone else because they've made the choice to climb a wall and got covered in ****e is laughable.

You were the one who brought up burglars, I mentioned that I wouldn't have sympathy for a burglar that injured himself/herself in the act of robbing someone's house. If you care to read my post, I also said I didn't think the two scenarios were comparable - burglars are scumbags, adults that hop over high walls with the risk of injuring themselves are just a bit thick really.

Stark

PauloMN wrote: »

Erm, where did I say it was ok to deliberately injure someone hopping over a wall?

When you advocated planting traps for people who attempt it.

PauloMN wrote: »

If you want to potentially get yourself covered in all sorts of ****e because someone has taken it upon themselves to cover the wall in grease, that's your choice.

I would have thought it was the fault of the person who greased the wall. Afaik, it's not illegal to climb over the wall; you're just using it to access the same piece of public land more quickly so it's not trespassing.

PauloMN wrote: »

adults that hop over high walls with the risk of injuring themselves are just a bit thick really.

Not when you're expecting the wall to not be covered in grease.

PauloMN wrote: »

You were the one who brought up burglars, I mentioned that I wouldn't have sympathy for a burglar that injured himself/herself in the act of robbing someone's house.

It's an interesting example, because while the burglar would have deserved it, it shows the view the law takes of people who employ vigilante methods. The burglar could have just as easily been a paramedic trying to gain access after the owner had a heart attack and would be injured by the same trap that the owner had intended for burglars. Hence why it's against the law for owners to install traps in their home, even if they only end up hurting deserving victims.

PauloMN

Stark wrote: »

When you advocated planting traps for people who attempt it.

And when did I advocate planting traps? You're way off the mark making statements like that.

Stark

*Sigh*

Do you or do you not think it's okay for someone to place grease on the top of a wall so that there'll be an increased chance of someone injuring themselves if they attempt to climb over it. Yes or No.

PauloMN

Stark wrote: »

*Sigh*

Do you or do you not think it's okay for someone to place grease on the top of a wall so that there'll be an increased chance of someone injuring themselves if they attempt to climb over it. Yes or No.

Double sigh.

Can - or more to the point - can you not find any post where I have advocated planting traps for people climbing walls?

You surprise me for a moderator. I like discussions, but being completely misquoted by people I don't like.

As for your question, I would not advocate putting grease or anything else like that on a public wall. I still couldn't care less if someone climbing a wall got covered in the stuff though.

Stark

You say your stance is No, however you argue heavily in favour of the person who did such an action taking no responsibility. Effectively that is advocating the action. Do you still think it is ridiculous that such a person could be sued? If someone was doing rock climbing as a sport and some busybody who didn't like rock climbers decided to grease up the cliff to make it more dangerous, would you still think it ridiculous for the climber to make a claim if they were injured as a result? I mean they knew the risks after all.

People take risks at their own choice, but that doesn't give other people the right to increase those risks.

PauloMN

Fact is I didn't "argue heavily" in favour of such a person. I just said all along that I don't care if someone gets dirty climbing a wall due to someone else putting grease on said wall.

As for claiming, maybe you could, I don't know. I wasn't debating the technicalities of the ability to do so; I was stating my belief that to claim from someone because your jeans got dirty climbing a wall is IMO laughable, and strikes me as a claim-mentality i.e. the belief that any chance to claim something off someone should be persued.

IMO people must be responsible for their actions, hence I don't smear grease on walls. Similarly, if you take issue with something you deem to be illegal and which you claim could cause you physical injury, you should go to the guards to discuss it. Would be interesting to see what they say about it.

Stark

PauloMN wrote:

As for claiming, maybe you could, I don't know. I wasn't debating the technicalities of the ability to do so; I was stating my belief that to claim from someone because your jeans got dirty climbing a wall is IMO laughable, and strikes me as a claim-mentality i.e. the belief that any chance to claim something off someone should be persued.

Ah now you're trying to go back on the part about injury and pretend the discussion was about dirty clothes. Let me remind you, the bits that you're trying to go back on in bold:

PauloMN wrote:

People wouldn't get their clothes destroyed (or worse like injuring themselves) if they didn't attempt to climb across high walls though. Personally I couldn't care less if someone damages themselves or their property by doing so, but attempting to claim for something that happened as a result of your own stupidity is ridiculous in my view.

...

if you want to risk injuring yourself hopping over high walls, that's your choice. If you want to potentially get yourself covered in all sorts of ****e because someone has taken it upon themselves to cover the wall in grease, that's your choice. If the person putting stuff on the wall bothers you, tell the guards and see what they say. I just think the idea of someone claiming off someone else because they've made the choice to climb a wall and got covered in ****e is laughable.

Whether you care or not is irrelevant. Honestly, I respect you for being honest and saying you don't care about the fates that befall strangers.

Similary, I agree that claiming over dirty pants would be ridiculous. However I don't see claiming over injury when it was the person's intent to injure you as being ridiculous.

Rosita

The reason for no access from Summerfield and such estates is to prevent non-residents parking in those estates and walking to the centre.

PauloMN

Stark wrote: »

Similary, I agree that claiming over dirty pants would be ridiculous. However I don't see claiming over injury when it was the person's intent to injure you as being ridiculous.

I haven't gone back on anything. If you come up against a 9 foot wall and, as an adult, you decide to tackle it, I'm sorry but you know what can happen, grease or no grease.

Anyway I honestly don't think people who put grease on walls want to injure people but rather put them off climbing walls by ruining their clothes. Maybe the chance of injury is higher, maybe not. Either way, I don't think an injury claim would hold much weight. Do you know of any cases where someone has successfully claimed off a local resident for injuring themselves off a greased wall? Nah, neither do I.

To put my earlier question again: why would someone move into the area knowing the wall is there if it causes them so much grief?

Stark

PauloMN wrote: »

Do you know of any cases where someone has successfully claimed off a local resident for injuring themselves off a greased wall? Nah, neither do I.

Well today is the first time I even heard of cretins actually going to the trouble of greasing walls because they don't like people taking shortcuts. I can't wait to see what they come up with to stop people from cutting across greens.

PauloMN wrote: »

To put my earlier question again: why would someone move into the area knowing the wall is there if it causes them so much grief?

How long is the wall there? How many people in the area were there from before the time the wall was built? Even in the case of people moving there, they might decide that the benefits outweigh the problems. That doesn't mean they forfeit the right to try and address the problems. Or in the more likely scenario, they simply have cars and drive to the centre, further contributing to the traffic madness in the area.

PauloMN

Yes it's pretty extreme alright. I've heard of people putting anti-climb paint on walls, never actually seen any real-life occurrences of it though.

I'm not defending such actions, but I'm just trying to put the other view point across. It's easy to say "that wall is a pain in the hole, why don't they put a gap there?". At the same time, I would not like to live near that gap as I can imagine what would happen when a quite cul-de-sac suddenly turned into a main walk-way.

The safety of my children and my property are more important to me than saving a few minutes off a trip to the shops. Any gaps in the estates near me generally have litter and broken glass strewn around them, kids hanging about, graffiti etc..

I'd hate that and I'd personally fight against it. I reckon most - maybe even all - people living close to where the opening would be would also fight it. I agree people have a right to try and get access by following the proper procedures, but I'd say there's no chance of getting a gap in that wall.