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

BostonB

Cool, with a tiny mention of closures....

SpatialPlanner

BostonB wrote: »

Cool, with a tiny mention of closures....

Well, ya kinda got me thinkin'... Yep, I'm even doing a bit on closures, albeit small.

You may be surprised at what I have initially discovered about it. It would seem there is no set route for closures so in fact a closure that you might think was done 'illegally' may not actually be the case.

I was of the opinion that closures were just a reserved function of the councillors. Not so. They can be carried out via "Manager's Order" as well. That is interesting because it can be on foot of a complaint etc.

BostonB

I would guess that its not openings themselves that cause a problem. But the specific environment they are located. If that's not stating the obvious. So one to the local crèche might not be a problem, but one to the parish centre might.

But it would be interesting to see if there's any meaningful statistics to be generated from it. Likewise it would be interesting to see if there's a formal process to dealing with them. The council minutes give the impression there is an unofficial process, even if its not formalised.

I only know about closures being a frequent topic because I came across them mentioned in the minutes when looking for something else.

SpatialPlanner

BostonB wrote: »

I would guess that its not openings themselves that cause a problem. But the specific environment they are located. If that's not stating the obvious. So one to the local crèche might not be a problem, but one to the parish centre might.

But it would be interesting to see if there's any meaningful statistics to be generated from it. Likewise it would be interesting to see if there's a formal process to dealing with them. The council minutes give the impression there is an unofficial process, even if its not formalised.

I only know about closures being a frequent topic because I came across them mentioned in the minutes when looking for something else.

We better not go too off topic on this thread. I don't want to get myself banned for discussing research etc. I'm at a crucial stage and if I anger the Gods again, it might be curtains for me!

BostonB

LOL. Good luck with it.,

SpatialPlanner

BostonB wrote: »

LOL. Good luck with it.,

Cheers.

TheChrisD

If only it had been that easy to get over the wall with those footholds and the like when I was having to do it :pac:

SpatialPlanner wrote: »

If you're around and want me to call, just let me know. I'd love to speak to you.

I would, but I moved out of Blanch to Dunboyne back in 2007 :rolleyes:

SpatialPlanner

Was in Summerfield this evening to finish things off and spoke to a couple of residents who were supportive of having access. Phew!

ajarms86

hi SpatialPlanner, ive been following this disscusion with alot of interest only because the wall in question is a big pain for myself, to the point where i was considering surveying the residents to get an idea of there opinion on an access in the wall, but considering last post is only from a months ago, just thought id see if your survey gave you any conclusive answers?

SpatialPlanner

ajarms86 wrote: »

hi SpatialPlanner, ive been following this disscusion with alot of interest only because the wall in question is a big pain for myself, to the point where i was considering surveying the residents to get an idea of there opinion on an access in the wall, but considering last post is only from a months ago, just thought id see if your survey gave you any conclusive answers?

Hi, ajarms86. I had a Work in Progress last week where I presented some of my findings to a panel of lecturers and peers. I'm still going through the information so it will be November by the time I have everything analysed ready for submission.

My intention is to share my findings with the people on here because in fairness boards.ie has been hugely helpful (despite my initial ban! ). It is a contentious issue but I got some really valuable insights from people who were opposed to the connectivity and those supportive of access. It was a decent balance, thankfully.

If you are living in the area, I wouldn't mind talking to you just to get your point of view. DM me if you are open to that.

ajarms86

So just thought id follow up on this thread and ask if anyone knows if there is any plans to access in that wall along the snugborough road??

amdublin

ajarms86 wrote: »

So just thought id follow up on this thread and ask if anyone knows if there is any plans to access in that wall along the snugborough road??

Sure the trolley is there what do want an opening for

Luttrell1975

amdublin wrote: »

Sure the trolley is there what do want an opening for

That wall will fall down itself one day. Hope nobody bothers to rebuild it. In a way a place like Blanch is an organism. The need for people to get access eventually gets rid of the scars of suspicion.

amdublin

Luttrell1975 wrote: »

That wall will fall down itself one day. Hope nobody bothers to rebuild it. In a way a place like Blanch is an organism. The need for people to get access eventually gets rid of the scars of suspicion.

Here's hoping Luttrell

Conor30

Naos wrote: »

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.

If they had just a pedestrian gate and/or bollards, then that wouldn't even be an issue.

amdublin

Conor30 wrote: »

If they had just a pedestrian gate and/or bollards, then that wouldn't even be an issue.

You read the thread dude?

It's like banging your head against a brick wall (ironic )

:cool:

Conor30

amdublin wrote: »

You read the thread dude?

It's like banging your head against a brick wall (ironic )

:cool:

No, I'm not going to tread through 24 pages!

amdublin

Conor30 wrote: »

No, I'm not going to tread through 24 pages!

I shall summarise it for you:
Closed wall and closed minds

BostonB

Basically most don't care how it effects the estate because most people wanting it opened don't live there.

No one can be bothered doing any work on experiences with access in similar locations to persuade the locals either.

Luttrell1975

BostonB wrote: »

Basically most don't care how it effects the estate because most people wanting it opened don't live there.

No one can be bothered doing any work on experiences with access in similar locations to persuade the locals either.

Oh joy. While I am replying to your post I do this for the benefit of Conor30.

You see Conor you will be asked a few irrelevant questions which will have enough red herring to open a fish and chips shop. You will be told you are long winded, then when you shorten your replies you will be told the opposite.

The residents association in there do not represent all opinions in Summerfield, they are just more motivated and better organised. We saw the contribution from their representative and this equated the act of climbing the wall to anti-social behaviour. We can question the legality of the council trying to make one or two PEDESTRIAN openings. But do we dare question the legality of the wall? You better not Conor, you just better not.

amdublin

BostonB wrote: »

Basically most don't care how it effects the estate because most people wanting it opened don't live there.

No one can be bothered doing any work on experiences with access in similar locations to persuade the locals either.

For Conor's benefit also:
You see technically it is open already....albeit with an upturned trolley.....which let's face it looks really sh1t.

So ultimately all the people who live in the estate don't mind people hoisting up over the big wall via a trolley and walking through their estate BUT they do not want people walking through their estate via an opening in the wall.

:rolleyes:

BostonB

None of that addresses the basic issue. The majority (my assumption) of the ("more motivated and better organised") residents need to be lobbied, and persuaded to give their support to access.

Alternatively the council would to override the wishes of the dominant residents in order to implement a wider access strategy.

Conor30

amdublin wrote: »

For Conor's benefit also:
You see technically it is open already....albeit with an upturned trolley.....which let's face it looks really sh1t.

So ultimately all the people who live in the estate don't mind people hoisting up over the big wall via a trolley and walking through their estate BUT they do not want people walking through their estate via an opening in the wall.

:rolleyes:

It's an Irish solution, I suppose!

oblivious

BostonB wrote: »

Alternatively the council would to override the wishes of the dominant residents in order to implement a wider access strategy.

Is there evidence that this is the COCO wishes, give the potential parking and traffic problems a quick route to the center provide ?

oblivious

amdublin wrote: »

You see technically it is open already....albeit with an upturned trolley.....which let's face it looks really sh1t.

No it not, if the COCO where to put an access their, then it would technically be a right of way. There is nor historical or communal context that there was previous an access way though the estate to the center.


If the COCO feel that this would be a positive for the area that another matter

BostonB

oblivious wrote: »

Is there evidence that this is the COCO wishes, give the potential parking and traffic problems a quick route to the center provide ?

None as far as I know. I've seen (and quoted here previously) council minutes where the council stated they were in favour of closures where requested, and theres been a lot of closures. Though in some cases they've refused closures where it caused significant connectivity issues. However there is no existing access in Summerfield so its different situation. Also the situation is also different considering the scale of the shopping center it would give access too.

SpatialPlanner commented that..

SpatialPlanner wrote: »

....
I'm not sure that there is a clear policy on closures by the council. I'm going through the County Development Plan at the moment so that's where the policy will be stated. If I find it, I'll post it. What I do know is FCC among other councils resist gated developments because of the issues surrounding connectivity with community/neighbourhood. In other words, isolation from the rest of the community....

So it would seem that the council probably do it on a on a case by case basis. But I think the point I was making that the council don't always go with the wishes of the locals. Though from what I read, usually they do.

Luttrell1975

oblivious wrote: »

Is there evidence that this is the COCO wishes, give the potential parking and traffic problems a quick route to the center provide ?

There was two times in recent years when the council planner and engineers consulted on opening the wall. In the last 10 years.

I was just checking this out and realized that this was discussed again at the recent Mulhuddart council meeting.

http://www.fingalcoco.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/68438

Same old solution. Even though the council manager wants to open the wall the councillors ignore that solution because they are afraid of the sh.. storm that would boil up if they have to face down the magical 12 people who "represent" the will of the people of summerfield.

Sigh... Counsillors.
Sigh... democracy.

Luttrell1975

BostonB wrote: »

None as far as I know. I've seen (and quoted here previously) council minutes where the council stated they were in favour of closures where requested, and theres been a lot of closures. Though in some cases they've refused closures where it caused significant connectivity issues. However there is no existing access in Summerfield so its different situation. Also the situation is also different considering the scale of the shopping center it would give access too.

SpatialPlanner commented that..



So it would seem that the council probably do it on a on a case by case basis. But I think the point I was making that the council don't always go with the wishes of the locals. Though from what I read, usually they do.

ROTFLMAO. Well informed....

BostonB

Sounds more like his (tbh them all) main interest was picking the cheapest solution, and avoiding any lawsuit. There really wasn't any discussion of depth of the pro's and con's of the access.

Luttrell1975

BostonB wrote: »

Sounds more like his (tbh them all) main interest was picking the cheapest solution, and avoiding any lawsuit. There really wasn't any discussion of depth of the pro's and con's of the access.

Why because somehow spending a large wad of cash on a waste of time wall would make us all feel better. No thanks, let it fall down and clear the rubble. Get real. Get practical.