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

daymobrew

SpatialPlanner wrote: »

You have a point. I know that Fingal Co Co has, in the past installed a gate in Donabate that is unlocked in the morning and locked in the evening by them.

There is such a gate on the laneway between Roselawn Road and Rushbrook, behind Superquinn.

SpatialPlanner wrote: »

I am also interviewing council officials next Wednesday in Grove Rd and I will be asking them about their point of view.

Hopefully they will agree with the research that FCC carried out, as mentioned in a recent Community Voice article: Bad estate design means more walking for D15 residents

Diddler1977 wrote: »

Another gripe that I have is the silly gates that the council put up at walk throughs.

I hate them too. I believe that they are there to prevent motorbikes and quadbikes from using those walkways. Unfortunately, like all passive measures, they pushing everyone not just the tiny number of culprits.

SpatialPlanner

daymobrew wrote: »

There is such a gate on the laneway between Roselawn Road and Rushbrook, behind Superquinn.

Great! Thanks for that. I'll have a look at that tomorrow.

The Waltzing Consumer

green_dub_girl wrote: »

I don't agree with this-this route cuts a long journey for lot of people in the Clonsilla Rd./Roselawn area, if there was a code for Summerfield residents only it wouldn't solve the problem really.

This is exactly the kind of thing that results in people living 300m from the Blanch Centre-DRIVING for ten mins to get there!

The area is safe, with a good sense of community (IMO) and really I think this is a perfect example of the extremely poor planning that was so evident during the boom.

The estate was not built during the boom.

The idea of the gate in the wall has been around for ages but the residents don't want it, it is their estate not yours. It is a mainly family estate which is quite safe and secure, kids can play on green and it is a nice place. If this is what the residents like and they feel a gate can greatly increase the amount of strangers around which may increase crime, then they have a right to say no.

Stop trying to impose on an estate you don't even live in. Why pick Summerfield? Why not give out about Springlawn or Coolmine, or the dozens of other estates where the quickest route is not an option?

SpatialPlanner

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

It is a mainly family estate which is quite safe and secure, kids can play on green and it is a nice place. If this is what the residents like and they feel a gate can greatly increase the amount of strangers around which may increase crime, then they have a right to say no.

Stop trying to impose on an estate you don't even live in. Why pick Summerfield? Why not give out about Springlawn or Coolmine, or the dozens of other estates where the quickest route is not an option?

That is fair comment. The green is divided from the Snugboro Rd only by the wall. There are studies that show houses in specific parts of a scheme/estate are more vulnerable to crime than others. Due in some instances to the ease of getaway by burglars etc.

The question is how much of a right do a minority of residents have over the rest of the community, regardless of what side of the opinion they're on.

A minority may be the ones wanting the access for the better good (as they see it), or a minority may be who want the status quo to remain.

To be fair, I don't know which one is prevailing in Summerfield but I presume the majority is in favour of keeping things as they are or it wouldn't be like that. That being the case, like it or not - democracy has won the argument. Was there ever any public consultation carried out on it?

BostonB

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

....Why pick Summerfield? Why not give out about Springlawn or Coolmine, or the dozens of other estates where the quickest route is not an option?

Its not on their route.

The question is why does it need a gate in the first place. If there's no problems as is suggested, then you don't need a gate.

It would be interesting to know how many laneways and cul de sacs the council has closed over the last 40yrs vs how many they've opened. Reading on the council minutes closing lanes and roads to pedestrian accesses come up a lot.

Of course they could open it as a trial. See how it works. But for me it would fundamental change the security of the estate.

BostonB

SpatialPlanner wrote: »

...The question is how much of a right do a minority of residents have over the rest of the community, regardless of what side of the opinion they're on....

Well that's the crux of it really.

Also you can't really argue its a quiet area. You'd be opening it up access to a huge shopping centre, cinema's, fast food, restaurants and a nightclub.

SpatialPlanner

BostonB wrote: »

Also you can't really argue its a quiet area. You'd be opening it up access to a huge shopping centre, cinema's, fast food, restaurants and a nightclub.

In planning or urban design terms that is seen as a good thing, for a variety of reasons. Mainly to support sustainable urban transport through connectivity.

Diddler1977

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

The idea of the gate in the wall has been around for ages but the residents don't want it, it is their estate not yours. It is a mainly family estate which is quite safe and secure, kids can play on green and it is a nice place. If this is what the residents like and they feel a gate can greatly increase the amount of strangers around which may increase crime, then they have a right to say no.

Stop trying to impose on an estate you don't even live in.

In Ireland we are given the right to have input in to an area whether we live in the estate or not eg. we can object to planning applications.

Having the gate there (or not) has an effect on people whether they live in the estate or not. Many want to walk through the estate - even if they don't live there.

The Waltzing Consumer

Diddler1977 wrote: »

In Ireland we are given the right to have input in to an area whether we live in the estate or not eg. we can object to planning applications.

Having the gate there (or not) has an effect on people whether they live in the estate or not. Many want to walk through the estate - even if they don't live there.

So? You may be comfortable demanding your "rights" as the cost of a neighbourhood, I am not. I respect the wishes of the majority of this estate and that is it. The effect that this gate has is laziness, should I walk a few minutes more or should I take my car, this is hardly up there with mortgage repayments, taxes, education, health, this is nothing.

The Waltzing Consumer

SpatialPlanner wrote: »

That is fair comment. The green is divided from the Snugboro Rd only by the wall. There are studies that show houses in specific parts of a scheme/estate are more vulnerable to crime than others. Due in some instances to the ease of getaway by burglars etc.

The question is how much of a right do a minority of residents have over the rest of the community, regardless of what side of the opinion they're on.

A minority may be the ones wanting the access for the better good (as they see it), or a minority may be who want the status quo to remain.

To be fair, I don't know which one is prevailing in Summerfield but I presume the majority is in favour of keeping things as they are or it wouldn't be like that. That being the case, like it or not - democracy has won the argument. Was there ever any public consultation carried out on it?

Yeah there was and the people living there and who would be directly effected said no. That is their wish. Again, this is not about the rights of anyone. This is about sheer laziness and people moaning that they can't get a quicker route to a shopping centre. If they can't walk that, how can they walk so much around the centre?

I have yet to see people saying it's about access to the library, to the theater or because it is where they work. It seems to be more about lazy people going up to shop or stuff their faces with fast food.

BostonB

SpatialPlanner wrote: »

In planning or urban design terms that is seen as a good thing, for a variety of reasons. Mainly to support sustainable urban transport through connectivity.

Most likely by planers who aren't effected by it. It shouldn't cause more problems than it solves. Have you any stats in the number of laneway closures in estates vs opening of laneways, and the reasons for both?

I'd guess that transport and connectivity isn't the primary function of a residential estate.

SpatialPlanner

BostonB wrote: »

Have you any stats in the number of laneway closures in estates vs opening of laneways, and the reasons for both?

I intend to ask for the stats from FCC when I meet them next week and It'll make up part of my analysis so you will have a chance to see it when everything is compiled.

SpatialPlanner

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Yeah there was and the people living there and who would be directly effected said no. That is their wish.

Cool. I wouldn't mind having a look at that.

BostonB

Will you be doing similar for estates where laneways were open and are now closed.

SpatialPlanner

BostonB wrote: »

Will you be doing similar for estates where laneways were open and are now closed.

It's Connectivity in general but more focused on where it doesn't exist rather than where it has been eliminated. I will be looking at closures but not as in depth.

Diddler1977

BostonB wrote: »

Kissing gate.

Cute name!

Luttrell1975

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Yeah, in the current economic climate, people buying cars to go shopping in the blanch centre is certainly up there at the top of the priority list. Have you even been to summerfield?

Listen, Irish children are getting fatter, at least this way, they get exercise hopping over a wall or taking the long way round.

Here is another myth I think. Irish kids dont need to be rescued from fatness by walls. These walls mean kids must leave wayyyy to early for school. They are away from home 20 to 30 minutes longer roundtrip. That applies to going to school, going to the shops, playing football on the all-weather at Verona, going to the cinema, and library. Those are all places kids should go. What parent allows 20 30 40 minutes more walking(round trips remember?)? This is all going into cars.

You arent getting the point at all and not dealing with my points. What Im seeing is that you arent thinking this thru or you dont care about kids really. If you want to argue I will. Saying that someone who knows the area, lived in it, is like a Joe Duffy ranter for talking about the area is patronising. I bet if the wall got opened you and your officer Bar Brady pals would be the first ones on to Joe Duffy. Am I right...

Luttrell1975

SpatialPlanner wrote: »

It's Connectivity in general but more focused on where it doesn't exist rather than where it has been eliminated. I will be looking at closures but not as in depth.

You chose ure example well with Summerfield. It must be the only one with two ways in and out, basically right beside each other on Clonsilla rd.

This is where I am now. http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Clonsilla,+Ireland&hl=en&ll=53.375462,-6.391146&spn=0.000446,0.00118&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=38.365962,77.431641&vpsrc=6&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=53.375462,-6.391146&panoid=PkmP_wuHcQ9tNnLPVAGgsQ&cbp=12,197.74,,0,4.3

You can walk through anything and tho we have fences and hedges they dont wrap around the estates like fortresses.

SpatialPlanner

Luttrell1975 wrote: »

You chose ure example well with Summerfield. It must be the only one with two ways in and out, basically right beside each other on Clonsilla rd.

This is where I am now. http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Clonsilla,+Ireland&hl=en&ll=53.375462,-6.391146&spn=0.000446,0.00118&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=38.365962,77.431641&vpsrc=6&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=53.375462,-6.391146&panoid=PkmP_wuHcQ9tNnLPVAGgsQ&cbp=12,197.74,,0,4.3

You can walk through anything and tho we have fences and hedges they dont wrap around the estates like fortresses.

To be honest I picked Fingal because I live in that local authority area. I decided to look at the three major growth areas in Fingal (Blanchardstown, Swords and Balbriggan). A lot of transport planners are aware of the lack of permeability in the D15 area.

For example, I understand there are similar issues in Ongar and Hansfield. I did a Masterplan project on Barnhill as well so I am very familiar with the D15 area and some of the issues facing the community there. Summerfield and Springlawn were recommended to look at as examples. So I took a trip over to have a closer look. I had only passed the estates in the past. I have decided to look at the permeability of those estates as a case study because I find the opinions so interesting (if this thread is anything to go by). I'll be really interested to talk to people in the estates about it tomorrow.

By the way, if you see me tomorrow or I knock on your door, I only ask one thing - Please be friendly. I'm just asking questions to get my dissertation done, nothing more. There'll be other more less genuine characters than me knocking on your doors in the coming weeks, and they'll be looking for votes!;)

BostonB

SpatialPlanner wrote: »

It's Connectivity in general but more focused biased on where it doesn't exist rather than where it has been eliminated. I will be looking at closures but not as in depth.

Fixed that for you...;) Joking aside, wheres the value in looking at one side of an issue. If connectivity is the only issue, why not open it up as a road. That would make it easier for cyclists and everyone else. The council seems to have a definite policy on closures. Which seems odd to ignore in a study about connectivity.

FH/248/99 CLOSURE OF LANEWAYS AT ABBEYLEA ESTATE, SWORDS
Question: Councillor M. Kennedy
"To ask the Manager will he carry out a survey in Abbeylea Estate, Swords, to establish the views of residents regarding the suggestion of closure of some laneways?"

Reply:
This Department looks favourably upon requests from tenants to close laneways. When requests are received for laneway closures, the residents whose houses are served by the laneway in question are canvassed and where the majority are in favour of the closure, the laneway is closed by means of a lockable gate and the key for same is provided to each of the affected residents.

SpatialPlanner

BostonB wrote: »

Fixed that for you...;) Joking aside, wheres the value in looking at one side of an issue. If connectivity is the only issue, why not open it up as a road. That would make it easier for cyclists and everyone else. The council seems to have a definite policy on closures. Which seems odd to ignore in a study about connectivity.

I'm not ignoring it, it's just not the topic of my study. My dissertation is more to do with the non-existent permeability measures. Yes, the closure of pedestrian ways/lanes etc is eliminating connectivity but I am focussing on why connectivity was never part of a development and why it is still the case. Also, it is strongly focussed on the public consultation process. You would see from my questionnaire that the focus is mainly on the consultation process and if people actually trust the council to deliver for them, in the interest of the community. That's why I'm interested in Summerfield and Spring Lawn. By the way, if there's anywhere else in Fingal where there is something similar going on, I'd be happy for you to let me know.

If you open it up the estate to traffic as well as pedestrian & cyclists, it's not exactly encouraging sustainable urban transport. Also, it may cause rat running through the estate, which I imagine would be far more controversial than pedestrian access. Unless of course you were to put a bus gate in and the access was restricted to a feeder bus service of some sort. Additionally, that would completely open up an estate to busy roads, where pedestrian access measures may be more controlled or safer.

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.

I noticed much earlier in this thread that someone mentioned they had to carry out a plebiscite to determine whether access should be opened or closed. I was surprised that he had been advised to do that because extinguishing a right of way or similar matters are generally a reserved function determined by passing a resolution by the elected members of the council after the statutory public consultation period. In more extreme cases it can be done by the council executive (County or Dept Manager), as was the case some years ago when Dunsink Lane was closed by a managers order.

I've looked at other closures such as one recently in Balbriggan among others but I will just be referring to them from a public consultation point of view, as in the reasons residents wanted them closed.

Anyway, my research is far from finished and I am going in directions now that I hadn't anticipated so who knows where it will end up!:eek:

BostonB

your study is invalid without looking at the reasons for closures. its a bit like working from the premise that world is flat tbh.

SpatialPlanner wrote: »

...I am focussing on why connectivity was never part of a development and why it is still the case. ...

I'd assume (perhaps incorrectly) it wasn't there because it was built before the center. So there was nothing to connect to.

Why the distinction between motor traffic and pedestrian traffic. Its all traffic. Like wise if cycling is of concern due to sustainable urban transport, then cycling on a road is far conductive to cycling access than dismounting to use a pedestrian path, or worse, some picasso nightmare of cycle lanes.

SpatialPlanner

BostonB wrote: »

your study is invalid without looking at the reasons for closures. its a bit like working from the premise that world is flat tbh.

I disagree. If the focus is on retrofitting permeability measures and the public consultation process involved, it's specific to that topic. It isn't invalid. In fact, closures aren't even relevant to that topic really. But I'm looking at the public consultation process involved in that to see if there are generic reasons. Let's see what comes out of it.

BostonB

Why you want to ignore the lessons of the past is beyond me. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". If you were to take a fresh look at the reasons for closures, then resolve those issues, in your new planning, for connectivity, then that would be valid.

Ok this is an academic study of finite scope. But the premise very much reminds me of other studies done for major public projects, that just complete ignore major negatives, or past experience, then those studies are used to promote the idea no negatives were found, and justify the projects.

There must be reasons why some walkways, laneways work and others don't. For me the best path to getting something work is usually understand what doesn't work first.

Stark

BostonB wrote: »

Fixed that for you...;) Joking aside, wheres the value in looking at one side of an issue. If connectivity is the only issue, why not open it up as a road. That would make it easier for cyclists and everyone else.

Because extra roads can have a knock-on effect on traffic in the surrounding area, extra pedestrian ways don't. In fact, they would probably alleviate some of the traffic issues.

The Waltzing Consumer

Luttrell1975 wrote: »

Here is another myth I think. Irish kids dont need to be rescued from fatness by walls. These walls mean kids must leave wayyyy to early for school. They are away from home 20 to 30 minutes longer roundtrip. That applies to going to school, going to the shops, playing football on the all-weather at Verona, going to the cinema, and library. Those are all places kids should go. What parent allows 20 30 40 minutes more walking(round trips remember?)? This is all going into cars.

You arent getting the point at all and not dealing with my points. What Im seeing is that you arent thinking this thru or you dont care about kids really. If you want to argue I will. Saying that someone who knows the area, lived in it, is like a Joe Duffy ranter for talking about the area is patronising. I bet if the wall got opened you and your officer Bar Brady pals would be the first ones on to Joe Duffy. Am I right...

Bar Brady? Who is that?

I am guessing your first paragraph is all about families in Summerfield and if that is the case, the families in summerfield have rejected the idea to put a gate there. They are the majority. Live with it. If the majority want it, so be it, good for them, I don't care if there was a gate or not, it is not my estate, it is not up to me, I don't have to live there.

SpatialPlanner

Just finished off talking to some residents in Summerfield who were very kind to give me their time. I even got the opportunity to interview a guy who hopped the wall!

Rain stopped me getting around all of the estate so I didn't find any residents who were pro access so if you're out there, I'd love to chat to you.

By the way, Summerfield is a lovely estate with really nice people living there.

I'll have to come back to talk to more people and am looking forward to it.

Diddler1977

Luttrell1975 wrote: »

This is where I am now. http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Clonsilla,+Ireland&hl=en&ll=53.375462,-6.391146&spn=0.000446,0.00118&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=38.365962,77.431641&vpsrc=6&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=53.375462,-6.391146&panoid=PkmP_wuHcQ9tNnLPVAGgsQ&cbp=12,197.74,,0,4.3

You can walk through anything and tho we have fences and hedges they dont wrap around the estates like fortresses.

Looks so civilised in the pic. You've got pedestrians, cyclists & motorists in perfect harmony......and nobody attempting to scale a dangerously high wall with a ladder!

oblivious

daymobrew wrote: »

There is such a gate on the laneway between Roselawn Road and Rushbrook, behind Superquinn.

Not a great example, as that was a mass path where certain resident wanted closed that had served the Blanchardtown for over 150 years. It was ther before they bought there homes and would have effect hundreds (an this was backed up with a petition) aorund the area.

an exmaple of where a few with Fingal coco ear shot in the late 80's, 90's can rough ride over eveone else

BostonB

I can't see how closing it makes much difference, as you could use the walk through opposite Roselawn SC to the church. How is it there for 150yrs. I would assume (perhaps incorrectly) that was nothing there except fields before they built Roselawn.