McDonald's Planning Permission - Blacklion Manor

Annasopra

matt-dublin wrote: »

It just shows Emer though the arguments for it are not that strong, the arguments against it don't stack up.

Majority of the complaints noted wont get very far I wouldn't think in terms of planning. At the end of the day, who are the qualified town planners and architects? The people on this forum or the people that submitted the planning application?

You're not even engaging in the arguments now - just dismissing them because they are not coming from professionals! That argument seems to me to be a bit anti democratic in suggesting that only professionals should have a say in planning.

littlemaxi

I've read through the threads & can't see anyone pointing out that in Bray there's st Patrick's across the road from McD's, st cronans just up the hill, then loreto , pres, colaiste rathin & bray senior college all within 1km and not s those kids are rolling around bursting out of their school uniforms!! I think it would be good to see more development in Greystones & hope it goes ahead. It might also be good for local clubs etc if McDonalds wish to sponser events/festivals??
Just to add, my teenage son goes to school in bray, he gets a v healthy packed lunch mon-thurs & a few euro on Friday, when he normally buys a hot chicken roll, with crisps & a can of coke for €3.00 Euro in a centra/gala.. I don't think he ever bothers with McDonalds as its too dear!!!

MyPerfectCousin

mango salsa wrote: »

You're not even engaging in the arguments now - just dismissing them because they are not coming from professionals! That argument seems to me to be a bit anti democratic in suggesting that only professionals should have a say in planning.

He's not saying who should get a say, he's saying who will get a say.

It's not like there are referenda on planning applications. And lodging an objection isn't exactly the same as a no vote.

The Bishop Basher

mango salsa wrote: »

You're not even engaging in the arguments now

To be fair, we have raised a number of very valid points throughout this thread that have been consistently ignored by all opposing this application. I understand that they seriously challenge your position and as a result are difficult to respond to but we can't be accused of not engaging.

Annasopra

To be honest I've seen lots of people giving out on facebook about how headwrecking this thread is. I would agree with them. It seems to me that a lot of people in this discussion are talking at each other and not listening and not talking to each other or with each other.

Eponymous

mango salsa wrote: »

To be honest I've seen lots of people giving out on facebook about how headwrecking this thread is. I would agree with them. It seems to me that a lot of people in this discussion are talking at each other and not listening and not talking to each other or with each other.

And why is that? An OP asking for opinions when what he really wanted was objections?

A moderator who has allowed the thread veer wildly from the topic as it became a McDonald's bashing thread?

I know I had said I'm out of this discussion, but can't let this go!

Annasopra

Eponymous wrote: »

And why is that? An OP asking for opinions when what he really wanted was objections?

A moderator who has allowed the thread veer wildly from the topic as it became a McDonald's bashing thread?

I know I had said I'm out of this discussion, but can't let this go!

We don't address moderation on thread. I'll pm you.

Eponymous

mango salsa wrote: »

We don't address moderation on thread. I'll pm you.

I addressed your post. If you feel it is okay to point out that facebookers view the thread as head wrecking, you can't just apportion blame on the posters.

Not questioning your moderation, you can mod however you like. I'm just stating my opinion as to the cause of the headwreckingness of the thread.

Jimjay

LifeBeginsAt40 wrote: »

Why do they want an extra 41 car parking spaces then? A drive-thru with free parking only minutes away from Southern Cross, quicker to drive to it then from Bray than to walk to it from most of Greystones.

They wouldn't want to develop if it was going to see only a few cars a day. McDonald's are a very successful business, they would have done their traffic calculations believe me.

The answer then if your calculations are correct, is to save several thousand Euro and use an existing smaller empty retail unit in the high street or Tescos.

No point building a drive-thru if you correctly predict there will be hardly any cars to drive-thru.

Probably to fill the space. Im not talking only a few mcars a day, i meant a few cars throughout the day, nothing to cause major traffic jams form bray to greystones. I have never see a McDonald's car park full, anywhere.
Also if there were constantly,two cars in the drive through throughout the day I would class that as successful without causing major traffic problems.

Driving to work In bray during school run hours bothers me more than a couple of cars going to McDonald's.

I am not saying that a McDonald's next to a school is a good idea or not. I am not a parent. I do think though that objecting to it on traffic grounds because you don't want it for another reason is a bit odd. Yes I'm sure mcd's have done their traffic calculations, neither you or me have seen them so how can you speculate what they will be. I am sure the planners will work out the traffic consequences without the need of people pointing it out to them.

There was a post saying, ok guys we can't make an objection on health grounds so we have to think of something else. I know let's all make an objection on traffic grounds and word it like this!

The Bishop Basher

Jimjay wrote: »

There was a post saying, ok guys we can't make an objection on health grounds so we have to think of something else. I know let's all make an objection on traffic grounds and word it like this!

That's exactly what's going on as proven by the failure of the campaigners to come up with a consistent argument.

matt-dublin

mango salsa wrote: »

You're not even engaging in the arguments now - just dismissing them because they are not coming from professionals! That argument seems to me to be a bit anti democratic in suggesting that only professionals should have a say in planning.

To the contrary, im not.

What i am saying is that the objections being put forward likely won't be taken into account becasause the people who are qualified to decide the plan etc have suggested the layout, the people who are objecting don't have the qualifications to prove different. The CoCo and ABP will only take into account serios objections where it impedes on a business or persons day to day life in such a manner that it is a significant obstruction. On traffic grounds we should all object to the secondary school because blacklion residents will have getting in and out of the estate between 8-9 and 3.30-4.30 no?

And to say im not even engaging in arguements is completly farcical, i've been continiously involved in rational debate through the whole thread. However there has been a few ocassions where my points have been competly overlooked with an "oh won't someone please think of the children" arguement.

I've looked at all the arguements against the McDonalds on here and all the arguements for, and to be honest realistically there's not enough there to quash the planning permission.

Lets be honest here, they will get in there, albiet with some modifications to their plans but i would suspect they will be trading before the end of the summer. They've more money to financially back propertly and planning lawyers, road and traffic planning architects and lets not forget the brown paper bag that will be left somewhere.

I would almost at this point send a letter to the Co Co detailing how McDonalds in bray is in the proximity of 6 odd schools (as stated numerous times on this thread and been overlooked) and the kids there don't seem to be morbidly obese.

red_bairn

Swanner wrote: »

That's exactly what's going on as proven by the failure of the campaigners to come up with a consistent argument.

The Durutti Column wrote: »

There is existing full planning permission which applies to the site McDonald's want to occupy.

It is for a health and fitness centre, two stories, apparently of 1,238 square metres overall.

So we already have permission for exactly what red_bairn is suggesting (although a commercial gym) but they want to put a junk food joint in instead!!

Are they taking the pith?

Just a point on objections, which a previous poster suggested. If you are objecting to the granting of planning permission by WCC, you must do so in a certain way, and on planning grounds. The planning dept at WCC will not pay any heed to objections on health grounds, nor are they obliged to or even permitted to. Check out the procedure here: http://www.wicklow.ie/Apps/WicklowBeta/Planning/AppComment.aspx

The grounds for objection can be, for example, the extra traffic this development would generate at a centre where there is only one entrance/exit and no chance of the so-called Blacklion Link Road being built out to Chapel Road for a long time; the congestion such traffic will cause; the added danger to children attending the three schools which will be operating immediately close by.

^Here. The protesters are hypocritical to say the least.

Eponymous

red_bairn wrote: »

^Here. The protesters are hypocritical to say the least.

Clearly a lot of traffic is okay if it's folks who drive to a gym to run on a treadmill.

:rolleyes:

Charlie-Bravo

Re: Facebook pages, the pages are filled with objectors TBH - the same text from boardsies opposing the proposal, very little in terms of a balanced argument on FB but I actually feel there is a more balanced argument here.

red_bairn

astrofluff wrote: »

Re: Facebook pages, the pages are filled with objectors TBH - the same text from boardsies opposing the proposal, very little in terms of a balanced argument on FB but I actually feel there is a more balanced argument here.

Why do you think they don't post here anymore? :rolleyes:

Annasopra

red_bairn wrote: »

Why do you think they don't post here anymore? :rolleyes:

maybe because they are called hypocrytices?

red_bairn

mango salsa wrote: »

maybe because they are called hypocrytices?

Do you mean hypocrites? Well yes/no.

Annasopra

red_bairn wrote: »

Do you mean hypocrites? Well yes/no.

Yes - that's what I mean

Oldlegs

OK - I had hoped not to jump in again, to avoid getting drawn into some nonsensical arguments, but there are some valid points being made, and also some valid attempts at making points which do not stand up.

I am not sure whether I am for or against the proposed development, but am for a rational debate on the planning application. So I will ignore sidetracks about potential Obesity issues :eek: or personal desire to have a morning-after treat

McDonalds in Bray
If I ignore the health/obsesity angle (on the grounds that it would not be valid from a planning persecutive).
1. McD in Bray is on a very busy street, and unlikely to generate significant levels of extra traffic.
2. Proposed McD in Greysytones is a DRIVE-THROUGH - and it could be argued that a drive-through generates more traffic DENSITY (not just total passing traffic) than other business where customers stay for a longer time. (For example a GYM might generate 2 car-trips spread over a 1-2 hour window, whereas a Drive-through woudl generate 2 x car trips in a 5-minutes window.

Proximity to schools and housing.
Proposed location is in a low-density retail site centered around residential areas, NOT a high-street location, nor a high-density location such as Red-Cow, Nutgrove or McD's other recent proposed developments (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/commercialproperty/2011/0511/1224296684386.html)

On the positive side, arguments can be made for the spin-off effects of additional traffic/footfall to Greystones, but this would be stronger if the proposed development did not include the drive-through and could be seen as stimulating visitors (spenders) who would stay rather than drive-through to the area. IMO, McD tends to follow existing traffic/footfall patterns rather than being the primary driver. I am sure McD knows what its is doing, but I am not sure I can see it in this case. The business-upside argument in support of the proposed development does not appear to have been proven.

The Bishop Basher

It is hypocritical to oppose an application by McDonalds on the basis of childhood obesity while ignoring the same practices occurring under your nose because it doesn't suit your agenda.

It is hypocritical to oppose an application on the basis of increased traffic when you haven't opposed previous applications for the same reason because it didn't suit your agenda.

It is hypocritical to oppose this application on the basis of fast food near schools being bad when you didn't opposes a previous application and installation of a fast food outlet in the same area.

You mightn't like what i'm saying but based on the definition of hypocrisy - It is fact.

And not trying to do your job for you but are we not going down a rat hole here ?

Oldlegs

Swanner wrote: »

It is hypocritical to oppose an application by McDonalds on the basis of childhood obesity while ignoring the same practices occurring under your nose because it doesn't suit your agenda.

It is hypocritical to oppose an application on the basis of increased traffic when you haven't opposed previous applications for the same reason because it didn't suit your agenda.

It is hypocritical to oppose this application on the basis of fast food near schools being bad when you didn't opposes a previous application and installation of a fast food outlet in the same area.

You mightn't like what i'm saying but based on the definition of hypocrisy - It is fact.

And not trying to do your job for you but are we not going down a rat hole here ?

I may have smoked in the past and might not have supported a smoking ban. However, I may have given up now, so does than mean I am a hypocrite because I may have changed my viewpoint regarding a smoking ban.

Alternatively, I may not like the traffic impact of having Shoreline Gym/pool (for example) being located nearby but I may feel the benefits offset the negatives.

In the current situation, I may not view the benefits of the proposed development to outweigh the negative impact. This does not mean I am being a hypocrite. It just means that I am allowed to make my own mind up based on my preferences. It does not mean that my view/preferences will hold up in a planning process, but I can still hold them without being labeled a hypocrite.

Could we get back to arguing the case for/against and not arguing people's reasons for having a view - they may be a Hypocrite (although that is not proven), but they may still have a valid planning objection which they want to raise now. "Play the ball, not the man !"

Annasopra

Swanner wrote: »

And not trying to do your job for you but are we not going down a rat hole here ?

What do you mean?

The Bishop Basher

Oldlegs wrote: »

I may have smoked in the past and might not have supported a smoking ban. However, I may have given up now, so does than mean I am a hypocrite because I may have changed my viewpoint regarding a smoking ban.

No. It means you've changed your opinion. You held a view at the time. As time progressed your views changed but that doesn't mean you were hypocritcal back then.

Oldlegs wrote: »

Alternatively, I may not like the traffic impact of having Shoreline Gym/pool (for example) being located nearby but I may feel the benefits offset the negatives.

Absolutely and any rational person such as yourself would call that out. I'm not hearing anything of that nature from the "no" campaigners. They could have answered the points above but chose to ignore them, particularly the point about existing retailers. In the absence of any response from them I will assume their view is that the current practice is wrong but they won't be doing anything about it. ie. hypocritical.

Oldlegs wrote: »

In the current situation, I may not view the benefits of the proposed development to outweigh the negative impact. This does not mean I am being a hypocrite. It just means that I am allowed to make my own mind up based on my preferences. It does not mean that my view/preferences will hold up in a planning process, but I can still hold them without being labeled a hypocrite.

Again Oldlegs you are making a rational point. What i've said above is based on the arguments put forward so far by the vociferous minority. They have not acknowledged any positive whatsoever so I have to assume they don't see any and on that basis their actions don't match their words which makes their view hypocritical until they show otherwise.

Oldlegs wrote: »

Could we get back to arguing the case for/against and not arguing people's reasons for having a view - they may be a Hypocrite (although that is not proven), but they may still have a valid planning objection which they want to raise now. "Play the ball, not the man !"

Agreed. I was careful not to directly call any individual a hypocrite but where a point of view is hypocritical it should be called out as such. They are free to defend it and they have chosen not to. I am simply addressing the points put forward by them.

mango salsa wrote: »

What do you mean?

As Oldlegs has also pointed out, we are going off on a tangent which serves little or no purpose and takes focus away from the core debate.

Oldlegs

Great - so to get things back on track.

Please note I am not agreeing or disagreeing with any of the following in this post, I am just trying to summarise the core arguments for/against the planning application.


FOR
1. Introduction of Large brand retail presence is likely to stimulate additional business/local footfall.
2. Greystones would benefit from having additional local services provided by the proposed development.
3. Greystones would benefit from having additional employment provided by the proposed development.


Against
1. Proposed development would require a change of purpose for the site which would modify the overall usage pattern of the 'retail park'
2. Drive-through nature of the proposed development would create significant change in traffic (total traffic, peak density, flow/circulation) to the detriment of local residents
3. Proposed development would not improve local services as similar product(s) are already available within the locality


Other arguments which may, or may not be valid for a planning process might include:-
- Whether proposed development would impact the existing businesses in Greystones to the extent that businesses in main retail area are no longer viable which reduces footfall and has secondary impact on remaining business in main retail area thereby having an overall reduction in employment commercial activity.
- Whether increased traffic would increase risk to children travelling to/from schools in the immediate vicinity.

I am sure there are other arguments that can be introduced, but it would be great if it were possible to discuss/debate
a) whether the individual argument is relevant to a planning process, and then,
b) your views for or against the argument, and where possible
c) examples to support your argument.

Or we could just debate how obese we will all get as we drive to the new McD's, after a night out, and don't bother to spend any money/time in business on the main street any more

Mitch Connor

Oldlegs wrote: »

3. Proposed development would not improve local services as similar product(s) are already available within the locality

On this one, I don't think this is fully correct. though it depends on what you mean by the locality.

From the development plan provided on this thread, Blacklion region (Redford, Rathdown, Blacklion Manor) and the area around the current Blacklion development is considered a locality on it own - with the current development supposed to provide a focal point of the residents.

If you compare it to Charlesland, for example.

We have a supermarket - SuperQuinn and Lidl.
We have/had a pharmacy.
We have/had a cafe.
In charlesland we have CLOne and PizzaHut for fastfood. PizzaHut being the more comparible to McDonalds in terms of nutritional value.
At the blacklion development you also have a womens fitness building and a corner store, as well as a furniture shop and hobby shop.

For the residents of the blacklion region there isn't a fastfood option. You have to go down to Greystones town or over to Charlesland. I'm not saying this is a big trip, it is a trip I have made many times in my life in greystones (from Redford and from Eden Gate) but it is taking you out of the locality of blacklion, as seemingly defined in the development plan.

McDonalds would integrate into the local focus (as well as drawing in from the surrounding area). Obviously, there are vocal people who don't want McDonalds as part of the local focus, for nutrition reasons, and that is a matter of opinion.

If you oppose this cause it offers a similar service available locally, and you define the locality to include all of greystones, then Lidl shouldn't have got PP (SuperValue/SuperQuinn/Tesco), the pharmacy shouldn't have got PP (many pharmacys in all major locations, and in blacklion itself), or Pebbles (many Cafes in greystones), or Spar/BlackLion Stores (Many corner shops in Greysontes). Even the fitness centre that could go there, which no one wants to build, would have an alternative in Shoreline and Glenview, and the failed Jackie Skellies.

Oldlegs

It could also be argued that the current planning permission is too restrictive and that Curves (or similar small gym/health club) provides local health and fitness services, while the public accessible (rather than membership based) Shoreline Greystones (and Bray) are also close enough to provide access to larger gym facilities unsuited to a small locality setting.

This could undermine objections based purely on "change in purpose" argument.

Mitch Connor

Oldlegs wrote: »

It could also be argued that the current planning permission is too restrictive and that Curves (or similar small gym/health club) provides local health and fitness services, while the public accessible (rather than membership based) Shoreline Greystones (and Bray) are also close enough to provide access to larger gym facilities unsuited to a small locality setting.

This could undermine objections based purely on "change in purpose" argument.

for me I think you have to look at the simple fact is that it seems no one has shown any interest in building a gym there. Added to the fact Jackie Skellies failed and the two local ones (shoreline) are ran in partnership with the council, I don't think a privately run gym is viable.

Does it make sense to keep that site restricted to a purpose that doesn't have a viable future?

I can't see how the objection can simply be to the change of purpose, it would have to be change of purpose from fitness to fastfood. If it was a cresh to be built there, it wouldn't be an issue I assume.

Annasopra

Swanner wrote: »

As Oldlegs has also pointed out, we are going off on a tangent which serves little or no purpose and takes focus away from the core debate.

Modding comment
Totally agree with this. Could we now keep this discussion entirely to the merits of giving planning or not instead of dragging in other superfluous arguments. In addition please drop the name calling

snowman224

Swanner wrote: »

As Oldlegs has also pointed out, we are going off on a tangent which serves little or no purpose and takes focus away from the core debate.

i.e. "Let me just spend half a page getting the last word in, and then everyone should leave it at that....."

Now who's being hypocritical!!!

Annasopra

snowman224 wrote: »

i.e. "Let me just spend half a page getting the last word in, and then everyone should leave it at that....."

Now who's being hypocritical!!!

Yellow card warning given

I've asked people to stay on topic and drop the abuse

Any more going off topic or calling people hypocrites etc will get red card infractions