St Annes Park Planning Application

Seth Brundle

expectationlost wrote: »

yeah I want to know it exists outside of the newsfeed, I looking in the strategic hsouing section and couldn't find it

Well I answered your original query.
However, why would you expect to see a decision outside of their newsfeed on a page that outlines how to make an application and also contains a list of current applications of which St. Anne's is not?
This page doesn't appear to announce details of any applications so, unsurprisingly, the St. Anne's decision isn't there!

expectationlost

kbannon wrote: »

Well I answered your original query.
However, why would you expect to see a decision outside of their newsfeed on a page that outlines how to make an application and also contains a list of current applications of which St. Anne's is not?
This page doesn't appear to announce details of any applications so, unsurprisingly, the St. Anne's decision isn't there!

it has to exist somewhere other their their newsfeed.

Seth Brundle

expectationlost wrote: »

it has to exist somewhere other their their newsfeed.

Why?
What are you looking for exactly from ABP?

expectationlost

kbannon wrote: »

Why?
What are you looking for exactly from ABP?

i don't think it had been listed when I looked I see it in New and Decided cases now http://www.pleanala.ie/lists/2018/index.htm wasn't there before

Seth Brundle

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Not a good decision for the area.

Why is this not a good decision for the area?
I'm struggling to see what people are complaining about - many of those who I personally have heard complaining about it were previously complaining about the government not solving the housing problem :rolleyes:

subpar

These new properties are badly wanted particularly as they will be situated so close to the city and close to top class amenities and transport links.

Those living nearby should be pleased as the new development can only increase the value of properties in the Killester / Raheny / Clontarf areas.

ozmo

So its there anything being done - any appeal in process - or is that the final result?

Seth Brundle

ozmo wrote: »

So its there anything being done - any appeal in process - or is that the final result?

On what grounds?
Anyhow, you'd be looking at a High Court judicial review based on legal issues around the validity of the ABP decision.
Like I said earlier, I'm struggling to see a problem with the development so for what reason would you appeal?

ozmo

kbannon wrote: »

On what grounds?

I have a problem with all the issues already stated - namely...

• Conflicts with Z15 Zoning
• Loss of open space/active recreational grounds (in-combination losses, including previous loss of swimming pool)
• Loss of habitats for Birds/SPA (AA issues/Habitats Directive)
• Impact on Biosphere
• Traffic & Transportation: lack of carrying capacity of local road network, lack of capacity on bus network/services, greater than 500m from Dart station (inaccurate distances indicated)
• Height/Visual Impact vis a vis :
- St. Anne’s Park
- Protected Structure (Sybil Hill House)
- surrounding two-storey housing
• Privatisation of a public asset;
• By-pass/subversion of correct planning process (re zoning and application) – note planning history 3777/17
• Loss of sporting amenity
• Loss of educational amenity/facility
• Impact on Naniken Stream /SUDs/Flooding
• Brent Geese, black tailed godwit
• CGIs – don’t accurately reflect nature and scale of development
• Impact on Sybill Hill House
• Development will not assist in addressing current housing shortages
• Alternative lands available for such housing (in particular Z1 lands)
• Loss of habitat and light pollution impacting on bats
• Loss of habitat for Curlews, oyster catchers (no details)
• Question the adequacy of mitigation measures
• Lack of cre places (as well as lack of primary and secondary school places)
• Compliance with required masterplan
• Material contravention of zoning objective
• St Anne’s Park is a designated ‘quiet area’ (by Minister Hogan in 2013)
• Impact on tourism and business as a result of loss of St. Anne’s Park
• Water pressure issues will worsen as a result of the proposed development
• Noise
• Light pollution
• Loss of trees and associated impact on climate/air quality (oxygen levels)
• Integrity of information and full disclosure by applicant (see Inspector’s Report Page 18 of 126)
• Safety of senior citizens (as a result of road traffic)
• Urban Greenery and mental health (climate for health and WHO referenced) - limited details (NH230)
• Part V provision on site
• Parking provision inadequate
• Pedestrian access to park
• No provision for expansion of the school
• Inappropriate to make decision on this case until such time as decision made on 3777/17
• Impacts on visual and residential amenity of The Meadows
• Impacts on Millennium Arboretum and Rose Garden
• Design of shared courtyard area to proposed housing
• Absence of public consultation
• Strain on local services
• Dominate skyline/over-intensification of use
• Setting of undesirable precedent for development on Z15 lands
• Inadequacy of proposed facilities on adjoining lands (DCC Ref. 3777/17)
• Existing shortage of pitches in St. Anne’s Park


Think thats it...

schemingbohemia

You could probably just reduce that to NIMBY

ozmo

schemingbohemia wrote: »

You could probably just reduce that to NIMBY

I don't live there - But I do really like that park.

I do respect the 1102 objections sent in - and the 7000 names on the petition sent in - plus the objections of the Dublin City Council (chief executive Owen Keegan).

Basically It's better left as parklands - green space to be shared by the people - there are plenty of building areas they could have built on in the area - eg. Belcamp site etc.

Gloomtastic!

ozmo wrote: »

Basically It's better left as parklands - green space to be shared by the people - there are plenty of building areas they could have built on in the area - eg. Belcamp site etc.

But it’s NOT part of the park. It’s beside the park, behind a 10 foot high fence that the people cannot access.

Seth Brundle

ozmo wrote: »

I have a problem with all the issues already stated - namely...
...snip...
Think thats it...

Obviously you copied these from somewhere but assuming you actually have the same viewpoint maybe elaborate on some of these...
Why should the previous loss of the swimming pool be a factor in this objection?
How is this "Privatisation of a public asset"?
How will this development "not assist in addressing current housing shortages"?
Where is the nearest site of "alternative lands available for such housing"?
Can you quantify the specific "impact on tourism and business as a result of loss of St. Anne’s Park"?

Seth Brundle

ozmo wrote: »

I do respect the 1102 objections sent in - and the 7000 names on the petition sent in - plus the objections of the Dublin City Council (chief executive Owen Keegan).

That's fine.
Should planning permission be based purely on NIMBYism and the objection by a county manager?
I can think of several examples where people were highly critical of Keegans views (take Dun Laoghaire library for example). Is he just better at offering advice to Northside developments?

ozmo wrote: »

Basically It's better left as parklands - green space to be shared by the people - there are plenty of building areas they could have built on in the area - eg. Belcamp site etc.

But it's not a park. It's private property!
Where are the plenty of building areas in the area that would accommodate a similar number of homes? If the alternatives are that good a location then surely they are lined up for development anyhow?

Raheny and all areas close to the city centre including my native Clontarf need to house more people and stop the endless urban sprawl.

Sleeper12

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

But it’s NOT part of the park. It’s beside the park, behind a 10 foot high fence that the people cannot access.

It was part of the park & was given to the school for sports grounds. I can't say how long the fence is up but it wasn't there when I went to the school. For cross country runs as part of PE we ran through the field & into the park without ever having to scale a fence. I'm sure you'll find the fence put up in recent years to make it easier for the planning application.

This is a unique site. Every member of DCC is against this. When was the last time you heard that.

spurious

That's what I would be looking at too. The original intent when given to the school. Dig out the old documents from 1952.

There wouldn't be an issue if they were using part of the land that was bequeathed to St. Paul's College in 1950, but they are using the old 1952 Corporation land which as I understand it was given to be used for playing fields, not to make a few bob in the future.

Sleeper12

There is another development being built as we speak only a few hundred meters up the road on the grounds of the old St Pauls swimming pool. More apartments. The point is that this development got little resistance by comparence. The one beside St Annes is seen by locals as being part of the park. Hence the backlash

expectationlost

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The one beside St Annes is seen by locals as being part of the park. Hence the backlash

hence people pointing out they are wrong

expectationlost

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It was part of the park & was given to the school for sports grounds. I can't say how long the fence is up but it wasn't there when I went to the school. For cross country runs as part of PE we ran through the field & into the park without ever having to scale a fence. I'm sure you'll find the fence put up in recent years to make it easier for the planning application.

This is a unique site. Every member of DCC is against this. When was the last time you heard that.

was really given to the school for "sports grounds"? anyway it was zoned z15 and court case was taken and won that z15 could include residential. so there you, go they can try in the courts again if they like.

Sleeper12

expectationlost wrote:

hence people pointing out they are wrong

Totally agree that they are wrong. I like the facts to be factual. It most definitely is not st Anne's Park. It was part of the park but that was 50 years ago. I'm against the building but I'm always wary of people making claims they know not to be true. When I see a leaflet saying that it's st Anne's Park I wonder what else isn't true in the leaflet. Doing the cause more harm than good imo

John_Rambo

schemingbohemia wrote: »

You could probably just reduce that to NIMBY

Ah... Nimby-ism. The smarmy millennials keyboard warrior insult used to denigrate local activism and ignore valid points.

If it was NIMBY there'd be backlashes against the other developments in the area (of which there are a few)... but no, just this one. And for good reason. It was part of the park to be used as sports grounds. Not to fill greedy religious orders and developers pockets.

It's the thin edge of the stick. I reckon they'll need another exit/entrance, further encroaching and dividing the park. It will be picked off like a broken biscuit. Shameful stuff.

Seth Brundle

John_Rambo wrote: »

Ah... Nimby-ism. The smarmy millennials keyboard warrior insult used to denigrate local activism and ignore valid points.

Firstly I'm far too old to be a millennial.
Secondly, how about you having a go elaborating the objections previously used...

kbannon wrote: »

Obviously you copied these from somewhere but assuming you actually have the same viewpoint maybe elaborate on some of these...
Why should the previous loss of the swimming pool be a factor in this objection?
How is this "Privatisation of a public asset"?
How will this development "not assist in addressing current housing shortages"?
Where is the nearest site of "alternative lands available for such housing"?
Can you quantify the specific "impact on tourism and business as a result of loss of St. Anne’s Park"?

John_Rambo

kbannon wrote: »

Firstly I'm far too old to be a millennial.

Well, you're doing a great job acting like a sneering millennial.

kbannon wrote: »

Secondly, how about you having a go elaborating the objections previously used...

I don't need to elaborate, they're valid concerns and objections, they speak for themselves.

Seth Brundle

John_Rambo wrote: »

Well, you're doing a great job acting like a sneering millennial.



I don't need to elaborate, they're valid concerns and objections, they speak for themselves.

So because you cant defend the daft reasons for objection you resort to insulting me?
:rolleyes:

John_Rambo

kbannon wrote: »

So because you cant defend the daft reasons for objection you resort to insulting me?
:rolleyes:

I don't need to defend them, they're valid concerns and objections. I understand them. If you can go through them one by one and invalidate them instead of lazily saying "NIMBY" go for it.

I'm sorry for insulting you.

Seth Brundle

John_Rambo wrote: »

I don't need to defend them, they're valid concerns and objections. I understand them. If you can go through them one by one and invalidate them instead of lazily saying "NIMBY" go for it.

There's nothing lazy about it.
There are genuine concerns and reasons for objection. There are also many spurious ones like those I quoted and these were given the attention they deserve (The fact that they are still being used reduces the overall argument against the project). I don't need to invalidate these as they easily do that themselves.

Anyhow, the project has gone through the various planning stages. It has undergone an EIA. It has been reviewed by ABP. At this point the objections have been deemed as insufficient reasons to block the project.
Due process was followed in a completely transparent manner. The minority against the project lost. The thousands who are looking for a home and hoping for more developments around Dublin which will increase supply levels towards demand levels won.
It has shown that our low density suburbs can be enhanced to allow higher numbers live there. Young people from Raheny now have a higher likleihood of being able to live in the area they grew up in: an option not open to me when I first went on the property ladder.
It means five hundred households won't now have to live in Meath, Kildare or wherever and spend long times commuting, etc. thus reducing carbon emissions, stress, etc.
The greater good, I guess!

John_Rambo

kbannon wrote: »

There's nothing lazy about it.
There are genuine concerns and reasons for objection. There are also many spurious ones like those I quoted and these were given the attention they deserve (The fact that they are still being used reduces the overall argument against the project). I don't need to invalidate these as they easily do that themselves.

Anyhow, the project has gone through the various planning stages. It has undergone an EIA. It has been reviewed by ABP. At this point the objections have been deemed as insufficient reasons to block the project.
Due process was followed in a completely transparent manner. The minority against the project lost. The thousands who are looking for a home and hoping for more developments around Dublin which will increase supply levels towards demand levels won.
It has shown that our low density suburbs can be enhanced to allow higher numbers live there. Young people from Raheny now have a higher likleihood of being able to live in the area they grew up in: an option not open to me when I first went on the property ladder.
It means five hundred households won't now have to live in Meath, Kildare or wherever and spend long times commuting, etc. thus reducing carbon emissions, stress, etc.
The greater good, I guess!

You haven't disproved on single objection that was listed.

Sleeper12

kbannon wrote:

Anyhow, the project has gone through the various planning stages. It has undergone an EIA. It has been reviewed by ABP. At this point the objections have been deemed as insufficient reasons to block the project. Due process was followed in a completely transparent manner. The minority against the project lost. The thousands who are looking for a home and hoping for more developments around Dublin which will increase supply levels towards demand levels won. It has shown that our low density suburbs can be enhanced to allow higher numbers live there. Young people from Raheny now have a higher likleihood of being able to live in the area they grew up in: an option not open to me when I first went on the property ladder. It means five hundred households won't now have to live in Meath, Kildare or wherever and spend long times commuting, etc. thus reducing carbon emissions, stress, etc. The greater good, I guess!

It's going to court. Not sure how that might work but the motion is being tabled on Monday judicial review I think it's called

odyssey06

kbannon wrote: »

The minority against the project lost. The thousands who are looking for a home and hoping for more developments around Dublin which will increase supply levels towards demand levels won.
It has shown that our low density suburbs can be enhanced to allow higher numbers live there. Young people from Raheny now have a higher likleihood of being able to live in the area they grew up in: an option not open to me when I first went on the property ladder.
It means five hundred households won't now have to live in Meath, Kildare or wherever and spend long times commuting, etc. thus reducing carbon emissions, stress, etc.
The greater good, I guess!

Regardless of the merits of this particular case, you make a pretty good argument for fascism right there.

Your arguments could be used to justify covering St Annes with 6 storey apartments.

Seth Brundle

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It's going to court. Not sure how that might work but the motion is being tabled on Monday judicial review I think it's called

A High Court Judicial Review will review the technical aspects of the appeal but not the grounds or the objections (i.e. the legality of the secision).
See
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/environment/environmental_law/judicial_review_in_planning_and_environmental_matters.html