St Annes Park Planning Application

Sleeper12

kbannon wrote:

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

I do wonder is there really a chance for success or are the councillors playing to the crowd knowing the outcome. They have egg on their faces after the sea wall nonsense.

Seth Brundle

John_Rambo wrote: »

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

Firstly you don't disprove an objection. You deem how valid it is against the overall project and the planning process decides if the objection(s) are sufficient to change or block the project. Did the objections contradict the EIA? I dont know as i havent read the objections. Ive just been given a blurb copied from some lobby groups website. There is no indicarion if this list if rrasons contradict the scientific evaluation or are they simply NIMBY waffle.
Anyhow, I don't need to and never suggested that I would "disprove" them. I asked for reasons to convince me that it wasn't NIMBYism!
Some of the posted reasons are so outright daft that they can't be deemed as legitimate.
Despite me asking posters to elaborate on their claims, they haven't. Now you want me to disprove them?

Seth Brundle

odyssey06 wrote: »

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.

Jaysus :rolleyes:

Seth Brundle

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I do wonder is there really a chance for success or are the councillors playing to the crowd knowing the outcome. They have egg on their faces after the sea wall nonsense.

It's hardly the councillors who are driving the Judicial review (if there will be one). It will be privately funded objectors (and it will cost a fair bit).

Sleeper12

kbannon wrote:

It's hardly the councillors who are driving the Judicial review (if there will be one). It will be privately funded objectors (and it will cost a fair bit).

The councillors are tabling the motion on Monday. What that means or who funds it I don't know.

tricky D

OK. Getting out of hand so closed for a bit. Some folks need to pause and think more before hitting the post button.

odyssey06

Latest update:
http://www.thejournal.ie/an-bord-pleanala-permission-mistake-4096926-Jun2018/

I think serious questions need to be asked about An Bord Pleanala... GAA level goings on here.
Doesn't seem like an organisation that is ready for enhanced powers.

lambayire

That's remarkable!

tricky D

The whole SHD thing is a farce. St Annes was opposed by the councillors, council CEO and the City Manager yet was passed giving the developers everything they wanted. It is just a mechanism for railroading excessive and badly thought out schemes which greedy developers are salivating over.

I am in the middle of objecting to the Howth SHD http://www.howthshd.ie which is the next attempt by this lot. The incompetence and shoddiness of the whole scheme beggars belief and apart from the inevitable worsening of the traffic and parking nightmare, seriously risks damaging houses and the Martello due to the already unstable site. But that's probably better in an another thread.

ozmo

Oh fair play to An Bord Pleanala for backing down so early and not going through all the proceedings. With so many High Court challenges against that decision it could have become very messy.

There are plenty of places nearby to build the needed houses on - important in-use parkland and pitches don't have to be dug up for it.

Wheeliebin30

ozmo wrote: »

Oh fair play to An Bord Pleanala for backing down so early and not going through all the proceedings. With so many High Court challenges against that decision it could have become very messy.

There are plenty of places nearby to build the needed houses on - important in-use parkland and pitches don't have to be dug up for it.

Where abouts?

John_Rambo

Hopefully it will be quashed now.

Embarrassing for ABP and the developer fanboys posting here.

ozmo

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Where abouts?

Sure - You can find all the appropriately zoned locations for the area and all Ireland on the site: http://www.myplan.ie

Wheeliebin30

ozmo wrote: »

Sure - You can find all the appropriately zoned locations for the area and all Ireland on the site: http://www.myplan.ie

Just asking as you seemed so certain there is plenty of land nearby for houses.

I’m guessing you don’t know of the top of your head.

odyssey06

Obviously, it's not all nearby but there's 440 hectares zoned using the primary residential zoning within Dublin City Council boundaries, that's apparently enough for 50,000 houses.

L

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Just asking as you seemed so certain there is plenty of land nearby for houses.

I’m guessing you don’t know of the top of your head.

Sure, I'll take that challenge.

The land sold by the Vincentians in St Annes is 15 hectares which is ballpark 60k M2.

The grounds of Manresa house on the Clontarf seafront are about that by themselves.

Edenmore Park is multiple times that size.

There's 6 houses nearby on Seafield Road which have 20k M2 in back gardens between them (4 up the Castle end, 1 by Seafield Avenue, 1 by St Gabriel's).

That's all within 15 minutes walk of the St Anne's playing pitches btw.

All of those would be awful to see built on (well, bar the Seafield Road houses - those are just massively expensive) but noticeably less bad than building on the second largest park in the city. They're not going to make another St Annes when it's gone. We'll just have one less city park.

ozmo

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

I’m guessing you don’t know of the top of your head.

Again - its all on the map - choose any disused bown-field site.

If I was to single out some land it would be all the land the Airport has said no one can build on - From Charlie Haughey's old house down to the M50 end is all blocked from anyone but the airport from building on it.

Some boundary is sensible - but this boundary is Massive and could be reviewed if it needs to be this extensive.

I believe Santry gocarts was prevented from putting a roof over their go cart track under these restrictions - but the Airport went then and built a huge hotel themselves even closer since.

Sleeper12

The developer paid top dollar for this land. Land zoned for housing. This isn't over yet

Pigeon Reaper

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Land zoned for housing.

It's not and never has been zoned for housing. It's zoned as Z15 for community and institutional use.

John_Rambo

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The developer paid top dollar for this land. Land zoned for housing. This isn't over yet

Incorrect. It may not be over, but the land was clearly zoned Z15, not for housing. (try and get it right )

The spirited and caring communities that got up and acted whom were accused of nimbyism by distanced, ill informed keyboard warriors on their sofas were clearly vindicated today.

Serious questions need to be asked of the erroneous actions of ABP to have let it get this far.

Sleeper12

John_Rambo wrote:

Serious questions need to be asked of the erroneous actions of ABP to have let it get this far.

John there is no doubt in my mind that ABP acted the way they did at the request /demand of the government shamed by the mounting homeless numbers.

ABP have no credibility after this. They obviously are not independent & to be honest can't be trusted with the fast track planning process.

John_Rambo

Sleeper12 wrote: »

John there is no doubt in my mind that ABP acted the way they did at the request /demand of the government shamed by the mounting homeless numbers.

ABP have no credibility after this. They obviously are not independent & to be honest can't be trusted with the fast track planning process.

Yeah, It's a serious and significant backtrack that questions their integrity. The fact remains that the land was zoned Z15 and questions have to be asked how someone in APB thought it was ok to give a go-ahead for this build.

moleyv

Fact check: Residential development is 'open for considerstion' on z15 land. Z9 is for open space and amenities.

ozmo

moleyv wrote: »

Fact check: Residential development is 'open for considerstion' on z15 land. Z9 is for open space and amenities.

Fact check the Fact Check...

Just for completness: https://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/Planning/DublinCityDevelopmentPlan/Documents/AdoptedTextMay2013.pdf


"Open for Consideration Uses
Bed and breakfast, ...Residential...."

yes - but - has to be to be within the following parameters...

"...any proposed development for open for consideration” uses on part of the landholding, shall be required to demonstrate ...... how it secures the retention of the main institutional and community uses on the lands, ... how it secures the retention of existing functional open space e.g. school playing fields; " (see link above for full text)


Bit in bold is imho what it isnt doing.... how can it retain its purpose when its sold off and built on.

But anyway, that's an aside - reason given to court so far seems to be not considering the wildlife habitat destruction it would cause rather than anything else.

moleyv

ozmo wrote:

But anyway, that's an aside - reason given to court so far seems to be not considering the wildlife habitat destruction it would cause rather than anything else.

Exactly, and what is likely to happen is it will be sent back to ABP, and they will ask for further information to address the point or just simply reword their order.

ABP admitting the mistake just sped up the inevitable decision. No doubt it will be JR'd again

roycon111

There have been plenty of houses and apartments built on land zoned Z15 or its previous equivalents in the Dublin area in recent times and this is not only permitted but encouraged as long as other uses are also facilitated. I don't think there is any doubt that there is ample space for pitches (45+ in St. Anne's Park alone still of which I will be using some at least in future.)
It is different to the issue with selling the lands at Clonkeen College where there are no other facilites available for the school in the immediate area and virtually all of the lands will be sold off.
In the Clontarf case there are more than enough facilities available for the school and the public in the immediate area.
I can of course understand why people don't want more buildings near their house because of the noise and traffic this creates but this development is legally sound, of a high standard and very much needed in the area at the moment. It is also near existing public transport links and it makes sense for housing to be provided for here.
It is also relatively low density considering how close it is the to the city so I don't think it could seriously be considered over development.

Sleeper12

roycon111 wrote: »

There have been plenty of houses and apartments built on land zoned Z15 or its previous equivalents in the Dublin area in recent times and this is not only permitted but encouraged as long as other uses are also facilitated. I don't think there is any doubt that there is ample space for pitches (45+ in St. Anne's Park alone still of which I will be using some at least in future.)
It is different to the issue with selling the lands at Clonkeen College where there are no other facilites available for the school in the immediate area and virtually all of the lands will be sold off.
In the Clontarf case there are more than enough facilities available for the school and the public in the immediate area.
I can of course understand why people don't want more buildings near their house because of the noise and traffic this creates but this development is legally sound, of a high standard and very much needed in the area at the moment. It is also near existing public transport links and it makes sense for housing to be provided for here.
It is also relatively low density considering how close it is the to the city so I don't think it could seriously be considered over development.

You miss the point totally with the Raheny site.

The developer can't move the long term lease or rights of clubs from their site to the public park that is St Annes park. The developer must "rehouse" these clubs that have a right to use these grounds


You are comparing apples & oranges. The granting of planning on this site "Beside" the park was flawed. ABP recognized this in court.

John_Rambo

Developer is goosed again.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/plan-to-build-more-than-500-homes-near-dublin-s-st-anne-s-park-rejected-1.3627993

Good news for Dubliners.

Sleeper12

John_Rambo wrote:

Developer is goosed again.

John_Rambo wrote:

Good news for Dubliners.

The right desision for this particular site. The land was never intended for development.

St Paul's school or the religious order has also lot to answer to

odyssey06

John_Rambo wrote: »

Developer is goosed again.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/plan-to-build-more-than-500-homes-near-dublin-s-st-anne-s-park-rejected-1.3627993
Good news for Dubliners.

+1

Shouldn't have come to a judicial review though. I hope the costs are borne by ABP for their obvious mistakes.