St. Annes Park - Planning for 381 Houses/Apartments

Phoebas

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The big thing here is that it's not zoned for development. It should be turned down on those grounds alone. Once it is rezoned it's just about how many apartments

It's zoned Z15 which allows for residential development.

Dublin City Council wrote:

Where there is no longer an identified need for an existing institutional and community use (such as a school, or hospital) on lands zoned Z15 and where the land is to be redeveloped, in whole or in part, for open for consideration uses (such as residential) and/or other uses including permissible uses, then a masterplan shall be prepared by the proposer and/or owner.

Phoebas

Sleeper12 wrote: »

There won't be too many first time buyers being able to afford these.

Not too many. Just the right amount. There's a load of 1 and 2 bed apartments included.

And 20% of it will go to the social and affordable housing requirement. So, that's all to the good.

Sleeper12

KomradeBishop wrote:

The planning process for this is back under review/consideration now - presumably the developer has resubmitted the proposal with modifications:

It was originally turned down because the developer put the wrong name on it. This is a common ploy by some developers. Usually the amount of objections drop off considerably second time round as you have to pay for each objection. Big planning application close to my house has the wrong road name on it. It'll be turned down and lots of objectors will drop out

odyssey06

Phoebas wrote: »

It's zoned Z15 which allows for residential development.

Only as a result of a court case... this was not a conscious decision by DCC to allow development but their hand was forced. This land is not zoned Z1 which I think should be reserved for this scale of development.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0427/318754-sisters-of-mercy-win-case-against-z15-zoning/

KomradeBishop

newacc2015 wrote: »

How many parks does Dublin need? It is probably the greenest medium sized city in Europe and you think it needs more parks? The inner suburbs wont become more dense, as they are already developed. Why should expanding an already large park be favoured our more housing? Parks are lovely, but you cant live in them

Dublin doesnt need more parks, it needs more services. Green space is nice, but it serves little utility compared to better libraries, gyms, community halls, basketball courts, tennis courts etc.

They are great suggestions expect DCC wont higher density and funding better public transport wont happen. It is ridiculous that you are suggesting more greenspace and basically force people to commute into the city is a better for the overall well being of society.

I am not suggesting taking away existing parks. I just think it is absurd that people that people think expanding parks for more greenspace as it is basically 'nice' is the best idea. Go to any park in Dublin 1/2 in the winter or even the summer versus a gym and tell me if you really think more greenspace is needed. Parks are great, but in our climate indoor services are important, if not more important. Irish people don't use parks enough. Go to a park in Munich or Berlin and it is full of people. Go to a park in Dublin, where ball games are probably banned and if it is Phoenix Park, it is a shortcut for town with a park attached.

Not stripping existing greenspace does not equal adding more greenspace.

I agree that the city needs more services - particularly proper transport incl. public transport expansion - that is the primary way to provide sustainable long-term development/expansion and access in the city.

Stripping greenspace does not resolve the problem of people having to commute etc. and live further outwards from the city - it's permanently removing greenspace from the city, which needs to be preserved for current and future generations in perpetuity (something not to be taken lightly at all...certainly not to be done for meeting a short-term need), in return for a number of dwellings which is small enough to not really do anything to counter the need for further outward expansion and public transport access.

I don't want to see the cities greenspace replaced with e.g. gyms etc., thanks - plenty of people use these parks all through the year, and more and more people will be using these greenspaces centuries into the future too.

KomradeBishop

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It was originally turned down because the developer put the wrong name on it. This is a common ploy by some developers. Usually the amount of objections drop off considerably second time round as you have to pay for each objection. Big planning application close to my house has the wrong road name on it. It'll be turned down and lots of objectors will drop out

Indeed, yes - they did that for the first submission - I've been keeping an eye on this second submission, and it got stalled for a bit while the council requested modifications to the plan - which I think have been submitted now.

ProudDUB

newacc2015 wrote: »

Dublin doesnt need more parks, it needs more services. Green space is nice, but it serves little utility compared to better libraries, gyms, community halls, basketball courts, tennis courts etc.

You are contradicting yourself. St Anne's Park already provides loads of green space for outdoor exercise such as bike riding, walking on their walking trails, jogging, the elderly walking their dogs, kids playing football and GAA on their numerous pitches, gardening aficionados digging the Rose Garden etc etc. The very same kinds of physical exercise that gyms, basketball courts and tennis courts provide. They are just different sides to the same exercise coin.

Park your car on Watermill Rd on any evening or weekend day and, you'll see loads of people unloading their cars of hurls, sliotars, footballs, kids & adults bikes, rollerblades and what not. It's very much an active persons park. It's not like St Stephens Green, where office workers just sit around and admire the ducks and flowers on their lunch breaks. So I'm not seeing the logic of saying doing away with St Anne's (and other parks just like it) so that we can build more gyms. St Anne's Park is already a massive gym, of sorts. An outdoor one !

And I haven't even touched on its importance to the local community for events such as the annual Christmas Market, the summer Rose Garden Festival, the weekend activities around the Red Stables, or events like the big Brian Boru/Battle of Clontarf Commemorative Anniversary festivities. Parks aren't just blank green canvases that you could bulldoze and build houses on instead. They are a living, breathing part of the very communities that they exist within. Dublin would be A LOT poorer without them.

snickerpuss wrote: »

I would love to know how many of those 'cheaper' houses are in Edenmore, Kilbarrack, Harmonstown... Even at €350,000 you're talking a €100,000 joint income. That's not average. I'm not suggesting people from Raheny are snobbish just that it's turning into a very different area to what it was.

That is all well and good to throw out numbers, but I know 3 families who live in Raheny. I have no idea what they paid for their homes.

Couple 1. He's a Guard. She is a teacher. She is not working now, but she will go back to work once her eldest starts primary school next year.

Couple 2. He is an accountant. She used to have her own interiors business, but it went belly up after the crash. She got a part time job as a receptionist in a city centre hotel & has worked her way up to management. She's been there nearly 10 years, so I imagine she's on decent money now. She'd want to be. She works 70 hrs a week during busy match/concert weekends. Their 2 teenage kids have part time jobs in the hotel.

Couple 3. He's worked at Dublin Airport for over 20 years. He starting working there when he left school. She works for one of the employment agencies in town, that provides temp workers for the health care industry. She used to be a nurse in Beaumont.

Yes, they are all (or have been) double income families, but they are also very average families too, in my eyes, at least. Maybe we just have differing views on what constitutes "average."

KomradeBishop

The planning link for this was updated with a further request for information/modifications again:
http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=4185/15&theTabNo=2

As stated in the first post, the planning authorities seem likely to let this project go ahead, once sufficient modifications are made to satisfy them.

spurious

Concerns such as effect on traffic in the area will be listened to in a case like this.

Are they all to be exiting the estate somewhere close to the existing park gates?

If they turn right on exit, the lights sequence at Sybil Hill will have to be adjusted, creating a longer wait for traffic going directly out the Howth Road. This junction already backs up very easily.

If they go left on exit, they will either end up on Castle Avenue, or squashing down Vernon Avenue. Again, more traffic fun.

Either way three hundred odd extra cars, or even two hundred odd, will have a noticeable effect on current local traffic.

The Planning Dept in DCC won't listen to arguments about parks etc. unless you quote their own decisions back at them. Pressure on infrastructure (traffic, drainage, sewage, water pressure) is an easier case to make, especially if backed up with figures.

MarkAnthony

ProudDUB wrote: »

Sure you can say that about half the suburbs of Dublin. It doesn't mean they are all unhabited by posh toffs, looking down their noses at the peasantry.

Page 1 of Raheny properties for sale on Daft for under €350,000

There are most definitely homes available for under half a million in Raheny. The greater Raheny area is quite large. As long as you are not looking for a five bedroom, detached house, with sea views, or directly across the road from the park, it is affordable for average people on a decent income. It has never been a cheap place to live, but it certainly ain't no Ballsbridge, Killiney or Howth.

snickerpuss wrote: »

I would love to know how many of those 'cheaper' houses are in Edenmore, Kilbarrack, Harmonstown... Even at €350,000 you're talking a €100,000 joint income. That's not average. I'm not suggesting people from Raheny are snobbish just that it's turning into a very different area to what it was.

I almost bought a five bed detached in Kilbarrack for 360K, in the end I went with a 4 bed semi for around 270k. Lovely area and very affordable.

jon1981

Build away I say, sure otherwise the land will just sit there Ideal? Dublin needs homes, what's the problem? The park will be untouched. NIMBY's are the problem.

John_Rambo

jon1981 wrote: »

Build away I say, sure otherwise the land will just sit there Ideal? Dublin needs homes, what's the problem? The park will be untouched. NIMBY's are the problem.

Ah, Ireland's answer to everything. Build on a much used park and don't develop on any of the hundreds of acres of vacant land closer to the city.

https://www.google.ie/maps/place/East+Wall,+Dublin/@53.3559088,-6.2306218,227m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x48670ef404df5cf9:0x2600c7a7bb390c92!8m2!3d53.3543216!4d-6.2341133

alexjk

John_Rambo wrote: »

Ah, Ireland's answer to everything. Build on a much used park and don't develop on any of the hundreds of acres of vacant land closer to the city.

https://www.google.ie/maps/place/East+Wall,+Dublin/@53.3559088,-6.2306218,227m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x48670ef404df5cf9:0x2600c7a7bb390c92!8m2!3d53.3543216!4d-6.2341133

That map is outdated now, there's a Lidl across from the Aldi now, with a McDonalds and a Starbucks coming too. Having said that, you have a point. In an ideal world, large sections of East Wall would be flattened, and the area would be high rise residential and offices, the way the Docklands was intended to be.

I also think Amiens Street all the way out to Fairview should be high density. It couldn't have better transport, with Clontarf Road and Connolly Stations, as well as about 13 bus routes passing on that stretch of road on an almost constant basis.

Knowing Dublin though, the powers that be will decide everyone needs to live in Mulhuddart and The Naul.

Phoebas

John_Rambo wrote: »

Ah, Ireland's answer to everything. Build on a much used park and don't develop on any of the hundreds of acres of vacant land closer to the city.

Except the site isn't a much used park.
Let's try and keep the discussion fact based.

John_Rambo

alexjk wrote: »

That map is outdated now, there's a Lidl across from the Aldi now, with a McDonalds and a Starbucks coming too

That area I've highlighted is acres of derelict land. Nobody uses it. Even though Aldi, Lidl, McDonalds, Starbucks, ESB, Gardai are moving in.

Phoebas wrote: »

Except the site isn't a much used park.
Let's try and keep the discussion fact based.

It's never used. Ever. No cars ever park on it. It's a derelict site. That's fact based.

jon1981

John_Rambo wrote: »

Ah, Ireland's answer to everything. Build on a much used park and don't develop on any of the hundreds of acres of vacant land closer to the city.

https://www.google.ie/maps/place/East+Wall,+Dublin/@53.3559088,-6.2306218,227m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x48670ef404df5cf9:0x2600c7a7bb390c92!8m2!3d53.3543216!4d-6.2341133

It is not a used park!!!!!

It's a perfect location for housing:

Schools nearby
access to numerous villages
Bus/dart
parks
close to the coast
loads of other amenities ...

Putting the wrong argument "it's a park , you can't build there" to one side ...why shouldn't they build in a location that already has all the necessary amenities?

and by the way I own my home in the area and I'm ok with it. It's pure NIMBY, the "can't build on a park" argument is just a smokescreen for other reasons.

spurious

AFAIK, that is the land 'acquired' from the Corporation 'for use as playing fields' in 1952.

I would be checking the legal documents to see a) who actually owns it, and b) were there any conditions put down in 1952 about it?

Just saying 'it's a park, boohoo' will not stop something like this.
If people want to stop it, you have to do it legally, or with evidence of a major environmental impact.

Chinasea

jon1981 wrote: »

It is not a used park!!!!!

Putting the wrong argument "it's a park , you can't build there" to one side ...why shouldn't they build in a location that already has all the necessary amenities?

Joni:

"I wrote 'Big Yellow Taxi' on my first trip to Hawaii. I took a taxi to the hotel and when I woke up the next morning, I threw back the curtains and saw these beautiful green mountains in the distance. Then, I looked down and there was a parking lot as far as the eye could see, and it broke my heart... this blight on paradise. That's when I sat down and wrote the song.
The song is known for its environmental concern – "They paved paradise to put up a parking lot" The line "They took all the trees, and put 'em in a tree museum / And charged the people a dollar and a half just to see 'em" refers to Foster Botanical Garden in downtown Honolulu, which is a living museum of tropical plants, some rare and endangered.


Trees and green space by the way are silently working and helping you stay alive: Trees absorb odors and pollutant gases (nitrogen oxides, ammonia, sulfur dioxide and ozone) and filter particulates out of the air by trapping them on their leaves and bark.

Suggested read:
Top 22 Benefits of Trees | TreePeople
https://www.treepeople.org/resources/tree-benefits

jon1981

Chinasea wrote: »

Joni:

"I wrote 'Big Yellow Taxi' on my first trip to Hawaii. I took a taxi to the hotel and when I woke up the next morning, I threw back the curtains and saw these beautiful green mountains in the distance. Then, I looked down and there was a parking lot as far as the eye could see, and it broke my heart... this blight on paradise. That's when I sat down and wrote the song.
The song is known for its environmental concern – "They paved paradise to put up a parking lot" The line "They took all the trees, and put 'em in a tree museum / And charged the people a dollar and a half just to see 'em" refers to Foster Botanical Garden in downtown Honolulu, which is a living museum of tropical plants, some rare and endangered.


Trees and green space by the way are silently working and helping you stay alive: Trees absorb odors and pollutant gases (nitrogen oxides, ammonia, sulfur dioxide and ozone) and filter particulates out of the air by trapping them on their leaves and bark.

Suggested read:
Top 22 Benefits of Trees | TreePeople
https://www.treepeople.org/resources/tree-benefits

http://www.architecturefoundation.ie/news-item/mapping-tree-canopy-cover-in-dublin/

The roads and neighbourhoods in and around St Annes i.e. Dublin 5 and 3 have the most Tree coverage in North city Dublin! Nearly every road has huge trees lining the road, I don't think this development would reduce that coverage by any significant amount.

John_Rambo

jon1981 wrote: »

It is not a used park!!!!!

It is a much used park.

jon1981

John_Rambo wrote: »

It is a much used park.

Not the area being proposed.

L

jon1981 wrote: »

Not the area being proposed.

Hrrm. When did you move to the area? I'm wondering if the lack of use you say is happening has anything to do with the local teams being given the boot from them.

Those pitches used to be part of the space (along with the pitch strips on the Clontarf side of the main St Anne's path) that got allocated for community GAA and soccer as well as the St Paul's teams. I can tell you they were pretty heavily used throughout the time I was growing up - and from the money the teams were spending sounds like they still were right up until they were sold.

L

Development has now been scaled down by 21 houses and 4 apartments.

Icepick

Needs more apartments.

Sleeper12

Icepick wrote:

Needs more apartments.

And a corner should be reserved for a halting site

Ben D Bus

L wrote: »

Development has now been scaled down by 21 houses and 4 apartments.

Meanwhile, in totally unrelated news

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0823/811220-daft-rent-report/

odyssey06

Ben D Bus wrote: »

Meanwhile, in totally unrelated news

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0823/811220-daft-rent-report/

Yes, it's terrible, the presence of such wonderful public amenities as St Annes Park, and the Phoenix Park, are one of the reasons people like living in Dublin, which pushes up demand for rental property.

markpb

odyssey06 wrote: »

Yes, it's terrible, the presence of such wonderful public amenities as St Annes Park, and the Phoenix Park, are one of the reasons people like living in Dublin, which pushes up demand for rental property.

You don't think that supply is part of the problem?

odyssey06

markpb wrote: »

You don't think that supply is part of the problem?

Of course that's part of the problem. But Dublin's parks are not the reason for the supply side issue, nor is the extent of land zoned Z15. The resolution of the supply side issue does not require the concreting of Dublin's parklands, or the use of Z15 land for general residential development (as opposed to institutional use or community as per its original intention). I'm 100% certain of that. For anyone to seriously think otherwise is absurd given the extent of land available and zoned for full residential development... it sounds more like a developer's wet dream than a serious solution to Dublin's problems.

L

markpb wrote: »

You don't think that supply is part of the problem?

Supply is definitely part of the issue. However we've about 150 acres of derelict buildings across Dublin and only 270 acres of St Annes left (half of the original estate was already converted into housing over the last century). In other words, you could concrete half of St Annes (an irreplaceable resource) and still not have as much new building space as is sitting rotting around the city.

The question that needs to be answered is why developers want to carve up a city park instead of filling in the city's rotten teeth sites.