Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

St. Annes Park - Planning for 381 Houses/Apartments

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,309 ✭✭✭markpb


    L wrote: »
    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.

    Perhaps the derelict lands aren't for sale, are being landbanked, are tied up in NAMA or don't have the required zones for planning permission? Developers only build where they can buy. I doubt that they specifically picked a park to built on out of any ulterior motives.


  • Options
    #63
    L
    Registered Users Posts: 655 ✭✭✭L


    markpb wrote: »
    Perhaps the derelict lands aren't for sale, are being landbanked, are tied up in NAMA or don't have the required zones for planning permission? Developers only build where they can buy. I doubt that they specifically picked a park to built on out of any ulterior motives.

    I'd guess the Sybil hill pitches weren't for sale until the dev's approached the school either. ;)

    Joking around aside, it's not ulterior motives, it's just perverse incentives around our land use policies and how they interact with business.

    The costs around a single big parcel of land are proportionately lower than a dozen smaller parcels. That means better return on investment - especially when you can, ironically, charge a premium for the proximity to the park amenities.

    I don't blame the developer so much as wonder why the council is saying yes instead of using its rights to compulsory purchase order of derelict sites to redirect the developer to somewhere more suitable to the common good.


  • Options
    #64
    bren2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,627 ✭✭✭bren2001


    Planning application has been withdrawn. They will be altered and resubmitted.

    14568187_1160425347351022_6244297162979660590_n.png?oh=e1774c824054fe3fd187501cfd8a40b6&oe=589F3330


  • Options
    #65
    tricky D
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,700 ✭✭✭tricky D


    Also: http://www.dublincity.ie/AnitePublicDocs/00586946.pdf


  • Options
    #66
    jon1981
    Registered Users Posts: 4,359 ✭✭✭jon1981


    Shame, ideal location for housing. I hope they get this through, maybe reducing scope will help.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    ekimiam
    Registered Users Posts: 163 ✭✭ekimiam


    submitted 22/12/2o17

    objections before 26/1 to ABP directly as its under the new fast track Strategic Development process.

    link for development website


  • Options
    #68
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 17,070 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    ekimiam wrote: »
    submitted 22/12/2o17

    objections before 26/1 to ABP directly as its under the new fast track Strategic Development process.

    link for development website

    This is the huge flaw with the new legislation. They apply directly to the appeal board & you can't object or appeal the decision. I can see us in 10 years with a lot of unsuitable developments. We'll live to regret this legislation imo


Advertisement