Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL has recommended that plans to build 657 apartments near the grounds of St Anne’s Park in Raheny be turned down by An Bord Pleanála.
The proposed development has long been opposed by local residents and politicians.
Crekav Trading, a subsidiary of developer Pat Crean’s Marlet Property Group, has applied for planning permission to build the apartment complex on the site - more than a year after the developer’s initial submission to build in the area was rejected.
A planning permission application to build 104 houses and 432 apartments was initially lodged, but the plan was rejected in 2018 by An Bórd Pleanála.
In September 2018, the Board refused permission on the basis of legal points raised in the court challenge concerning European environmental directives, specifically relating to the potential impact on bird species, particularly Brent geese.
Now, the proposed development has received a fresh set back as Dublin City Council chief executive Owen Keegan has written to An Bord Pleanála recommending that it be rejected.
“The proposed development is not considered to be consistent with the Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022 and with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area,” the report said.
“The Planning Authority submits this report to An Bord Pleanála … and recommends that An Bord Pleanála refuse permission for the proposed development for the reasons and considerations outlined below,” it said.
The report outlined that the “submitted Natura Impact Statement as not demonstrated that the evidence given supports the assertion that no impact arises to the populations of protected Brent goose, black-tailed godwit or curlew of Dublin Bay”.
It went on to say that “it is considered that the proposed development would, therefore, materially contravene a development objective GI23 indicated in the Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022 for the protection of European sites, and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area”.
With reporting by Dominic McGrath
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I live in the area and would love to buy there so there needs to be more housing the only people that complain are the people who already have a house or apartment and just want people not to upset there perfect life
@Gerrard: I wonder if the builder would have even made them available for purchase Gerrard, a lot of the new developments seem to be rent only.
@Sean Whelan: well if they made at least one big apartment block just for the elderly or over 65s who wished to down size but wanted to stay in there area . That could free up houses there is so many single occupant living in 3/4 bedroom homes In Clontarf/ Raheny area paying massive heating bills and property tax they could be sold to young growing families if it was planned right.
@Gerrard: that’s actually a very good idea, i’m sure a lot of older people can feel a bit isolated and vulnerable, I’m sure plenty of them would be open to that idea if it guaranteed they could stay in the community.
@Gerrard: i get that you would like to buy in the area and it is so frustrating. But saying let them build as high as possible is ridiculously irresponsible. Traffic is already i nightmare there so imagine what this development would do. Schools are another area of concern. Residents of marino had similar concerns when they wanted to build in Griffith Avenue and this one is after getting a go ahead without any consideration for traffic and schools. Any project that size needs to come with consideration for infrastructure and amenities. And people who already have houses there have a right to object
@Gerrard: and i love the idea to build something for elderly people. If it was done as an honest scheme it would have been brilliant. I know plenty of elderly people who find it hard to keep up with maintenance of house and garden and often can’t even use stairs much
@Kasia Krzyzyk: Every school in Raheny and Clontarf is mostly clogged up with big SUV type vehicles and huge cars to drive there kids around the corner let them all walk to school like we did it’s ridiculous . You see the difference when schools are not in . People shouldn’t need cars around that area. But there’s nearly always 3 cars to every garden . Just crazy.
@Gerrard: this is a different conversation all together and bad comparison to what we did when we were kids. Parents have their reasons for driving their kids to school and once i agree with you that walking them would be the best solution (one I choose as often as i can) as a parent of school age kids i know it is not always as straightforward as one might think. Building anyway while saying you don’t like the traffic then just walk is ridiculous. It is not a solution and you know it. And the impact on public transport in the area would also be massive and create a lot of headache for those who use it
@Gerrard: We need to keep green space. We just need to be building higher, not decimating parks.
This used to be the sports fields for the school. They sold it along with a pool they had
If a school gets given land and facilities by the state I really dont understand how they can be allowed to sell it to the private sector
@Gerrard: It’s a green area and should remain that way!
Where will the kids play! Where will they play! Lol
@Vin: it’s not touching the park it’s private land that the college sold ….the park will stay the same and the new people who hopefully move in will have a big park beside them which they can use.. the builder paid a lot of money for the land so it built on eventually so people need to accept this
@Gerrard: thanks for giving me the background on the land which I literally just said myself in the very comment you replied to.
Just because land gets purchased doesnt mean the developer is automatically entitled to planning permission.
Just because someone “spent a lot of money” as you put it. Does not in fact mean it “needs to be built on eventually”. Thats not how it works
It doesn’t take any land from saint Anne’s that’s used everyday by the public just another snob attempt to keep new people out . They do know before there houses were built that was protected land too
@Gerrard: I doubt it. My house was built in 1922.
@Gerrard: also the infrastructure is creaking. There is a sewerage pipe that runs past the proposed site through the park and on to Ringsend that regularly overflows extra infrastructure first
@Stephen Brady: oh so before your house was built it was a horrible place that geese didn’t land and wild life didn’t roam ? Get with it your house was probably what started the destruction of this beautiful area and the old hoses are not A1 rated like the new ones will be.
@Gerrard: it actually does. Read up on the story.
@Gerrard: no it wasnt protected as you claimed.
@Gerrard: we retrofitted our house and it is A2 rated that will do me. Just as an fyi it was farmland before the houses were built not exactly the wildlife paradise you have pictured.
@Stephen Brady: exactly so let them build and as high as possible
@Gerrard: I have no problem with them building after the infrastructure is sorted. Especially the sewerage that overflows in the park. But also there needs to be parking telecoms infrastructure is stretched as are schools. We cant keep adding to the housing without adding to the rest.
@Gerrard: I dont like turning the sports fields of a (public) school into apartments so I’m a snob?
I suppose you’re happy for a development in your kids primary school playground following the same logic
@Vin: there is tonnes of space still in saint Anne’s so don’t be talking tripe plenty of playing fields so calm down
@Gerrard: yes yes you’re right. Pauls was one of the only public schools in the Northside with good sports facilities but who needs that. Those sweet apartments they built are way better than the swimming pool that was open to the entire community
This is good green space not some trailer park field s-hole. You could bulldoze half the derelict buildings in the city centre and build high and it would fix this problem but no
You’re right. These pitches just simply had to go as a first priority.
Lads- we’re in a modern era relating to employment and accommodation – the city needs adequate housing. What are the objections here? If you want to go green people need to be living near their place of work
@Jake: I live in Dublin South inner city & have seen the devastation that large swaths of social housing can bring, drug use, crime etc. Giving these people free houses in prime city locations not only normalise’s the behaviour but it also guarantees it’s passed down to the next generation. The solution is to move them far outside the city with adequate drug support services.
@Melissa Mahony: Er? we don’t do social housing anymore, not allowed and hasn’t for a while now. Rules is a percentage of new builds are allocated for social housing, app 10%
@Melissa Mahony: ‘These people’ Gentrification doesn’t help either – that just pushes problem somewhere else – adequate social services do.
@Melissa Mahony: the devastation of providing people homes. Nimby
Not the right envelopes …
@Willy Mc Entire: it doesn’t matter what DC or local objectors think anymore. Planning rules have changed straight to BP pass with flying colours
@Stephen Brady: No way the apartments should go ahead. Good recommendation
@Whoswho: yes but not binding
@Stephen Brady: straight to givt dept u mean acting to implement deal made by benihan. That’s wgat u mean.
Raheany and Clontarf are bursting at the seams. The schools are full and the roads are a nightmare. No more people. Build outside Dublin
@Fabio Dillon: problem is, you build outside Dublin, as has been happening for decades now, and all you do is extend the commuter belt and people get frustrated with long commutes.
A radical planning review is required to generate sustainable development and employment through the country to ease the pressure on Dublin
@Fabio Dillon: no mate
@Fabio Dillon:
I have to laugh at such nonsense. Dublin is a low-rise sprawl of low-density housing estates. It’s not “bursting at the seams” by any stretch of the imagination. You need to spend some time visiting other European cities if you think Dublin is dense.
Your suggestion to build outside Dublin would _increase_ not improve congestion on the roads as people will have to drive into the city rather than live near public transport options.
Name and shame the councillors who opposed this.
Aodan O Riordán was leading the charge against increased housing while simultaneously cribbing about the lack of housing.
Almost makes you feel sorry for Eoghan Murphy when this is what he’s up against.
@Goban Saor: it was the size of the development-650 apartments means 1300-2000 more people living in the area.
500-1000 more cars. The developers also indicated they were keeping some of it for private rental units.
Not surprised the locals objected
@Goban Saor: read up on the story……..
@Goban Saor: it isn’t some desolate field, we’d all oppose developments in Stephens Green and Phoenix park as well it’s no different.
Build a skyscraper next to me for all I care but turning school sports grounds into housing developments?
Build UP not on top of local amenities
@Goban Saor: Aodan almost gloating on the decision last time, hypocrite..
Hopefully this doesn’t get the go-ahead. We need better infrastructure in place for housing and one which benefits those that need not just lining developers pockets with apartments no one can afford. Build on existing idle plots and reclaim and develop derelict buildings. Let’s not destroy our remaining green spaces or shared community space for developers greed. So much for our stance on tackling climate change. Also the Brent Geese that feed on those lands – where will they go now? If this goes through it’s apparent nobody really cares!
@Rebecca Owens: the builder who bought it has just let the grass over grow and turn wild so the geese can’t land there and nobody can make him cut it down he paid slot of money for that land and it will be built on sooner or later
@Rebecca Owens: it’s not a shared community space, it belonged to the college. There’s a giant park called st Anne’s, that’s your community space. There’s no wildlife piece here and that is nothing more than a distraction. Build and build them high.
@Shawn O’Ceallaghan: well the issue is that portion of the park was annexed from St Annes and given to the school.
Who then sold it. So a community space was repurposed to a different community use (school)
And of course now they wan’t to tarmac over it.
Obviously I’m not disputing the ownership or anything like that. But the fact that they were actually allowed to sell something that was given to them for kids in the school. Just blows my mind. It’s a trash country
I went ot this school and grew up in that park! That land was gifted to the Marist priests for public amenity and school recreational use along time ago (now fenced off from public). Building houses here is not the solution to our housing crisis. Green amenity spaces need to be retained for the longer future of our society to enjoy. Increase density on brownfied sites closer to the City, East wall, Ringsend and improve those public transport routes to the city centre. People living in dense areas shouldn’t ever need to take a car to work.
@Archly: Vincentians, not Marist.
@Kieran Daly: Apologies yes, Marist are the Chanel college priests that sold the land in Coolock Village (my hometown) to make a quick buck! Plus they had huge beautiful mature tress removed to facilitate their development. Not a sustainable way to solve a housing crisis with short-medium term solutions.
@Archly: u grew up in a park bet that was cool
No means no. They need to move to reinforce protections for these threatened areas now. And start some real planning that doesn’t just translate into more urban sprawl.
@jamesdecay:, you can’t have both pick one or the other..
@Niall Brew: yes you can, but I take your point.
@Niall Brew: You can have both. It’s called building upwards and not sideways.
Areas like the docklands and liberties are well suited for sky scrapers.
We nearly got it right with the docklands but not quite.
There are really just so many areas of Dublin like this that are centrally located s-holes. Even the portobello and eastwall areas as other examples. All tiny bungalows that are aesthetically not very nice at all
@jamesdecay: harmonstown train station is extremely under utilised. There’s regular buses from town to howth and even Malahide and further a field.
@Shawn O’Ceallaghan: that’s because Killester and Raheny are right next to it. It’s more that the Harmonstown stop is redundant sitting so closely between the two
There are bus stops further apart than Harmonstown and Killester. 10 mins walking
My god why does every Tom Dick and Harry keep moaning, there is a housing crisis and homes need to be built. It doesn’t matter who or where they are built as long as they are. The government and DCC have completely let people down by not building and when someone proposes to do what they have failed to do there is a motion to stop it. I’d bet a pound to a penny the same people who live beside the park are the ones who give out about the homelessness but just don’t want their nice little area upset. I hope the builder gets the go ahead and gives 2 fingers to the lot if them.
@Olivia Smith: for gods sake all the min concerned about doing is getting opp for banks to lend and make money and keep banks off the public bal sheet. Why cos all td are doing is propping up the taoiseach and min they appoint policy to implement terms of b len one man deal with eu imf
@Olivia Smith: How shortsighted Olivia? Proper planning allows for green areas, playing fields for present & future generations, protection of our wildlife, and infrastructural sustainability.
@Olivia Smith: sure with that attitude why not just tarmac over the Phoneix Park and cover it with blocks of apartments?
@Olivia Smith: well said needed now and build as high as possible
@Mary Ward: haven’t a clue what your saying there.
@Dr. Declan Groves: If it solved the housing crisis I’d have no problem at all
@Claire Quinn: ehh is it not beside a park? How much more green do you want. We have a crisis so I literally could not give a f**k where it’s built as long as there are more homes for people.
@Gerrard: But then you get the moan bags moaning about MY view. The people in that area need a kick up the backside. The coast road is congested because they moaned until half of it was taken away to make a bigger cycle path. Then they moan about the wall at dolly mount. I don’t know how many times I’ve driven up that road and all you see is roads works if some kind. Those who shout the loudest and all that.
@Olivia Smith: never heard such nonsense. Let’s build first and then plan infrastructure after, clueless. Looks like you don’t even realise that you’re moaning about people moaning!
@John Flynn: I’ll moan until others stop trying to get these things not built. I’m sick to death of looking at the poor people walking the streets day and night with nowhere to go. Is raheny and clontarf not already built up with amenities?
@Olivia Smith: Why would you want to build over parks instead of just making buildings taller. You come across as extremely thick and short sighted. There should be an IQ test to vote
@Olivia Smith: clontarf, raheny and other areas have infrastructure and amenities that sustain a certain population. Increasing population should come hand in hand with changes to infrastructure and additional amenities. It is irresponsible to build where possible without taking other factors into account. I am totally against wrecking parks and other green areas. Only about a couple of days ago there was an article about felling trees and how badly dublin looks when compared to other european cities. Plenty of sites that are held by developers until they can turn enough profit from it. Plus houses like that will not go to homeless. Any new development houses in that and surrounding areas cost more than 500k
@Vin: And id day you’d fail. I never said anything about not building tall buildings. I’m more concerned about people living in hotels/ hostels and cardboard boxes and tents. If you had half a brain cell you you would see that from my comments. The park is big enough so I don’t see how taking a playing field and building on it is such a problem. If it solved the crisis I’d say build on the whole lot if it.
@Kasia Krzyzyk: They have to give a percentage for affordable housing. And if they are built maby DCC could rent/buy them and use them for the housing list. Therefore taking people out if homelessness. I’m sorry I don’t have the same view as you but I couldn’t care less about dublin not looking nice compared to other European cities. I think having to walk by somebody asleep in a tens or in cardboard looks %1000 times worse.
@Olivia Smith: and you think that this development will cater for people that are currently walking the streets? That’s extremely naive and that’s being kind
@Olivia Smith: trees are not just for looks… And no units will be affordable there and to think the opposite is completely naive
@John Flynn: Read my reply to a girl called Kazia. That will tell you what I think
@Kasia Krzyzyk: Developers have to make a certain percentage affordable. It’s been like that a while now.
@Kasia Property developers will not be able to escape the obligation to provide social housing in new schemes under new planning laws.
Under existing laws builders can exchange money or land instead of setting aside up to 20 per cent of new developments for social or affordable use, a provision under Part V of the Planning Act.
A revision of the legislation, makes it mandatory for developers to set aside up to 10 per cent of new developments for social use, according to Government sources.
@Kasia Krzyzyk: Property developers will not be able to escape the obligation to provide social housing in new schemes under new planning laws.
Under existing laws builders can exchange money or land instead of setting aside up to 20 per cent of new developments for social or affordable use, a provision under Part V of the Planning Act.
A revision of the legislation, makes it mandatory for developers to set aside up to 10 per cent of new developments for social use, according to Government sources.
@Olivia Smith: there were plenty of new developments in this and surrounding areas with no allocation so it looks like there are some loopholes for developers which wouldn’t surprise me at all. You may not think that but i do agree that we need houses to address the homeless crisis but it has to be done responsibly without accidentally creating another crisis. Such big developments need a lot of consideration and not every location will be fit for purpose. In this particular case they didn’t stop planning for no reason and people had very good reasons to oppose
@Kasia Krzyzyk: I can’t see why this area is not suitable. I’m not arguing that the park should be destroyed but if homes are built it might dip into the crisis we have.
@Olivia Smith: there’s nowhere to offset the traffic that a few hundred extra cars will create even if they had the best intention to do so with bay on one side and the rest of the park on the other. 650 apartments means approximately 1500+ occupants with cars. It is already a nightmare to get to clontarf and further towards Howth. Also schools are already full to capacity so without planning to make them bigger (how?) or building new ones (where?) it would create more traffic with parents dropping kids off further and further away from home
@Olivia Smith: trains are already at the peak of capacity. They even created a website where they show peak times and encourage people to avoid them. Busses drive pass bus stops as there is no space which happens to me a lot. I can go on for ages
@Kasia Krzyzyk: And the coast road wouldn’t be half as bad if most of it hadn’t been taken to make a bigger bike track. Again this was because the the residents complained that it was not big enough. Any time Iv driven to Raheny the roads seem perfect. And the issue with schools would be fixed if they built another in the area. Say in another part of the park, it’s big enough.
@Olivia Smith: i don’t disagree about coast rd but it is what it is now. And even if it was as wide as it used to it still would not be enough. There’s no planning for new schools, just housing units
@Olivia Smith: or imagine….. try to keep with me here…… we just kept all of our green spaces and made buildings that were 30/40/50+ stories high in areas like D8/D3 and the docklands
This isn’t a solution the taxpayer even needs to pay for. Give the planning and residential zoning and they will build it.
Or do like you say and urbanise all of St. Annes.
Great.
We can all afford housing and live in a concrete slab of a city
Yes, we need more housing. One of the biggest concerns for this development is the lack of adequate infrastructure in the immediate area and the density of housing proposed. There is already huge congestion problems at that junction with no left turns put in place to try and alleviate it. They recently built a block of apartments where the old swimming pool was. The developers have also been very tactical in their planning application process, deliberately making errors on the initial applications in the hope that any objectors would have run out of steam before submitting their more recent proposal. For me it’s not a “no” to building, but more consideration needs to be made for long term sustainability of the surrounding infrastructure and amenities.
Near where I live, there was planning to build 345 apartment but the planning lapsed. Land was sold to a new developer, who submitted plans for a petrol station, which thankfully was rejected. The same developer submitted plans alter the existing road running along their site and to put in a road access to the site, which was granted and now built. During the build there was heavy plant traffic and deliveries to the site. The road access is the only access to a housing estate and small park. There is nothing else in that road. Every morning, residents were prevented from leaving their estate to got to work by large articulated lorries blocking the road. New plans have now been submitted to build two car retail/service units, if this is granted, the residents will be faced with more construction traffic, more chaos and delays and then constant deliveries of new vehicles on trucks that are not suitable to be on the road into their estate. Of course people are going to complain and object to these types of development.
Do you ever wonder ,what would have happened if the goverment just built infrastructure over the last few years . They would get permission to build far more housing than they do now.
@Eamonn Spelman: what infrastructure? Raheny has plenty of public transport and cycle lanes in place
@Shawn O’Ceallaghan: Theu just don’t want it ruining their area, it’s nothing to do with Infrastructure. This is the snobs form of racism. They just won’t come out and say it “we don’t want them here”
If people in clontarf my home area and raheny want these type of develooments stopped, ( there is so many vacant house and home nearer center.) u have chance on 8 Feb to vote out ff and fg and Labour who are propping up that one man deal made by b lenihan to bail out banks rather than lay it before dail as a bill req dail permission to accept those v v austere terms including term the eu control spend or no spend out of a public fund containing 44 billion not our money with no legislation charging fund cos tf simply walked away dail power vested in dail to co
instead gave min more power to use prsi contribution to top up that public fund out of which not only are their pension expenses and salaries paid but also the huge amount of interest on a debt under terms of a deal made by one man. They stripped dail of all its responsibilities powers and duties to exercise on behalf of we who finance the exchequer. Remember min wld not have that power to use prsi fund to top up public fund to comply with deal without legislation the td votes.
have your say