Councils Vote on Raheny Land Zoning - The Irish Times

[Always Learning]

The development has already been the subject of 4 decisions by An Bord Pleanala and 10 sets of legal proceedings going back 5 years.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business...d-disproportionate-attack-on-property-rights/

I don't know the case or area in enough detail to say who is right or wrong, all I'm certain of is that there is something wrong with the system if it can get approved, then overturned, then approved, then overturned, then... well, you get the gist!

 

[Groucho]

In fairness, "let them build those badly-needed homes elsewhere" has always been the war cry of muppet Councillors who don't want to upset their NIMBY voters; many of whose kids probably couldn't afford to buy a home in the proposed development.

'tis mad, Ted!

 

[odyssey06]

The system isn't fit for purpose.

In this specific case there is a long back story, but when a state body multiple times is over ruled by the courts on basic stuff, stuff that should never have come to court if they did their job properly... I know who I blame.

That land was never intended to be zoned as mainly residential. Its original designation concept was for limited accomodation e.g. for students on site to a college or nuns at a convent. There was a court case to challenge that... The recent 'rezoning' is a reset to that original zoning.

There was a development just further up the road from the park which didn't attract nearly the same pushback.
Similarly near the other end of the park, people want a vacant site on Gabriels Road re-developed, but as usual the developer tries to over-develop it and there's objections.
To call it NIMBYism is in my opinion a gross over simplification if not mis-representation.

 

[Leo]

That land was never intended to be zoned as mainly residential.

Re-zoning takes place all the time. It's only right that happens as the needs of the local population and society as a whole change considerably over time.

 

[odyssey06]

Re-zoning takes place all the time. It's only right that happens as the needs of the local population and society as a whole change considerably over time.

In this instance, the re-zoning to reset it to its original zoning is to keep it in line with the city development plan.

 

[lff12]

In this instance, the re-zoning to reset it to its original zoning is to keep it in line with the city development plan.

The city development plan is designed and agreed by the same councillors who determine zoning, that's not a valid excuse.
We have a far higher population in Dublin now, and pretending that we can get by without appropriate density increases just won't work, nor will relocating that density to sprawls 10-15km outside the city.

 

[odyssey06]

The city development plan is designed and agreed by the same councillors who determine zoning, that's not a valid excuse.
We have a far higher population in Dublin now, and pretending that we can get by without appropriate density increases just won't work, nor will relocating that density to sprawls 10-15km outside the city.

How is it not a valid 'excuse'?

Who is pretending we can't get by without 'appropriate density increases'?

There is a city development plan, and this land was rezoned appropriately as per that plan.

The same councillors and development plan have supported multiple new developments within DCC bounds - in line with that plan.

 

[Zenith63]

We have a far higher population in Dublin now, and pretending that we can get by without appropriate density increases just won't work

I think the same can be said of open spaces for people living in the higher density city though. We will never again get the chance to add more park land.

This site was open to park users until it was fenced off for sale; my view is it should be reopened to the park and the developer should be made whole by either repaying their costs to-date or by doing a land swap as has been done by other County Councils in Dublin in the past.

 

[Itchy]

Who is pretending we can't get by without 'appropriate density increases'?

There is a city development plan, and this land was rezoned appropriately as per that plan.

The same councillors and development plan have supported multiple new developments within DCC bounds - in line with that plan.

The question is about trading public amenities for housing. In the Celtic Tiger the publicly accessible (but Vincentian owned) swimming pool on the site was sold for high density housing which is there today.