Re: Re: Appealing to ABP

Referring further correspondence back again and again for further comment is becoming a common practice with Bord Pleanala. Back in the day, you just fired off your best shot and that was it until judgement dropped through your letter box a year or so later.

Generally I think a point-by-point rebuttal is best, these guys in Bord Pleanala are planners by profession, but that doesn’t mean that your submission needs to be be dull and plodding, just not too challenging, and with bullet points.

If the response from the applicant was selective, hit them hard on the points that they chose not to address and if their debunking was twaddle, don’t let them away with that.

I imagine you’ve nailed all the main points; the light pollution, the noise pollution [incl. a very predictable level of swearing], the fact that the hours of operation will be disruptive of other peoples’ residential amenity, and the unprovided for additional car parking demand etc.

As well as that, as a neighbour to this thing, you’d be entitled to exhibit a reasonable measure of controlled indignation.

The park is a community asset, it belongs to the whole community. The proposed development of all-weather pitches unfairly appropriates a significant portion of the park solely for the use of just one section of the community.

The proposed all-weather pitches, and their attendant fence enclosures, would drive a barrier between the community centre and the park, creating a disconnect, and a jargon opportunity, and relegating the remainder of the park to little more than the status of peripheral landscaping.

If you judge that a conciliatory gesture might demonstrate the reasonableness of your position, you could suggest that if the proposal was reduced from three all-weather pitches to one, and if a properly designed landscaping proposal were to be devised to mitigate its negative impact, that might address your concern sufficiently to form the basis of a reasonable compromise.

Good luck with it.