Ballisk Walkway opening times

[Mr. Stupid]

There is also a walkway from the Spires to the the front of the Apartment blocks on the main street in the village.

[RPB81]

Walkway between Beverton and Beresford held up due to a Beverton resident having his/her parking plan ruined. Doesn't own the parking space but still... now forces pedestrian traffic onto Turvey epecially with pre-school. Lets hope no accidents occur as a result

[Jabba]

I am the initial poster of this thread so I agree with the other posters on this subject. I joined a recently set-up Facebook page called Beverton Residents Association (https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id ... &ref=br_rs) who advise that Cllr Adrian Henchy will try to organise a meeting for the Beverton Residents over the two+ weeks. Ideas received so far for discussion are Street bins, reducing the speed limit in the estate, closing break in the fence between Beverton Green and the Meadows. No mention of the Ballisk Walkway. Where do I get the names and contacts of the other local councillors? Thanks.

Even more ironic is that the Beverton Residents Association want to close the break in the fence to stop the people in Beverton Meadows taking a short cut through Beverton Green to get to the village.

[RPB81]

What break in the fence is this?

[Mr. Stupid]

That, I believe, is between Beverton Green and Beverton Orchard. Mexico are paying for it and it’s going to make Donabate great again. Suggest, someone from Ballisk park at that gate in a space they don’t own and get the gate closed permanently? Would that help?

[RPB81]

That, I believe, is between Beverton Green and Beverton Orchard. Mexico are paying for it and it’s going to make Donabate great again. Suggest, someone from Ballisk park at that gate in a space they don’t own and get the gate closed permanently? Would that help?

Thought a path has been built for this??

[Jellyhead]

Walkway between Beverton and Beresford held up due to a Beverton resident having his/her parking plan ruined. Doesn't own the parking space but still... now forces pedestrian traffic onto Turvey epecially with pre-school. Lets hope no accidents occur as a result

This is not acceptable. As a Beverton resident I do not agree that pathways ( a right of way) should prevent other Donabate residents from walking freely from estate to estate. The people who are preveting Beresford resisents from entering Beverton really need to get off their high horses, as do Balisk residents. I will sign a petition to support you.

[RPB81]

Walkway between Beverton and Beresford held up due to a Beverton resident having his/her parking plan ruined. Doesn't own the parking space but still... now forces pedestrian traffic onto Turvey epecially with pre-school. Lets hope no accidents occur as a result

This is not acceptable. As a Beverton resident I do not agree that pathways ( a right of way) should prevent other Donabate residents from walking freely from estate to estate. The people who are preveting Beresford resisents from entering Beverton really need to get off their high horses, as do Balisk residents. I will sign a petition to support you.

I agree its no acceptable. Surely this was something that should have been dealt prior to now? Beresford has been populated (partly) for over a year now I think? I think it will be thrown out but hopefully nothing goes wrong with the pedestrian traffic to and from the creche before then. Also, will lead to an increase in vehicle traffic...
Btw I have no petition set up

[newbe1]

Completely agree with the last few posts. The proposed pedestrian links will be of great benefit to everyone in the community. The links to Beresford will allow people to walk to the fabulous new Roots and Wings creche facility, not to mention the new proposed walkway directly to Newbridge house planned for 2018 and eventually the Malahide walkway. Also there will be links to the estuary nature reserve beside Turvey allotments. It's a great opportunity which will enable children to explore their natural environment safely. Let's hope we can make it happen with the help of Fingal Co Co.

[davidp]

This is not acceptable. As a Beverton resident I do not agree that pathways ( a right of way) should prevent other Donabate residents from walking freely from estate to estate. The people who are preveting Beresford resisents from entering Beverton really need to get off their high horses, as do Balisk residents. I will sign a petition to support you.

Totally in agreement here and will also sign a petition of support for my neighbours in the new estate. Its the NIMBY approach again isn't it (not in my back yard)..that just a few people adopt. I for one welcome any development that helps people get to the village and school with their children safely and reject the nonsense that has been adopted and supported by some who believe that the freehold legal agreement on their house extends to the road, the green, prevailing air currents, low flying birds..etc etc

[Bongo68]

As a Beverton resident i fully agree with all the previous posts and will gladly sign any petition to eliminate the current nonsensical situation that we unfortunately find ourselves in.Who am i to deny my fellow residents right of way and freedom of movement?I chose where i want to live and tough if it happens to be beside a walkway or proposed walkway.The common denominator and the root cause of this problem we currently face is Fingal CoCo. and their segregationist policy and obsessing with gates , railings , dubious rights to boundaries etc etc and pandering to a miniscule number of residents , not to forget also the €11,000 per annum of taxpayers money wasted on the Ballisk / Beverton Gate.They pretend in public not to adopt this policy but practice it in all reality.Steer clear and don’t waste your time contacting local councillors as they bend in the breeze and will lead you on a merry dance and tell you what you want to hear.Re the Ballisk Walkway , Fingal CoCo have confirmed to me that a retired individual who was involved initially in this “agreed protocol “ has confirmed that there is no formal signed agreement.They are continuing to investigate this issue on my behalf to see if there is any legal basis to same to which there is not of course!You don’t have to be a legal eagle to work this one out! 6 , yes you heard it , 6 (two with the same surname ) Ballisk residents who are named on this piece of paper dated April 2005 i see in front of me are holding the rest of us to ransom in Beverton estate.Remember this the next time you or members of your family are having to walk the long way home in the dark from the train station after 10.30pm!This set-up is not worth the paper it is written on and can be easily ripped up and thrown in the bin if challenged.Another walkway that needs to be looked at too is the proposed entrance to the Gallery from Beverton estate.Another proposal that is currently bogged down in nonsense.In my opinion cut through the charade of local councillors and contact the Operations Department directly yourself in Fingal CoCo who are responsible for this mess at 01 890 5595.If enough people take the time and persist in doing so with organised petitions change for the better and freedom of movement for the majority will eventually happen.

[davidp]

Fingal CoCo have confirmed to me that a retired individual who was involved initially in this “agreed protocol “ has confirmed that there is no formal signed agreement.They are continuing to investigate this issue on my behalf to see if there is any legal basis to same to which there is not of course!You don’t have to be a legal eagle to work this one out! 6 , yes you heard it , 6 (two with the same surname ) Ballisk residents who are named on this piece of paper dated April 2005 i see in front of me are holding the rest of us to ransom in Beverton estate.

Thank you Bongo 68, so by my reckoning this piece of paper with 6 signatories just requires a piece of paper with 7 signatories from Beverton residents presented to Fingal in order to have it overturned. This has no legal basis and would not exonerate them from a law suit, should someone get hurt in an attempt to get home safely. I would also like to thank you for the efforts you have made regarding all your correspondence with Fingal on behalf of the Beverton residents. I will be requesting the date the council meet to reinforce the restrictions imposed on our residents, who by the way they also represent. I for one have every confidence in their impartiality and would like to thank all the contributors on the forum here particularly you Bongo 68 who I had the pleasure of meeting at the gathering held last Friday , Ken many thanks to you also for your suggestions and support, above all for the forum which acts as a platform serving the community well, addressing these issues. We are now organised and above all have the will to correct this undemocratic restricted hindrance to free movement for all our residents. I will keep you posted when I receive the date from our Co Council regarding the uncontested vote that takes place. There's also the payment contract to the security firm to lock the gate and reopen it in the region of 13.000 euro a saving that would surely provide something more beneficial for our community, but the irony of this is they are not willing to even relax the locking of it to allow for the last train into Donabate, so we have no choice but to challenge it head on..Kind regards davidp.

[John Spark]

A couple of points:

From the railway bridge at the station to the main entrance of Beverton is 600m (0.6km). From the railway bridge at the station to the locked/unlocked gate at the back of a Beverton is 700m (0.7km)... Sort of debunks the 'shortcut to Beverton from the train station' argument...

People who buy houses in a cul de sac have an expectation that the cul de sac will remain as such. Having it opened up to through pedestrian traffic affects that, and they have a right to object to that.

People in any estate complaining about a gate that's open for about 16 hours of the waking day, while other neighbouring estates are struggling to get pedestrian access to that same estate is ironic/hypocritical in the extreme.

I don't live in any of the estates in this thread, so this is just my observation on reading the thread.

[RPB81]

A couple of points:

From the railway bridge at the station to the main entrance of Beverton is 600m (0.6km). From the railway bridge at the station to the locked/unlocked gate at the back of a Beverton is 700m (0.7km)... Sort of debunks the 'shortcut to Beverton from the train station' argument...

People who buy houses in a cul de sac have an expectation that the cul de sac will remain as such. Having it opened up to through pedestrian traffic affects that, and they have a right to object to that.

People in any estate complaining about a gate that's open for about 16 hours of the waking day, while other neighbouring estates are struggling to get pedestrian access to that same estate is ironic/hypocritical in the extreme.

I don't live in any of the estates in this thread, so this is just my observation on reading the thread.

A couple of points...
If you live at the back of Beverton it is a short-cut. If you want to walk to the village from anywhere in Beverton (let alone with small kids/buggies) - it is a shortcut or certainly a far safer route. At night you might prefer this way (and the extra 100m) due to the extra lighting.
They do have that right - correct. But as time goes on and development occurs, initial plans are (and should be) reviewed / amended.
You are right on your last paragraph - but I don't think there is many in Beverton blocking this - as far as I know, it is one person, and have also heard from a resident in Beresford that support from another resident in Beresford to maintaining no pedestrian access through Beverton has been provided.

[Mr. Stupid]

You are right on your last paragraph - but I don't think there is many in Beverton blocking this - as far as I know, it is one person, and have also heard from a resident in Beresford that support from another resident in Beresford to maintaining no pedestrian access through Beverton has been provided.

There's a few possible routes between Beresford and Beverton. It looks like both estates were planned this way so that they could be connected at various places. There were written objections to walkways in the last phase of Beresford from several Beverton residents. Inside Beverton, between Beverton Green and Beverton Orchard, there's a few residents who want the gap closed in the fence and the walkway removed. They have nothing to object to (as the request for a full fence should have been a long time ago when the planning for Beverton Heights / Orchard was was happening) and are just lobbying politicians.

So between the lot of them, there's at least 10 residents in Beverton objecting to walkways who probably make regular use of Ballisk. Think it needs to be all clarified as there are people paying a lot of money to live in family type houses in Beresford who are going to have walk 0.5km to get their kids to school on a less safer route.

Beverton residents in favour of walkways for their neighbours need to speak up. There is a minority who look like they are calling the shots. This could come back and bite everyone as if the reasons for keeping Beresford closed off are accepted there is then "precedent" for Ballisk to have their gate closed completely (instead of 8 hours when everyone is asleep) for the exact same reasons.

[RPB81]

You are right on your last paragraph - but I don't think there is many in Beverton blocking this - as far as I know, it is one person, and have also heard from a resident in Beresford that support from another resident in Beresford to maintaining no pedestrian access through Beverton has been provided.

There's a few possible routes between Beresford and Beverton. It looks like both estates were planned this way so that they could be connected at various places. There were written objections to walkways in the last phase of Beresford from several Beverton residents. Inside Beverton, between Beverton Green and Beverton Orchard, there's a few residents who want the gap closed in the fence and the walkway removed. They have nothing to object to (as the request for a full fence should have been a long time ago when the planning for Beverton Heights / Orchard was was happening) and are just lobbying politicians.

So between the lot of them, there's at least 10 residents in Beverton objecting to walkways who probably make regular use of Ballisk. Think it needs to be all clarified as there are people paying a lot of money to live in family type houses in Beresford who are going to have walk 0.5km to get their kids to school on a less safer route.

Beverton residents in favour of walkways for their neighbours need to speak up. There is a minority who look like they are calling the shots. This could come back and bite everyone as if the reasons for keeping Beresford closed off are accepted there is then "precedent" for Ballisk to have their gate closed completely (instead of 8 hours when everyone is asleep) for the exact same reasons.

Fair enough - it was my understanding that 1 resident in Beverton was holding up all three planned walkways. Perhaps this was the initial issue and has since gathered support. I have, however, heard that a resident in Beresford has also supporting blocking the walkways.
Either way, I would hope residents complaining about the Ballisk walkway and the specific opening times do not complain about walkways opening between parts of Beverton & Beresford to Beverton. As pointed out - this is ironic!
The whole issue points to a lack of planning or poor planning. Having grown up elsewhere in North Country Dublin, this wasn't as much of an issue.

[davidp]

It appears from what you are saying that there is a small amount of people, I really have no idea to be honest blocking our Beresford neighbours access, the irony is in all these cases it just takes one person to object to something and if they scream enough all the better the majority of will just shrug their shoulders and except being held to ransom. I live in a cul de sac and couldn't care less if a brass band on the hour pass my house playing a rendition of "Abide with Me" we are not looking to extend the M50 here just allow people safe unrestricted access to the village from wherever they live in the community at anytime.

If I may make a suggestion to my Beresford neighbours set aside and hour or two in the hallway outside supervalu some Saturday with a petition of support to open access into Beverton and I will muster up the troops hard hats polished to sign your petition for the Co Co. Will even buy you guys a coffee seriously you might be surprised at the support you get from the all our residents and please provide the date and time you will be there should decide to test the waters Good luck with you're cause.

[TheBlowIn]

There are two different Beverton-Beresford pedestrian links proposed:

1. Between Beresford Green (I think) and Beverton Close. This is in the planning permission for the current Beresford development (ref. F12A/0086) and as such it should have to be provided for the development to complete. The Fingal planners are pushing for this to be provided in their comments on the new planning application (see below), so I imagine it will be accelerated. As far as I know, there were no objections at the planning stage back in 2012.

2. Between the proposed new Beresford phase (planning ref. F16A/0535) and the north-west cul-de-sac of Beverton. There have been several objections to the link from Beverton residents (as well as many Beresford objections to the scheme overall), at least partly due to the fact that there is to be emergency vehicle access at the same point.

On the first link, there should be some consultation with neighbours etc. on how the link is implemented, but there's no valid reason why it should be dropped. People will inevitably use the shortest route (hopping the fence etc.), so it's safer to put a proper pedestrian path in. It's also of benefit to both estates: quicker access through Beverton to the village for Beresford residents, and better access to the nature reserve for Beverton residents once the access scheme is completed.

The second link is more contentious, mainly because the proposed development is contentious. I don't think the pedestrian link should be a real issue for Beverton residents, but I can see how the emergency access might be.

In general, unless a cul-de-sac is completely landlocked, I don't think you can expect it to stay like that permanently. The lands around Beverton have been zoned for development for a long time, and given the available access it's inevitable that pathways through Beverton would be required. I don't blame the residents for chancing their arm, but ultimately it's a standard planning issue.

[mirror]

Would I be right in saying that Beverton and Beresford are two separate private estates built by two different developers ?

[TheBlowIn]

Would I be right in saying that Beverton and Beresford are two separate private estates built by two different developers ?

No, they have separate planning permissions but the same development group (Kinane / Oakston) is responsible for both. Hora Homes had the agreement to build the last Beverton phase and is now building Beresford. FYI, a lot of the Beresford planning drawings are marked as "Beverton" phase 5 or 6.

[Mr. Stupid]

There were those two walkways and some more mentioned in the the various planning permissions. Anyway, there are none of these divisive railings which block people walking in Malahide, Portmarnock or Swords to my knowledge.

It is North Dublin not Northern Ireland in the 70's nor is it Berlin in 80's nor Palestine 90's nor The Great Wall of China in 15th century, nor The Brexit Hard Border nor is it 'The Boy in Stripped Pyjamas' where kids will end up talking through fences.

Even if the railings are solid and big, teenagers will just climb over them as can be shown in this border wall between Mexico and USA. . It's the people with buggies and in wheelchairs that lose out. Some other border walls here.

[Bongo68]

And not to forget Check-Point Charlie between Beverton Estate and Ballisk costing €11,000 a year of tax payer's money!

I have informed Fingal CoCo in my dealings with them recently that teenagers are regularly jumping the gate to get home from both sides after 10.30pm and not at an ungodly hour and they are responsible should someone get seriously injured.They agree that this is the case.This is a serious Health and Safety issue and is an accident waiting to happen and Fingal CoCo are ultimately liable as has been pointed out in a previous thread.

All to serve , protect and pander to the precious few!

In the meantime Fingal CoCo upon my request have agreed to pull the original files on the Beverton / Ballisk Walkway via their Planning Dept. and carry out a full review to see that everything is above board and legally compliant.

[Bongo68]

​​​​​The Beverton-Ballisk Walkway is referred to in the Donabate Local Area Plan adopted by Fingal CoCo on the 20th June 2006 as a Pedestrian / Cycle Route (3 pink Fs) :

http://www.fingal.ie/media/2.4.4.E.2.%2 ... %20Map.pdf

You need to zoom in pretty close to see the 3 Fs (close to and to the left of the number 514).Then just refer to the Index on the right hand side for clarification.

No reference or mention of restricted access in any form whatsoever.

Note also all the other numerous pink Fs throughout the whole map and community of Donabate and not one gate in place.

In other words the walkway is a public footpath with Right of Way and has been in existence now for at least the last 12 years.The Right of Way has been well and truly established.

Under Irish Law , a public Right of Way is a person's right of passage along a road or path, even if the road or path is not in public ownership.

The Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2015 require local authorities to preserve existing public Rights of Way by mapping and listing them as part of their county development plans. Under Part XIII of the 2000 Act, they have the powers to create a public Right of Way.

Subsequently it is illegal to create an impediment which obstructs this Right of Way such as a locked gate as we now unfortunately have in place between certain hours.The law requires at the very least that keys are provided by the relevant party or parties concerned to the person who has the right to travel up that laneway at any time should they feel the wish to do so.

Basically in a nutshell folks this gate is illegal and should never have been put there in 2005!

The only function it presently serves is to divide and segregate our community.How anyone in their right mind can defend this gate and the €11,000 spent on it per annum (total cost so far €132,000 and counting) is beyond me?

I am still awaiting further information on this issue from Fingal CoCo.

[ledzep]

Only after coming across this thread recently, and can honestly say from a teenager's perspective that the gate is a pure and utter nuisance... can someone explain to me why I'm obliged to climb a 6ft+ gate most weekends to get home at night? It's a bit unsettling as a young girl to have to walk the long way home especially when most of my friends live in Beverton, so the gate is generally the only option for me...
There seems to be a great emphasis on how this affects adults and very little reference towards teenagers. Surely some compromise can be reached???

[Ste123]

Thanks to everyone who has been looking into the access problems here, much appreciated.

I understand in some cases the access plans are only proposed at this stage so can be held up by certain types but for the cases where they are already on granted planning applications and the adopted LAP, is it possible for objections to hold it up at this stage? In particular Beresford to Beverton Close stands out.