Doonbeg First

at

doughmorecouncil

From top: Doughmore beach, Doonbeg; Application for a scaled-down sea wall

“Two new protection structures are proposed – the first involves using sheet metal and rock armour for 609 metres at one end of the dune system, with a second of 256 metres at the other end, beside the golf hotel.

It says the final structure will be “screened from view”, and permission is also sought for a construction compound and public car park…”

Revised plans outlined for Donald Trump’s golf course in Doonbeg, County Clare..

Louise writes:

, I’m just wondering if people are aware that Trump submitted a new application just before Christmas to build on Doonbeg beach after his wall was turned down..

Objections from the public have to be received by post to Clare County Council by February 3.

It would be a terrible mistake to let them build there, and if you do have an opinion about this, please let your voice be heard.

Application here:

Save Doughmore Beach

The Futility Of Trying To Fix A Coastline (Patagonia)

Previously: It’s Too Bigly

 

57 thoughts on “Doonbeg First

    1. Neil is a gum

      That’s a rather craven reply. Do you have any contribution other than to insult a whole town?

      1. bisted

        …I don’t think it was the townpeople of Doonbeg who were responsible for that disgusting display of sycophancy by Noonan and his red carpet…

  1. Neil is a gum

    Why would it be a “terrible mistake”?
    This area is suffering a lot from coastal erosion in recent years. Sure it’s in Trump’s self interest but keeping the resort there is good for the local economy and the locals speak highly of the benefits Trump is bringing to their region. Coastal and sea walls are a common method of protecting the environment- for example there is one now built around the Murrough in Wicklow ensuring the same level of use and satisfaction to the townspeople as they enjoyed before the last big storms.

    1. Nigel

      It would certainly be a good idea to wait for an assessment by someone who knows what they’re talking about, but it’s hardly a bad idea to remain cautious and skeptical of someone who is the very definition of a cute hoor.

      1. Neil is a gum

        Interesting that you
        A) immediately bring a personal angle into the debate
        B) claim there is no “truth” out there except whether truth is spoken by an “expert” ( presuming it’s one you’ll anoint am I right?) and
        C) simply refuse to discuss any of the substantive points I made

        I’ve been down there. I’ve seen the erosion. I spoke to many locals and I saw first hand the damage done in recent storms as well as the benefits to the town of the Trump investment. Oh and yes I was skeptical too.

        1. Nigel

          Well I meant as to whether the wall as proposed would be effective in any substantive way against the erosion. I would certainly put more weight on an expert’s opinion than, eg, mine. If you think I’m a coastal erosion denier, then you have completely taken me up wrong.

          1. Neil is a gum

            Ok Nigel.

            You personalised it but I appreciate the backtrack however snarky.

            I’m not sure how an “expert” can evaluate this as the risk of coastal erosion appears to be increasing due to climate change and is an unpredictable variable. Others claim the building of a wall is possibly damaging the fragile environment of the sand dunes. But I think any private property owner in that area would do what Trump is doing IE invest money to try to protect the value of his asset. Given that Trump is a billionaire and you are probably not, I’d be more inclined to rely on his cost-benefit analysis.

          2. Nigel

            I’m not sure how you think I personalised it, other than taking for granted that someone like Trump is a cute hoor – you’d be naive not to think the same of any developer. If you’re not sure how an expert can assess it, then maybe it’s because you;re not an expert. That’s okay. neither can I. That isn’t to say that an outside objective environmental engineer can’t take a look at the plans and give an educated assessment of the impact.

            Trump is a billionaire developer: it’s probably best to assume that the cost and benefit side to any venture will relate far more to him than to the people of Doonbeg, and his potential willingness to offload coast onto the people and environment of Doonbeg shouldn’t be doubted for a moment. His record would suggest that he is very much a shark in these waters.

          3. Nigel

            Oh, and none of these comments were intended to be snarky, at least not at you. Perhaps you should recalibrate?

          4. Neil is a gum

            “Coastal erosion denier” – that’s not a little snarky?

            Anyway I see your argument now is that you weren’t personalising the debate, yet in the same breath you assert that because Trump is a “developer” he couldn’t possibly have anything other than his own interests in the thing. In fact his interests could align with those of the locals?
            Imagine that!

          5. Nigel

            I was going more for ironic, but in my defense you were, and still are a bit, rearing up at me for nothing. After all, I was agreeing with you about the necessity for coastal defenses, with the caveat that I’d like to hear what an expert might say about this particular proposal. I’m not sure how you can live in Ireland and not retain a healthy skepticism of developers. They have been known to lie and cheat, you know, and often get away with it. And I’m really not sure what you’re hung up on about the idea of an expert having a look at the plans and giving an opinion.

          6. Neil is a gum

            That’s all true Nigel
            My contention objectively is that there while may be a million previous bad developments it still would not objectively prove this a bad one.

          7. Nigel

            I would suggest an over-riding need for caution, skepticism, an overhaul of the planning process and enforcement thereof, or, barring all that, million to one odds that you’re going to get screwed.

      1. Charles

        I saw a news clip just before Christmas whereby they interviewed staff at the Doonbeg golf resort and the local parish priest singing the praises and offering their congratulations to Trump. We’re a gas shower.

    2. Rob_G

      I kind of agree with you; I don’t know enough about the issue to make an informed contribution, but deciding that “well, Trump is for it, so we should all be against it” is a bit simplistic.

      1. Nigel

        Thing is, we’ve been down this road many, many times, taking assurances about benefits and safeguards of developments at face value leading to handwaving, ignoring or contravening proper planning, only to end up with short-term benefits and safeguards that never materialised – hence the profusion of ghost estates. You simply cannot trust a developer to have your interests at heart, no matter what they say. You go by their past record and the record of similar developments elsewhere. Any other approach is truly simplistic.

          1. Nigel

            A planning process will give permission for the development to go ahead. It’s what actually happens after that that worries me. Trump, no more than any number of Irish developers, isn’t known for being a stickler for sticking to the planning.

          2. Neil is a gum

            That’s a fair point which can also be possibly addressing in the conditions attached to the planning consent if given. Your logic is poor though. Even if I accept Trump did not observe conditions attached to consents before that in no way proves he will automatically do the same here again. You’re worrying about something about which you have no objective measure of the likelihood of occurrence but what we can measure is the economic loss that will ensure the
            locals remain “living in hell” if your ilk are allowed strategically block the development.

        1. Rob_G

          We’re not being asked to accept developer’s assurances; Clare CoCo will deliberate as to whether it is a good idea or not. Louise is asking that we send in objections purely because the application was submitted by Donald Trump.

          1. Spaghetti Hoop

            You’re not wrong….but lots of planning objections are lodged because people don’t trust the developer.

          2. Louise

            Sorry, but I was asking that you send objections if you believe it is a bad idea. I personally object to it for ecological reasons, not because of who is building it. I named him because he is the person responsible for it.

    1. Neil is a gum

      Trump’s original application was lodged long before the election. I think the principle objection was that his team had not carried out a rigorous enough environmental impact assessment

  2. Louise

    Please read Tony Butt’s article on the futility of the wall – he lists a number of environmental reasons why the wall is terrible idea. I would be against its construction by any private business owner.

        1. Neil is a gum

          Sadly the article is full of lies. For a start Trump didn’t build the hotel/resort himself – it was a bankrupt developer who built it.

          As for the stuff about the erosion it’s very wish-washy. We know that over time sand dunes sometimes reappear in a different form or location etc. That’s kind of irrelevant as Mr Trump is trying to protect the value of his fixed asset today.

          We also know sea walls sometimes erode too. This is not an argument not to build one. Maybe it’s an argument to put a condition in planning to destroy the wall if they change the current use of the land.

    1. Neil is a gum

      That’s helpful. I’m sure the people of Doonbeg will pay a lot of heed to “DubLoony” hectoring them.

      1. Nigel

        The people of Doonbeg are in an unenviable position, being offered hope of employment, prosperity and security for the future. Unfortunately, it’s being offered by this guy, making it potentially on a par the kind of hope that comes via e-mail from a Nigerian prince, and they won’t have much in the way of recourse if he ends up doing more harm than good.

          1. Neil is a gum

            Not really. I’m a pragmatist. As such if I wanted a sermon from a priest I’d go to church. Your infantile sermonising is wearying.

          2. Neil is a gum

            Yea. I see what you’re doing Nigel. I’m sure someone will talk to you in real life one day. Good luck to you now.

  3. edalicious

    Interesting that Trump is, on one hand, denying the existence of AGW while, at the same time, building coastal protection to defend against the effects of AGW. I’m shocked that he would say one thing and do another, completely out of character for him.

    1. Neil is a gum

      That’s not the case.

      He’s protecting his valuable asset. That doesn’t mean he believes the erosion is caused by climate change.

      Also your information is out of date. I gather he has modified his position now on climate change.

  4. Truth in the News

    Did Trump not in a statement say that he was not proceeding with the project and go on to castigate the EU
    Environment Rules, it would appear that he has a split personalty that he doesn’t know what he is doing on this
    side of the Atlantic at all……..Clare County Council will have their hands full with all the objections’s.
    And wait till the US media gets wind of it…….in particular the New York Times.

Comments are closed.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!