I think the above statement is undoubtedly true. As Nikki Nugent points out:
"In the Navan Development Plan 2003 – 2009 in section 3.1.9 Neighbourhood Strategy it reads “Each neighbourhood centre shall be linked to the surrounding residential areas by a system of cycleways and footpaths. In mature and developed neighbourhoods, the Planning Authorities will investigate the opportunities to retrofit such cycleways and pedestrian priority measures, in consultation with the local community". One Hundred and Thirty Seven Submissions from Balreask Manor Residents were noted in the Managers Report to the council dated 3rd July 2006, all submissions stated that we categorically did not want any access, whatsoever, to the proposed development. Yet in the Adopted LAP3 document it is noted that only 2 submissions were received. I would like to ask the council what happened to our submissions, why in a democratic age, were our opinions not registered, recorded and listened to?"
I think there were at least three large public meetings on the LAP3 - two chaired by Joe O'Reilly and Damien English respectively, and one by the Residents' Associations. Out of the 137 submissions that ensued, we got one single concession. This was either a minor or major concession, depending on your point of view. This was the bollard arrangement to prevent vehicular traffic until at lest 2 years after completion of development on the LAP3 lands.
No one can be comfortable the McAleer & Laverty's architects Urban Innovations basically wrote the LAP3 as "consultants". You can bet that many of the planners are on first name terms with the developers' staff. I heard the Environmental Correspondent of a major newspaper say that planners spend a lot of their working day in meetings with developers. Consultation with a Residents' Association or Outreach to ordinary householders is unheard of.
Coupled with that, we are coming off a major building boom fueled by developers in which the Government has done everything possible to be "business friendly". Ok, that has not been all bad (much of it has been great!). But it also means that developers are a pretty arrogant and cocky bunch who are used to getting their own way, and expect planners to give it to them.
So it may be useful to object to this whole unholy alliance between developers and planners, and the lack of consultation with residents. In the end, planners are public servants, and who are the public?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I have just received a flyer from Balreask Manor Residents Association regarding a new resident's website that is going live shortly and threatening that "whoever has outstanding grass cutting money to be paid will find their house no on the website". I wish to register my objection, in advance, of the use/misuse of the freedom of the internet to victimise the residents concerned in this way. I would strongly favour different approach to this issue.
Well, I can say is that it definitely won't be this website!
Having done the rounds myself, collecting grass cutting money is a problem ... I am quite sure that about 10% of houses on the estate are delinquent, many even consistently delinquent. That, of course, means they are free-loading on the rest of us, using our contributions to keep up the values of their houses.
I have my own views on how to address this ... but I do believe it is idealistic to expect to get all the money all the time ... every honours system has its free-loaders, from people who don;t pay TV licences to tax dodgers.
Any ideas for a "fair" means of collecting all the grass-cutting money?
Nikki Nugent nikki.nugent@eircom.net asked me to posrt the following reply on behalf of the Residents' Association committee:
You mention on the blog that it is about 10% of people who default; the figure is much closer to 25%-30%. People that we have spoken to over the last number of nights since we dropped the letters around and got signatures for the Residents Association Objection letter have complained about paying every year for others. That is what is been said on the doorsteps.
We sent the letter around in order to try to get 2006 / 2007 majority paid before we stand down at the next AGM. Many arrears have now been paid. It will in effect be up to the next Chairperson, Secretary and Treasurer to decide what they want to do with the issue of “non-payers”. The only people that publishing the accounts would affect are the non-payers. Many other Residents Associations publish their accounts yearly and in Athlumley they actually put letters through everybody’s door and have the house number and name of the non-payers. There are a couple of different options available to the next committee members. We have held off on this issue for a good number of years because we felt it would be unfair but like we mentioned earlier subsidising others is unfair on the community that is Balreask Manor.
We don’t want this issue blown out of all proportion, but we are trying to represent everyone, and have to give more weight to the people who actually pay every year. It is not our intention to ‘scare’ or alienate any resident, but by going around the estate over the last number of nights, a lot of people are in favour of this action and of course their will be those against it. Again we would like to mention that we intend to step down at the AGM.
Naming those who PAY the grass-cutting fee when you are presenting annual accounts would be another approach.(I'm sure everyone who pays won't object to seeing it in writing on the financial report.)
Fair is Fair.To think that 30% of the residents don't pay is really unfair on the rest of us.
Some people are happy to sit back and let everyone else foot the bill... Maybe the letter is just the push that they need to dip their hands into their pockets.About time too!!!!!
ERROR AGAIN!
Nikki's e-mail is nikkinugent@iolfree.ie
Post a Comment