Open Thread

For anyone who wants to have a go ....

BALREASK MANOR RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION website is at......

.
.
http://community.meath.ie/balreaskmanorresidents/

Just click on the link!

LAP3 Action Group

The LAP3 Action Group has been set up by a number of concerned residents of the Trim Road. The objective of the group is to monitor developments on the LAP3 lands and take action accordingly.

The groups have lodged observations to An Bord Planala on the appeal by McAleer & Laverty against the refusal of planning permission by the council.

A copy of the document can be obtained from Nikki Nugent at nikkinugent@iolfree.ie

Fundraising Suggestions

Events already suggested are:

- A sports day for kids
- a barbecue
- a table quiz
- a treasure hunt

Other ideas welcome!!

Annual General Meeting

Dear Neighbour,

(1) The Annual General Meeting of the Balreask Manor Residents Association was held in the Balreask Arms on Wed. May 28th. The attendance was good, an increase on the last two AGMs.

(2) It was decided to keep a watch on LAP3 developments, and a subcommittee was set up to deal with that.

(3) The outgoing committee members were thanked and applauded for their major contribution to defeating the latest effort by developers to abuse the planning laws on the lands adjacent to our estate.

(4) Events were suggested to take place this summer to raise some funds towards defraying the expenses incurred in the battle with the developers.

(5) A new committee was elected:

Chairman: Toby Joyce (170)
Secretary: Bill Slattery (81)
Treasurer: Edel Gallagher (39)
PRO: Danny Clark-Hagen (62)

(5) Road reps are invited to participate, attend committee meetings and take rsponsibility for specific actions. Next committee meeting: June 9th, 8:00, Balreask Arms.

(6) The outgoing committee (Danny & Caroline Clarke-Hagen, Nikki Nugent) will continue their commitment to the LAP3 subcommittee.

The blog will be updated. People are invited to make comment or make suggestions directly to the blog (anonymously if you wish

BALREASK MANOR RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

WEDNESDAY 28TH MAY 2008 - 8.30pm
BALREASK ARMS – BACK ROOM

Chairperson: Danny Clarke-Hagan
Secretary: Nikki Nugent
Treasurer: Caroline Clarke-Hagan

AGENDA

DEVELOPMENT OF LAP3 LANDS:
Rounds 1 and 2 to the Residents
Where we go from here
Funds needed to pay the Engineer and other costs involvedIssues going forward
Formation of Lap3-Committee to concentrate solely on the Proposed Development of LAP3 Lands

FINANCES:
Expenditure for 2007/2008Extra Printing costs relating to Development of LAP3 LandsRoad Reps need to start calling into houses to collect past-due 2006/2007 envelopes, urgently2008 is still to be collected € 60.00 and we have had 3 grass cuts and weed spraying so far this financial year

ESTATE MAINTENANCE:
Development of Balreask Manor as per the original plans with the replanting of shrubs and broken trees, and the new shrub-beds in the green areas.Spraying of weeds along the kerbs.Saturday 24th of May, volunteers needed for estate tidy up, all hands on deck with a rubbish bag and a few garden tools to help with clean-up. If homeowners are in a position to, could they buy an extra bag of bulbs or an extra tray of bedding plants and plant them around the trees in their immediate area or around the trees in the avenue, then this time next year the estate will look amazing.

CHRISTMAS PARTY 2007: A big Thank You to all the residents who left their busy Christmas shopping schedule aside for a few hours and attended the Balreask Manor Children’s Christmas Party. The event was, yet again, a fantastic success, and the children and Santa really enjoyed their day

RESIGNATION OF PRESENT COMMITTEE MEMBERS

ELECTION OF NEW COMMITTEE

ELECTION OF NEW ROAD REPS
All those interested in helping out by becoming a committee member or a road rep please attend.

A.O.B.

Winning this Round.....

A feeling of having accomplished something good is always pleasant, and this is one occasion where the residents of Balreask Manor and Canterbrook can congratulate ourselves that, for a while at least, we have maintained the quality of life in our neighbourhood to a high standard.

Not only that, we have signalled that we intend to keep it that way for as long as we can. We are not a pushover for any developer who wants to throw up some cheap houses and make a fast buck.

I have given the grounds for refusal below in four separate posts. People are welcome to comment on each one separately. Unfortunately, they are written in bureaucrat-speak so that they need careful reading. I, for one, may need assistance in figuring out what each one means in practice.

Grounds for Refusal of Planning Permission I

Part of the application site is zoned “to provide for and improve open space for active and passive recreation amenities” in the current 2003 Navan Development Plan. Having regard to the F1 Zoning Objective applicable to the application site, which precludes residential development, it is considered that the proposed development will contravene materially the development plan and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Grounds for Refusal of Planning Permission II

Having regard to the failure to provide sufficient public and private amenity space in line with the Department of Environment Heritage & Local Government’s “Residential Density Guidelines for Local Authorities”, and the failure to provide an integrated and accessible hierarchy of public open space for the proposed scheme as a whole, it is considered that the proposed development would result in a substandard form of development of poor environmental quality and would provide an unacceptable level of amenity for occupants of the proposed residential units. The proposed development would contravene the objectives of the Navan Development Plan 2003-2009, with regard to provision of public and private amenity space, and therefore would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Grounds for Refusal of Planning Permission III

Having regard to the number of residential units proposed, the resultant volume of traffic generated by the scheme as a whole and the shortfall in car parking associated with the proposed development which would result in ad hoc car parking on the main circulation roads, it is considered that the proposed large scale development would represent overdevelopment of the site which would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard and would provide for a poor quality residential environment which would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Grounds for Refusal of Planning Permission IV

It is considered that the proposed development by virtue of its substandard design and layout would represent an inappropriate and substandard form of urban development which would fail to provide an acceptable standard of residential amenity to future occupants. The proposed development would therefore set an undesirable precedent for poor quality living environments and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Message from Balreask Manor RA

Nikki Nugent (nikkinugent@iolfree.ie) has circulated the following message: Congratulations are due to Nikki, Danny & Caroline for the work they have put in.

Dear Resident,

We have finished the gathering of signatures to attach to the Balreask Manor Residents Association objection letter that we had the engineer draw up on our behalf.

We would just like to thank everybody who lent their support at the doors over the last number of nights.

Overall there were 156 signatures out of 171 houses, which is roughly 91% of the estate.

We will keep you updated via the blog or email as to our progress over the coming weeks; the council are due to make their decision on April 30th.

We will be holding the A.G.M. in early May this year, as we want to wait till the council have made their decision and then decide what course of action we need to take. We will let you know that date soon, and would appreciate a full house.

Once again many, many thanks for all your support over the last number of weeks.

Regards

Nikki, Danny & Caroline

Built Environment influences anti-social behaviour

Generally, we blame people for anti-social behaviour, and rightly so.

However, it is a scientific fact that levels of anti-social behaviour in an area are influenced by the built environment in that area. Anti-social elements will naturally seek out areas which make it easy to indulge in drinking, violence etc., and we know these activities are self-perpetuating.

I've just read a very interesting book called "The Logic of Life" by an economist called Tim Harford that shows how this can be established. The book is on sale downtown in Bookwise, or I'll loan it to anyone who calls. The basic theme is that many unpleasant aspects of life (crime, racism, ghettos) are rational and explainable outcomes of circumstances, even if they are objectionable.

For example, violent behaviour is unusual on a busy street because any gang who might attack and rob an individual will be inhibited by the number of people around. On a quiet suburban street, however, it is different - a gang of two or more can easily rob or attack a lone passerby. Lively neighbourhoods with shops, cafes, restaurants and the odd pub mixed in with housing have less levels of anti-social behaviour than areas with housing alone. Pub closing time probably excepted!!!

Even the height of buildings influences behaviour. Car thieves and burglars are much less inhibited by tall buildings that by low ones. High buildings de-personalize an area and make it vulnerable.

This lesson has been hard learned in Limerick. On the Moyross estate, the built environment is going to be totally refurbished in order to eliminate the criminal gangs who have taken it over. Families are going to be sent elsewhere, houses are going to be taken over by CAB, other houses are going to be demolished, only people with Garda approval are going to be allowed back. See http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0121/breaking43.htm

I am not saying we are going to have a Moyross, but it would be extraordinarily stupid of the planners not to take into account the experience of other towns in Ireland. To look over the Urban Innovations plan with its little laneways and its cramped thoroughfares is like looking at Irish planning of twenty or thirty years ago.

President of IPI criticizes developers

It was reported on the evening news (April 3rd, 2008) that the President of the Irish Planning Institute atttacked developers today at the IPI's annual conference. He said that Irish developers had made millions in profits by building houses without adequate infrastructure.

Sound familiar?

Check the morning papers - you may be able to get a few choice quotes for your objection.

I'll update as I get more information.

Update I: You can hear a Morning Ireland interview with the President of the IPI at http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0403/morningireland.html - scroll down the page a bit. He is calling for developers to provide higher sums of money to local authorities for amenity and infrastructure development.

Index of Objections

If you want to access a possible objection directly, click on the URL. You can also go back to the blog main page and scroll down on the right hand side to view the individual objections and more.
1. Invalid Application http://thetrimroadblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/preamble-objection-1-invalid.html
2. Compliance with the LAP3 http://thetrimroadblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/objection-2-compliance-with-lap3.html
3. Road Infrastructure http://thetrimroadblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/objection-3-road-infrastructure.html
4. Waste and Wastewater http://thetrimroadblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/objection-4-water-wastewater.html
5. Miscellaneous x 4 http://thetrimroadblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/objections-7-8-miscellaneous.html
6. Balreask Manor & Canterbrook Unfinished http://thetrimroadblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/another-objection-balreask-manor_30.html
7. Swan River http://thetrimroadblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/another-objection-adjacent-to-swan.html
8. LAP3 did not fully address residents' concerns. http://thetrimroadblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/lap3-did-not-fully-address-residents.html
9. Bats!! http://thetrimroadblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/bats.html

Bats!!!

Will bats prevent NA800584 going ahead?

Joking apart, the presence of a protected species can be a nightmare for a developer as the animal's habitat is legally protected. All species of bat are listed as protected species in Ireland. http://www.npws.ie/en/media/Media,4990,en.pdf

Bats are seen on the estate in the summer, and there may be a colony resident in the fields (currently in hibernation).

I think the best way to handle this is to point out the probable existence of a bat population that was not picked up in the (rather cursory) environmental survey of the area. An objector can point out that a procedure exists to call in the EPA if a protected species is threatened by destruction of its habitat. Such an event would be a catastrophe for a developer who would have to halt work while the EPA investigated.

Since the first step is to inform the organization involved, perhaps the Residents' Association might get a letter off to McAleer & Laverty straightaway? I presume the objections themselves would constitute informing the local authority.

The objector could request a proper survey of the area. You do not need to know DEFINITELY that there are bats living in the field in order to lodge an objection. Merely, point out the probability and the effect it could have on the development.... particularly if you include the names of organisations you intend to invite to check the area.

Scroll down on the right to the "Heritage" entry to find the address of Bat Conservation Ireland, based in Dunshaughlin, or click on: http://thetrimroadblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/heritage.html

There may be other possible objections to destroying the old laneway on the Trim side of the estate, but the law in this area is not as definite. I doubt if the lane is a national monument.

D-Day: Wednesday April 9th @ 3:30

Objections must be lodged in the Planning Office, Abbey Road before 3:30, Wednesday 9th April.

The Reference Number is NA800584.

Important Note:

The planning office will send you a receipt. This is an important document. You are required to produce it in the case of an appeal to Bord Planala.

The following text will appear at the bottom of the receipt:

LAP3 did not fully address residents' concerns

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?

Another Objection: Adjacent to Swan River

This concerns the Swan River which is the stream that runs from the swampy land behind the estates (where the "pond" will be) between Canterbrook and Balreask Manor. It especially affects residents who back onto the stream.

Mr Molloy did not fulfil his obligations to the planning permission, and could still be brought back to complete what he was supposed to do. However to access the river/ culvert, he would require a "wayleave" through all the houses that back onto the stream. As far as we know, this is not part of the conditions of sale for any of the houses, and might be a very useful bargaining chip to force Molloy and his partners to make concessions on the development on the LAP3 lands.

Further information:

Planning Ref: 99/2617

Further Information Requirements

3) The Planning Authority also note from visual inspection of the application site that the existing watercourse, the Swan River, which runs the entire length of the northern boundary has been piped without planning permission. You are requested to submit your revised proposals to regularise this matter, as part of the current planning application, inclusive of longsections, pipe sizes, etc. You are also requested to clarify calculation sheets of the proposed pipe to demonstrate the adequacy of the apparent 1050 mm diameter pipe to accommodate the open channel. You are also requested to submit the written consent of he Office of Public Works Drainage Division to the works proposed.

4) It is also noted that this 1050 mm diameter pipe will run through the cartilage of 27 no. dwellings. You are requested to indicate to the Planning Authority whether or not a wayleave was included as a legal burden on the sale of each of these dwellings, the width of such a wayleave and in the absence of such a wayleave having been included as a condition of sale, your proposals for the maintenance of this surface water sewer.

The expert is Mark Byrne at markjoebyrne@eircom.net . Here are some of his clarifications:

If a wayleave exists through the said properties and at some point in the furure Mr. Molloy is tasked with upgrading same he will have the right to enter these properties to carry out the work, although he will have to make good on the reinstatements etc.

Should a wayleave not exist (and it certainly doesn't on my site folio plan) then he will have to contact each householder and try to invoke a clause contained within my own conveyancing contract (and I'm advised by my solicitor that this clause is standard on all house buying contracts in this country)which provides for the developer being allowed to enter the properties for a period of 21 years after sale to allow for the installation and maintenance of pipes, cables etc. This came as a surprise to me some five years ago when the developer in Canterbrook sought to "T" into the Swan River culvert in my rear garden. This is the case on paper however the reality is that he would have to "do a deal" with each householder in order to carry out this work.