5) Proposed Pedestrian / Cycle Link
As stated in the Adopted Local Area Plan 3 and shown in the plans there is a link into Balreask Manor. In relation to this link, “The opening of these links to vehicular traffic shall be subject to review by the Planning Authority two years after completion of development of the LAP3 lands, in consultation with local residents’’
We would again like to register our objection to the linkage between the proposed development and our existing estate. The pedestrian flow through our private established estate would have a severe negative impact on the residential amenity of our estate including privacy and security. Any road linkage, regardless of the traffic calming measures put in place, would also seriously undermine our existing quality of life. Again our security along with the safety of our children would be compromised by this through route and the increased volume of traffic.
Further on health and safety issues, we categorically have no wish for our children to have easy access to the open space and lake in the proposed development.
6) Open Space / Proposed Attenuation Pond
In broad conformity with the LAP3 zoning as proposed in Navan Development Plan No. 1, an area of open space has been provided in the centre of the development on land designated for “F1” use. There is no ‘neighbourhood centre’ identified in the planning application, it would appear that his development will be part of a later development, when clearly it should be a first priority. Notwithstanding this flaw with the LAP3 as adopted, the proposed development ignores best planning principles and guidelines in respect of the provision of open space, in that open space should be an integral part of the design in order to:
1) Meet informal and formal recreation;
2) Contribute to the distinctiveness and attractiveness of the development;
3) Create safe, convenient and accessible space for all sections of society, particularly children, the elderly and people with disabilities;
4) Reduce the need for residents to travel elsewhere;
5) Enhance security through activity
In our view, the open space proposed on the layout fails to do this. Although a central area has been provided in broad conformity with the zonings the developer has shown no imagination or concern for the marginalised groups mentioned above in the design. The “Residential Density Guidelines 1999” state that, “The provision of open space to serve new residential developments should be on a hierarchical basis varying in size from large regional parks to small children’s play areas and passive recreation spaces close to peoples homes.” Again it is obvious that this planning application does not adhere to these principles. The developer has simply provided an area in the centre of the development. This is not readily accessible to those on the fringes of the development, especially the elderly, young children or the disabled. There are no other communal open spaces or passive recreational areas in which residents can mix and socialise. This in itself is essential when trying to foster a sense of ownership and create a sense of place. This in turn is central to creating a sustainable environment. How are parents in the proposed development afforded the ‘passive monitoring’ of their children? Residents on the fringes will not be able to see their children playing in the only open space.
We also have issues with the lake proposed for this development, on the area designated as open space. The “Residential Density Guidelines” advise that open space should not be allowed where it is inadequately overlooked, supervised or accessible. This tract of land is exactly that, in this it is also our belief that the provision of a lake within this area is irresponsible. This zone will be a Mecca for children and the lake will be a potential hazard, in effect an accident waiting to happen. We would contend that there is a major health and safety issue associated with this proposal. Indeed there is a clear need for a safety audit to be carried out, by and approved H&S consultant. We as residents of the adjacent development have no wish for our children to have access to this area of land. We categorically request that any linkages between our estate and the proposed development be securely and permanently closed off.
7) Retention of Trees / Boundary Lane
A complete disregard has been shown in the design for the natural landscape to the extent that no attempt has been made to retain existing native hedgerows or trees, we would also ask that the many mature trees and hedgerows, which ring the estate are retained, due to the colonies of Bats that roost there over the summer months. Planning practice demands that developments be evolved as a response to the landscape, not imposed upon it.
We would also reiterate our request that the laneway made in our submission to the LAP3 (old road to Tara) to the south of Balreask Manor be retained as a natural buffer between the estate and what will be a busy link road. This laneway is a haven for wildlife and has many mature native trees, which are worthy of retention. The council have stated in the past this would be the case, yet we see no evidence in the LAP3 or the application to verify their commitment.
8) School / Health Centre
We object to any development of the LAP3 lands until there is absolute and binding written confirmation from the Department of Education and the Health Service Executive that the development of the services proposed on the LAP3 lands are in place and the buildings required are provided for and built. As too often has happened in the past regarding development of such areas that these are witnessed on the initial planning applications, but at a later stage withdrawn due to lack of funding. We would contend that the provision of a 1.2 hectares site for a school is too small (we understand the current requirement is of the order of 2-2.5 hectares).
We would point out that he attenuation pond is in plain view of their proposed school building, given the dangers that could potentially arise from this attenuation pone, we would doubt that if the Department of Education (given the supervision and associated insurance risks) would be willing to build a school next to it.
