Residents of Balreask Manor and Canterbrook have separately pointed out that the developers of each estate have not fulfilled their commitments in either case. The information below applies mainly to Balreask Manor, but residents of Canterbrook should examine exactly what their developers have left undone. These developers include Mr McAleer who is leading the LAP3 application.
The developerof Balreask Manor (Paddy Molloy, who is part owner of the LAP3 lands and whose name is on the application along with McAleer/ Laverty) has not completed the terms of his planning permission, which included:
"Local Government (Planning & Development) Acts, 1963 to 1993
‘’Planning Register Number: 98/236
Application Date: 23/02/1998
In pursuance of the powers conferred upon them by the above mentioned Acts, Meath County Council have by order dated 19/10/1998 granted Permission to the above named for the development of land……subject to the 25 conditions set out in the schedule attached:-
Condition 1
The development shall be in accordance with plans and particulars submitted on 23/02/98 and as amended on 29/04/98, 20/05/98, 08/06/98, and 26/08/98 except where conditions hereunder specify otherwise.
Reason: In the interest of proper planning and development.
Condition 13
All screen and front boundary walls shall match with that of adjacent dwellings. Screen walls shall be a minimum 2.0m high and shall be provided between sites and public places.
Reason: In the interest of privacy.
Condition 14
Garden walls shall be provided at a minimum 1.8m high and shall be erected along the rere garden boundary of every dwelling house.
Reason: In the interest of privacy.
Condition 24
The developers shall pay to the Planning Authority the sum of £1,000 (one thousand pounds) per house as a contribution to the expenditure to be incurred in the provision of a central town park along the Boyne and Blackwater Rivers in Navan to serve the development. Payment of this sum shall be made prior to the commencement of the development. The above sum shall apply until 31st December 1998, and shall be subject to annual review thereafter unless previously paid.
Reason: To contribute towards the cost of facilities which facilitate the development.
(We paid this £1,000 (included in our house price), where is this park that they speak of? Planning permission for BM was given 10 years ago….)
a) House numbers 140 -158 and 40 – 29 only have rere garden wooden fencing.
b) As per the visual plans all our outside walls are supposed to be rendered so there is no visible block work.
c) As per the visual plans all our chimneys are supposed to be bricked.
d) As per the visual plans detached houses are supposed to have a porch over the side entrance."
This is a valid objection to Molloy's involvement in the LAP3 lands, particularly for people in houses 140-158 and 29-40. Molloy should not be allowed to make money from his land at the back until he has completed this estate first. He assured early house buyers that he was just going to build a few more houses in the field to complete Balreask Manor as a self-contained estate.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Conclusion [Engineers' objections below in REVERSE ORDER]
9) Conclusion
We the residents of Balreask Manor realise that the subject lands are within the development envelope of Navan, where there is a presumption in favour of development. Again, we realise it is inevitable that development will occur on the site, any such development must be in conformity with the proper planning and development of the area. Given the large scale of this development however, we feel it is imperative that any approved scheme adheres to best planning principles and is should be realised in consultation with the established residents. An insensitive development such as that proposed, that clearly ignores the concerns of the residents of the area will have a severe negative impact on our homes and potentially on Navan as a whole. Indeed the concept of the LAP3 approach is that any such plan would be developed in partnership with the stakeholders in the area. The developer has shown no imagination or artistry and rather appears pre-occupied with fitting as many dwellings on the site as possible; indeed our concerns were clearly ignored in the preparation of the LAP3 by Urban Innovations and again ignored in the preparation of this application. We would contend that this is not in keeping with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. We ask that you take our points of view on board when considering this proposal and refuse the application.
We the residents of Balreask Manor realise that the subject lands are within the development envelope of Navan, where there is a presumption in favour of development. Again, we realise it is inevitable that development will occur on the site, any such development must be in conformity with the proper planning and development of the area. Given the large scale of this development however, we feel it is imperative that any approved scheme adheres to best planning principles and is should be realised in consultation with the established residents. An insensitive development such as that proposed, that clearly ignores the concerns of the residents of the area will have a severe negative impact on our homes and potentially on Navan as a whole. Indeed the concept of the LAP3 approach is that any such plan would be developed in partnership with the stakeholders in the area. The developer has shown no imagination or artistry and rather appears pre-occupied with fitting as many dwellings on the site as possible; indeed our concerns were clearly ignored in the preparation of the LAP3 by Urban Innovations and again ignored in the preparation of this application. We would contend that this is not in keeping with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. We ask that you take our points of view on board when considering this proposal and refuse the application.
Objections 5 - 8 : Miscellaneous
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.
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.
Objection 4: Water & Wastewater
4. Water & Wastewater Infrastructure
We would further contend that the proposed Water & Waste Water Infrastructural proposals are clearly at variance with the LAP3 as adopted in that other that the provision of a lake for attenuation there are no proposals for solving the infrastructural deficit clearly identified in Section 7, Services, of the LAP3, where it was clearly indicated that:-
1) Water (see Section 7.1): - “The water supply system in Navan is currently nearing capacity. At present, there is insufficient water supply available to cater for development of all the lands identified for development in the Navan Development Plan 2003-2009’’. It is envisaged that an investment of 78.5m is required and subject to DOELG funding becoming available the majority of the works envisaged under the Preliminary Engineering Report will not be realised until 2012.
2) Foul Drainage (see Section 7.2): - “There is insufficient capacity available in the wastewater treatment plant serving Navan to cater for the development of tall the lands identified for development in the Navan Development Plan 2003-2009’’. In the event that there is not sufficient capacity available tin the treatment plant, suitable interim solutions may be provided subject to the approval of the planning authority.
Further the LAP3 states that the available capacity in the receiving system in the area is limited.
These difficulties were recognised and referred to in the report of the County Manager (see Section 2.2.3 on Water & Waste Water Service Provision), considered at the Council Meeting on the 3rd of July 2006 under Section 20 (3) (C) of the Planning & Development Act 2000, on LAP3 in that the recommendation was that:-
“It is estimated that the LAP3 lands will develop over a period of 5 years subject to the provision of necessary social and physical infrastructure……Subject to timing and demand for development and the provision of infrastructure, infrastructure interim solutions may be required. Such solutions will be assessed on a case by case basis. Where interim solutions cannot be found or where demand for development slows down completion of the development in the LAP3 lands may not occur during the period of the plan’’.
It is assumed from the planning submission that the developers propose to use existing services in that there are not detailed proposals on file, indeed given the clear difficulties in respect of these services there are no “interim solutions’’ proposed by the developers with a view to addressing the infrastructural deficits pending the various upgradings. Clearly, we would object to any development of the LAP3 lands until these issues are satisfactorily resolved, indeed any proposal to develop lands in the area without a proper solution to water and waste water problems must be considered premature.
3) Surface Water (see Section 7.3 of the LAP3) : - The hydraulic flow capacity of the Swan River has been impaired due to the installation of a culvert as part of a previous development located down stream of the LAP3 lands. There were considerable submissions to the LAP3 in respect of flooding, yet it is stated in the Planning Application that his area is not at risk of flooding (see Section 18 on ‘Site History’). Many residents in Balreask Manor do not agree in that their gardens flood with great regularity. The proposed development will only exasperate this problem. Indeed the area staff of the council are aware of the existing problems.
In the Archaeological Desk Study carried out for the LAP3 lands a survey of the area was carried out on a dry day in June 2005, this study found that in the fields 10,11,15,19 & 20 there was an abundance of reeds indicating underlying damp conditions, the aforementioned fields lie directly behind our housing estate. With Global Warming experts indicating that we will have milder wetter winters within the next 20 years, development of the LAP3 lands on such a scale without proper waste water management and drainage facilities in place would be contrary to the proper planning and development of the area.
We would contend that there is a requirement for a full hydrogeolical study of the Swan River to be carried out and if there are measures (including if necessary the upgrading of the defective culvert) are required to improve flow, these should be carried out in advance of any development been allowed on the LAP3 lands.
We note that there were no detailed design calculations submitted in respect of surface water drainage.
In respect of Section 7.0 – Services in the LAP3 area, we would deem it essential that full specific design proposals for all water and waste water services and associated calculations to include details of any ‘interim solutions’. We would have to strongly object to any development of the LAP3 lands until these matters have been satisfactorily addressed, otherwise the development should be considered premature and refused.
We would further contend that the proposed Water & Waste Water Infrastructural proposals are clearly at variance with the LAP3 as adopted in that other that the provision of a lake for attenuation there are no proposals for solving the infrastructural deficit clearly identified in Section 7, Services, of the LAP3, where it was clearly indicated that:-
1) Water (see Section 7.1): - “The water supply system in Navan is currently nearing capacity. At present, there is insufficient water supply available to cater for development of all the lands identified for development in the Navan Development Plan 2003-2009’’. It is envisaged that an investment of 78.5m is required and subject to DOELG funding becoming available the majority of the works envisaged under the Preliminary Engineering Report will not be realised until 2012.
2) Foul Drainage (see Section 7.2): - “There is insufficient capacity available in the wastewater treatment plant serving Navan to cater for the development of tall the lands identified for development in the Navan Development Plan 2003-2009’’. In the event that there is not sufficient capacity available tin the treatment plant, suitable interim solutions may be provided subject to the approval of the planning authority.
Further the LAP3 states that the available capacity in the receiving system in the area is limited.
These difficulties were recognised and referred to in the report of the County Manager (see Section 2.2.3 on Water & Waste Water Service Provision), considered at the Council Meeting on the 3rd of July 2006 under Section 20 (3) (C) of the Planning & Development Act 2000, on LAP3 in that the recommendation was that:-
“It is estimated that the LAP3 lands will develop over a period of 5 years subject to the provision of necessary social and physical infrastructure……Subject to timing and demand for development and the provision of infrastructure, infrastructure interim solutions may be required. Such solutions will be assessed on a case by case basis. Where interim solutions cannot be found or where demand for development slows down completion of the development in the LAP3 lands may not occur during the period of the plan’’.
It is assumed from the planning submission that the developers propose to use existing services in that there are not detailed proposals on file, indeed given the clear difficulties in respect of these services there are no “interim solutions’’ proposed by the developers with a view to addressing the infrastructural deficits pending the various upgradings. Clearly, we would object to any development of the LAP3 lands until these issues are satisfactorily resolved, indeed any proposal to develop lands in the area without a proper solution to water and waste water problems must be considered premature.
3) Surface Water (see Section 7.3 of the LAP3) : - The hydraulic flow capacity of the Swan River has been impaired due to the installation of a culvert as part of a previous development located down stream of the LAP3 lands. There were considerable submissions to the LAP3 in respect of flooding, yet it is stated in the Planning Application that his area is not at risk of flooding (see Section 18 on ‘Site History’). Many residents in Balreask Manor do not agree in that their gardens flood with great regularity. The proposed development will only exasperate this problem. Indeed the area staff of the council are aware of the existing problems.
In the Archaeological Desk Study carried out for the LAP3 lands a survey of the area was carried out on a dry day in June 2005, this study found that in the fields 10,11,15,19 & 20 there was an abundance of reeds indicating underlying damp conditions, the aforementioned fields lie directly behind our housing estate. With Global Warming experts indicating that we will have milder wetter winters within the next 20 years, development of the LAP3 lands on such a scale without proper waste water management and drainage facilities in place would be contrary to the proper planning and development of the area.
We would contend that there is a requirement for a full hydrogeolical study of the Swan River to be carried out and if there are measures (including if necessary the upgrading of the defective culvert) are required to improve flow, these should be carried out in advance of any development been allowed on the LAP3 lands.
We note that there were no detailed design calculations submitted in respect of surface water drainage.
In respect of Section 7.0 – Services in the LAP3 area, we would deem it essential that full specific design proposals for all water and waste water services and associated calculations to include details of any ‘interim solutions’. We would have to strongly object to any development of the LAP3 lands until these matters have been satisfactorily addressed, otherwise the development should be considered premature and refused.
Objection 3: Road Infrastructure
3. Transportation Infrastructure & Associated Issues
We would refer the Planning Authority to the adopted LAP and in particular Section 5.7 on Development Framework Policies, in this regard:-
“FP3 – requires the development of a new distributor road linking the Trim Road with the Commons road in accordance with Objective 5 of the Navan Development Plan 2002.’’
As we indicated above, the applicant has included lands within the site boundary for the construction of this road which are not in his ownership/control and he does not have the consent of the owners. Clearly the applicant cannot at this point in time provide the distributor road in question, as such the lodging of this application is premature and should be refused, indeed the applicant cannot comply with policies adopted under LAP3. Further, as we pointed out above, there are validations issues in respect of this issue.
We would further contend that the road proposals are clearly at variance with Section 5.2.1 of the LAP, for example in respect of minimising vehicular access onto residential access roads, traffic calming measures are an integral part of road design. Indeed pedestrian and cycle assess only was to be provided to both Canterbrook and Balreask Manor, as per the report of the County Manager (see Section 2.1 on linkage), considered at the Council Meeting of the 3rd of July 2006 under Section 20 (3) (C) of the Planning & Development Act 2000, on LAP3 in that:-
“The access road extensions from the LAP lands to the Canterbrook and Balreask Manor housing estates be designed in a manner which incorporates passive calming of traffic, where pedestrians and cyclists have priority. These links shall not open to vehicular traffic until the distributor road is complete and operational’’.
Clearly the design for the internal road layout does not respect this policy, but more particularly the developer is not in a position to deliver the RT5 road, which is a fundamental requirement under the policies adopted under the LAP. Indeed tin this regard, we would add that Section 2.2.2 of the Managers Report, referred to above, requires that “Construction traffic shall access the LAP lands via the local distributor road RT5 only, access for construction traffic through existing housing estates shall not be permitted’’, as already indicated the developer is not in a position to deliver RT5, as such the consideration of this application is premature pending the acquisition of the lands needed for the road and should be refused.
In support of the above point, it is clearly stated in Section 2.5 that “Critical to the development of the LAP3 lands is the proposal for the development of a new distributor road linking the Trim Road with the Commons Road. The construction of this now road will provide vehicular access to the lands and open them up for development.’’ Mr Liam Quail (noted as Submission no 16 on the Managers Report dated 3rd July 2006) indicated that he objected to the adoption of the LAP and raised issues in this regard in his submission concerning lands in his ownership needed for the road. There is no letter of consent from Mr Quail in the planning application file. Our clear understanding is that to date his lands were not acquired by the Meath County Council in that the lands along the RT5 route to date were not the subject of a confirmed CPO. We believe that there may be other similar situations to that of Mr. Quail relating to other landowners on the route. Indeed the selected alignment for the RT5 route does not have planning approval (no Part 8 completed).
We have concerns with the lack of foresight with regard to the impact of the increased traffic the subject development will generate, indeed our estimate is that the current proposal will generate some 4000+ additional vehicular movements per day, and the ability of the already congested Trim and Commons Roads to accommodate this traffic. Indeed in the morning peak traffic congestion on the Trim Road at times extends well beyond the Beechmount Junction. Delays of over 30 minutes area regular event in the morning peak as residents in the area can confirm. Delays are also experienced on all roads feeding the signalised intersection at Commons Motors, where it can take 3 to 4 signal cycles for vehicles queuing to exit the junction. Further, traffic on the Pitch and Putt road experience long delays exiting onto the Trim Road, indeed the movement into the Trim Road for right turning traffic in particular is difficult. We would be concerned that the proposed new roundabout on the Trim Road (as per the proposed NA800854 plans) is not of a sufficient size to disperse the increased volume of traffic on already congested roads, as we indicated this route has not gone through the Part 8 planning process.
We would contend that a planning application for development of the scale proposed should have included both a traffic impact assessment, which covered the receiving network and all the major junctions in the area, indeed the TIA should cover all the proposed major developments in the area (retail park at the old dog track, proposed home of the new train station, as per the Navan Development Plan) and also include lands zoned for development including the LAP3 area, where some 40 hectares (c. 100 acres) of development is proposed. Clearly there is need for a detailed traffic assessment covering the full Trim & Commons Road areas including all the major junctions.
The proposed development of the LAP3 – Phased – Bus Route, as per the submitted plans, will not in our view adequately service the area, therefore we would strongly object to a further stain on an already very limited bus service until such time as there are adequate proposals to service the area with a proper public transport service. The provision for 2 Bus Stops between the areas outlined in the LAP3 and the Development Plans would seem ludicrous, considering the amount of residential dwellings proposed under the application and the amount that could be accommodated in the totality (our estimate is 1500 – 2000 dwellings) of the LAP3 area. Clearly there is need for the preparation of a Mobility Management Plan (MMP) for the LAP3 area, which we believe should also be prepared as part of the TIA. Indeed the provisions of the Navan Development Plan 2002 would require the preparation of a MMP as part of any submission.
Clearly there are major issues in respect of transportation that need to be addressed, which were not addressed in this application or in the detail of the LAP3 considered and adopted by the Members.
We would refer the Planning Authority to the adopted LAP and in particular Section 5.7 on Development Framework Policies, in this regard:-
“FP3 – requires the development of a new distributor road linking the Trim Road with the Commons road in accordance with Objective 5 of the Navan Development Plan 2002.’’
As we indicated above, the applicant has included lands within the site boundary for the construction of this road which are not in his ownership/control and he does not have the consent of the owners. Clearly the applicant cannot at this point in time provide the distributor road in question, as such the lodging of this application is premature and should be refused, indeed the applicant cannot comply with policies adopted under LAP3. Further, as we pointed out above, there are validations issues in respect of this issue.
We would further contend that the road proposals are clearly at variance with Section 5.2.1 of the LAP, for example in respect of minimising vehicular access onto residential access roads, traffic calming measures are an integral part of road design. Indeed pedestrian and cycle assess only was to be provided to both Canterbrook and Balreask Manor, as per the report of the County Manager (see Section 2.1 on linkage), considered at the Council Meeting of the 3rd of July 2006 under Section 20 (3) (C) of the Planning & Development Act 2000, on LAP3 in that:-
“The access road extensions from the LAP lands to the Canterbrook and Balreask Manor housing estates be designed in a manner which incorporates passive calming of traffic, where pedestrians and cyclists have priority. These links shall not open to vehicular traffic until the distributor road is complete and operational’’.
Clearly the design for the internal road layout does not respect this policy, but more particularly the developer is not in a position to deliver the RT5 road, which is a fundamental requirement under the policies adopted under the LAP. Indeed tin this regard, we would add that Section 2.2.2 of the Managers Report, referred to above, requires that “Construction traffic shall access the LAP lands via the local distributor road RT5 only, access for construction traffic through existing housing estates shall not be permitted’’, as already indicated the developer is not in a position to deliver RT5, as such the consideration of this application is premature pending the acquisition of the lands needed for the road and should be refused.
In support of the above point, it is clearly stated in Section 2.5 that “Critical to the development of the LAP3 lands is the proposal for the development of a new distributor road linking the Trim Road with the Commons Road. The construction of this now road will provide vehicular access to the lands and open them up for development.’’ Mr Liam Quail (noted as Submission no 16 on the Managers Report dated 3rd July 2006) indicated that he objected to the adoption of the LAP and raised issues in this regard in his submission concerning lands in his ownership needed for the road. There is no letter of consent from Mr Quail in the planning application file. Our clear understanding is that to date his lands were not acquired by the Meath County Council in that the lands along the RT5 route to date were not the subject of a confirmed CPO. We believe that there may be other similar situations to that of Mr. Quail relating to other landowners on the route. Indeed the selected alignment for the RT5 route does not have planning approval (no Part 8 completed).
We have concerns with the lack of foresight with regard to the impact of the increased traffic the subject development will generate, indeed our estimate is that the current proposal will generate some 4000+ additional vehicular movements per day, and the ability of the already congested Trim and Commons Roads to accommodate this traffic. Indeed in the morning peak traffic congestion on the Trim Road at times extends well beyond the Beechmount Junction. Delays of over 30 minutes area regular event in the morning peak as residents in the area can confirm. Delays are also experienced on all roads feeding the signalised intersection at Commons Motors, where it can take 3 to 4 signal cycles for vehicles queuing to exit the junction. Further, traffic on the Pitch and Putt road experience long delays exiting onto the Trim Road, indeed the movement into the Trim Road for right turning traffic in particular is difficult. We would be concerned that the proposed new roundabout on the Trim Road (as per the proposed NA800854 plans) is not of a sufficient size to disperse the increased volume of traffic on already congested roads, as we indicated this route has not gone through the Part 8 planning process.
We would contend that a planning application for development of the scale proposed should have included both a traffic impact assessment, which covered the receiving network and all the major junctions in the area, indeed the TIA should cover all the proposed major developments in the area (retail park at the old dog track, proposed home of the new train station, as per the Navan Development Plan) and also include lands zoned for development including the LAP3 area, where some 40 hectares (c. 100 acres) of development is proposed. Clearly there is need for a detailed traffic assessment covering the full Trim & Commons Road areas including all the major junctions.
The proposed development of the LAP3 – Phased – Bus Route, as per the submitted plans, will not in our view adequately service the area, therefore we would strongly object to a further stain on an already very limited bus service until such time as there are adequate proposals to service the area with a proper public transport service. The provision for 2 Bus Stops between the areas outlined in the LAP3 and the Development Plans would seem ludicrous, considering the amount of residential dwellings proposed under the application and the amount that could be accommodated in the totality (our estimate is 1500 – 2000 dwellings) of the LAP3 area. Clearly there is need for the preparation of a Mobility Management Plan (MMP) for the LAP3 area, which we believe should also be prepared as part of the TIA. Indeed the provisions of the Navan Development Plan 2002 would require the preparation of a MMP as part of any submission.
Clearly there are major issues in respect of transportation that need to be addressed, which were not addressed in this application or in the detail of the LAP3 considered and adopted by the Members.
Objection 2: Compliance with the LAP3
2) Compliance with Development Plan and LAP Policy
The LAP3 adopted for the area states that all developments should;
a) Respect the qualities of the best of the surrounding landscapes and townscapes and provide spatial characteristics and building forms that are sympathetic to the surroundings.
b) Promote variety and innovation in design as set out in section 4.1, and casts derision on, “…homogenous and monotonous developments with little sense of place.’’
Clearly in this regard, 3 Story Town Houses & Apartment Blocks located immediately adjacent to Balreask Manor are not in keeping with the detached and semi-detached houses existing in the estate. The LAP3 advises that these height densities should be in the centre of a proposed development and along the main road. We would add that there is no ‘neighbourhood centre’ identified in this planning application, as such the developers are proposing higher units at various locations in the development without the benefit of defined proposals on adjacent lands. This is not acceptable nor is in compliance with the LAP3.
It is recognised that “Residential Density Guidelines’’ 1999 encourage an increase in housing density on Greenfield sites. This document clearly states however that:-
“Higher densities must not be achieved at an unacceptable amenity cost to the surrounding dwellings and the residents of the proposed development. A high quality of design and layout and a good quality living environment …… are essential if increased densities are to be acceptable.’’
The guidelines state further that increased density may be inhibited by, “The need to take cognisance of prevailing adjacent densities or the maintenance of established character …height restrictions.’’ Obviously this planning application fails to take into account the established character of the adjacent residential developments and in particular Balreask Manor.
The zoning map in the Navan Development Plan (MAP No. 1) shows and A2 zoning of land along the eastern boundary of the site, i.e. adjacent to Balreask Manor. The definition for “A2 Land’’ specifically calls for protecting the amenity of existing residential areas. The design of the proposed housing development, includes for 2 large apartment complexes within these A2 lands. The scale, massing, proportions and layout of these complexes will have a detrimental impact on and be out of context with the adjacent development. Further the provision of terraced housing with associated back access/bin alleys along with Balreask Manor Boundary is totally unacceptable and is not in keeping the existing established development. Further, experience to date indicates that the provision of back alleys have the potential for creating an area where anti-social behaviour could occur, which would have a detrimental affect on the quality of life of the established residents.
In order to address this issue, we would suggest that he developer keep the objectives of the adopted LAP3 in mind and provide a suitable landscaped buffer and/or boundary treatment, further we would strongly suggest that the layout be amended to provide for only 2 story detached or semi-detached houses along the Balreask Manor boundary and have the back gardens backing onto our boundary walls.
The LAP3 adopted for the area states that all developments should;
a) Respect the qualities of the best of the surrounding landscapes and townscapes and provide spatial characteristics and building forms that are sympathetic to the surroundings.
b) Promote variety and innovation in design as set out in section 4.1, and casts derision on, “…homogenous and monotonous developments with little sense of place.’’
Clearly in this regard, 3 Story Town Houses & Apartment Blocks located immediately adjacent to Balreask Manor are not in keeping with the detached and semi-detached houses existing in the estate. The LAP3 advises that these height densities should be in the centre of a proposed development and along the main road. We would add that there is no ‘neighbourhood centre’ identified in this planning application, as such the developers are proposing higher units at various locations in the development without the benefit of defined proposals on adjacent lands. This is not acceptable nor is in compliance with the LAP3.
It is recognised that “Residential Density Guidelines’’ 1999 encourage an increase in housing density on Greenfield sites. This document clearly states however that:-
“Higher densities must not be achieved at an unacceptable amenity cost to the surrounding dwellings and the residents of the proposed development. A high quality of design and layout and a good quality living environment …… are essential if increased densities are to be acceptable.’’
The guidelines state further that increased density may be inhibited by, “The need to take cognisance of prevailing adjacent densities or the maintenance of established character …height restrictions.’’ Obviously this planning application fails to take into account the established character of the adjacent residential developments and in particular Balreask Manor.
The zoning map in the Navan Development Plan (MAP No. 1) shows and A2 zoning of land along the eastern boundary of the site, i.e. adjacent to Balreask Manor. The definition for “A2 Land’’ specifically calls for protecting the amenity of existing residential areas. The design of the proposed housing development, includes for 2 large apartment complexes within these A2 lands. The scale, massing, proportions and layout of these complexes will have a detrimental impact on and be out of context with the adjacent development. Further the provision of terraced housing with associated back access/bin alleys along with Balreask Manor Boundary is totally unacceptable and is not in keeping the existing established development. Further, experience to date indicates that the provision of back alleys have the potential for creating an area where anti-social behaviour could occur, which would have a detrimental affect on the quality of life of the established residents.
In order to address this issue, we would suggest that he developer keep the objectives of the adopted LAP3 in mind and provide a suitable landscaped buffer and/or boundary treatment, further we would strongly suggest that the layout be amended to provide for only 2 story detached or semi-detached houses along the Balreask Manor boundary and have the back gardens backing onto our boundary walls.
Preamble & Objection 1: Invalid Application
Dear Sir/Madam,
RE: NA800584 – An application for the construction of 498 houses at Balreask & Dufffsfland between Trim Road and Commons Road, Navan by McAlleer & Rushe.
Oh behalf of the residents of Balreask Manor (see attached list), we would like to lodge a submission on the application made by McAleer & Rushe for the construction of 498 houses at Balreask & Duffsland.
The portion of land outlined in the above application constitutes the first phase of housing as shown on the indicative layout, figure 13, in Local Area Plan 3, adopted by the Meath County Council on 24th of July 2006 last. The subject application relates to the development of lands immediately adjacent to and east of our housing estate. Obviously the large volume of housing proposed has the potential to impact greatly upon the residential amenity of our estate, as such we are calling on the Council to invalidate the application and if they consider the application valid, refuse the application.
In support of our call, we have a number of serious concerns, which we outline below:-
1. Invalid Application
We believe the application is invalid on a number of points:-
a) Planning regulations state in PART 4, Control of Development, Chapter 1, Section 17 (1) “An applicant shall within the period of 2 weeks before the making of a planning application – (a) give notice of the intention to make the application in a newspaper in accordance with article 18’’. The planning application is clearly stamped as date received 6th of March, yet the newspaper notice submitted by the developers was dated 8th of March, two days after the planning application was received, clearly this does not conform with the regulations or the act.
b) The applicant proposes to connect into the road network in Balreask Manor (see plans), this estate road stops short of the boundary hedge, as such the applicant will have to cross over open space, the section of open space is not in his control and is not included within the site boundary. Again there is a breach of regulations.
c) As part of this application, the developer proposed to construct a distributor road linking the Trim Road to the Commons Road, in regard to this road the applicant has included lands within the site boundary which are not in his ownership or control. Further there is no proof that he has the consent of the owners to include all of the lands in question in his application, again this issue renders the application invalid. Indeed in this regard there is no land holding map included with the application, showing the various land holdings along the route, with associated letters of consent.
We would have to contend, in the light of the above, that the Meath County Council were in error in validation this application and should have rejected same. We would point out to the council, that there are legal issues involved here which we believe could infringe our statutory rights, as such we must reserve our position in relation to this matter.
RE: NA800584 – An application for the construction of 498 houses at Balreask & Dufffsfland between Trim Road and Commons Road, Navan by McAlleer & Rushe.
Oh behalf of the residents of Balreask Manor (see attached list), we would like to lodge a submission on the application made by McAleer & Rushe for the construction of 498 houses at Balreask & Duffsland.
The portion of land outlined in the above application constitutes the first phase of housing as shown on the indicative layout, figure 13, in Local Area Plan 3, adopted by the Meath County Council on 24th of July 2006 last. The subject application relates to the development of lands immediately adjacent to and east of our housing estate. Obviously the large volume of housing proposed has the potential to impact greatly upon the residential amenity of our estate, as such we are calling on the Council to invalidate the application and if they consider the application valid, refuse the application.
In support of our call, we have a number of serious concerns, which we outline below:-
1. Invalid Application
We believe the application is invalid on a number of points:-
a) Planning regulations state in PART 4, Control of Development, Chapter 1, Section 17 (1) “An applicant shall within the period of 2 weeks before the making of a planning application – (a) give notice of the intention to make the application in a newspaper in accordance with article 18’’. The planning application is clearly stamped as date received 6th of March, yet the newspaper notice submitted by the developers was dated 8th of March, two days after the planning application was received, clearly this does not conform with the regulations or the act.
b) The applicant proposes to connect into the road network in Balreask Manor (see plans), this estate road stops short of the boundary hedge, as such the applicant will have to cross over open space, the section of open space is not in his control and is not included within the site boundary. Again there is a breach of regulations.
c) As part of this application, the developer proposed to construct a distributor road linking the Trim Road to the Commons Road, in regard to this road the applicant has included lands within the site boundary which are not in his ownership or control. Further there is no proof that he has the consent of the owners to include all of the lands in question in his application, again this issue renders the application invalid. Indeed in this regard there is no land holding map included with the application, showing the various land holdings along the route, with associated letters of consent.
We would have to contend, in the light of the above, that the Meath County Council were in error in validation this application and should have rejected same. We would point out to the council, that there are legal issues involved here which we believe could infringe our statutory rights, as such we must reserve our position in relation to this matter.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Residents' Assocation Contacts
For Canterbrook, you can contact Mark Magennis or Oonagh Gaffney at canterbrook.residents@gmail.com
For Balreask Manor, you can contact Nikki Nugent at nikkinugent@iolfree.ie or Danny Clarke-Hagen at dannych@eircom.net
For Balreask Manor, you can contact Nikki Nugent at nikkinugent@iolfree.ie or Danny Clarke-Hagen at dannych@eircom.net
Thursday, March 20, 2008
If your screen has writing in German....
Go to www.blogger.com where the entire screen will be in German.
In the top right hand corner, there is a drop-down list for languages .... go to it and select English (or whatever language you wish).
You should get a new screen in English.
Return to the Trim Road blog page, which should also be in English.
In the top right hand corner, there is a drop-down list for languages .... go to it and select English (or whatever language you wish).
You should get a new screen in English.
Return to the Trim Road blog page, which should also be in English.
Are the new site notices correct?
A writer from Canterbrook asks:
"The current site notices in our estate have no reference to the application number as previous notices did. Do you know if this is correct procedure?"
Quite honestly, I do not. I'll check with the Residents Association.
"The current site notices in our estate have no reference to the application number as previous notices did. Do you know if this is correct procedure?"
Quite honestly, I do not. I'll check with the Residents Association.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Writing Your Own Objection
It is generally agreed that turning in an identical copy of someone else's objection is a waste of your 20 Eur. The council will treat them as one, even if they are slightly different. In the end, they will all be stapled together and only the top one will be taken seriously.
So, if you feel strongly enough about the McAleer and Laverty application, and are willing to spend 20 Eur, you should write your own objection, or join a small group of neighbours to write one. The intention of this Blog is to give you some ammunition and get you started.
- The number of the application is NA800584
- The Closing Date is Wed. 9th April at 3:30
- You can address your objections or observations to the Planning Authority, Meath County Council, Abbey Road, Navan or hand your document in to the office at the same address.
- Don't forget the 20 Eur.
You will be posted an acknowledgement. This is an important document, which gives you the right to lodge an objection with Bord Planala, should the need arise. File it where you can retrieve it.
You will also be posted the planning decision on the application.
A useful structure for your objections is to focus on one is particular that you feel strongly about. You can add others in bullet points. Handwritten objections are every bit as good as typewritten ones, as long as they are legible.
The general guidelines are (and there may be more in the comments to this post):
So, if you feel strongly enough about the McAleer and Laverty application, and are willing to spend 20 Eur, you should write your own objection, or join a small group of neighbours to write one. The intention of this Blog is to give you some ammunition and get you started.
- The number of the application is NA800584
- The Closing Date is Wed. 9th April at 3:30
- You can address your objections or observations to the Planning Authority, Meath County Council, Abbey Road, Navan or hand your document in to the office at the same address.
- Don't forget the 20 Eur.
You will be posted an acknowledgement. This is an important document, which gives you the right to lodge an objection with Bord Planala, should the need arise. File it where you can retrieve it.
You will also be posted the planning decision on the application.
A useful structure for your objections is to focus on one is particular that you feel strongly about. You can add others in bullet points. Handwritten objections are every bit as good as typewritten ones, as long as they are legible.
The general guidelines are (and there may be more in the comments to this post):
- Emphasize points where the developer does not follow the LAP3.
- If there are points where you do not agree with the LAP3 yourself, make those points separately.
- Try to make your points as short as possible; use a list; use headings.
- If possible, divide your points into major and minor.
- Highlight if you live close to the new development - your opinion is doubly important.
- Be positive. It's a good idea to say that overall you welcome development, but there are regrettable instances where you find this development obnoxious (or words to that effect)... etc.
- Don't hesitate to make positive suggestions.
- Don't be a "Not in My Back Yard" (NIMBY) objector; that only gives the planners an excuse to ignore you.
- If worried about negative social consequences, emphasize preserving your "quality of life" rather than "standard of living".
If you need more help, contact me at tobyjoyce@eircom.net or contact the residents association.
Heritage
This is a complex issue which needs specialist attention. It is really the council who should have done proper studies of the area, but this was (legally) avoided.
For example, bats are a protected species and many people see bats at the back of the estate in the summer. One organisation worth consulting might be Bat Conservation Ireland, based in Dubshaughlin http://www.batconservationireland.org/
There is a procedure for making an Environmental Complaint i.e. when a business or person is destroying (intentionally or otherwise) a protected species. See http://www.epa.ie/environment/environmental%20complaint/
The Tara Road (on the Trim-side edge of Balreask Manor) needs a proper archaeological and historical survey of the area. There would be some irony is a section of road some miles from Tara is worthy of preservation, but a four-lane highway can be built adjacent to Tara itself!
The best approach might be to request the council to undertake a proper heritage & ecological survey in the area. A protected species might scare the developer and council sufficiently to delay matters for a while.
For example, bats are a protected species and many people see bats at the back of the estate in the summer. One organisation worth consulting might be Bat Conservation Ireland, based in Dubshaughlin http://www.batconservationireland.org/
There is a procedure for making an Environmental Complaint i.e. when a business or person is destroying (intentionally or otherwise) a protected species. See http://www.epa.ie/environment/environmental%20complaint/
The Tara Road (on the Trim-side edge of Balreask Manor) needs a proper archaeological and historical survey of the area. There would be some irony is a section of road some miles from Tara is worthy of preservation, but a four-lane highway can be built adjacent to Tara itself!
The best approach might be to request the council to undertake a proper heritage & ecological survey in the area. A protected species might scare the developer and council sufficiently to delay matters for a while.
High Density Housing
The Balreask Manor neighbours are particularly concerned about this point. The major issues are:
- The high housing density close in the new area to an estate of relatively low density.
- A laneway for new residents running behind Balreask Manor houses which would undoubyedly be a focus for anti-social behaviour.
- At least one medium high-rise block which will overlook the Balreask Manor houses and backyards.
Access through Balreask Manor & Canterbrook
This is still a major issue.
Two years ago it was the only concession made to residents in the final report on the LAP3. Section 5.3.3 was changed so that the road through the estates would be blocked by a bollard-type arrangement, which would be removed two years after completion of the LAP3, in consulatation with the residents.
At the meeting on March 12th, Cllrs Jim Holloway and Joe O'Reilly cleared up one point of confusion - "residents" means the residents of Balreask Manor and Canterbrook.
Another discussion point concerns the tactics to be used around this point. Should the residents concede on vehicular access straightaway, in case the bollard area became a focus for anti-social behaviour? On the other hand (and this is my own opinion), the residents could start with the bollards and request their removal should that happen.
After all the discussions on the LAP3, this should be one point on which the council should be challenged, in view of the fact that the application of McAleer and Laverty contravene the plan.
Two years ago it was the only concession made to residents in the final report on the LAP3. Section 5.3.3 was changed so that the road through the estates would be blocked by a bollard-type arrangement, which would be removed two years after completion of the LAP3, in consulatation with the residents.
At the meeting on March 12th, Cllrs Jim Holloway and Joe O'Reilly cleared up one point of confusion - "residents" means the residents of Balreask Manor and Canterbrook.
Another discussion point concerns the tactics to be used around this point. Should the residents concede on vehicular access straightaway, in case the bollard area became a focus for anti-social behaviour? On the other hand (and this is my own opinion), the residents could start with the bollards and request their removal should that happen.
After all the discussions on the LAP3, this should be one point on which the council should be challenged, in view of the fact that the application of McAleer and Laverty contravene the plan.
Meeting of Balreask Manor Resident's Association
I attended this meeting on March 12th, 2008.
Note: This blog is not an official communication from any Residents Association.
The following were noted as the main issues.
Note: This blog is not an official communication from any Residents Association.
The following were noted as the main issues.
- Access through the estates to the Trim Road
- Housing density and medium high-rise apartments behind the estate (i.e. Balreask Manor in this case).
- School site - no commitment for school construction frm Dept. of Education.
- Pond - engineering difficulties, besides health and safety hazards.
- Heritage: Destruction of habitat for endangered species (bats, butterflies) & historic road (to Tara).
Separate discussion points will be opened on these
Living with the LAP3
Local Area Plan 3 (LAP3) is of immediate concern to all who live on the Trim Road, Navan. The plan was written by the County Council planners, though they had help (more about that, later), published in 2006, and unanimously accepted by the Council in July, 2006.
The plan can be read at http://www.meath.ie/LocalAuthorities/Publications/PlanningandDevelopmentPublications/NavanElectoralAreaPlanningPublications/NavanLocalAreaPlan3/
At the moment, the first application to build houses is before the council NA800584
http://www.meath.ie/ePlan40/SearchResults.aspx
This is for the construction of 498 houses, including blocks of flats, with vehicular access from the Trim Road through the estates of Balreask Manor and Canterbrook, and pedestrian/ cycling access through Balreask Village.
This blog is forum for residences of the Trim Road to discuss the issues that arise from this proposal. Detailed plans are on view at the council offices on Abbey Road. Some plans may be added to this site.
The plan can be read at http://www.meath.ie/LocalAuthorities/Publications/PlanningandDevelopmentPublications/NavanElectoralAreaPlanningPublications/NavanLocalAreaPlan3/
At the moment, the first application to build houses is before the council NA800584
http://www.meath.ie/ePlan40/SearchResults.aspx
This is for the construction of 498 houses, including blocks of flats, with vehicular access from the Trim Road through the estates of Balreask Manor and Canterbrook, and pedestrian/ cycling access through Balreask Village.
This blog is forum for residences of the Trim Road to discuss the issues that arise from this proposal. Detailed plans are on view at the council offices on Abbey Road. Some plans may be added to this site.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)