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
Monday, April 7, 2008
Thursday, April 3, 2008
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.
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.
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
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.
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:
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
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?
"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?
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)