Fundraising Suggestions

Events already suggested are:

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

Other ideas welcome!!

Annual General Meeting

Dear Neighbour,

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

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

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

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

(5) A new committee was elected:

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

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

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

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

BALREASK MANOR RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

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

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

AGENDA

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

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

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

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

RESIGNATION OF PRESENT COMMITTEE MEMBERS

ELECTION OF NEW COMMITTEE

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

A.O.B.

Winning this Round.....

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

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

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

Grounds for Refusal of Planning Permission I

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

Grounds for Refusal of Planning Permission II

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

Grounds for Refusal of Planning Permission III

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

Grounds for Refusal of Planning Permission IV

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