I have objected to the proposed Variation to the Fingal Development Plan to facilitate a road parallel to the Malahide Road and another parallel to the N32 road between Malahide Road and M1 motorway.

Senior Executive Officer,
Planning Department,
Fingal County Council,
Main St.,
Swords,
Co. Dublin.

Re: SEA on Variation to Development Plan – Malahide Road/ East-West Distributor Road

A chara,

As you know, in September 2008, the Council approved the following recommendation from the Howth/Malahide Area Cttee.:

      “That this Area Committee recommends that the Council direct the Manager to carry out a multi-modal transport study in relation to transport in the North Fringe/South Fringe area (Stapolin, Donaghmede, Balgriffin, Belcamp, Clonshaugh) with Dublin City Council’s co-operation if possible, to include consideration of the possibilities for a light rail link between the Dublin-Belfast railway line at Stapolin and the Metro in the vicinity of Ballymun/Dublin Airport and other possible rail links and to include consideration of roads, bus routes, cycling routes and walking routes in the area.”

This has not been done.

As you know, this proposed Variation has been put on display despite the opposition of the Howth Malahide Area Cttee.  The full Council were not notified of the proposed display.

As an elected representative I greatly resent being asked to make submissions in relation to a draft Variation which does not reflect the policy of the Council as agreed in 2006 and which is on display against the wishes of the local Area Cttte.

I attach below the submission I made to the last public consultation in relation to roads proposals in this area and which led me to proposing the above motion in relation to a multi-modal study.  Please also consider it to be part of this current submission.  (see http://davidhealy.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=144&Itemid=40)

In the time available and given other responsibilities, I have not had a chance to fully review the Environmental Report.  However, I have read through with an eye on two issues:

   1. Consideration of Alternatives
   2. Traffic and emissions impacts
   3. Piece-meal development
 

   1. Consideration of Alternatives.

No alternatives to car-oriented road design have been considered.  The alternatives such as a public transport only route which I brought forward for consideration in my 2006 submission (copy below) have been ignored.
 

      2. Traffic and emissions impacts

Although traffic modelling and predictions have been carried out, they are not presented in the Environmental Report.  This is an unacceptable omission.

I was informed in the previous consultation that all traffic predictions in the area are based on a maximum 50% car share of modal split, something which no similar suburban area in Dublin achieves, even those with quality rail / light rail serving the entire area.   

The textual comments in the document appear to assume that traffic levels are independent of the provision of infrastructure.  This is not the case.  For a good overview please see Litman, T., Generated Traffic and Induced Travel, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, http://www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf  

Similarly there are no emissions predictions in the Report.  It would appear that these haven’t been carried out.   It is quite straightforward to do outline emissions predictions based on traffic predictions.  This should have been done.   

I attach a report from an EPA-funded research project by FEASTA, the Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability which cover aspects of SEA in the wider context of a Sustainability Assessment process, also at http://www.feasta.org/documents/epa_transport/ . Please see the sections 1 on the assessment process and 2 on air and climate impacts in particular.

Induced traffic effects are of course of great consequence for emissions assessment.
 
 
      3. Incoherent and piecemeal planning

The draft Variation shows part of a route which from previous discussions I know to be part of a planned Baldoyle to Blanchardstown Road which the Council’s Roads Department is proposing.  The Environmental Report shows the East-West Distributor Road leading to a minor road in the vicinity of the Airport. This is not what is intended and is fundamentally misleading.  The two sections of this road proposal should be considered and assessed together.
 

Is mise, le meas,
 
 
Cllr. David Healy

I have objected to the proposed Variation to the County Development Plan to bring a major new road through lands west of Malahide Road and from there parallel to the M50 motorway.  I also included a copy of my previous submission in 2006 which was ignored.

The Council management continue with a roads-first planning policy and are continuing to marginalise pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users.  The result of course, is more traffic, more congestion and more noise and pollution.

Particularly shocking is the fact that the Manager is claiming the power to put a proposed variation to the Development Plan on public display, without Council approval and indeed, despite the opposition of 6 out of the 7 local councillors.  Of course, we as Councillors do not have the resources to mount a legal challenge to this.

13th October 2008
Senior Executive Officer,
Planning Department,
Fingal County Council,
Main St.,
Swords,
Co. Dublin.

Re: SEA on Variation to Development Plan – Malahide Road/ East-West Distributor Road

A chara,

As you know, in September 2008, the Council approved the following recommendation from the Howth/Malahide Area Cttee.:

“That this Area Committee recommends that the Council direct the Manager to carry out a multi-modal transport study in relation to transport in the North Fringe/South Fringe area (Stapolin, Donaghmede, Balgriffin, Belcamp, Clonshaugh) with Dublin City Council’s co-operation if possible, to include consideration of the possibilities for a light rail link between the Dublin-Belfast railway line at Stapolin and the Metro in the vicinity of Ballymun/Dublin Airport and other possible rail links and to include consideration of roads, bus routes, cycling routes and walking routes in the area.”

This has not been done.

As you know, this proposed Variation has been put on display despite the opposition of the Howth Malahide Area Cttee.  The full Council were not notified of the proposed display.

As an elected representative I greatly resent being asked to make submissions in relation to a draft Variation which does not reflect the policy of the Council as agreed in 2006 and which is on display against the wishes of the local Area Cttte.

I attach below the submission I made to the last public consultation in relation to roads proposals in this area and which led me to proposing the above motion in relation to a multi-modal study.  Please also consider it to be part of this current submission.

In the time available and given other responsibilities, I have not had a chance to fully review the Environmental Report.  However, I have read through with an eye on two issues:

1.    Consideration of Alternatives
2.    Traffic and emissions impacts
3.    Piece-meal development

1.    Consideration of Alternatives.

No alternatives to car-oriented road design have been considered.  The alternatives such as a public transport only route which I brought forward for consideration in my 2006 submission (copy below) have been ignored.

2. Traffic and emissions impacts

Although traffic modelling and predictions have been carried out, they are not presented in the Environmental Report.  This is an unacceptable omission.

I was informed in the previous consultation that all traffic predictions in the area are based on a maximum 50% car share of modal split, something which no similar suburban area in Dublin achieves, even those with quality rail / light rail serving the entire area.  

The textual comments in the document appear to assume that traffic levels are independent of the provision of infrastructure.  This is not the case.  For a good overview please see Litman, T., Generated Traffic and Induced Travel, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, http://www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf

Similarly there are no emissions predictions in the Report.  It would appear that these haven’t been carried out.   It is quite straightforward to do outline emissions predictions based on traffic predictions.  This should have been done.  

I attach two reports from an EPA-funded research project by FEASTA, the Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability which cover aspects of SEA in the wider context of a Sustainability Assessment process, also at http://www.feasta.org/documents/epa_transport/ . Please see the sections on air and climate impacts in particular.

Induced traffic effects are of course of great consequence for emissions assessment.

3. Incoherent and piecemeal planning

The draft Variation shows part of a route which from previous discussions I know to be part of a planned Baldoyle to Blanchardstown Road which the Council’s Roads Department is proposing.  The Environmental Report shows the East-West Distributor Road leading to a minor road in the vicinity of the Airport. This is not what is intended and is fundamentally misleading.  The two sections of this road proposal should be considered and assessed together.

Is mise, le meas,

Cllr. David Healy

Last night a group met in St. Columbanus Hall and formed a Friends of Balscadden Beach, aiming to restore this wonderful swimming beach to at least a degree of its former glory. It will be doing a clean-up on Saturday 11th October at 12noon.  It’s next meeting will be on 5th November at 8pm in St. Columbanus Hall, Main St., Howth.

An Bord Pleanála has refused permission for the Edros proposal approved by Fingal County Council through material contravention. The  full Inspector’s report is here.

I have extracted the reasons for the Board’s decision below.

As you can note from other recent postings, I was increasingly concerned about the direction that the provision of community facilties was going in (in particular distance from centres of population and no consideration of swimming pool).  This decision now puts that entire process back to the drawing board as the available funding is now back to the original €700,000.  The Board’s decisions and reasons mean that the Edros site is now confirmed as an amenity site.  It will be up to the Council, the community and the landowner to consider how to give it a real amenity value.
REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
 

1.
Having regard to the zoning objectives in the Fingal Development Plan 2005
2011 in which the site is part zoned primarily Objective OS, "To preserve and provide for open space and recreational amenities" and part zoned Objective HA, "To protect and improve high amenity areas", which zoning is considered reasonable, it is considered that to grant permission for the proposed residential development of 64 dwelling units and a cafe would contravene materially those Development Plan objectives. The proposed development, would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
 

2
The site is located part within an area of high amenity, designated in the Howth Special Amenity Area Order 1999 and part in a buffer zone to the Howth Special Amenity Area. Part of the site is also within an Architectural Conservation Area in close proximity to the Martello tower, a recorded protected structure and various recorded monuments. Having regard to the layout, scale, height and design of the proposed residential development and cafe, it is considered that the proposed development would seriously injure the amenities and undermine the high amenity status of the surrounding area, which would be contrary to the HA zoning objective "To protect and improve high amenity areas" in the Fingal Development Plan 2005 – 2011. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
 

3.
The proposed development requires the construction of a new vehicular access to Balsacdden Road. a road of narrow width and poor vertical and horizontal alignment. This road. which is subject to parking restrictions and has a narrow single footpath on the east side overlooking Balscadden Bay. is part of the popular cliff walk and is heavily used by vehicles and pedestrians, especially during weekends and the tourist season. It is considered that the traffic arrangements proposed by the applicant and the scale of the proposed
development would result in the undesirable obstruction of the free flow of traffic on the public road. which would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard.
 
ABP decision number 227972
Fingal Co.Co. decision number F07A/1349

Following the presentation from Fingal planners, Glenkerring Homes who own the Techcrete and Teelings sections of the overall site asked to meet the local councillors.  They presented their scheme and we made comments. I attach a follow-up email I sent to them.
Stephen, a chara,

Thanks for the meeting and the opportunity to discuss matters relating to your proposed development

You know of my opposition to aspects such as the proposed heights and the location of the community centre but my view that you have a good design in relation to some of the other aspects such as views and architectural type so I won’t rehearse those comments.

Just two additional elements to those already discussed.

1. The Community Needs Analysis carried out a few years ago in Howth forms the basis for the work Fingal County Council and Howth Sutton Community Council are doing in relation to providing community facilities on the peninsula.  In asking people what facilities they wanted, the first priority was a swimming pool.  Your design incorporates what I assume to be a medium-sized private pool, accessible probably only by annual subscription or similar.  While the design or facilities to be provided in the suggested community facility has not been determined, it would hardly make sense to have 2 swimming pools on the same site.  As the pool was the strongest request from the community, it would make a lot of sense to see if their wishes could be facilitated on the site in a single pool which would be open to the public.

2. Recently the Council went on a study visit to Malmo and among the interesting items there was a very successful approach to surface water management involving open streams for the rainwater collection and transport through the site. I would recommend that you investigate such an approach here also.

Regards,

David

In line with the requirements of the County Development Plan, a draft Urban Centre Strategy has been prepared for Howth. My comments on it are below.  It will be discussed at the Area Cttee. meeting in Baldoyle at 3pm on 18th September and I have supplied these comments in advance.
Comments on the draft Howth Urban Centre Strategy

Pages 12 to 39 contain a significant amount of overlap with the ACA Statement of Strategy.   My comments on p.44/45 are at the end because they are only really intelligible with the document at hand.

 “Safety and security” p.47
Are there any crime records associated with the steps which would justify CCTV.  Lighting as proposed and better cleaning and maintenance are needed.                        

Access from West Pier to Beach p.51
Replace dart station wall to Claremont Beach access with railings to give natural overlooking.  Improve and maintain the existing access.

Heights on Techcrete site p.56
Where is the analysis to support the statement that “The former Techcrete site has the capacity to promote heights of up to 7 storeys”, plus the proposed tower? In particular visual analysis.               

Materials p.58
Recommend against the use of tropical hardwoods
Do not provide for more glazing on the north-facing facades.

Techcrete/Teelings/Baltray Park site  Section 6.1 

Location of Community Centre p.62
As already mentioned, no reason is given for putting the community facility to the far end of the site.

Division of uses on site p.63. 
The Development Plan says “mixed-use”, yet the Strategy seeks to physically divide the different uses    

Layout p.64- 65
The built form proposed by the developer seems to be a significant improvement on this proposal.

Buffer Zone around pumping station p.64
Can we get an explanation of the 50m buffer zone and whether it applies at other pumping stations such as Sutton, Dún Laoghaire, etc.  A 50m circle is 2 acres, although some would fall outside the site (beach, railway). The centre of this circle seems to be in the wrong place.

Views pp.66-67
The built form proposed by the developer seems to be a significant improvement on this proposal with much better views through.

Beach access over railway p.68 
Why is this location suggested for the beach access?

Heights p.69 
There are no reasons given for the suggested heights. I had expected an analysis which would lead to the appropriate heights for the proposed development, including visual impacts when seen from the beach, the SAAO, Harbour Road, and the heritage areas of the Howth

West pier proposals 6.2
This is a flight of fancy which is not backed up by any analysis of the needs supposed to be met nor of the impact on natural processes including erosion and siltation patterns. It should be omitted. It is frustrating that so much attention has apparently been put into this.

Tuckett’s Lane site 6.3
There is no analysis in this. Why not build along the lane?

Traffic Management at the Dart Station. p. 89
The Transportation Department has already secured the agreement of the Council to changes at this location. See Appendix 1.  (This was correctly presented to the Councillors as a matter of great urgency and I am at a loss as to why it hasn’t yet been implemented. This is effectively the option 2 in the draft Strategy but including car drop-off as at present. Note the consultants’ favoured Option 4 does not provide visibility of the traffic lights as referred to in the report.

Harbour Road proposal p.94
This doesn’t seem to make sense. It note that objective 10 on p.45 envisages retaining the current layout but reducing the curves to improve safety. I agree with that.

Traffic Management in the Centre of Howth p.95
Some of the ideas here are good. However, other elements require substantial further work.  I’m disappointed that we aren’t further along in relation to this element.

The consultants have confused the churches of Howth and the street names.

Comments on the elements on Page 45
Some of the numbered elements don’t seem to relate to anything elsewhere in the text. It would be useful to have an indication of the corresponding page numbers for each of the numbered elements.

1.    Delete
2.    Delete
3.    Delete
4.    Delete
5.    Delete
6.    Delete
7.    no, improve existing route and connect to promenade
8.    Delete
9.     
10.    Yes
11.     
12.     
13.     
14.     
15.     what does this mean? I can’t find it in the text.
16.     lighting
17.     Yes, lighting
18.     Yes
19.     Yes, but proposal is not adequate
20.     
21.     Yes, but design it safely, not as proposed (see comments below)
22.     no, buses can turn at the Castle entrance
23.     Yes, in fact widen this consideration into redesigning this road such that, in keeping with the development of the Techcrete site, the entry to Howth is further east and traffic slows further east than as at present.  Widen footpaths on both sides of the road, narrow carriageway, possible segregated cycle routes, depending on access arrangements to new site.
24.    Delete.  “Landmark” seems to be planner code for high. In fact, page 56 explains that this is a tower of over 7 stories.  No reason is given for this.  No analysis of heights in document, just unsubstantiated conclusions.         
25.     Overtaken by new application
26.     Does this conflict with the views in 27
27.     Yes, but better views than those shown on the map – views to Ireland’s Eye in particular.
28.    Why at this location and not further east?
29.    Why do you recommend the furthest extreme of the site as the location for a community centre?
30.     

Appendix 1

Extract from County Council meeting 03 April 2008
Minutes HomeYear HomeCommittee HomeMeeting Home
PARKING RESTRICTIONS AT HOWTH DART STATION
The following report by the Manager was READ:-
 
“Consequent to an expression of concern from a motorist, a site meeting was convened during March 2008 between representatives of the Transportation Department, Dublin Bus and An Garda Siochána to review the operation of the east and west-bound bus stops at Howth Dart Station. At this meeting it was observed that on occasions where both stops are occupied by buses or HGV’s the east-bound view of both traffic signal heads are obscured.
 
To mitigate the potential for a pedestrian accident, a decision was taken at this meeting to relocate the eastbound bus stop from the carriageway recess to the area immediately adjacent to the Dart station. To facilitate this change it will be necessary to remove all commuter parking from this area. Disabled parking will be retained however. It is considered that there is adequate parking in the adjacent area to accommodate the displaced motorists.
 
The proposed measures will:-
·        Facilitate unimpeded bus access and egress
·        Increase drop off space for commuters
·        Reduce vehicular / pedestrian conflicts at peak periods
·        Facilitate future bus turnaround to/from Howth Summit
·        Facilitate off street loading for commercial premises
 
A formal application has been submitted to the Garda Commissioner’s office for this regulatory parking control. The Gardaí in Howth Station have also been consulted and are supportive of the measures. The proposed works will not involve civil engineering works and it is envisaged that they will be implemented at an early date if approval is received from the Garda Commissioner.”
 
Following discussion, Mr. Garry O’Brien agreed to erect information signs at the location, in advance of the changes, to advise the public of the proposals and stating reasons for implementing the above changes. He also agreed to examine an adjoining of parking area which is currently used to store wheelie bins.
 
The report was NOTED.

As Techcrete is moving to Balbriggan, a large development site with mixed-use zoning is coming up for development.  In approving the material contravention for the Edros site, the Council agreed that the privately owned Techcrete and Teelings sites would be developed in an integrated fashion with the Council-owned depot and Baltray Park sites, and that the proposed community facilities would be sited at the most suitable part of the overall site.

Last week the Planning Department called a special area cttee. meeting to discuss the proposals.  I attach my comments on the Techcrete site proposal, as sent to Planning Department of Fingal County Council as a result of the meeting.
David Healy / Daithí Ó hÉalaithe <verdire@gmail.com>     Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 6:04 PM
To: Gilbert Power <gilbert.power@fingalcoco.ie>
Cc: David OConnor <David.OConnor@fingalcoco.ie>
Dear Gilbert,

I refer to the in camera Area Cttee. meeting yesterday at which the above site was discussed.  In response to my query when this extra meeting was called, Brian Buckley told us:

 " I expect that the Urban Centre Strategy will have been circulated to Members by then – at the very least the Techrete site element will be available so that we can have a full discussion on the issues."

None of the information presented to us was described as having resulted from or being part of the Urban Centre Strategy and no documentation of any sort was provided. I am very concerned that we apparently engaging in pre-planning discussions without the benefit of the Urban Centre Strategy which we are paying consultants to draft.

As you know, when the Edros Material Contravention was put forward, the Council agreed that the Baltray/Techcrete/Teelings site owned partly by the Council, partly by Dublin City Council and partly by developers would be developed as an integrated site.  This was not what was proposed to us yesterday.

The community facility which should by all reasonable thinking be located in proximity to the railway station and the overall centre of gravity of Howth village so as to facilitate pedestrian and public transport access, has been pushed to the far end of the site.

Part of the result of this, is that valuable land will be given over to a dedicated car park, solely for the community faciltity, whereas a facility in the vicinity of the Harbour could rely on the large areas of available parking in the Harbour.  As you know, the parking survey carried out last year by the Council’s consultants found a maximum occupancy rate on the Middle Pier car-parking area of 10%.

A public park is proposed without any explanation as to who is expected to be using it, or how they are expected to get there, or how it would add to the existing amenities of the area including Baltray Beach, Harbour Road promenade and the coastal, hill and heathland walks.

While we were not told the precise location of the access to the beach, we were given to understand that it would be some distance from the community centre, thus undermining the value of the centre as a base for water-based activities and reducing its centrality to main pedestrian routes.

The option of using the 2 lower floors of a 4-storey building for the community facility seems not to have been considered.

The only reason advanced yesterday for the site was that this was the piece of land owned by the Council and it would be more expensive to engage in a land swap to move the facility closer to the community.  The significant cost advantages of integrating the facility in a larger building and relying on existing car parking were apparently not considered.

I would not be happy with the Council facilitating an application on the site given the above serious difficulties with the proposal as presented.  I will be expressing my concerns to the developers when I meet them with Cllr. Maher on Tuesday.  While of course, I haven’t looked at the issues from their point of view, I don’t see any reason why they would not be able to facilitate the kind of changes I suggest above.

In relation to the Urban Centre Strategy’s examination of the site as a whole, which I understand will be on our area cttee. agenda in a fortnight, I will take this opportunity to reiterate my concerns, already expressed directly to the consultants and the Planning Department, that this strategy must address the following key concerns:

    * appropriate heights for the proposed development, including visual impacts when seen from SAAO and the heritage areas of Howth
    * mixed use development, including employment-generating uses as required by the zoning
    * public access throughout the site and to the beach
    * views through the site to Ireland’s Eye

Regards,

David Healy

—
Cllr David Healy
Green Party/Comhaontas Glas
Howth ward / Ceantar Bhinn Éadair

www.davidhealy.com

54, Páirc Éabhóra,
Beann Éadair,
Co. Bh.Á.C.

087 6178852

The most interesting from an incomplete 2007 survey.
llinois

Article XI (1970): “The public policy of the State and the duty of each person is to provide and maintain a healthful environment for the benefit of this and future generations. The General Assembly shall provide by law for the implementation and enforcement of this public policy.  Each person has the right to a healthful environment. Each person may enforce this right against any party, governmental or private, through appropriate legal proceedings subject to reasonable limitation and regulation as the General Assembly may provide by law.”
 

Hawaii

Article XI: “For the benefit of present and future generations, the State and its political subdivisions shall conserve and protect Hawaii’s natural beauty and all natural resources, including land, water, air, mineralsand energy sources, and shall promote the development and utilization of these resources in a manner consistent with their conservation and in furtherance of the self-sufficiency f the State. All public natural resources are held in trust by the State for the benefit of the people”  

Namibia

Article 100: “Land, water and natural resources below and above the surface of the land and in the continental shelf and within the territorial waters and the exclusive economic zone of Namibia shall belong to the State if they are not otherwise lawfully owned.”.

Article 95 (l) “The State shall actively promote and maintain the welfare of the people by adopting, inter alia, policies aimed at the … maintenance of ecosystems, essential ecological processes and biological diversity of Namibia and utilisation of living natural resources on a sustainable basis for the benefit of all Namibians, both present and future; in particular, the Government shall provide measures against the dumping or recycling of foreign nuclear and toxic waste on Namibian territory.”

The Constitution also charges the Ombudsman to investigate the destruction of ecosystems and the over-utilization of natural resources, thus ensuring environmental accountability.

Lesotho

(1993) Section 36: "Lesotho shall adopt policies designed to protect and enhance the natural and cultural environment of Lesotho for the benefit of present and future generations and shall endeavor to assure all citizens a sound and safe environment adequate for their health and well-being.

Eritrea (1999) Article 8.2 provides: "The State shall work to bring about a balanced and sustainable development throughout the country, and shall use all available means to enable all citizens to improve their livelihood in a sustainable manner, through their participation".

Article 8.3: "In the interest of present and future generations, the State shall be responsible for managing all land, water, air and natural resources and for ensuring their management in a balanced and sustainable manner; and for creating the right conditions to secure the participation of the people in safeguarding the environment".

Burkina Faso

Article 29: "The right to a healthy environment is recognized; it is the duty of all persons to protect, safeguard and enhance the environment".

Republic of Uganda (1995)

"The State shall promote sustainable development and public awareness of the need to manage land, air, water resources in a balanced and sustainable manner for the present and future generations"

"The utilization of the natural resources of Uganda shall be managed in such a way as to meet the development and environmental needs of present and future generations of Ugandans; and in particular, the State shall take all possible measures to prevent or minimize damage and destruction to land, air and water resources resulting from pollution or other causes".

South Africa

(c.1996)  24 Everyone has the right –

(a) to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well being and

(b) to have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations through reasonable legislative and other measures that –

(i) prevent pollution and ecological degradation,

(ii) promote conservation; and

(iii) secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.  

Norway

Article 110 b
Every person has a right to an environment that is conducive to health and to natural surroundings whose productivity and diversity are preserved. Natural resources should be made use of on the basis of comprehensive long-term considerations whereby this right will be safeguarded for future generations as well. In order to safeguard their right in accordance with the foregoing paragraph, citizens are entitled to be informed of the state of the natural environment and of the effects of any encroachments on nature that are planned or commenced.

Pennsylvania Constitution.

(1971) Article I, Section 27: “The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment. Pennsylvania’s public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people.”

Montana’s 1972 constitution

“The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.”

Swiss Confederation

Article 2 of the Federal Constitution declares sustainable development to be a national objective

Proposal for Fingal Cycling Forum as agreed at Transportation SPC July 2007.  We have had no progress yet on this.
FINGAL CYCLING FORUM

It was proposed by Councillor D. Healy, seconded by Councillor M. Richardson:

"That a Fingal cycling Forum be established with membership and terms of reference as follows:

Proposal for Fingal Cycling Forum

Membership
•    FCC Transportation Dept
•    FCC Community Dept (re liaison with schools and community organisations and sports clubs in particular re cycling training and health promotion)
•    Dublin Cycling Campaign
•    Fingal Safe Cycling
•    Representative of body responsible for health promotion
•    Councillor representative from SPC

Terms of reference

a)  Develop Cycling Strategy to contain

•    Objectives
•    Actions
•    Implementation
•    Indicative budget

Timescale – months 1 and 2

b)  Put draft strategy to public consultation
Open consultation on website plus targeted consultation with

•    Transport SPC
•    FCC Planning Dept (routes and design, planning enforcement)
•    FCC Awareness officer/publicity expertise
•    FCC Parks Dept (re routes through parks and amenity areas)

•    Green Schools
•    Fingal Community Forum
•    Dublin Cycling Campaign

Month 3

c)  Finalise and adopt Strategy
Formal adoption by Transport SPC then by County Council

Month 4

d)    Implement strategy, monitor implementation of strategy

Month 5 onwards

Note: The draft strategy should rely on good practice elsewhere, successful examples etc.  
Actions are likely to include:
•    Cycling officer with resources and access to a backup team to drive the strategy.
•    Cycling promotion  (including engagement with media)
•    Cycling training for adults
•    Cycling promotion and training in schools, link to Green Schools
•    Fingal Co.Co. as a cycling employer
•    Policy in relation to road design/infrastructure issues
•    Safety auditing of road schemes and proposing remedial measures
•    Strategy for amenity routes
•    Strategy for engagement between Forum/Co.Co. and other relevant bodies
o    Garda Síochána
o    Public Transport Organisations: Irish Rail, RPA, DTA, Dublin Bus, Bus Éireann, etc.
o    Health promotion bodies
o    Schools
o    Other road-user organisations: mobility impaired, pedestrians, motorists, hauliers."

Dublin Airport putting business before people

-as application lodged to increase early morning and night time flights
 
Green
Party Fingal Cllr David Healy has accused Dublin Airport Authority of
putting business before people following the announcement that they are
going back to An Bord Pleánala to seek an increase in the number of
early morning and night time flights. In granting permission for a new
runway at Dublin Airport, An Bord Pleanála restricted the use of the
runways to minimise noise impacts on local residents and stipulated a
maximum of 65 flights between the hours of 11pm and 7am.
Cllr Healy said: "Residents in the vicinity of the airport, especially in the worst affected communities of Portmarnock and St. Margaret’s, are entitled to relief from the noise of planes flying overhead. This is especially important at night.  World Health Organisation research has found that aircraft noise is associated with impaired childhood learning and sleep disruption is believed to have long-term health consequences.

 "In fact, An Bord Pleanála’s condition, allowing 65 flights per night, is not nearly strict enough. The fact that the airport is going back to An Bord Pleanála seeking a change in this condition makes a mockery of its claim to be a good neighbour. I call on the airport to withdraw its application and comply with these conditions which are there to protect public health."

 [ENDS]

 
Information

Cllr. David Healy: 087 617 8852

Nicola Cassidy, Press Office: 01 618 4088 / 087 914 8175