Replies to questions at today’s Area Committee.
MALAHIDE/HOWTH AREA COMMITTEE MEETING
(Services A – Transportation, Environment & Water Services)
 
Thursday 5th January, 2006

ITEM NO.  7

RESTORATION OF BOLLARDS AT LANEWAY BESIDE
SCOIL MHUIRE ON GRACE O’MALLEY DRIVE

Question: Councillor D. Healy

“To ask the Manager to restore the bollards on the laneway beside Scoil Mhuire on Grace O’Malley Drive and the laneway joining the lower and the middle sections of Balkill Park, some of which were removed by ESB when burying cables?”

Reply:

The ESB has been contacted and has been asked to restore the bollards at the above location as soon as possible.

ITEM NO.  8

REPLACEMENT OF BARRIER ON LANEWAY FROM ST. PETER’S
TERRACE BESIDE SCOIL MHUIRE

Question: Councillor D. Healy

“To ask the Manager to replace the barrier on the laneway from St. Peter’s Terrace beside Scoil Mhuire which used to control vehicular access to the disused basketball courts there?”

Reply:

The Traffic section has been asked to examine the provision of a height restriction barrier at the location referred to in the question.

A further reply will issue to the Councillor.

There has been considerable confusion in relation to the open space between Castlerosse and Admiral Park. I have been contacted by a number of residents who are opposed to the joining of the two sections of open space currently divided by a fence.  I understand from them and from the Parks Department that there are also residents who want the fence removed but I have not heard from these residents myself.

Unfortunately there have been numerous contradictory statements by the Parks Department and the full planning file referred to has not been sourced within the Council.

Therefore, I contacted An Bord Pleanála myself to get access to the file.  The file number 06F.100596 was retrieved from the archives and made available to me in the Board’s offices.  Anyone else can also inspect it.

In order to put the facts in the public domain, I am putting as many relevant documents as practical on my website. 

The story essentially is as follows:

In 1996 the developer of Castlerosse applied to extend the estate down to its current full extent.  The Castlerosse Action Group objected to this on a number of grounds, including the proposed integration of the Admiral Park open space with the open space for the new section of Castlerosse. 

Fingal County Council decided to grant permission.  The Castlerosse Residents’ Action Group employed O’Neill Associates to appeal on their behalf.

An Bord Pleanála’s Inspector recommended that the permission be granted.  In relation to the open space he said:

"It is argued  that the joining of the open space areas between Castlerosse and Admiral Park would create a security hazard. I consider this to  be  a positive planning proposal, and do not agree that it would result in a security hazard."

The Board’s decision following the Inspector’s report includes the following condition:

"The developer shall  pay  a  sum  of  money  to Fingal County  Council  as   a   contribution   towards   the expenditure that is  proposed  to  be  incurred by the Council in respect of the provision of piping the main water  drainage channel  adjacent  to  the  site,  the removal of temporary  fencing  and  the completion and integration  of  open  space  areas  facilitating  the proposed development. The  amount  of the contribution and the arrangements  for  payment  shall be as agreed between the developer  and  the Council or, in default of agreement, shall be determined by An Bord Pleanála."

I have scanned the main documents from the file and they are in order
below.  Following them are the Board’s decision and the Inspector’s
report on which it is based, in the somewhat mangled format I received
them in.
{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}
PLANNING PERMISSION GRANTED BY AN BORD PLEANÁLA

.F3,0

______________________________________________________________

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

L………………….L………………R……………..M……………….

PL 06F.100596          An Bord Plean la   Page PPPL of QQQL

AA AAAAAAAAAA          AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA   AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

C…………………………………………………….M……………..

                      AN  BORD  PLEAN LA

                      BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

 

C…………………………………………………….M……………..

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT) ACTS, 1963 TO 1993

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

 

                        County Fingal

                        AAAAAA AAAAAA

 

        Planning Register Reference Number: F96A/0227

        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

 

J…………………………………………………….M…………M….

APPEAL by Castlerosse  Residents  Action Group care of O’Neill

AAAAAA

and Associates of  Harbour  Road, Howth, County Dublin against

the decision made  on  the  4th  day  of  October, 1996 by the

Council of the County of Fingal to grant subject to conditions

a permission to  Tower  Homes Limited care of John F. O’Connor

and Associates of 11A Greenmount House, Harold’s Cross, Dublin

for development comprising  the  erection  of  18  number four

bedroom houses, comprising an extension to Castlerosse housing

development on lands to the side of 32 Castlerosse View and to

the  rear of  14  to  36  Grange  Road,  Baldoyle,  Dublin  in

accordance with plans  and  particulars  lodged  with the said

Council:

 

DECISION:  Pursuant to  the  Local  Government  (Planning  and

AAAAAAAAA

Development) Acts, 1963 to 1993, it is hereby decided, for the

reason  set  out  in  the  First  Schedule  hereto,  to  grant

permission for the  said  development  in  accordance with the

said  plans  and   particulars,   subject  to  the  conditions

specified in the  Second  Schedule hereto, the reasons for the

imposition of the said conditions being as set out in the said

Second Schedule and  the  said  permission  is  hereby granted

subject to the said conditions.

 

C…………………………………………………….M……………..

                        FIRST SCHEDULE

                        AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

J…………………………………………………….M……………..

Having regard to  the zoning objective for the site as set out

in the current development plan for the area, the scale of the

proposal,  the  existence   of   a  suitable  access,  and  to

availability of public  services,  it  is  considered that the

proposed  development,  subject   to   compliance   with   the

conditions set out  in  the  Second  Schedule hereto, would be

acceptable in terms  of  traffic safety and convenience, would

not be seriously  injure the amenities of existing residential

property in the  vicinity, and would be in accordance with the

proper planning and development of the area.

 

 

C…………………………………………………….M……………..

                       SECOND SCHEDULE

                       AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..

1.      The development shall  be  carried  out  in accordance

        with  the  plans  and  particulars  submitted  to  the

        planning authority on  the  4th day of April, 1996, as

        amended by additional  information  submitted  to  the

        planning authority on  6th  day of June, 1996, and 7th

        day of August,  1996,  save  as  may be amended by the

        following conditions.

 

        Reason: In order  to  clarify the development to which

        AAAAAAA

        this decision relates.

.P

2.      This  permission  does   not   include   the  proposed

        pedestrian  access  to   the  adjoining  Saint  Mary’s

        school.

 

        Reason: To clarify  the  extent  of  the  development,

        AAAAAAA

        having  regard  to   the  nature  of  the  development

        proposed.

 

3.      Prior to commencement  of  development  details of the

        following matters shall  be  agreed  with the planning

        authority;

 

L…….L……J……………………………………….M……………..

        (a)    All external finishes.

 

        (b)    Surface water drainage proposals.

 

        (c)    Foul drainage proposals.

 

        (d)    Construction  and  alignment  of  the  proposed

               service road extending through the site.

 

        (e)    Undergrounding of the  existing  overhead  line

               which traverses the site.

 

        (f)    Provision of public  lighting which shall be

               to the requirements of the planning authority.

 

        (g)    Front garden boundary treatment of the houses.

 

L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..

 

        Reason: In the  interest  of visual amenities, orderly

        AAAAAAA

        development and the proper planning and development of

        the area.

 

4.      Prior to commencement  of  development  details  of  a

        comprehensive landscaping plan  for  the  entire  site

        shall be submitted  to  the  planning  authority. This

        shall include details of the specifications and siting

        of a protective  fence  by the main water channel, the

        levelling, seeding and  landscaping  of the area shown

        as open space and a time scale for the implementation

        of all landscaping works.

 

        Reason: In the  interest  of  residential amenity, and

        AAAAAAA

        the proper planning and development of the area.

 

5.      All  public  services  to  the  proposed  development,

        including electrical, telephone  cables  and equipment

        shall be located  underground  throughout  the  entire

        site.

 

        Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

        AAAAAAA

 

6.      Prior to the  commencement  of  development, proposals

        for an estate/street  name, house numbering scheme and

        associated signage shall  be submitted to the planning

        authority for agreement.

 

        Reason: In the interest of orderly development.

        AAAAAAA

 

.PP=0003==========L/P=062/FFF T=003 W/O 0/0      .S   1.00 .C .~………..===

 

7.      The developer shall  pay  a  sum  of  money  to Fingal

        County Council as  a  contribution towards expenditure

        that was and/or that is proposed to be incurred by the

        Council in respect  of  the  provision of public water

        supplies  and  sewerage  facilities  facilitating  the

        proposed development. The  amount  of the contribution

        and the arrangements  for  payment  shall be as agreed

        between the developer  and  the Council or, in default

        of agreement, shall be determined by An Bord Pleanla.

 

        In the case  of  expenditure  that  is  proposed to be

        incurred, the requirement  to pay this contribution is

        subject to the  provisions  of section 26(2)(h) of the

        Local Government (Planning  and Development) Act, 1963

        generally, and in particular, the specified period for

        the purposes of  paragraph  (h) shall be the period of

        seven years from the date of this order.

 

        Reason: It is considered reasonable that the developer

        AAAAAAA

        should contribute towards  the  expenditure  that  was

        and/or that is  proposed to be incurred by the Council

        in respect of  the  provision of public water supplies

        and  sewerage  facilities  facilitating  the  proposed

        development.

 

8.      The developer shall  pay  a  sum  of  money  to Fingal

        County  Council  as   a   contribution   towards   the

        expenditure that is  proposed  to  be  incurred by the

        Council in respect of the provision of piping the main

        water  drainage channel  adjacent  to  the  site,  the

        removal of temporary  fencing  and  the completion and

        integration  of  open  space  areas  facilitating  the

        proposed development. The  amount  of the contribution

        and the arrangements  for  payment  shall be as agreed

        between the developer  and  the Council or, in default

        of agreement, shall be determined by An Bord Pleanla.

 

        Payment  of  this   contribution  is  subject  to  the

        provisions of section 26(2)(h) of the Local Government

        (Planning and Development) Act, 1963 generally, and in

        particular, the specified  period  for the purposes of

        paragraph (h) shall  be  the  period of ten years from

        the date of this order.

 

        Reason: It is considered reasonable that the developer

        AAAAAAA

        should contribute towards  the expenditure proposed to

        be  incurred  by  the  Council  in  respect  of  works

        facilitating the proposed development.

.PP=0004==========L/P=062/FFF T=003 W/O 0/0      .S   1.00 .C .~………..===

 

9.      Prior  to  the   commencement   of   development,  the

        developer shall lodge  with  Fingal  County  Council a

        cash deposit, a bond of an insurance company, or other

        security  to secure  the  provision  and  satisfactory

        completion and maintenance  until  taken  in charge by

        the Council of  roads,  footpaths, watermains, drains,

        public  open space  and  other  services  required  in

        connection  with  the  development,  coupled  with  an

        agreement  empowering  the   Council   to  apply  such

        security  or  part   thereof   to   the   satisfactory

        completion  or  maintenance   of   any   part  of  the

        development. The form and amount of the security shall

        be as agreed between the Council and the developer or,

        in default of  agreement,  shall  be  determined by An

        Bord Pleanla.

 

        Reason: To ensure  the  satisfactory completion of the

        AAAAAAA

        development.

 

 

 

L…………………L…………………………………M……………..

 

                      _______________________________________

                      AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

L…………………L…………………………………M……………..

                      Member of An Bord Plean la

                      AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

                      duly authorised to authenticate

                      AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

                      the seal of the Board.

                      AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

 

L…………………L………….L………………..L….M……………..

                      Dated this    day of               1997.

                      AAAAAAAAAA    AAAAAA               AAAAA

INSPECTOR’S REPORT

J…………………………………………………….M……………..

.F3,0

______________________________________________________________ÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

L………………….L………………R……………..M……………….

PL06F.100596           An Bord Pleanála   Page PPPL of QQQLÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAA           AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA   AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

 

 

J……………………….J…………………………..M……………..

 

Development:                 Extension to Castlerosse  Housingÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAA

                             Development on lands  to the side

                             of 32 Castlerosse View and to the

                             rear   of  14-36   Grange   Road,

                             Baldoyle comprising 18  no.  four

                             bedroom semi-detached houses.

 

Development:                 Third   Party   -v-    Grant   ofÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAA

                             Permission

 

Reg. Ref.:                   F96A/0227ÿ

AAAAAAAAAA

 

Planning Authority:          Fingal County Councilÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

Applicants:                  Tower Homes Limitedÿ

AAAAAAAAAAA

 

Appellants:                  Castlerosse    Residents   Actionÿ

AAAAAAAAAAA

                             Group

 

Date of Site Inspection:     7th February, 1997.ÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

 

 

 

 

J…………………………………………………….M……………..

 

INTRODUCTIONÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAA

 

I have read  the  file,  inspected  the  site,  considered the

grounds of appeal, and assessed the proposal in the context of

the proper planning and development of the area.

 

This report contains  summaries  of  submissions  made  to the

Board.  It is  recommended  that  these submissions be read in

full in conjunction with this report.

 

 

SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTIONÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

The site is  located  north of Grange Road, and to the east of

the newly constructed  Castlerosse housing development. Access

to the site  is  proposed  along  Castlerosse  View;  there is

currently a cul-de-sac  with a turning bay close to the end of

this.

 

To the west  the  side  adjoins  Castlerosse  View  and school

grounds. To the  south the site adjoins the rear of Nos. 14-36

(inclusive) Grange Road. To the east is open space attached to

Admiral Park housing scheme.

 

The houses on  Castlerosse  View  are two-storey semi-detached

with brick frontages.  At the end of the cul-de-sac there is a

kerb and a  landscaped  strip.   This is bounded by a low wall

and railing.  The  carriageway  on  Castlerosse  View measures

approximately 6.5m.  There  are  32  houses  fronting onto the

road, and there is a grassed open space on the opposite side.

 

The appeal site appears as an open field.  The boundary within

the school grounds is marked by a palisade fence.

 

I attach photographs taken at the time of inspection.

 

 

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

The  proposal is  for  an  extension  to  Castlerosse  housing

development on lands  to  the side of 32 Castlerosse View, and

to the rear  of 14-36 Grange Road, Baldoyle, comprising 18 no.

four bedroom semi-detached  houses. The site area is stated to

be 1.81 acres,  and  the floor area of each dwelling is stated

to be 120 sq. metres.

 

The proposed finishes include brick and vertical tile cladding

to  front walls,  sand  cement  render  to  other  walls,  and

concrete tiles to roof.

 

 

PLANNING AUTHORITY’S DECISIONÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

To grant permission subject to 19 conditions.

 

The conditions relate to the following:-

 

L…….L……J……………………………………….M……………..

        1.     Standard compliance.

 

        2.     Financial  contribution  of   £11,160   towards

               public services.

 

        3.     Financial contribution of  £25,000  towards the

               cost of piping  the  main  water channel on the

               site,  removal  of   temporary   fencing,   and

               completion and integration of open space areas.

 

        4.     Financial contribution of  £2,500  towards  the

               development of public open space.

 

        5.     Financial  contribution  of   £18,000   towards

               traffic management in the Baldoyle area.

 

        6.     Financial security.

 

        7.     Surface water drainage requirements.

 

        8.     Foul drainage requirements.

 

        9.     Road provision requirements.

 

        10.    Landscape plan.

 

        11.    Undergrounding of existing overhead lines.

 

        12.    Undergrounding  of  public   services   to   be

               provided.

 

        13.    Public lighting requirements.

 

        14.    No dwelling to  be  occupied until services are

               connected.

 

        15.    Levelling, soiling, seeding  and landscaping of

               open space area.

 

        16.    Sanitary services requirements.

 

        17.    Street naming and house numbering.

 

        18.    Construction and maintenance requirements until

               development taken in charge.

 

        19.    Main water channel  to  be  kept  clear  at all

               times, and the  banks  of  the  channel  to  be

               graded.

 

J…………………………………………………….M……………..

The  Planning Authority’s  decision  was  made  following  the

submission of additional  information  on  the 5th June, 1996.

This included the following:-

 

L…….L……J……………………………………….M……………..

        1.     Open space provision  of  0.30  acres meets the

               Development Plan requirement  exactly.   It  is

               proposed to link  Castlerosse  and Admiral Park

               open space areas.

 

        2.     Survey of lands in the vicinity of the school –

               copy of layout  plan  showing levels.  Proposed

               to continue the  wall  and  railing  along  the

               northern boundary of Admiral Park.

 

        3.     Landscape specification to  be  submitted  upon

               receipt of a  favourable  determination  of the

               application.

 

J…………………………………………………….M……………..

Clarification of additional  information  was submitted on the

6th August, 1996 and this included the following:-

 

L…….L……J……………………………………….M……………..

        1.     Retaining wall, if  necessary,  to  be built at

               the  end  on   the  hammerhead  to  secure  its

               foundations.  600mm high  concrete  bollards to

               be placed at  the  end  of  the hammerhead, and

               water channel to  be  fenced  with  a 2.0m high

               chain link fence pending the piping and filling

               of the channel.   Level of the open space to be

               generally 150mm above road level.

 

        2.     Landscape specification to  be  submitted  upon

               receipt of a  favourable  determination  of the

               application.

.P

J…………………………………………………….M……………..

GROUNDS OF APPEALÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

These are submitted  by  O’Neill  &  Associates  on  behalf of

Castlerosse Residents Action  Group,  and may be summarised as

follows:-

 

L…….L……J……………………………………….M……………..

        1.     The   proposed   extension    of    Castlerosse

               cul-de-sac would create  serious traffic hazard

               for existing residents  as public open space is

               across   the   road    serving   the   proposed

               development.    Young   children    would    be

               particularly at risk. The proposed access would

               materially contravene the  previous  permission

               for Castlerosse housing  development under Ref.

               PL6/5/83933.  The proposed  access  road  would

               devalue all of  the properties in the immediate

               area.

 

        2.     The proposed development  is  contrary  to  the

               zoning  objective  set  for  the  area  in  the

               Statutory   Development  Plan.    This   is   a

               substandard form of  development as a number of

               the proposed houses directly overlook adjoining

               properties to the side, and there is inadequate

               provision of open  space.   The  access road is

               only 5 metres  wide.  It is proposed to include

               an access to  the  existing  primary school off

               the  proposed  cul-de-sac   extension.    These

               elements  would  seriously   detract  from  the

               residential amenities of the area.

 

        3.     The proposed development  would  cause  serious

               disamenity to No. 32 Castlerosse View, as there

               would be four houses backing onto the site wall

               only 8 metres away.  There would be overlooking

               of all the  private open space at No. 32.  This

               would lead to a devaluation of that property.

 

        4.     The public newspaper  or  site  notice does not

               refer to the  opening  of  an  entrance  to the

               adjoining  primary  school   grounds.  The  new

               access would lead  to  an unacceptable increase

               in through traffic  in  the Castlerosse Estate.

               This would constitute  a road hazard, and would

               cause  serious  residential   disamenity.   The

               access  should  either   be   omitted   or  the

               applicant should be requested to re-publish the

               statutory notices appropriately worded.

 

        5.     At the very  least the building line created by

               Castlerosse View should  be  continued  in  the

               proposed development, and brick finishes should

               be used to  complement the existing residential

               development.   Alternatively  the   development

               should be served from a different access point.

               Three of the  houses  could be omitted in order

               to provide for open space requirements; if Nos.

               32 to 35 (inclusive) were omitted, No. 36 could

               be re-orientated in a north/south direction.

.P

J…………………………………………………….M……………..

 

OBSERVERSÿ

AAAAAAAAA

 

There are two  separate observations submitted to the Board as

follows:-

 

L…….L……J……………………………………….M……………..

        (a)    Observation  from Colette  Sadlier,  Secretary,

               Castlerosse  Residents  Association,  including

               letters from the following:

 

               Paul  and  Caroline   Doolin,   18  Castlerosse

               Crescent

 

               Dermot   Maddan  and   Helen   McGuinness,   31

               Castlerosse View

 

               Laurence Ennis, 26 Castlerosse View

 

               Marie Moss, 30 Castlerosse View

 

               Garry Brown, 3 Castlerosse View

 

               Ciara and Michael Walsh, 6 Castlerosse View

 

               James McDonagh, 5 Castlerosse View

 

               Colette  and  John   Sadlier,   12  Castlerosse

               Crescent

 

               Petition   from   Castlerosse    Action   Group

               containing 59 signatures  representing 31 of 32

               houses  on  Castlerosse   View,  50  signatures

               representing  35  of   37  occupied  houses  on

               Castlerosse   Crescent   and    47   signatures

               representing 28 houses on Castlerosse Drive.

L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..

 

        This submission may be summarised as follows:-

 

L…….L……J……………………………………….M……………..

        1.     The proposed development would present a danger

               to young children.   There  are  already enough

               cars and lorries  driving  through  the estate.

               The  proposed development  would  constitute  a

               traffic hazard.

 

        2.     The purchasers of  the  houses  in  Castlerosse

               View were led  to believe that this road was to

               remain a cul-de-sac.

 

        3.     The proposed school  entrance  would  result in

               Castlerosse being used  as  a  short  cut. This

               would create a security hazard.

 

        4.     The proposed development  would lead to traffic

               chaos.

 

        5.     The  proposed  development   would   result  in

               intolerable increased pressure  on the existing

               drainage scheme.

 

        6.     Overlooking of existing dwellings.

 

        7.     The linking of  Admiral  Park  and  Castlerosse

               estate would become a major security problem.

 

        8.     Devaluation of property.

 

        9.     Dust  and  dirt   resulting  from  construction

               traffic would lead to disamenity.

 

        10.    The creation of  a  third 90 degree bend within

               the estate would be hazardous.

 

 

        (b)    Mary Heaslip and  John  Owens,  32  Castlerosseÿ

        AAA

               View.

L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..

 

        This may be summarised as follows:-

L…….J……J……………………………………….M……………..

 

        1.     Castlerosse  View  is   a   very   narrow  road

               incapable of supporting  any  more traffic. The

               proposed  road  layout   would  create  further

               danger.

 

        2.     Castlerosse View separates  the houses from the

               open  space.  The  proposed  development  would

               increase the hazard to children.

 

        3.     The merging of  Admiral  Park  and  Castlerosse

               green spaces would  greatly reduce security.

 

        4.     The  objectors  main  problem  relates  to  the

               proposed Nos. 33-36  (inclusive).   Their house

               would  be  directly   overlooked  by  four  new

               houses,  leading  to  a  loss  of  privacy  and

               devaluation of property.

 

 

J…………………………………………………….M……………..

FIRST PARTY RESPONSE TO GROUNDS OF APPEALÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

This may be summarised as follows:-

 

L…….L……J……………………………………….M……………..

        1.     There would be no traffic hazard.  The proposed

               two 90 degree  bends  would reduce the speed of

               traffic.

 

        2.     The  proposed  development  complies  with  the

               zoning objective.  The  layout  is conventional

               and accords with  the  standards set out in the

               County Development Plan.

 

        3.     The separation from  No. 32 Castlerosse View is

               more  than twice  the  minimum  required.   The

               proposed development would  not detract from or

               impair the amenities of No. 32.

 

        4.     The  open space  provisions  meets  Development

               Plan standards.  The linking of Castlerosse and

               Admiral Park will  create  a  parkland  area of

               five acres.

 

        5.     The proposed house  types  are  the  same as in

               Castlerosse.  There will  be  no devaluation of

               property in Castlerosse.

 

        6.     The Castlerosse estate road is 6.5 metres wide,

               and not 5  metres.  There  will  be  no trafficÿ

                   AAA

               hazard or congestion.

 

        7.     The proposed school  entrance  is  intended  to

               facilitate children in the proposed development

               and   Castlerosse  development.    Some   other

               children may use  it.   The  proposed  entrance

               would be in accordance with the proper planning

               and development of the area.

 

        8.     This is the  last  piece of residentially zoned

               land north of the Grange Road between the coast

               road  and  the   railway  line.   The  site  is

               derelict.   The  proposed   development   would

               improve the amenities of the area.

 

J…………………………………………………….M……………..

 

PLANNING AUTHORITY’S RESPONSE TO OBJECTORSÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

This may be summarised as follows:-

 

L…….L……J……………………………………….M……………..

        1.     This  is  a   reasonable  development,  and  is

               acceptable  subject  to   the   19   conditions

               attached by the Planning Authority.

 

        2.     Castlerosse View  has   a  carriageway  of  6.5

               metres.   The  proposed   cul-de-sac  extension

               would be 5.5  metres with a 1.5 metre footpath,

               and  a 1.85  metre  grass  verge.   A  standard

               hammerhead was conditioned,  as  was a standard

               speed control curve.

 

        3.     The Roads Department  sees  no objection to the

               proposed pedestrian entrance to the school.

 

 

J…………………………………………………….M……………..

DEVELOPMENT PLANÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

The site is  in  an  area  zoned  A  –  to protect and improve

residential amenity.

 

 

PLANNING HISTORYÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

Ref. 6/5/83933 –  permission granted on appeal for development

comprising the erection  of  92 houses at this location.  This

included Castlerosse View,  which was indicated as ending in a

cul-de-sac.  The front  garden  of  No. 32 was shown extending

partly across the  width  of the cul-de-sac between it and the

site boundary.  A  footpath also appears to be indicated.  The

cul-de-sac head as constructed is different from that shown on

the  submitted  drawings.    No   conditions  in  the  Board’s

decisions relate specifically  to  No. 32 Castlerosse View, or

the adjoining cul-de-sac.

 

 

PLANNING ASSESSMENTÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

This is a  vacant  residentially  zoned  site  adjoining older

residential development to the south, and recently constructed

housing  to  the   west.   I  submit  that  it  is  suited  to

residential development in  principle, and that the density of

development proposed is reasonable.

 

There is a third party appeal against the Planning Authority’s

decision to grant  permission.  The main grounds of appeal may

generally be listed under the following headings:-

 

L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..

        Material contravention of zoning objective.

L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..

        Material contravention of an earlier permission.

L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..

        Traffic hazard, Substandard development.

L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..

        Serious    disamenity    to    existing    residential

        development.

L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..

        Inadequate public notices.

 

J…………………………………………………….M……………..

Other grounds of objection include the following:-

 

L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..

        Devaluation of property.

L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..

        Security hazard.

L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..

        Inadequate drainage and water supply.

 

J…………………………………………………….M……………..

I address each of these in turn.

 

Zoning Objectiveÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

The zoning objective  for  this site as set out in the current

Development Plan is  A  –  to  protect and improve residential

amenity.  I consider  that  the  proposed  development  is  in

general accordance with this objective.

 

Earlier Permissionÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

Under Ref. 6/5/83933  the  Board  granted  permission  for the

development of 92  houses at this location.  This included the

Castlerosse  housing  development.    Castlerosse   View   was

indicated as ending  in a cul-de-sac, with the front garden of

No. 32 extending  partly  across  the  width of the cul-de-sac

between it and  site boundary.  A footpath also appeared to be

indicated.  The cul-de-sac  head  as  constructed is different

from that shown  on  the  submitted  drawings.   There were no

conditions  relating  specifically   to  this  aspect  of  the

proposed development.

 

I do not  consider  that  the  proposed development would be a

material contravention of  the  previous permission granted by

the Board. While  the  development  as  constructed  does  not

appear  to  strictly   conform   with  the  layout  for  which

permission was granted  under  Ref.  6/5/83933, the amendments

appear to be  of  a relatively minor nature. The strip of land

between the cul-de-sac  head  and  the  site  boundary was not

shown as public  open  space, but appeared to form part of the

front garden attached  to  No. 32. There does not appear to me

to be any  reason  why the first party should not be permitted

to now seek  permission  for  an  extension of the Caselerosse

View cul-de-sac road.

 

Traffic Hazardÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

The grounds of  appeal  can  be interpreted as indicating that

the Castlerosse View  road  has  a  carriageway of 5 metres. I

measured  the  carriageway   width   and   found   it   to  be

approximately 6.5 metres.  The main open space area associated

with Castlerosse View is on the opposite side of the road from

the houses.  Having  regard  to  the relatively small scale of

the proposed development  (18  houses)  I  consider  that  the

additional traffic generated  would  not  constitute a traffic

hazard.

 

Attention has been  drawn to the fact that the layout proposed

includes provision for  a  pedestrian  access  to the existing

primary school. It  is  stated  that  this would substantially

increase traffic along  Castlerosse  View.  The primary school

also has a  main  vehicular access onto the Grange Road.  I do

not  consider that  the  traffic  generated  by  the  proposed

pedestrian  entrance would  constitute  a  traffic  hazard  on

Castlerosse View.

 

Substandard Developmentÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

I submit that the layout proposed is not substandard, and that

the proposals for open space provision are satisfactory.

 

Disamenity to Existing Developmentÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

There is objection  to  the  proposed  development  because it

includes provision for  four  houses  backing onto the side of

the existing 32  Castlerosse  View.   It  is stated that these

houses are within  8  metres  of No. 32 Castlerosse View.  The

proposed rear garden lengths of the subject houses measured to

the main back wall of the house can be detailed as follows:-

 

L…….L…………J………………………………….M……………..

        No. 33       18 metres approximately

L…….L…………J………………………………….M……………..

        No. 34       18 metres approximately

L…….L…………J………………………………….M……………..

        No. 35       22 metres approximately

L…….L…………J………………………………….M……………..

        No. 36       22.5 metres approximately.

 

J…………………………………………………….M……………..

I consider that  these  rear  garden  lengths  are  such  that

serious disamenity resulting from overlooking would not occur.

 

There is an  aspect of the proposed layout which I draw to the

attention of the Board.  No. 33 extends beyond the established

front building line  of  the  houses  on  Castlerosse View.  I

consider this to  be an undesirable element in the layout, and

would recommend the  omission  of  this  house in the event of

permission being granted.

 

Public Noticesÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

It is argued  that  the  public  notices  did not refer to the

provision of a  pedestrian  entrance  to  the adjoining school

grounds.  This does  appear to be a significant element of the

proposal, and the  Board  may  consider  that a revised public

notice should be submitted.

.P

Other Mattersÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

It is argued  that  the  proposed  development would lead to a

devaluation of property  in  the  general area. I do not agree

with this, and  consider that no substantial evidence has been

submitted in support of this argument. Subject to the omission

of house No. 33 I consider that there would be no serious loss

of amenity to No. 32 Castlerosse View.

 

It is argued  that the joining of the open space areas between

Castlerosse and Admiral Park would create a security hazard. I

consider this to  be  a positive planning proposal, and do not

agree that it would result in a security hazard.

 

It is argued  that the proposed development would put pressure

on  inadequate  drainage  and  water  supply.   No  convincing

evidence has been submitted in support of this argument.

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

I recommend that  the  first  party  be  requested to submit a

revised newspaper notice to include reference to the provision

of a pedestrian entrance to the primary school.

 

Should the Board  consider that a revised public notice is not

necessary, I recommend that planning permission be granted.

 

With  regard  to   the  conditions  imposed  by  the  Planning

Authority I comment as follows:-

 

L…….L………….J…J……………………………..M……………..

        Condition 1   –   Reasonable

 

        Condition 2   –   Financial  contribution towards  the

                          provision  of  public   services  is

                          reasonable.

 

        Condition 3   –   It appears to me that the main water

                          channel referred to  is  not  on the

                          subject site.  The  piping  of  this

                          channel would however facilitate the

                          integration of the open space areas.

                          Accordingly, the Board  may consider

                          that this condition is reasonable.

 

        Condition 4   –   This   does   not   appear   to   be

                          reasonable as under  Condition  10 a

                          detailed    landscaping   plan    is

                          required,  and  under  Condition  15

                          specified works have  to  be carried

                          out to the open space.  The Planning

                          Authority has not  demonstrated  how

                          there is a  shortfall  in open space

                          provision.

.P

        Condition 5   –   I recommend that  this  condition be

                          deleted.  The condition relates to a

                          current    proposal   for    traffic

                          management in the Baldoyle area, but

                          details of this are not given.

 

        Condition 6   –   Reasonable.

 

        Condition 7   –   Include in a general condition.

 

        Condition 8   –   Include in a general condition.

 

        Condition 9   –   Include in a general condition.

 

        Condition 10  –   Landscaping plan is reasonable.

 

        Condition 11  –   Reasonable.

 

        Condition 12  –   Reasonable.

 

        Condition 13  –   Reasonable.

 

        Condition 14  –   Not necessary.

 

        Condition 15  –   Reasonable.  Include in  a condition

                          relating to a landscaping plan.

 

        Condition 16  –   Not necessary.

 

        Condition 17  –   Reasonable.

 

        Condition 18  –   Not necessary.

 

        Condition 19  –   This   does   not   appear   to   be

                          appropriate  as  the  channel  would

                          appear  to  be   outside   the  site

                          boundary.

 

 

C…………………………………………………….M……………..

FIRST SCHEDULEÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

J…………………………………………………….M……………..

Having regard to  the zoning objective for the site as set out

in the current  Development  Plan  relating  to this area, the

scale of the proposal, the existence of a suitable access, and

to availability of  public services, it is considered that the

proposed  development,  subject   to   compliance   with   the

conditions set out  in  the  Second Schedule hereto, would not

endanger public safety  by  reason  of a traffic hazard, would

not  be seriously  injurious  to  the  amenities  of  existing

residential  property  in   the   vicinity   or  result  in  a

devaluation of property,  and  would be in accordance with the

proper planning and development of the area.

.P

 

C…………………………………………………….M……………..

SECOND SCHEDULEÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..

1.      The development shall  be  carried  out  in accordanceÿ

AA

        with  the  plans  and  particulars  submitted  to  the

        Planning Authority on  4th  April, 1996, as amended by

        additional  information  submitted   to  the  Planning

        Authority on 6th  June,  1996,  and  7th August, 1996,

        save as may be amended by the following conditions.

 

        Reason:  In order  to clarify the development to whichÿ

        AAAAAAA

        this decision relates.

 

2.      The proposed layout  shall  be amended by the omissionÿ

AA

        of  house  No.   33.    Only  three  houses  shall  be

        constructed on the  plot  shown  as 33-36 (inclusive).

        Details of a  revised  layout including this amendment

        shall be agreed  with  the Planning Authority prior to

        the commencement of development.

 

        Reason:  In the  interests  of  visual and residentialÿ

        AAAAAAA

        amenity, and to  enable the established front building

        line of houses on Caselerosse View to be maintained.

 

3.      Before development commences  details of the followingÿ

AA

        matters shall be  agreed  with the Planning Authority,

        or in default  of  agreement shall be as determined by

        An Bord Pleanála:-

 

L…….L……J……………………………………….M……………..

        (a)    All external finishes.ÿ

        AAA

 

        (b)    Surface water drainage.ÿ

        AAA

 

        (c)    Foul drainage.ÿ

        AAA

 

        (d)    Construction  and  alignment  of  the  proposedÿ

        AAA

               service road extending through the site.

 

        (e)    Undergrounding of the  existing  overhead  lineÿ

        AAA

               which traverses the site.

 

        (f)    Provision of public  lighting which shall be toÿ

        AAA

               the requirements of the Planning Authority.

 

        (g)    Front garden boundary treatment of the houses.ÿ

        AAA

 

L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..

 

        Reason: In the  interest  of visual amenities, orderlyÿ

        AAAAAAA

        development and the proper planning and development of

        the area.

.P

4.      Before   development   commences    details    of    aÿ

AA

        comprehensive landscaping plan  for  the  entire  site

        shall be submitted  to  the  Planning Authority.  This

        shall include details of the specifications and siting

        of a protective  fence  by the main water channel, the

        levelling, seeding and  landscaping  of the area shown

        as open space, and a time scale for the implementation

        of all landscaping works.

 

        Reason:  In the  interests of residential amenity, andÿ

        AAAAAAA

        the proper planning and development of the area.

 

5.      All  public  services  to  the  proposed  development,ÿ

AA

        including electrical, telephone  cables  and equipment

        shall be located  underground  throughout  the  entire

        site.

 

        Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.ÿ

        AAAAAAA

 

6.      An acceptable street naming and house numbering schemeÿ

AA

        shall be submitted  to  and  agreed  with the Planning

        Authority before any of the houses are first occupied.

 

        Reason: In the  interests of  the  proper planning andÿ

        AAAAAAA

        development of the area.

 

7.      Financial contribution towards the provision of publicÿ

AA

        services.

 

8.      Financial contribution towards  the cost of piping theÿ

AA

        main water channel  adjacent  to the site, the removal

        of   temporary  fencing   and   the   completion   and

        integration of open space areas.

 

9.      Bond/financial security.ÿ

AA

 

 

 

 

 

 

L…………………………………………………….M……………..

_________________________________ÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

DES JOHNSONÿ

AAAAAAAAAAA

SENIOR PLANNING INSPECTORÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

 

 

                 February 1997ÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

 

 

 

mps

The proposal which originally was one ramp and two sets of speed cushions was varied at Thursday’s Area Cttee. meeting.  The agreed design is now for a flat-top ramp (continuing footpath level across the road from the laneway to the open space and for two sets of speed cushions further up the hill.

Following public consultation which led to a lot of responses, mostly in favour of the ramps proposed, the Area Cttee. today approved a traffic calming scheme.  There were a number of changes; the largest were:

1. A full platform at the junction of Bayside Park and Bayside Walk, outside Bayside Dart Station to facilitate pedestrians
2. A full platform at the junction of Sarto Park and Verbena Avenue outside Bayside National School
3. Deletion of the ramps on the railway road of Sutton Park. (I should note that my reason for agreeing to this deletion was the fact that I have noted that almost all the cars parked on this road are parked (illegally) on the footpath.  This facilitates traffic travelling at speed.  Parking legally on the carriageway is a more effective means of traffic calming than the nuisance of ramps.)
4. Deletion of a number of other ramps because of proximity to the junction platforms referred to above
5. Use of speed cushions instead of ramps in all locations where this is possible.

Three of the submissions recommended blocking motor traffic through the area by closing either 2 or 3 roads to motor traffic.  In response to this, I recommended that the proposal of blocking the road to motor traffic a) between Sutton Downs and Sutton Grove, and b) between Bayside Park and Sutton Park be put on public display. This was agreed by the Area Cttee but only by my casting vote as Chair.  I think people are entitled to
express their views and I look forward to the public discussion on this proposal.

Additionally, the public consultation brought forward many requests for traffic calming on other roads.  As there was no consultation on these proposals, they could not be agreed as part of this phase of traffic calming; the Transportation Department will be looking at these suggestions.

Fingal County Council will be collecting Christmas trees between 6th and 12th January from the following drop off points.

CHRISTMAS TREE COLLECTION POINTS

6th – 12th January 2006

Balbriggan/Skerries/Rush/Lusk Areas –     Ardgillan Castle Parks Depot   
8492324

Balbriggan               Bath Road Car Park
Skerries                    South Strand Lay- By
Rush                         Hayestown Depot,
Lusk                         Ball Alley Car Park

Swords/ Donabate/Portrane – Turvey Parks Depot – 8436296

Swords                     OutlandsPark Depot, Rathbeale Road
Donabate                 The Square,
Portrane                   The Brook

Malahide/Portmarnock/Baldoyle/Howth –  Malahide Castle Parks Depot  – 8462456

Portmarnock             Public Car Park, Strand Road
Kinsealy                   Kinsealy Court
Malahide                   The Banks Car Park
Baldoyle                    Seagrange Park
Sutton                       Sutton Park
Howth                       Harbour Car Park

Blanchardstown/Castleknock – Coolmine Parks Depot – 8213486

Castleknock                Auburn Avenue/Castleknock Park Open Space
Coolmine                    Coolmine Industrial Estate, Recycling Centre
Carpenterstown          Carpenterstown Park East
Harstown                   Cherryfield Park
Corduff    Edgewood Lawns/Blackcourt Road Junction (near Snugborough end)
Clonee                        Littlepace Park Open Space

Green Party Councillor David Healy today criticised the new Dart timetable introduced on 11 December. Regular Dart passengers in Bayside, Sutton and Howth have found themselves waiting for up to 40 minutes and are furious with the cuts to the train service in their area.

The new timetable has reduced the number of services between Dublin city centre and Howth in the evening (between 7pm and midnight) from 16 trains to 10. The new timetable also has two gaps of 40 minutes between trains (between 2139 and 2219 and between 2239 and 2320). The timetable remains highly irregular and passenger-unfriendly in what is supposed to be a frequent rapid service.

Cllr. Healy said today that, “The Dart service was introduced in 1984
with a regular timetable and a 15 minute gap between trains. At that
frequency, it was a service people could use without having to rely on
a timetable.
With the current timetable, people will be left sitting on windy station platforms for up to 40 minutes.

“It appears that some of this reduction is made up by the diversion of
trains to Malahide.  However, the reduction in services to Howth is
greater than the increase in services to Malahide.  In any event, at a
time when Iarnród Éireann has brought dozens of new carriages into
operation, there is no reason why both spurs of the Dart line cannot
have frequent services.
How is it we have more carriages but fewer trains?

“This timetable was introduced by the Minister for Transport who
claimed it was an improvement in services. But he completely ignored
the off-peak reduction in services to Bayside, Sutton and Howth which
has been implemented.  It is appalling that in 2005 we are being
offered a rail service which is a poor shadow of that introduced 20
years ago,” concluded Cllr. Healy.

Information
Cllr David Healy              087 617 8852
Elaine Walsh Press Office     01- 618 3852 / 087 914 8175

Although there is a marked bus bay in front of Howth station, which the 31B used to use, this is now being used for car parking and the 31C which waits at this terminus for at least 10 minutes every hour during the middle of the day waits on the road where it blocks visibility of the pedestrian traffic lights and pedestrians trying to cross.  I am raising this safety issue with Dublin Bus, the Gardai and Fingal’s Transport Department.
Dear Peter,

I refer to the issue of buses blocking the traffic lights at Howth Dart
Station.  This was discussed at our Area Cttee. meeting on 7th April
2005.  The extract from the minutes is as follows:

>>>>
MHA/98/05
BUS STOPS AT TRAFFIC LIGHTS IN HOWTH VILLAGE AND HOWTH TRAIN STATION
It was proposed by Councillor D Healy and seconded by Councillor K. Maher:
"That the Manager report on whether or not it is considered safe to
have bus stops immediately beside traffic lights and pedestrian
crossings as in Howth Village and at Howth Train Station."
The following report by the Manager was READ:-
"It is considered good practice to situate bus stops upstream of
pedestrian crossings – this accommodates bus passengers alighting from
the bus who wish to cross the road at the rear of the bus and ensures
that stopped buses don’t obscure visibility."
Following discussion, the Report was NOTED.
<<<<

Since that time, Dublin Bus has changed the terminus of the 31B and
introduced a new service with a terminus at Howth Station, the 31C. 
However, while the 31B used to wait in the Station carpark, where there
is a marked bus bay,  I have become aware that the 31C for some reason
has decided to wait on the road blocking the view of the traffic lights
and of pedestrians crossing the road.

I would be grateful if you could address this as a matter of urgency. 
I am also bringing it directly to the attention of Gareth Quinn of
Clontarf Garage in Dublin Bus.

Thank you,

David Healy

Cllr. David Healy
Green Party/Comhaontas Glas
 
www.davidhealy.com
54, Páirc Éabhóra, Beann Éadair, B.Á.C. 13
01 8324087
087 6178852

The Green Party has welcomed An Bord Pleanála’s refusal of planning permission for a proposed hotel in the Green Belt between Baldoyle and Portmarnock.

Green Party Councillor David Healy (Fingal County Council – Howth), with support from local Green, Fine Gael and Labour Councillors, had appealed Fingal County Council’s decision to grant permission for the proposed hotel on Moyne Road.

The Board upheld Cllr. Healy and his colleagues’ first ground of appeal which was that the development would conflict with the County Development Plan.

Commenting on the decision, Cllr. David Healy said that, “This decision is a victory in the latest battle for the protection of the Green Belt between Baldoyle and Portmarnock.  It is time now for the developer and Fingal County Council to get their act together and provide the public park, the Millennium Park as it was to be called, on this Green Belt for the benefit of the people living in the area already and also those to move in to the new development on both ends of the Green Belt.”
Background info:
The full text of the appeal submitted is at

http://www.davidhealy.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemi

The reason given by An Bord Pleanála for its decision was as follows:
“The proposed development would be located on a limited site of 3.75
hectares within an area covered by the zoning objective "OS" in the
current Fingal County Development Plan, which seeks, "To preserve and
provide for open space and recreational amenities", where a hotel use
is neither listed as permitted or open for consideration and where only
community facilities and other recreational uses will be considered and
encouraged by the planning authority and recreational facilities/sports
clubs are permitted in principle.  The proposed hotel and leisure
complex would contravene the zoning objective for the area and would,
therefore, be contrary to the proper planning, and sustainable
development of the area.”

The Green Party today launched its Energy policy and called on all political parties to engage in a partnership approach with the aim of establishing common long-term energy goals.

Green Party Leader Trevor Sargent TD said today that, “With oil at over
$60 a barrel, and massive hikes in gas and electricity bills, we need
urgently to reduce our 90 per cent dependency on fossil fuels for our
energy needs.

“We are committed to working with other parties to make sure we address
the energy problems facing us and realise the potential benefits of a
new renewable energy policy. Since its foundation, the Green movement
has put the development of energy efficiency and new renewable
resources at the heart of its political agenda.

“The challenge for any serious energy policy maker is to try and ensure
we have a cheap, secure and clean source of energy supply.
Unfortunately, a series of recent governments have shirked that
responsibility.

“Our vision is that by 2050 Ireland can depend on renewable energy
supplies for all its energy needs. We will achieve that by being more
efficient in the way we use energy and by rapidly developing some of
the 21 different renewable technologies available to us.”

Green Party Energy spokesperson Eamon Ryan TD said that, “Energy
policymakers have to take a view several decades into the future but
politicians rarely look beyond the next election. Countries such as
Denmark have got around this problem by getting cross-party agreement
on certain long-term energy goals. We believe the opportunity now
exists for such an approach to be adopted here.

“Involving industry and other representative bodies in such a
partnership approach would help create the predictable environment
within which households and businesses can invest in new energy
efficient technologies.

“For example, six of the seven parties in the Danish Parliament have
just agreed a new Energy Savings in Buildings Initiative this summer.
The measures include one-stop shop approach for the installation of
domestic energy improvements. In a standard 1920’s house they estimate
a 47% reduction in the energy use can be achieved, giving a €53,000
payback to the owner over 30 years on an initial borrowed investment of
€21,000.”

“The Green Party has proposed that a new committee be set up under the
Joint Oireachtas Committee for Communications Marine and Natural
Resources to develop such a partnership approach. Including members of
the main political parties and outside bodies with an expertise in the
energy area, it would collaborate directly with the Department on the
new White Paper on Energy Policy.

“This is about bringing policy formulation back to where it should
belong, which is within Dáil Éireann. It is also about developing the
existing partnership process so that crucial environmental issues are
taken into account.

“The people will not thank their political representatives if we fail
to properly address this crucial issue. Our dependency on fossil fuels
makes us one of the most exposed countries in the world to any future
energy shock. Our use of these scarce resources has increased
dramatically in recent years; however the contribution of renewable
energies to our energy supply has remained static at less than 2%.

“Our electricity prices are consequently significantly above the
European average and the bill for carbon emissions from power
generation alone is likely to cost the taxpayer at least €50 million
next year. Meanwhile 60 per cent of the energy used in power generation
currently disappears up the chimney in the form of unused waste heat.
This is more than the entire amount of energy used in the Irish
residential sector each year.”

Green Party Deputy Leader Cllr Mary White said that, “This new
renewable energy future provides huge opportunities for Irish farmers.
New biomass crops for power generation will provide the perfect
complement to the variable wind supplies that farmers should also be
able to develop.
Existing forests and new coppicing techniques can provide the wood pellets for new high tech wood heating systems.”

“The Green Party has consistently called for the removal of the duty on
biofuels so that this new industry becomes established. We would commit
oil companies to including a minimum 5% blend of biofuels in any fuel
supply With the closure of the Sugar Company the opportunity exists for
the farmers to grow beet for bioethanol and oil seed rape for pure
plant oil or biodiesel. Exempting duty will allow the fledgling
industry to get up and running, supporting farmers, protecting the
environment with a reduction in emissions. It is a win-win situation.

“Transport will still be the area where we are going to have the
greatest difficulty as oil supplies run out.  Hydrogen supplies may
play a role but the real solution must be a change in our planning
system so that the need for long distance commuting is reduced.”

Cllr. David Healy Green Party spokesperson on Climate Change said that,
“The success of the Montreal Climate talks last week mean that
developed countries such as Ireland will have to start planning for
deep cuts in our Greenhouse Gas emissions. The energy sector accounts
for over two thirds of these emissions and it is an area where real
reductions can occur with potential benefits for our economy.

“We need to reduce our Greenhouse Gas emissions to prevent further
environmental damage. Also, the reality is that we are facing an
imminent peak and subsequent drop in global oil production, which will
require us to kick our oil habit. Yet Ireland remains overly dependent
on imported oil supplies and we are currently investing billions in
taxpayer’s money in motorways which will not be needed as oil runs out.
We need to rethink all of our investment decisions.

“The Green Party is already making a real difference in implementing
this energy policy on the ground. Fingal County Council, on foot of
motions coming from the Green Party, is now requiring in its Local Area
Plans that all buildings would have a 50kWh per square metre annual
heating standard and that at least 30 per cent of this lower heating
demand would come from renewable sources. This would mean that the
heating bill for a typical 150 m2 house would be less than €225 a year. The result will be better
buildings and real economic and environmental gains for the local
community.”

Information
Eamon Ryan TD                 01-618 3097 / 086 829 4429
Cllr. Mary White              087 270 7189
Trevor Sargent TD             01-618 3465 / 087 254 7836
Cllr David Healy              087 617 8852
Elaine Walsh Press Office           087 914 8175

Green Party councillors on Fingal County Council yesterday proposed to amend the North Ballymun Local Area Plan to ensure that the proposed Ikea store does not lead to further traffic chaos on the M50.  
 
The three core proposals put forward by Cllrs David Healy, Joe Corr and Robbie Kelly were as follows:
 
1.    The store should be beside the proposed Metro station on the Ballymun road/
2.    The store should provide for free deliveries.
3.    Parking at the store should be limited and charged for so as to encourage people to come by public transport.

 
All three motions were rejected by the majority of the councillors,
which according to the Green Party will only add to the already
congested motorway.  In addition it means IKEA will be over 1km walk
from the proposed metro and main Quality Bus Corridor on Ballymun Rd. 
This will guarantee that IKEA will, as it does in Britain, act as a
massive traffic generator flooding surrounding areas and the Ballymun
Interchange on the M50 with traffic.  The proposals for parking charges
and free deliveries were already agreed by IKEA in relation to a store
in the UK, which was proposed for Stockport near Manchester but was
refused permission on appeal.
 
Speaking after the decision Green Party Cllr. for Howth, David Healy
said,  “This is exactly the kind of motorway-based shopping development
which increases car-dependency and marginalizes those who don’t own
cars.  It’s not difficult to do it right and link these facilities to
public transport. Unfortunately, what Fingal County Council did today
was to specifically decide to locate this store at a location where you
will have to use a car to get it. The people of Dublin deserve better.”

Cllr Joe Corr added, “I am not convinced that all of the traffic
concerns have been addressed when you consider that we will have the
Port Tunnel traffic passing the Ballymun interchange and the proposal
to expand Dublin Airport with an additional parallel runway and a
second terminal. In addition, the Air and Noise pollution impact on
potential employees was not measured in the Strategic Environmental
Assessment (SEA) and we believe this will be a crucial Health &
Safety concern for people who will eventually work in the area.”