During summer 2005 there were many fires in cut grass on Seagrange
Park. The grass was long grass from the wettest area of the park, an
area which can only be cut well into the summer.   Normal
grass cuttings are usually left to enrich the soil.  However,
following a motion of mine at the Area Cttee. the Parks Department has
undertaken to remove these long cuttings because of the fire risk

{mosimage}Trevor Sargent, T.D., leader of the Green Party, and David Healy, local
Councillor will speak at a public meeting in Baldoyle Library at 7pm on
Thursday 20th October. 
The topic is "What does the Green Party stand for?"   and we intend it to
be a relaxed question and answer style session.  All are welcome.

{mosimage}I successfully proposed at the Council that high standards for energy
efficiency and renewable energy should be incorporated into the Local
Area Plan for the Cappagh area.  These standards require an annual
heating and hot water energy requirement not exceeding 50 kWh/m2 and
that renewable energy be used to meet at least 30% of the these energy
needs.  These requirements are much higher than that in the
Building Control Regulations.  We failed to get them into the
Written Statement of the Development Plan, but did get them agreed from
a developer in relation to the Barnhill site in Dublin 15.  We are
now as Greens proposing them for all Local Area Plans and are very
pleased to get them agreed in this case.  

There are a lot of new houses being built in Fingal.  The 3 Green
councillors are doing everything we can to make sure they are built to
the best energy standards.  There is no reason why Ireland can’t
build houses which are every bit as good as those in Denmark or
Sweden.  This is a win-win solution, meaning lower energy bills
for those living in the houses, and much lower emissions of greenhouse
gas which damage the climate. The motion agreed is below.

That the following be included in the Cappagh local area plan:

“The residential development will attain high standards of energy
efficiency and environmental sustainibility, including the following:
–    bio-climatic site design,
–    water conservation,
–    ventilation,
–    energy efficient strategies for housing design,
–    daylight analysis,
–  high insulation standards

“All new buildings will meet the minimum low energy performance
standards (as defined below) as a prerequisite to receiving planning
approval (calculation report to be submitted with the planning
application). Each building’s energy performance calculation must be
demonstrated on the basis of a simple approved method (e.g. EN 832)
carried out by qualified or accredited experts.  Low energy
buildings are defined as building with an annual heating requirement
(space and  water heating) not exceeding 50 kWh/m2 of useful floor
area.

The development will utilise renewable energy supply systems to meet at
least 30% of the buildings space and water heating requirements as
calculated on the basis of an approved method carried out by qualified
or accredited experts.”

{mosimage}A second motion in relation to the Cappagh Local area plan in relation
to reducing water use in the plan was defeated.  This was stated
to be because the content of the motion is already covered in the
Development Plan.  In fact the motion is a more specific
commitment with greater details than the Development Plan.  The
real reason seemed to be an unwillingness to follow a lead from the
Green Party, which was the only party to submit any motions in relation
to the local area plan.  It was interesting to note that some
councillors were visibly annoyed that the Greens had gotten their first
motion agreed  and spoke at length to tell us we were wasting
time.  Others were determined to bring their party colleagues into
line and succeeded.  Even more interesting was to see some Council
officials leave the room to gather in a few missing councillors from
their offices behind the Council chamber.  The result was that the
motion was defeated.  The text of the motion is below.  When
the report (supplied on paper at the meeting) is circulated, I will
attach it also. That the following be included in the Cappagh local area plan:

"The buildings will be required to incorporate provisions for reducing
water use including low flow fittings (toilets, taps, shower heads) and
provisions for reuse of rainwater and/or greywater for flushing toilets
etc."

{mosimage}Fingal County Council agreed today to a Green Party motion
that any notifications received claiming exemption from planning
permission for mobile phones will be circulated together with the
weekly planning lists. I  submitted this motion because  up
to now, mobile phone transmitters have been erected  and although
the  County Council had been informed, no-one was aware that this
exemption was being claimed.  In the case of the transmitters
erected beside St. Peter and Paul’s Boys National School in Baldoyle,
the exemption claimed did not apply and they had to be taken
down.  This decision will mean that community groups who keep an
eye on the planning lists will know of at least some of the proposed
"exempted" transmitters which are being put up in their area.

What are planning lists?

Some community groups or active citizens might not know about the
planning lists:  Every local authority has to produce a weekly list of
all applications made to it.  Most councils make these lists available
by email on request.  It enables residents’ associations, community and
environmental organisations to keep an eye on planning matters in their
area.

As Chair of the Environment Strategic Policy Committee on Fingal County
Council, I am a member of Fingal Development Board (www.fdb.ie). 
At the moment the Development Board is reviewing the County Development
Strategy which it agreed in 2002. 

I have been emphasising the need to adress greenhouse gas emissions and rising fuel prices at the Development Board
At the moment the two actions, which need further development look like this

Energy and Climate Theme: Ensure investments made now do not commit us to ongoing high-energy demand.

•    Invest in land use and layout, which minimises transport demand.
•    Invest in low energy transport not high-energy transport.
•    Invest in energy efficient housing, buildings and production systems.
•    Invest in renewable energy and infrastructure not fossil fuel infrastructure.

Energy and Climate Theme : Prepare for economic and social
changes  which will result from higher energy prices (and likely
resulting recession).

•    Reduced transport (differentiated)
•    Localised economy.
•    Localised food production
•    Particular vulnerabilities of some sections of society and essential sectors of economy.

•    Prepare for sections of economy disappearing, shrinking.

Both need more working out into details.  The first however is
generally agreed.  The second seems to worry some of the members
and will have to be reworked.  Any suggestions or comments would
be welcome.

The original design which included houses on part of the zoned green
space at Moyclare was in breach of the County Development Plan and has been altered.  The original plan included 10
houses.  5 Houses are to be built in "the alcove" and 2 along the side
of 25 Moyclare Park, a total of 7. 

Although many residents had called for only the 5 houses in the alcove
to go ahead, I feel this represents a good design solution which will
improve the quality of the open space and provide much needed social
housing in the area.  The Moyclare Residents’ Association were
instrumental in achieving this signficant improvement for their
community.

By a vote of 10 to 9, the Council supported a motion by the 3 Green
councillors to revoke the draft area plan for the area around
Portmarnock Dart Station and to get a new area plan drawn up after
studies are done on the impact on wildlife and biodiversity,  the
land contours are mapped so that the new housing can be placed where it
won’t intrude on the Green Belt, and the initial design work is carried
out on the Millennium park.

The full motion agreed by the Council follows:
That the Draft Local Area Plan be revoked and a new Draft be drawn up following the carrying out of:
•    biodiversity studies (as mandated by the Council’s Heritage Plan Action 70)
•    initial design work on the Millennium Park
•    the production of contour maps and visibility
analysis to determine appropriate site ground levels and building
heights in order to meet Development Plan Specific Objective 234: “The
visual impact on the Green Belt of this new housing in Portmarnock will
be minimised by its siting, design and by planting”
and including the following in the Draft:
•    provisions to meet the concerns in relation to
biodiversity and parks and contour maps and visibililty referred to
above
•    provisions requiring high standards of design and
construction to meet energy efficiency, renewable energy, water
efficiency and other sustainability criteria
•    the proposed street network(s) for all road users
(including specific extra provision for pedestrians and cyclists where
appropriate), specifying cycling walking and bus networks with a higher
level of penetration through the area than cars as recommended by the
DTO, but without increasing traffic conflicts for such road users.
•    including as recommended by the Regional Planning
Guidelines and the DTO “building forms and layouts that allow for the
penetration of areas by pedestrians, cyclists and public transport”.
•    An outline of the SUDS-based drainage to be used in the area including consideration of ecological impacts
•    a public marketplace, on land taken in charge by
the County Council, within the limits set by the 2005 Public Safety
Zones Report .”

It seems to me that ramps on a hill risk knocking cyclists freewheeling
downhill off their bikes.  This is what Fingal is currently doing
at Yellow Walls Road in Malahide, a location used by lots of children
going to school.  I’m particularly aware of it because it’s part
of my route to Fingal County Council’s offices in Swords and while it’s
outside my area, I’m concerned because of the risk that someone could
be seriously hurt.

I would be grateful for any feedback on this.  Below, I have put copies of correspondence on this subject.
________________________________________
From: Daithí Ó hÉalaithe / David Healy [mailto:verdire@eircom.net]
Sent: 6 May 2005 18:01
To: Peter Caulfield (peter.caulfield@fingalcoco.ie)
Cc: Dto (dto)
Subject: Seabury/Old Yellow Walls Traffic Management Scheme

Dear Peter,

I refer to the above scheme proposal.  As you know this is a
potentially important route for cyclists accessing local schools and
travelling between Swords and Malahide.

You indicated at today’s meeting  (5th May 2005) of the local area
commitee that the scheme would be subjected to a safety audit.  As
you know I am particularly concerned that the placing of ramps on a
hill as proposed is potentially dangerous to cyclists.  I am also
concerned that the footpath widths proposed are sub-standard with
predictable consequences of pedestrians using the carriageway to pass
each other.  

I am just writing to formally ensure that these issues are noted for the purpose of the safety audit and addressed in it.

Is mise, le meas,

David Healy

Cc: Dublin Transportation Office (please circulate to officer(s) responsible for cycling facilities and pedestrian issues.
{mospagebreak}OLD YELLOW WALLS ROAD SHUTTLE LIGHTS

Stage 1 Road Safety Audit

Report   
September 2004   

Prepared for:   
       
Clifton Scannell Emerson
Seafort Lodge
Castledawson Avenue
Blackrock
Co. Dublin
Ireland

Prepared by:   
Steer Davies Gleave
1 York Place
Leeds
LS1 2DR

[t] +44 (0)113-242 9955
[i] www.steerdaviesgleave.com   

 
Contents    Page
1.    INTRODUCTION    2
2.    ITEMS RAISED FROM THIS (STAGE 1) AUDIT    4
General    4
Signals    5
3.    AUDIT TEAM STATEMENT    8

 
1.    INTRODUCTION
1.1    This report results from a Stage 1 Safety Audit
carried out on a proposed traffic management scheme along Old Yellow
Walls Road, Malahide, Ireland.
1.2    The scheme forms a component of an area wide
traffic management scheme seeking to address issues of road safety,
excessive vehicle speeds and rat-running through residential areas to
the west of Malahide town centre. The Old Yellow Walls Road scheme
additionally seeks to address issues arising from narrow carriageway
and footway widths.
1.3    Old Yellow Walls Road is subject to 30 mph speed
limit and currently caters for a two-way all day traffic flow of 15,000
vehicles. The road accommodates two bus routes with approximately 6
buses per hour in each direction.
1.4    The scheme proposes a consistent cross-section of
a 5.0m carriageway with 1.5m footway, speed tables and a short section
of one-way shuttle working controlled by a new traffic signal
installation.
1.5    The scope of the audit is defined as the length
of Old Yellow Walls Road between Hillcrest and Millview Road. 
1.6    The Design Organisation is:
Clifton Scannell Emerson Associates, Seafort Lodge, Castledawson Avenue, Blackrock, County Dublin, Ireland.
1.7    The audit was carried out by:
Andrew Barker BEng (Hons) CEng MICE
Steer Davies Gleave (Leeds), Principal Consultant.
Matthew Gatenby MEng MILT MIHT
Steer Davies Gleave (Leeds), Senior Consultant.
1.8    The Audit was carried out in the Leeds office of
Steer Davies Gleave on the 9th and 10th September 2004 following a site
visit on 8th September 2004. The audit comprised of an examination of
the documents forming the audit brief and an examination of the site.
This information was considered sufficient for the purpose of carrying
out the road safety audit requested.
1.9    Andrew Barker undertook the visit to the site in
the afternoon and evening of 8th September 2004 (15:00-18:00hrs). On
the day of the site visit the prevailing conditions were fine and the
road surface was dry.
1.10    The Audit was undertaken with reference to the
Highways Agency standard HD 19/03 and to The Institution of Highways
and Transportation "Guidelines for the Safety Audit of Highways".
Comments and recommendations in this report are on the road safety
implications of the scheme, as presented, and do not verify the
compliance of the design to any other criteria.
1.11    The following reference documents were studied as part of the audit:
•    Clifton Scannell Emerson drawing no. 02_089/109,
titled “Old Yellow Walls Road Traffic Management Plan – Alternative
Option Shuttle Lights”, dated August 2004.
•    Clifton Scannell Emerson drawing no. 02_089/111,
titled “Old Yellow Walls Road Alternative B – Shuttle Lights Full
Area”, dated August 2004.
•    Clifton Scannell Emerson drawing no. 02_089/002,
titled “Old Yellow Walls Road – Traffic Count Locations”, dated
22/11/2002.
•    Accident data printout for the period 1994 to 1999.

2.    ITEMS RAISED FROM THIS (STAGE 1) AUDIT
General
Problem
2.1    Location: Entire length of highway link, except shuttle section.
2.2    Summary: Narrow carriageway width may increase
the risk of accidents due to vehicles clashing. Increased risk to
cyclists. Increased risk to pedestrians from vehicles encroaching onto
footway.
2.3    The proposed carriageway width of 5.0m is
narrower than existing. Whilst speeds may be lower and heavy goods
vehicles are to be banned from using the link, use by 2.45m wide
double-decker buses remains. This is particularly relevant on the bend
located at the west end of the proposed scheme.
Recommendation
2.4    Maximise the width of carriageway by locally widening to match the extent of the highway land available.
Problem
2.5    Location: Old Yellow Walls Road, between Estuary Road and Millview Road.
2.6    Summary: The standard and nature of the highway
link differs appreciably from the surrounding highway network.
Increased risk of accidents due to unexpected driving conditions.
2.7    Old Yellow Walls Road, between Estuary Road and
Millview Road has a lower standard of alignment, forward visibility and
carriageway/footway width than roads in the surrounding highway
network.
Recommendation
2.8    Employ ‘Road Narrows Dangerously’ traffic signs on the approaches to the sub-standard section.
Signals
Problem
2.9    Location: Shuttle section
2.10    Summary: Increased risk of vehicle collision due to drivers not clearing one-way section.
2.11    It is anticipated that at peak periods delays
will be experienced by vehicles queuing on the approaches to the
signals. Driver frustration may result in vehicles ‘following through’
the section despite the signal turning red.
Recommendation
2.12    Introduce a system of “all-red extension”
detection loops between the signal installations to monitor vehicles
clearing the one-way section, and extend the all-red clearance period
when necessary.
Problem
2.13    Location: Shuttle section – signal locations
2.14    Summary: Risk of vehicles striking signal heads/poles.
2.15    Several of the proposed signal pole locations have insufficient clearance from vehicular traffic.
Recommendation
2.16    Re-site poles such that signal heads are a
minimum of 300mm from carriageway edge (or greater in areas of high
carriageway crossfall). 
Problem
2.17    Location: Shuttle section – signal locations
2.18    Summary: Risk of vehicular accidents due to non-standard layout of signal heads.
2.19    Whilst it is appreciated that the design is at
an early stage, the proposed signal locations appear non-standard in
terms of location and of primary/secondary provision. This is
especially relevant due to spatial constraints and the possible
reliance on third party land.
Recommendation
2.20    Re-position signal heads. 
Problem
2.21    Location: Shuttle section – westbound stop-line
2.22    Summary: Risk of accidents from vehicles emerging from private driveway with inadequate visibility.
2.23    The location of the stop line will result in
poor access/egress manoeuvres for users of the private driveway.
Visibility will be impaired by the presence of waiting vehicles.
Recommendation
2.24    Re-position stop line and consider use of ‘Yellow-box’ markings. 
Problem
2.25    Location: Shuttle section – westbound stop-line
2.26    Summary: Risk of shunt accidents for westbound vehicles approaching stop line.
2.27    Forward visibility to the westbound stop line
location and nearside primary signal head is sub-standard. The
mitigation proposal to cut back the hedgerow may prove unworkable
beyond the current highway boundary. The proposed off-side primary
signal will experience masking by eastbound traffic.
Recommendation
2.28    Employ warning sign ‘Traffic Signals Ahead’ on nearside as well as proposed off-side location.
2.29    Re-position signal/stop line to achieve 50m
forward visibility, giving consideration to the likelihood of future
hedge growth.
Problem
2.30    Location: Shuttle section – stop-lines
2.31    Summary: Risk of shunt and overshoot accidents for vehicles approaching stop lines.
2.32    Both stop are located on down-gradients.
Recommendation
2.33    Employ high skid-resistant surface on the approach to the signal stop-lines.

3.    AUDIT TEAM STATEMENT
3.1    I certify that I have examined the drawings and
documents listed at the beginning of this report and have visited the
site.  The examination has been carried out with the sole purpose
of identifying any features of the design that could be removed or
modified in order to improve the safety of the scheme.  The
problems identified have been noted in this report together with
associated safety improvement suggestions that I recommend should be
studied for implementation.  I have not been involved with the
scheme design.
AUDIT TEAM LEADER

Signed    ………………………………………     Date    …………………
            Andrew Barker BEng (Hons) CEng MICE
Steers Davies Gleave
1 York Place
Leeds, LS1 2DR
UK

AUDIT TEAM MEMBERS

Matthew Gatenby MEng MILT MIHT
Steers Davies Gleave
1 York Place
Leeds, LS1 2DR
UK

CONTROL SHEET

Project/Proposal Name:    OLD YELLOW WALLS ROAD SHUTTLE LIGHTS

   
Document Title:    Stage 1 Road Safety Audit

   
Client Contract/Project Number:   
   
SDG Project/Proposal Number:    205959
   
ISSUE HISTORY

Issue No.    Date    Details
1    13/09/2004    1st Issue
REVIEW

Originator:    ADB
   
Other Contributors:    MCG
       
Review By:    Print:    Andy Barker
       
    Sign:   

DISTRIBUTION

Clients:    Geoff Emerson, Clifton Scannell Emerson Associates
   
Steer Davies Gleave:    File

{mospagebreak}
From: David Healy / Daithí Ó hÉalaithe [mailto:verdire@eircom.net]
Sent: 27 September 2005 11:36
To: ‘leedsinfo@sdgworld.net’
Cc: Jeroen Buis (jeroen.buis@dto.ie)
Subject: Attn: Andrew Barker, re: Safety Audit for Old Yellow Walls Road

Dear Mr. Barker,

I refer to the safety audit carried out on the Old Yellow Walls Road
scheme, a copy of which I attach.  I also attach below
correspondence to the Transport Department of Fingal County Council in
relation to the safety audit. 

I would be grateful if you could indicate whether the two issues I
raised in my letter were considered as part of the safety audit and if
so what the results of that consideration were. 

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

From: Daithí Ó hÉalaithe / David Healy [mailto:verdire@eircom.net]
Sent: 6 May 2005 18:01
To: Peter Caulfield (peter.caulfield@fingalcoco.ie)
Cc: Dto (dto)
Subject: Seabury/Old Yellow Walls Traffic Management Scheme

Dear Peter,

I refer to the above scheme proposal.  As you know this is a
potentially important route for cyclists accessing local schools and
travelling between Swords and Malahide.

You indicated at today’s meeting  (5th May 2005) of the local area
commitee that the scheme would be subjected to a safety audit.  As
you know I am particularly concerned that the placing of ramps on a
hill as proposed is potentially dangerous to cyclists.  I am also
concerned that the footpath widths proposed are sub-standard with
predictable consequences of pedestrians using the carriageway to pass
each other. 

I am just writing to formally ensure that these issues are noted for the purpose of the safety audit and addressed in it.

Is mise, le meas,

David Healy

Cc: Dublin Transportation Office (please circulate to officer(s) responsible for cycling facilities and pedestrian issues.

Bad road design in new housing estates in Fingal is putting pedestrians
and cyclists at risk.  Most of these roads and streets are being
built by developers, and it seems that the planning system is failing
to ensure that basic design rules for pedestrians and cyclists are
being implemented.

Ironically the greatest risk for cyclists comes from "cycle facilities"
supposedly provided for their benefit.  The greatest risk for
pedestrians comes from the roundabouts which are being used everywhere
as well as wide curves (high curve radii) which encourage motorists to
cross pedestrians’ path at speed.  I have submitted a motion to
the Transport Strategic Policy Committee of the Council and taken some
photographs of some of the ridiculous designs. Motion for Transport SPC:

That the Manager report on the mechanisms operated in the Council to
ensure that road designs submitted by developers are checked for

   1. safety for pedestrians and cyclists

   2. compliance with the Provision of Cycle Facilities: National
Manual for Urban Areas or subsequent guidance being developed by the DTO

   3. provision of an environment which encourages walking and cycling

both at planning permission application stage and at the stage of
compliance submissions in relation to granted permissions, with
particular reference to road designs such as that at Robswall in
Malahide, and Applewood in Swords.

Below are some photos from new developments in Fingal.

{mosimage}
New footpath in Portmarnock unusable by wheelchair or pushchair.

{mosimage}
Cycle track in Swords with no way of getting onto it.

{mosimage}
Cycle track in Swords endling in boulders, no exit from it.  Note
it is inside the
footpath which breaches the national  manual. In any event, there
is no reason for these cycle tracsk. Cyclists on these roads should be
accommodated
on the carriageway.  I observed cyclists completely confused as to
how to use these roads.

{mosimage}

New urban centre in Applewood Swords: If there isn’t room for parking and a footpath, which gets squeezed?