The Council is proposing a tree felling programme in Bayside and Sutton Park due to damage to footpaths from tree roots.   (See the report below.) I got the area Committee to defer this for a month to allow the public to express their views.  Meanwhile, I have learnt of the use of rubber paving (recycled from old tires) around trees, as it flexes rather than cracks with the movement of roots.  It is also a better surface to walk on and much softer if someone does fall. More information here, here, here and here.

As agreed previously the council will not carry out any planned removal of street trees in
the Bayside area of Sutton without the approval of this committee.
Research indicates that trees growing in verges wider than 8 foot (2.4 m) are unlikely to
damage hard landscape features such as paths and garden walls ( Shigo: Modem
Arboriculture). It is the Council’s intention to retain all healthy trees growing in verges
of this width. However there are a number of roads with verges less than 1 meter in width
where large growing species have been planted and these trees are now of a size that they
have begun to damage footpaths and other hard landscape features. These trees should be
replaced on a phased basis commencing immediately or the Council will likely be forced
to clear fell large parts of Bayside in 10 – 15 years time.
It is therefore proposed to remove and replace with a more suitable species ‘variety the
street trees at the following locations:
1     23 Bayside Boulevard North. Rowan malformed and multi-stemmed that has
encroached onto the footpath presenting a significant risk of injury to pedestrians
particularly to those with impaired vision. The tree cannot be pruned without
totally disfiguring the plant. Replacement is the best option.
2     2 Bayside Boulevard South. Whitebeam 55cm diameter at breast height with a
severe lean towards road and large surface roots. Whitebeam were traditionally
grafted onto Hawthorn rootstock which has been discovered to be unable to
support the weight of a mature whitebeam. The tree presents an unacceptable risk
of failure in extreme weather conditions and has the potential to cause a serious
road traffic accident if retained.
3     4 Bayside Boulevard South. Sycamore 22 cm diameter at breast height in a 2
meter verge with a significant trunk wound with more than half of the trunk
decayed. This tree has reached the recognised threshold for action to prevent a
predictable failure (Mattheck & Broehler; The Body Language of Trees). This
tree should be removed immediately and replaced with a more suitable species.

4     The trees at No.’s 27 & 129 Bayside Boulevard North, No.’s 24, 20,10 ( 2 trees).
64 ( 2 trees) 38 & 30 Bayside Walk, No. 23 Bayside Park and the trees opposite
No.’s 1. 23. 57 & 59 Bayside Park have heaved the footpaths and present
unacceptable trip hazards and should be replaced with more suitable species. It is
proposed to replace these trees in the current winter season if the Transportation
Department confirms that the footpaths will be repaired.
In total it is proposed to remove 18 trees in Bayside and replace with more suitable
species where space is available.
When the inspection works were being carried out many residents approached the
inspector demanding works to reduce shading of their homes by the street trees.
The Council intends to carry out crown reduction and thinning works on a number of
these trees but notes that in many cases these works will only provide a very temporary
solution and the long term management issues for the trees in the area must still be
addressed.
In Sutton Park 58 trees have heaved footpaths and present trip hazards of greater than
15mm. It is proposed to replace all of these trees over the next 3 years when the
transportation schedules footpath repairs. The trees are at the following locations:
Sutton Park at house numbers 326, 336, 346, 326, 348, 350, 211, 257 ( 2 trees) 257A, 257
B(2 trees), 26 (2 trees), 45, 25, 84, 82, 80, 77, 75, 66, 65, 185, 186, 188, 156, 160, 143.
119. 154. 156. 200A. 254. 251. 247. 240. 238. 234. 230. 228. 259, 261, 269, 271, 273.
277, 279, 285, 289, 291 and the trees opposite numbers 357, 356, 355, 344. 343, 253,
289A and 288A.

Fingal County Council has put planning application files online. The summary information for all applications since 1992 is online and the full file including scanned maps and plans, for applications since November 2005.

Dublin City Council is cutting off the water supply over the weekend for work related to the Port Tunnel.  Fingal County Council, which is dependent on the City Council for water supply to Baldoyle and Bayside was only informed on Wednesday.  According to the Irish Times, the City Council deliberately decided not to give any more notice:

"The work was planned but the council decided not to give notice
earlier, Mr McKeown said. "This is not emergency work, but if we
gave notice earlier we felt people might forget when the time
came."

Fingal’s policy contained in its Water Services Standards of Service  (approved by the Environment SPC which I chair) requires
"   For planned major interruptions written notification to all affected premises at least 3 days in advance."

The reason this has not happened in this instance is the lack of notice from Dublin City Council.

Information on the stoppage is below.

Important Notice – Disruption of Water Supply

From 8pm on Friday 1st December to 6pm on Sunday 3rd December 2006

Dublin City Council are carrying out major works in Fairview Park in conjunction with the Dublin Port Tunnel, which will affect water supply in parts of the City and County.

As a result the following areas may experience a disruption to their supply during the periods in question:

Baldoyle

Sutton (from Dublin City Council boundary on Kilbarrack Road with Dublin Road to Sutton Cross)

Every effort will be made to ensure that Fingal County Council Customers will not be affected, however the Water Services Department will be providing 2 Water Tankers at the following locations for consumers to minimise this disruption:

LOCATION                TIMES

Bayside Shopping Centre         Sat 0900-2100 hrs,  Sunday 1000-2000 hrs

Racecourse Shopping Centre    Sat 0900-2100 hrs,  Sunday 1000-2000 hrs
Baldoyle

Fingal County Council apologises for any inconvenience caused as a result of these essential works but with your co-operation and understanding we hope to keep the disruption to a minimum.

Water is precious.  Let’s conserve it. – Tá uisce luachmhar. Caomhnaímís é.

Emergency Numbers:                     01-2222222 (Office Hours)
01-2224220 (Office & After Hours)
                            01-2224221 (Office & After Hours)
                            01-6796186 (After Hours)

Fingal County Council Emergency Number: 01-8731415

www.taptips.ie                                               Aertel Page 624                                 www.fingalcoco.ie

Green Councillor David Healy welcomed the proposals to erect barriers to prevent unauthorised access to the Howth tramway.  

Since September, the tramway has been turned to muck by a builder using it to gain access to a construction site.

Cllr. Healy today showed photos of the damage done to the tramway at the Area Cttee meeting in Baldoyle commenting:

“ The Council must ensure that those responsible pay for the repair of the damage to the tramway, which is a treasured amenity for Howth residents and visitors alike.  The action of the builder in simply digging up and throwing aside the bollard which prevented him driving his digger on the tramway is shocking.  It is disgraceful that we now have to spend public money to put up barriers to deal with this anti-social attitude to public space.”

Further information: David Healy 087 6178852
{mosimage}
Howth Tramway, 16th November 2006

As described in the Greenpeace film, What Are We Waiting For? the sustainable renewables-based electricity system which we will have to convert to will almost certainly be based on decentralised generation.  Logically, local government should have a significant role in this, as it already does in many countries. 

In order to facilitate the move to decentralised generation, the
electricity grid will have to work differently.  If you generate
electricity from solar panels or a small wind turbine, you will at
times generate more than you can use.  You should be able to sell it
into the grid, running your meter backwards.  Unfortunately, you can’t
do that in Ireland at the moment.  Below is my submission to the CER in
response to their recent consultation on micro-generation

From: David Healy / Daithí Ó hÉalaithe [mailto:verdire@eircom.net]
Sent: 10 November 2006 15:26
To: ‘info@cer.ie’; ‘phogan@cer.ie’
Subject: Comments on Micro-generation consultation

Paul, a chara,

I am writing as Chair of the Energy Action Team of Fingal County Council (and also as Chair of the Environment Strategic Policy Committee in Fingal County Council).

I have just heard of this consultation and therefore have not had an opportunity to put this before the full Development Board or SPC.  Therefore the views expressed below are my own, although I’m not aware of any contrary views in either organisation.

Fingal Development Board has set up an Energy Action team which is looking at the area both within the County Council and within the County as a whole.

Micro-generation is capable of playing, and, with the right regulatory conditions, likely to play a significant role in meeting Fingal’s energy needs.  In the interests of sustainable development and in particular reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and energy security, we hope to encourage micro-generation.  The appropriate incentives and institutional frameworks in the energy sector are essential. 

The consultation document unfortunately, proposes an instutional framework would would act as a disincentive to micro-generation.  I feel that this is directly contrary to the stated intention of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing energy security.  Net metering should be the minimum offer to micro-generation.

Is mise, le meas,

David Healy

Councillor David Healy
Green Party/Comhaontas Glas
Howth ward / Dublin North East
 
www.davidhealy.com
01 8324087
54, Páirc Éabhóra, Beann Éadair
54, Evora Park, Howth
 

I have submitted the attached observation to Fingal County Council in relation to Borg Developments application F06A/1484.

Councillor David Healy
Green Party/Comhaontas Glas
Howth ward / Dublin North East
 
www.davidhealy.com
01 8324087
54, Páirc Éabhóra,
Beann Éadair, Co. Bh.Á.C
54, Evora Park,
Howth, Co. Dublin

                            15th November 2006

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

By hand

Re: Application F06A/1484

A chairde,

I would like to make the following observations on the above application

1.    Visual impact and character of area

The site is in the Special Amenity Area Buffer Zone.  Other development in this vicinity has correctly been kept at a low level, mostly single storey.  The proposal for very large two-storey houses spread evenly across the site is entirely out of keeping with the character of the area and the existing pattern of development.  The designated protection of the Buffer Zone is intended to protect the character of the area as well as views to and from the Special Amenity Area proper.  The proposed development by virtue of its size and intrusive nature is not in keeping with these objectives. In particular, the importance of the tramway as an amenity route to the Special Amenity Area is recognised in the SAAO.  Views from the tramway are therefore of particular importance.

2.    Biodiversity

The site is one of significant biodiversity value, containing woodland and important wildlife corridors, including for bats (which are legally protected).  Development of low density housing is not incompatible with maintenance of biodiversity value provided that sufficient appropriate and interlinked planting is carried out, and existing woodlands and hedgerows are retained, improved and connected as needed. Unfortunately the current plan seems to envisage considerable enclosure on the site in such a manner as would disrupt wildlife movement.

3.    Drainage and hydrology

The development is proposed to be located in a damp hollow which acts as a reservoir at the head of Gray’s Brook which drains the valley around it, flowing down through the town of Howth under Main St. and Abbey St.  Interference with this hydrological regime could cause flooding locally and/or downstream.  The Council must ensure that this development is not allowed to have negative impacts.  There is a further issue here in that the wetness of the area undoubtedly contributes to its biodiversity value.  Therefore solutions which would seek to drain the woodlands and adjoining areas should not be contemplated.  These considerations argue towards clustering of the development on the site (together with dedication or sterilisation of the remaining land).

4.    Water supply

The existing water supply in the area is inadequate, with generalised low pressure leading to frequent complete loss of supply on the upper stretches of Thormanby Road and adjacent areas.  Adequacy of water supply should be a central consideration in deciding on a planning application.  The Council is entirely aware of the inadequacy of the water supply in this area.  Extra houses will add significantly to the demand on an already inadequate supply.  Further development in this area is therefore premature until such time as the necessary water supply is made available

5.    Traffic

The entrance to the site is between two dangerous bends and would increase traffic hazard at this location.

6.    Rights of way

There are rights of way in the area and through the woods which would be interfered with by the proposed development

7.    Conclusions

In conclusion, while some of the issues above are capable of being addressed by further information request or condition, I feel that the development as a whole is of over-sized houses and fails to comply with many of the planning objectives for the area as set out in the County Development Plan and the Special Area Amenity Order.  Additionally, the lack of an adequate water supply and the effect the development would have on the users of the existing supply means the development is premature Therefore permission should be refused for the applicant to come back with a proposal more in keeping with the area and the planning objectives for the area, after an adequate water supply has been made available.

I enclose the €20 fee.

Is mise, le meas,
 
Cllr. David Healy

Techcrete will be moving from Howth to Balbriggan within 3 years.  They have been an important part of Howth for many years and their departure will be a big change for the area. Their large site beside Howth Dart Station has a Suburban Centre zoning.  This means that it must be developed as a mixed development, not just expensive housing.  It is also part of the area planned for an Urban Centre Strategy for Howth.  This strategy would work out the general form for development on this site.  It is essential that the Council start to develop this strategy as a matter of urgency.  This will solidify the mixed use zoning and ensure that the development of the site is of benefit to the local community.  I will be raising this at Monday’s Council meeting. Background:
On next Monday’s Council agenda (13th November) is the sale by the Council of a 15 acre site at Stephenstown Industrial Park, Balbriggan to Techcrete Holdings Ltd, Dublin Road, Howth. 

The details of the sale of the Balbriggan site are as follows:
The sale is of a 250 year leasehold and provides for the development of
the site in Balbriggan for the production of pre cast concrete
components and associated uses.  Techcrete must make their application
for planning permission by 13th May 2007 and start work within 3 months
of grant of permission.  Development must be completed within 3 years
of the Council’s decision to dispose of the site.

Further information: Cllr. David Healy 087 6178852, 01 8324087

A "Village Improvement Scheme" for works on Howth Promenade is on display here and in Howth and Baldoyle Libraries.  The Howth Sutton Community Council is making suggestions to the Parks Department.  As part of that process, 4 members of the Community Council including myself went on site visits along the Dart line last week to have a look at recent renovations and street furniture along the coast.  The report (lots of photos) is below. Notes from site visits to IFSC, Liffey Campshires, Bray,  Dún Laoghaire Pier and Newtownsmith promenade, and associated discussions.

Benches
Priority – Very High
Criteria
    Facing alternate or both directions
    Picnic Tables near yacht club
    Comfort (wood)
    Style

We saw various types and comment on the inserted photos below

{mosimage}
IFSC, unwelcoming unfriendly bench.

{mosimage}
Bench on Campshires.  Good shape, length suits location, metal so uncomfortable temperature range.  Attractive light standards

{mosimage}
Bray, cast iron backrest added to promenade wall.  Very large and intrusive light standards

{mosimage}
Newtownsmith, light standards (very close together!) and bench.

{mosimage}
Newtownsmith, bench.  Varnished section showing up graffiti much more than weathered section. Lack of detailing around base of bench.

{mosimage}
Dún Laoghaire, simple traditional bench

{mosimage}
Dún Laoghaire Harbour, modern style bench.  Yellowish paving slabs looking very dirty and stained.

Lights
Priority – Very High
Criteria     
don’t need to be very strong, need to mark the pathway.  Investigate Solar powered LED lights,

We saw various types and comment on the inserted photos. See Bray and Newtownsmith lights with bench photos above.

Bins
Priority – Very High
Criteria
    Matching
    Enough bins/big enough
    Gulls/wind
    Additional bins near to litter-generating businesses
    Non-burnable
    Weather well
    Sited near but not too near benches/seats
    Separate collection of recyclables (aluminium cans, plastic bottles)

{mosimage}
Campshires, bin.  We thought this was attractive.

{mosimage}
Bray, bin.  We thought this was ugly.

New Paths
Priority – Very High
Path to Beach.
Path to playground, where a desire line has been worn across the grass from the pedestrian crossing beside the car park.

Trees
Priority – High
While the proposal is for only sycamores, we would like more striking and interesting trees.

{mosimage}
Dún Laoghaire Harbour, palm trees

Landscaping plan for the grass/beds area
Priority – High
We felt that the landscaping plan needs to be worked out.  There are many existing elements of the promenade which are now derelict or no longer properly maintained.  Many are probably not even fully understood and their purposes are not clear.  The promenade has various sections and should be analysed and planned as such.  The existing neglected planting includes Hebe Howth Purple.  Previously there were vigorous stand of pampas grass.

Sculpture
Priority – High (but not urgent)
We saw a variety of sculptures.  Some were major additions to their locations.  We felt a good sculpture could have a much bigger positive impact than resurfacing of walls or paths.

{mosimage}
Newtownsmith, sculpture.  By far the finest sculpture we saw.  Also different coloured concrete (yellow and pink) and cobble detailing.

{mosimage}
Newtownsmith, sculpture.

{mosimage}
Newtownsmith, sculpture

{mosimage}
IFSC,Sculpture

{mosimage}
IFSC, fountain

Bandstand
Priority- Average
We felt that a bandstand also might be a better addition than resurfacing, especially wall resurfacing.

{mosimage}
Bray, Bandstand

{mosimage}
Dún Laoghaire Pier, Bandstand (under renovation)

Path resurfacing
Priority – Average
We are concerned about the relative cost of this element which might prevent expenditure on other elements of the renewal.
We saw a variety of different surfaces, some of which were very attractive.
We would like to see an instance of the proposed surface where it is in situ for a few years to get an idea of how it weathers and also how it deals with gum and cleaning.

We also noted the importance of the edge detailing to paths and felt that this would be an important element in Howth.  Also this edging (rougher stones or cobbles) should then be used as the surface underneath seats, bins etc.

{mosimage}
Campshires, Attractive stone section, LED(?) lights marking the line, detailing with cobbles, curved granite blocks for edging.

{mosimage}
Campshires,  attractive mixture of paving materials, great attention to detail and quality craftmanship.

{mosimage}
Newtownsmith, coloured concrete, cobble detailing between concrete sections.  Note how people walk along on the curb where the grass starts and have killed the grass at this location.

{mosimage}
Dún Laoghaire East Pier, new surface, very attractive, smooth with pebbles and shells.

{mosimage}
Dún Laoghaire East Pier, new surface, seen from a distance

{mosimage}
Dún Laoghaire East Pier, new surface at lower level

Post and rail removal and replacement
Priority – Low to Average

The options are as follows

1.     Maintain status quo
2.     Replace with step as in proposal
3.     Remove and mark the boundary with cobble or similar edging
4.     Replace with low stones as on campshires

We feel the step would be an impediment to the mobility impaired and a trip hazard.   It would also lead to people walking along the top of the step and thereby killing the adjacent grass as happens in Newtownsmith (see photo above).  We are not convinced that there is a need to physically obstruct cars from driving across the footpath onto the grass as this never happens on the grassed area at the Dart Station/West Pier.

{mosimage}
Edge made of low granite blocks, Campshires

Wall resurfacing
Priority – Low
We would like to see an instance of the proposed surface where it is in situ for a few years to get an idea of how it weathers and also how it deals with gum and cleaning.  We feel that the existing wall might be better improved by drawing attention away from it with other features or by contrasting decorations to it which will minimise attention to it’s plain concrete surface.

The application was submitted on 12th October.  The final deadline for submissions from the public is one day less than 5 weeks later, therefore Wednesday 15th November.  Submissions/objections must be accompanied by €20 and include the  reference number of the application (F06A/1484), the name and address of the person(s) making the submission, and the grounds of objection or other comments.  When you get a formal acknowledgement from the Council, you must keep it in order to be able to appeal to An Bord Pleanála.

There will be an Area Committee meeting on Thursday 16th November at 3pm in Baldoyle Library.  I will be listing the file for that meeting for discussion with the planners.  The meeting is open to the public.  Note however, that the planners will not reveal their intentions in relation to the file.
The details of the application:

F06A/1484    12-Oct-2006    
    Applicant:Borg Developments 15 Hogan Place, Grand Canal Street, Dublin 2
    Location:    Thormanby Road, Howth, Dublin 13
    Proposed Development:    Development comprising 19 no. two storey (5 bedroom) detached dwelling units, each with individual single storey detached garages, landscape treatment and on curtilage car-parking; a single storey management office of c.43 sq.m.;  1 no. ESB substation unit of c.19 sq.m.;  vehicular access to serve the proposed development via a new access off Thormanby Road;  site development and landscape works;  all on a site of c.6.4 Ha (c.15.7 acres).

One of the chronic problems in local government iin Ireland is that when the officials don’t want to do something they simply declare it to be illegal.

The group opposing the proposed dump at the Nevitt asked the Council to fund the technical expertise that they had to employ to engage with this €50million+ proposal.  We feel that this is essential to give meaning to the right to public participation in environmental decisions recognised in the Aarhus Convention.  The Manager is claiming it would be illegal, but isn’t giving any reason why. The Greens proposed that they be funded at the last monthly Council
meeting.  The Manager asserted it was illegal.  So for next Monday’s
meeting, we have identified the elements in the legislation which
specifically empower the Councillors to recognise and fund the group. 
The response, as before, is a simple assertion, describing itself as
legal advice, that "the Nevitt-Lusk Anti-Dump Group do not fall within
the category of body
which under Section 128 of the Local Government Act 2001, the local
authority can declare to be a recognised association"  There is no
explanation as to why this is claimed to be so.  Nor, on past record,
will the law agent attend the Council meeting to explain her advice.

Copy of letter circulated to Councillors, followed by extract from Local Government Act 2001
>>>
When phoning or calling please ask for Ms Mary Crealey ext: 5500
Our Ref:         “MC” LAW
Your Ref:      

Pat Keane
County Manager
County Hall
Swords
                                                                                    URGENT

7th November 2006

Re:      Proposed Motion for Council Meeting 13th November 2006

Dear Pat,

I refer to the following proposed motion for the above meeting:

“ That Fingal County Council declares the Nevitt-Lusk Anti-Dump Group to be a recognised association for the purpose of S.128 of the Local Government Act 2001 and resolves under S.128 (2)(b) to provide assistance in money in the amount of €30,000 to the Nevitt-Lusk Anti-Dump Group to meet their legitimate costs incurred in obtaining specialist advice and representation in order to engage with the various consent processes for the proposed dump at the Nevitt as assessed by an independent assessor”.

The Council are currently seeking to provide a new landfill at Tooman/Nevitt  North County Dublin in accordance with the Waste Management Plan for the Dublin Region 2005-2010 and have recently been involved in an oral hearing in relation to the landfill.  Individual members of the Nevitt-Lusk Anti-Dump Group lodged objections to the landfill project with An Bord Pleanala and were represented at the oral hearing.  There has been no decision by An Bord Pleanala in relation to the new landfill as yet.  When there is a decision, the Board has a discretion in relation to the payment of costs.  This is a statutory process and the local authority has not got discretion to pay any costs and expenses of persons involved in the process without an order of the Board.

In these circumstances the Nevitt-Lusk Anti-Dump Group do not fall within the category of body which under Section 128 of the Local Government Act 2001, the local authority can declare to be a recognised association for the purposes of that section.

If a resolution were passed declaring the Nevitt-Lusk Anti-Dump Group to be a recognised association for the purposes of Section 128 of the Local Government Act 2001, such a resolution would be illegal and any payment made under Section 128 of the 2001 Act would also be illegal and the Manager would be liable to surcharge on foot of such payment.  Furthermore, if a Section 140 motion were to be passed by the Council authorising payment to the Nevitt-Lusk Anti-Dump Group in relation to their involvement in the above matter, this would also be illegal and all those who voted in favour of the motion would also be liable to be surcharged.

Yours faithfully,

…………………………..

Mary Crealey

Law Agent

cc. Dick Brady, Head of Corporate Affairs
fk
<<<<

Extract from Local Government Act, 2001

Recognised associations.

128.—(1) A local authority may declare that any body, whether
corporate or unincorporate, be a recognised association for the
purposes of this section where the local authority is of the opinion
that the body is concerned with promoting the interests of the local
community, or any part of or group within the local community, or of
all or a part of the administrative area of that local authority.

(2) A local authority may—

(a) consult a recognised association on any relevant matter,

(b) provide assistance in money or in kind to such association,

(c) make arrangements with a recognised association under section 13(6) of the Roads Act, 1993, or Chapter 4 of Part 9

(d) enter into an agreement in
writing with a recognised association for the carrying out by the
association on behalf of the local authority of certain functions of
the authority which in its opinion may be satisfactorily carried out by
the recognised association, subject to such terms, conditions,
restrictions and other requirements as the authority considers
necessary and specifies in the agreement.

(3) Subsection (2)(d) does not apply in respect of a reserved function, the function to make arrangements under section 13(6) of the Roads Act, 1993, or Chapter 4 of Part 9 or any other function as the Minister may prescribe by regulations.

(4) Any works or other thing carried out or done by a recognised
association in good faith as a result of an agreement made under subsection (2)(d)
and in accordance with every requirement of such agreement shall be
regarded as if the works or other thing was duly authorised, carried
out or done by the local authority.

(5) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), a local authority may have regard as to whether in its opinion—

(a) a body is properly constituted and representative,

(b) adequate financial and accounting arrangements are in place, and

(c) the body is in a position
to comply with such requirements as the local authority may in all the
circumstances of the case consider necessary and reasonable for such
purposes.

(6) A declaration under subsection (1) is a reserved function.

(7) The Minister may by regulations prescribe such matters relating to
recognised associations as he or she considers appropriate for the
purpose of giving effect to this section including the procedures to be
followed for the termination of an agreement under subsection (2)(d).