Green Party Councillor for Howth David Healy has condemned Fingal
County Council’s failure to operate a cleaning service over the bank
holiday weekend. Continue reading →

The issue of the access between Castlerosse and Admiral Park and to new
Millennium Park and pitches came up at Monday’s Council meeting.

As
residents will know, I leafleted the area setting out the facts and
considerations some months ago, including the details of the planning
permission applicable in the area.  I avoided giving my personal view
because I didn’t want to make any commitment before having a chance to
hear all of the arguments and issues.  However, while distributing
those leaflets I spoke to some girls (aged about 9 to 12) who were
climbing the wall to get back to Castlerosse where they lived.  My mind
was pretty much made up by that conversation.  The submissions received
effectively confirmed my decision.

The three options put on display were as follows:

Option 1 was to integrate the open space and provide a planted pedestrian access from Grange Road through the open space to the new park and pitches which are going on the open land between Baldoyle and Portmarnock.

Option 2 was to provide the access through the open space but with railings on both sides, dividing it from Castlerosse and from Admiral Park.  This would involve most of what has up to now been the Admiral Park open space being fenced off from Admiral Park.

Option 3 was to maintain and strengthen existing boundaries.  Castlerosse would be permanently divided from Admiral Park and there would be no access from Baldoyle to the new park and pitches.

I put the consultation information on this site here.

45 submissions were received:

24 were from Admiral Park.  Of these 22 wanted the current situation with the fence reinforced (Option 3) and 2 recommended the fenced off access to the park which means Admiral Park losing most of its open space(Option 2).

8 were from Castlerosse.  Of these 6 (from 4 houses) wanted the area to be opened (Option 1) and  2 (from 1 house) wanted it closed (Option 3).

13 were from further out in Baldoyle (this includes two received by email without postal addresses which could have been in Castlerosse or Admiral park.  11 of these favoured Option 1, opening the area out and 2 went for Option 2.  The two which recommended Option 2 did so mostly because they thought local residents wanted to be fenced off and didn’t want to go against them.

The discussion in the Council was quite heated. It’s online starting at around 3.25.  In the end Option 2 was agreed by a majority of 11 to 5.  The Socialist Party and Fine Gael provided the main arguments in favour of this.

Option 2 had the lowest level of public support.  As I mentioned above, it involves Admiral Park losing most of it’s open space.  The majority appear to have decided for it  on the basis that this is what the Councillors voting for it thought the local residents would want.

My decision to support Option 1 was based on my concern for the importance of walkable neighbourhoods.  Such neighbourhoods lead to better community spirit, less car use and healthier more relaxed lives.  There is a signficant body of evidence on this now.  For example here and here.

Interestingly our professional advisors from the Parks and Planning Departments of the Council, had no advice for the Councillors on the importance of providing pedestrian access to residential areas, despite it being part of the Development Plan.

A majority of the Councillors voted in favour of blocking pedestrian
access to Castlerosse and in favour of fencing off most of the Admiral
Park open space in order to create a fenced access to the new
Millennium Park and pitches.

I honestly find it all
depressing and quite hard to understand.  If they had a deliberate
policy of trying to prevent people, from walking they couldn’t do much
worse.

Ireland follows the American model yet again; watch our lifestyle diseases rise along with theirs.

In response to 4 submissions on the dangerous design of the route as it affects cyclists (from Dublin Cycling Campaign and 3 members of the Campaign including one from me), as well as concerns about the failure of the DTO to support removal of the Artane Roundabout, the Area Committee decided to defer the QBC route until their July meeting.  At the proposal of Cllr. Bronwen Maher (Green, Clontarf) the Dublin Cycling Campaign is to be invited to address the meeting.  There was long and confused debate.  The official from the Quality Bus Network office of the City Council was unhappy about these decisions and bizarrely suggested that there would be no reason for him to attend the July meeting.

I attach my email to the Councillors on the North Central  Area Cttee of Dublin City Council.
_____

From: David Healy / Daithí Ó hÉalaithe [mailto:verdire@eircom.net]
Sent: 19 June 2006 19:46
To: Cllr Anne Carter; heney@oceanfree.net; Gerry Breen (cllr_gerry.breen@dublincity.ie); Larry O’Toole (cllr_larry.otoole@dublincity.ie); Niamh Cosgrave (cllr_niamh.cosgrave@dublincity.ie); Cllr Sean Kenny; Sean Paul Mahon (cllr_seanpaul.mahon@dublincity.ie); Tom Brabazon (cllr_tom.brabazon@dublincity.ie); Bronwen Maher (bronwen@eircom.net); Eibhlin Byrne (m/sdublin@hotmail.com); Killian Forde (killian@killianforde.com); Naoise O Muiri (campaign@naoise.ie); Paddy Bourke (pbourkelabour@eircom.net); Terence Flanagan
(terence.flanagan@finegael.net)
Subject: malahide road QBC

Dear colleagues,

Thank you for deferring this proposal to next month and inviting the Dublin Cycling Campaign to address your next meeting.  I just wanted to send a quick email to clarify some of the points which came up at the meeting.

Cllr. Bourke’s question: what are the main problems with the design?

In my view the three main problems are:

1.    Cycle lanes to the left of left-turning traffic.  This is a known
and widely recognised source of danger.  In recent years it has led to the deaths of a cyclist in collision with a truck at Annesley Bridge/East Wall Road and another cyclist in collision with a truck at Malahide Rd./Griffith Avenue.  In response to both deaths, the coroner’s jury recommended that Dublin City Council look at the design of the cycle lanes at these junctions.
report on inquest of Dante de Vere Padua at Annesley Bridge/East Wall
report on inquest of Maria Sonia Jimenez Martinez at Malahide Rd./Griffith Avenue

These requests appears to have been ignored.  I do not know whether legal action is being taken against the City Council in relation to the negligence involved in the road design at these locations, but I think there is definitely a prima facie case.

2.    Cycle lanes in “door zone”.  This is a known hazard and has been
done in a number of locations on the route, notably in Fairview.  It is only a matter of time until someone is killed by this. See
report on death of Dana Laird in Cambridge, Massachussets

3.    Width of cycle lanes and combined cycle/bus lanes.  The National Manual on Provision of Cycle Facilities sets a width of 4.5m and an absolute minimum of 4.25.  The design is much narrower than this.  Narrower lanes encourage motorists to pass cyclists where there isn’t room. If there isn’t room for a cycle lane matched to the conditions and speed of traffic it is better not to mark any cycle lane at all. Cllr O’Toole gave an instance of what happens in these circumstances.

Cllr Breen’s question: What is the percentage of cyclists on this route?

Cyclists are 17% of the traffic crossing Newcomen Bridge between 8 and 9 am according to the City Council’s count.  This is the busiest of the canal crossings for this period. (Source)  This is the only location on the route where counts have been taken.

Mr. de Burca / Cllr O’Toole’s discussion: Whether it is better to have cycle tracks on the carriageway or off it.

This will depend on the conditions.  A cycle track such as that along the coast at Kilbarrack is excellent.  A cycle track on the footpath such as at North Strand brings cyclists into serious conflict with both pedestrians and turning motor vehicles.  I have suggested in my submission that north of the Artane junction there is space for a high-quality segregated cycle track on each side of the carriageway.

I attach a copy of my submission in relation to the route.

I hope these comments are of use,

Best wishes,

David

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

Re the coastal cycle track. I got a comment pointing out that it is not an excellent route. I accept that it is not a good idea for me or anyone to describe it as excellent.  By comparison with the appalling Malahide Rd route as exists or as proposed it is excellent and it is in that context that I made the comment.  However, there are significant flaws with the route and my comment is the kind of comment that could be misused at some stage.

The problems include the bins, steps and excavations on the route, also boulders at the causeway, too close to parking near the Clontarf pumping station, no route through Alfie Byrne Road junction, concrete walls jutting into the path at bus stops, inappropriate marking of two lanes (from Kilbarrack Rd. north) and lack of lighting which is likely to lead to collisions between cyclists.  I know there have been collisions between cyclists on this route; I don’t know if they are recorded.

A number of these flaws have been included in the design since it was first built

Fingal Councillors are trying to get ramps where the steps are, safely designed for cyclists and mobility-impaired users; also at the Sutton Park entrance where there is no access.

Information about / Eolas faoi Esperanto  ;  Esperanto-Asocio de Irlando

Saluton, esperantlingvaj legantoj!

La ĉefa celo de tiu retpaĝaro mia estas informi pri mia laboro kiel elektita loka politikisto de la Verda Partio (Green Party/Comhaontas Glas).

Informoj pri verdpartiaĵoj: Asocio de Verduloj Esperantistaj

Mi tiun ĉi paĝon afiŝas en la internacia lingvo, ĉefe por helpi al pasportservanoj kaj aliaj esperantistoj trovi min aŭ nian domon.

Mi loĝas kun mia edzo Rama kiu ne ankoraŭ parolas Esperanton sed iom komprenas.

La domo estas en Howth (angle) / Beann Éadair (gaele, ankaŭ foje literumita Binn Éadair).  Estas havena vilaĝo sur samnoma duoninsulo 16km nordoriente de la urbocentro de Dublin (angle) / Baile Átha Cliath (gaele). Estas tre bela kun montetoj, mardeklivoj, sabla marbordo, arbaroj, erikejoj kaj multaj promenvojetoj.

La domo proksimas al finhalto (Howth/ Binn Éadair) de la urba elektra fervojo Dart.  De la stacidomo, iru maldekstren laŭ la vojo. Vi baldaŭ vidos vojon dekstren kaj supren.  Iru tien. Kiam vi atingos alian vojkruciĝon, iru denove dekstren kaj supren. Post malgranda vojo kaj iom pli granda vojo estas 6 samformaj domoj. Estas la tria domo.

De urbocentro venu per Dart aŭ per buso H3, aŭ malpli rekta buso 6. De Dublina haveno, iru al urbocentro unue, aŭ rekte per taksio. De flughaveno, aŭ iru al urbocentro kaj de tie kiel supre, aŭ uzu malrektan marbordan buson 102 al Sutton kaj Dart-on de tie.

Pro mia politika laboro mi foje forestas.  Kaj mi kaj Rama laboras neregulajn horojn.  Do taŭgaj alvenhoroj ne facile antaŭvideblas.

Por kontakti min: verdire ĉe gmail.com, +353 876178852, 54, Páirc Éabhóra, Beann Éadair, B.Á.C. 13

At the Area Committee meeting on 15th September, after public
consultation, the committee decided to drop the proposal for a
playground at Greenfield Road in Sutton.  It also agreed to
approve the proposed playground at Howth Harbour.

I agreed with both these decisions.  Having given an election
commitment to support playgrounds, I feel I should explain my decision
in relation to the Sutton site.  The overriding consideration was
the lack of any positive support for the playgrounds or indication of
any local demand for them.  The purpose of these small playgrounds
is to provide a facility for local use.  None of the 30 separate
submissions indicated a demand for a playground in this area.

A copy of the report on the public consultation is below.

FINGAL COUNTY COUNCIL

MALAHIDE/HOWTH AREA COMMITTEE
(SERVICES B)

PLANNING, PROPERTY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, HOUSING, COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND AMENITIES, GENERAL BUSINESS]

THURSDAY 15TH SEPTEMBER 2005

ITEM NO. 39 (b)

PROPOSED PROVISION OF A PLAYGROUND AT GREENFIELD ROAD, SUTTON – REPORT
PURSUANT TO PART XI OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACTS 2000-2002

Fingal County Council proposes to provide a playground at one of two
possible locations, shown as A and B on site location map of Greenfield
Road, Sutton. The sketch plans of the proposed development were
presented to the Malahide/Howth (Services B) meeting on the 16th June
2005 where it was agreed that the procedure pursuant to Part XI of the
Local Government Planning and Development Acts 2000-2002 be initiated.

In accordance with Part VIII of the Planning and Development
Regulations 2001 public notice of the Council’s intention to provide
the playground was published in the Irish Independent on the 5th July
2005 and a site notice was erected on site the same day.

Plans and particulars of the proposed development were made available
for inspection between the hours of 9.30 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. and 2.00
p.m. to 4.00 p.m. on working days from Tuesday 5th July 2005 until
Wednesday 3rd August 2005 at the following offices of Fingal County
Council:-

•    Parks Division, Fingal County Council, County Hall, Main Street, Swords
•    Baldoyle Library, The Mall, Baldoyle, Dublin 13

Submissions or observations with respect to the proposed development
dealing with the proper planning and sustainable development of the
area in which the development would be situated were to be made in
writing to Mr Gerry Fitzgerald, Senior Executive Parks Superintendent,
Parks Division, Fingal County Council, County Hall, Main Street, Swords
on or before Wednesday 17th August 2005.

The period during which submissions or observations in respect of the
proposed development may be made to the Local Authority has expired.
This report is being submitted to the Council in accordance with the
requirements of Article 179(3) of the Planning and Development Act 2000
which states that a report, in accordance with sub-article (b) shall –

“(i) Describe the nature and extent of the proposed development and the principal features thereof”

Each proposed playground will be approximately 400 square metres in area (20m x 20m)

Will be equipped with play equipment suitable for children under 8 years of age.

Playground boundary will be secured with a railing 1.2 to 1.5 metres high.

The area will be surfaced with tarmac with safer surface (rubber tile,
rubber wet pour, loose rubber or wood fibre) provided within the
critical fall areas.

The playgrounds are intended to serve the needs to children living
locally and should not be seen as a regional facility. Though there may
be visitors from other estates when the playgrounds open.

Fingal County Council will seek, by public tender, qualified
contractors to design and construct the playground including all
surfacing, boundary treatment and play equipment

“(ii) Evaluate whether or not the proposed development would be
consistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of the
area to which the development relates, having regard to the provisions
of the Development Plan and giving reasons and considerations for the
evaluation”.

The area in which it is proposed to develop the proposed playground is
zoned “F” in the 1999-2004 Fingal County Council Development
Plan.  This zoning objective is “to preserve and provide for open
space and recreational amenities”.  It is considered that the
proposed development would not be contrary to this objective.

“(iii) List the persons or bodies who made submissions or observations
with respect to the proposed development in accordance with the
Regulations under sub-section (2)”.

See Appendix A

“(iv) Summarise the issues, with respect to the proper planning and
sustainable development of the area in which the proposed development
would be situate, raised in any submissions or observations, and give
the response of the Manager thereto”.
See Appendix B

“(v) Recommend whether or not the proposed development should be
proceeded with as proposed, or as varied or modified as recommended in
this report, or should not be proceeded with, as the case may be”.

Given that location B is close of a drainage gripe that occasionally
fills with water, and that there is no practical way at present to
eliminate this risk, the Council is of the opinion that location A
would be the preferred location for the playground.  Given that
this site is located adjacent to a busy road this proposal should only
proceed on the condition that a road crossing is provided. If the
members approve of the proposal the appropriate arrangements will be
made to proceed with the development of the facility.
Appendix A

LIST OF PERSONS OR BODIES WHO MADE SUBMISSIONS OR OBSERVATIONS ON OR BEFORE 4 p.m. ON WEDNESDAY AUGUST 17TH 2005

…

Appendix B
SUMMARY OF ISSUES RAISED IN SUBMISSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS ON PROVISION OF PLAYGROUND AT GREENFIELD ROAD, SUTTON.

SUBMISSION    RESPONSE
1    Visually Obtrusive    The Council is
of the opinion due to the proposed size of the playground ie 20m x 20m
that residents’ views of the bay area will not be obstructed.
2    Safety of Children-(a) Proximity to main road (b)
Rodents at Shoreline    (a) The provision of a
playground at this location will depend on the provision of a
pedestrian crossing. Should the Members approve this project
discussions will be held with the Council’s Transportation Department.
(b) Any reports of vermin at this location would be immediately referred to the Health Services Executive for immediate action.
3    Disturbance of  Winter Feeding Ground of Brent
Geese    The species of geese in question regularly
inhabit used open space in this and other locations in the County. The
Council does not consider that the provision of a playground at this
location would adversely affect the geese. However, the Wildlife
Service will be requested to examine the matter and it’s views will be
taken on board.
4    Exposure from Coastal Wind    The
Council recognises that limited use of the playground at certain times
of the year due to weather conditions will occur. It is envisaged by
the Council that the playground would only be used by children on
suitable dry days, therefore the issue of shelter is not seen as a
factor that would stop the playground being used.

5    Car Parking    Whilst  the
proposed playground is intended to serve the needs of children living
locally it is indeed for all children and this will therefore result in
additional usage in summer. The Council  is of the opinion
that  there is adequate car parking available adjacent to the
Church. The provision of a playground at this location will depend on
the provision of a pedestrian crossing.
6    Anti-social behaviour/Vandalism
It is not anticipated that either of the proposed locations would
represent more of a risk from anti social elements  than other
similar type playgrounds in situ throughout the County.
7    Need for such a facility    The
Council’s view is that the provision of a playground in this facility
will improve the level of facilities in this area  for children
and is in line with Council policy on play facility provision.
8    Too close to sea  and drainage trench.
Area  prone to flooding.    Location B is prone to
flooding in extreme weather conditions. Should the playground proceed
at this location the reports of consultants working on drainage in
Dublin bay area at present will guide its design. Location A is not
prone to flooding.
10    Coastal location would lead to rapid corrosion of
equipment    The equipment in the proposed playground
would be of galvanised steel construction, which should reduce
corrosion. It will be finished to a high quality.
11    Baltray, Howth would be a better
location    It is Council policy to provide a number of
playgrounds in each electoral area. The location suggested can be
investigated.