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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
In order to put the facts in the public domain, I am putting as many relevant documents as practical on my website. <\/p>\n
The story essentially is as follows:<\/p>\n
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. <\/p>\n
Fingal County Council decided to grant permission. The Castlerosse Residents’ Action Group employed O’Neill Associates to appeal on their behalf.<\/p>\n
An Bord Pleanála’s Inspector recommended that the permission be granted. In relation to the open space he said:<\/p>\n
"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."<\/p>\n
The Board’s decision following the Inspector’s report includes the following condition:<\/p>\n
"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."<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
I have scanned the main documents from the file and they are in order
\nbelow. Following them are the Board’s decision and the Inspector’s
\nreport on which it is based, in the somewhat mangled format I received
\nthem 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<\/p>\n.F3,0<\/p>\n
______________________________________________________________<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
L………………….L………………R……………..M……………….<\/p>\n
PL 06F.100596 An Bord Plean la Page PPPL of QQQL<\/p>\n
AA AAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
C…………………………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
AN BORD PLEAN LA<\/p>\n
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
C…………………………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT) ACTS, 1963 TO 1993<\/p>\n
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
County Fingal<\/p>\n
AAAAAA AAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Planning Register Reference Number: F96A\/0227<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
J…………………………………………………….M…………M….<\/p>\n
APPEAL by Castlerosse Residents Action Group care of O’Neill<\/p>\n
AAAAAA<\/p>\n
and Associates of Harbour Road, Howth, County Dublin against<\/p>\n
the decision made on the 4th day of October, 1996 by the<\/p>\n
Council of the County of Fingal to grant subject to conditions<\/p>\n
a permission to Tower Homes Limited care of John F. O’Connor<\/p>\n
and Associates of 11A Greenmount House, Harold’s Cross, Dublin<\/p>\n
for development comprising the erection of 18 number four<\/p>\n
bedroom houses, comprising an extension to Castlerosse housing<\/p>\n
development on lands to the side of 32 Castlerosse View and to<\/p>\n
the rear of 14 to 36 Grange Road, Baldoyle, Dublin in<\/p>\n
accordance with plans and particulars lodged with the said<\/p>\n
Council:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
DECISION: Pursuant to the Local Government (Planning and<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
Development) Acts, 1963 to 1993, it is hereby decided, for the<\/p>\n
reason set out in the First Schedule hereto, to grant<\/p>\n
permission for the said development in accordance with the<\/p>\n
said plans and particulars, subject to the conditions<\/p>\n
specified in the Second Schedule hereto, the reasons for the<\/p>\n
imposition of the said conditions being as set out in the said<\/p>\n
Second Schedule and the said permission is hereby granted<\/p>\n
subject to the said conditions.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
C…………………………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
FIRST SCHEDULE<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
J…………………………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
Having regard to the zoning objective for the site as set out<\/p>\n
in the current development plan for the area, the scale of the<\/p>\n
proposal, the existence of a suitable access, and to<\/p>\n
availability of public services, it is considered that the<\/p>\n
proposed development, subject to compliance with the<\/p>\n
conditions set out in the Second Schedule hereto, would be<\/p>\n
acceptable in terms of traffic safety and convenience, would<\/p>\n
not be seriously injure the amenities of existing residential<\/p>\n
property in the vicinity, and would be in accordance with the<\/p>\n
proper planning and development of the area.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
C…………………………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
SECOND SCHEDULE<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..<\/p>\n
1. The development shall be carried out in accordance<\/p>\n
with the plans and particulars submitted to the<\/p>\n
planning authority on the 4th day of April, 1996, as<\/p>\n
amended by additional information submitted to the<\/p>\n
planning authority on 6th day of June, 1996, and 7th<\/p>\n
day of August, 1996, save as may be amended by the<\/p>\n
following conditions.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Reason: In order to clarify the development to which<\/p>\n
AAAAAAA<\/p>\n
this decision relates.<\/p>\n
.P<\/p>\n
2. This permission does not include the proposed<\/p>\n
pedestrian access to the adjoining Saint Mary’s<\/p>\n
school.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Reason: To clarify the extent of the development,<\/p>\n
AAAAAAA<\/p>\n
having regard to the nature of the development<\/p>\n
proposed.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
3. Prior to commencement of development details of the<\/p>\n
following matters shall be agreed with the planning<\/p>\n
authority;<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
L…….L……J……………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
(a) All external finishes.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
(b) Surface water drainage proposals.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
(c) Foul drainage proposals.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
(d) Construction and alignment of the proposed<\/p>\n
service road extending through the site.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
(e) Undergrounding of the existing overhead line<\/p>\n
which traverses the site.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
(f) Provision of public lighting which shall be<\/p>\n
to the requirements of the planning authority.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
(g) Front garden boundary treatment of the houses.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Reason: In the interest of visual amenities, orderly<\/p>\n
AAAAAAA<\/p>\n
development and the proper planning and development of<\/p>\n
the area.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
4. Prior to commencement of development details of a<\/p>\n
comprehensive landscaping plan for the entire site<\/p>\n
shall be submitted to the planning authority. This<\/p>\n
shall include details of the specifications and siting<\/p>\n
of a protective fence by the main water channel, the<\/p>\n
levelling, seeding and landscaping of the area shown<\/p>\n
as open space and a time scale for the implementation<\/p>\n
of all landscaping works.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Reason: In the interest of residential amenity, and<\/p>\n
AAAAAAA<\/p>\n
the proper planning and development of the area.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
5. All public services to the proposed development,<\/p>\n
including electrical, telephone cables and equipment<\/p>\n
shall be located underground throughout the entire<\/p>\n
site.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.<\/p>\n
AAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
6. Prior to the commencement of development, proposals<\/p>\n
for an estate\/street name, house numbering scheme and<\/p>\n
associated signage shall be submitted to the planning<\/p>\n
authority for agreement.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Reason: In the interest of orderly development.<\/p>\n
AAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
.PP=0003==========L\/P=062\/FFF T=003 W\/O 0\/0 .S 1.00 .C .~………..===<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
7. The developer shall pay a sum of money to Fingal<\/p>\n
County Council as a contribution towards expenditure<\/p>\n
that was and\/or that is proposed to be incurred by the<\/p>\n
Council in respect of the provision of public water<\/p>\n
supplies and sewerage facilities facilitating the<\/p>\n
proposed development. The amount of the contribution<\/p>\n
and the arrangements for payment shall be as agreed<\/p>\n
between the developer and the Council or, in default<\/p>\n
of agreement, shall be determined by An Bord Pleanla.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In the case of expenditure that is proposed to be<\/p>\n
incurred, the requirement to pay this contribution is<\/p>\n
subject to the provisions of section 26(2)(h) of the<\/p>\n
Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963<\/p>\n
generally, and in particular, the specified period for<\/p>\n
the purposes of paragraph (h) shall be the period of<\/p>\n
seven years from the date of this order.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Reason: It is considered reasonable that the developer<\/p>\n
AAAAAAA<\/p>\n
should contribute towards the expenditure that was<\/p>\n
and\/or that is proposed to be incurred by the Council<\/p>\n
in respect of the provision of public water supplies<\/p>\n
and sewerage facilities facilitating the proposed<\/p>\n
development.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
8. The developer shall pay a sum of money to Fingal<\/p>\n
County Council as a contribution towards the<\/p>\n
expenditure that is proposed to be incurred by the<\/p>\n
Council in respect of the provision of piping the main<\/p>\n
water drainage channel adjacent to the site, the<\/p>\n
removal of temporary fencing and the completion and<\/p>\n
integration of open space areas facilitating the<\/p>\n
proposed development. The amount of the contribution<\/p>\n
and the arrangements for payment shall be as agreed<\/p>\n
between the developer and the Council or, in default<\/p>\n
of agreement, shall be determined by An Bord Pleanla.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Payment of this contribution is subject to the<\/p>\n
provisions of section 26(2)(h) of the Local Government<\/p>\n
(Planning and Development) Act, 1963 generally, and in<\/p>\n
particular, the specified period for the purposes of<\/p>\n
paragraph (h) shall be the period of ten years from<\/p>\n
the date of this order.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Reason: It is considered reasonable that the developer<\/p>\n
AAAAAAA<\/p>\n
should contribute towards the expenditure proposed to<\/p>\n
be incurred by the Council in respect of works<\/p>\n
facilitating the proposed development.<\/p>\n
.PP=0004==========L\/P=062\/FFF T=003 W\/O 0\/0 .S 1.00 .C .~………..===<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
9. Prior to the commencement of development, the<\/p>\n
developer shall lodge with Fingal County Council a<\/p>\n
cash deposit, a bond of an insurance company, or other<\/p>\n
security to secure the provision and satisfactory<\/p>\n
completion and maintenance until taken in charge by<\/p>\n
the Council of roads, footpaths, watermains, drains,<\/p>\n
public open space and other services required in<\/p>\n
connection with the development, coupled with an<\/p>\n
agreement empowering the Council to apply such<\/p>\n
security or part thereof to the satisfactory<\/p>\n
completion or maintenance of any part of the<\/p>\n
development. The form and amount of the security shall<\/p>\n
be as agreed between the Council and the developer or,<\/p>\n
in default of agreement, shall be determined by An<\/p>\n
Bord Pleanla.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Reason: To ensure the satisfactory completion of the<\/p>\n
AAAAAAA<\/p>\n
development.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
L…………………L…………………………………M……………..<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
_______________________________________<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
L…………………L…………………………………M……………..<\/p>\n
Member of An Bord Plean la<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
duly authorised to authenticate<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
the seal of the Board.<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
L…………………L………….L………………..L….M……………..<\/p>\n
Dated this day of 1997.<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAA AAAAAA AAAAA<\/p>\n
INSPECTOR’S REPORT<\/p>\n
J…………………………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
.F3,0<\/p>\n
______________________________________________________________ÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
L………………….L………………R……………..M……………….<\/p>\n
PL06F.100596 An Bord Pleanála Page PPPL of QQQLÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
J……………………….J…………………………..M……………..<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Development: Extension to Castlerosse Housingÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
Development on lands to the side<\/p>\n
of 32 Castlerosse View and to the<\/p>\n
rear of 14-36 Grange Road,<\/p>\n
Baldoyle comprising 18 no. four<\/p>\n
bedroom semi-detached houses.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Development: Third Party -v- Grant ofÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
Permission<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Reg. Ref.: F96A\/0227ÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Planning Authority: Fingal County Councilÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Applicants: Tower Homes Limitedÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Appellants: Castlerosse Residents Actionÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
Group<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Date of Site Inspection: 7th February, 1997.ÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
J…………………………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
INTRODUCTIONÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
I have read the file, inspected the site, considered the<\/p>\n
grounds of appeal, and assessed the proposal in the context of<\/p>\n
the proper planning and development of the area.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
This report contains summaries of submissions made to the<\/p>\n
Board. It is recommended that these submissions be read in<\/p>\n
full in conjunction with this report.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTIONÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The site is located north of Grange Road, and to the east of<\/p>\n
the newly constructed Castlerosse housing development. Access<\/p>\n
to the site is proposed along Castlerosse View; there is<\/p>\n
currently a cul-de-sac with a turning bay close to the end of<\/p>\n
this.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
To the west the side adjoins Castlerosse View and school<\/p>\n
grounds. To the south the site adjoins the rear of Nos. 14-36<\/p>\n
(inclusive) Grange Road. To the east is open space attached to<\/p>\n
Admiral Park housing scheme.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The houses on Castlerosse View are two-storey semi-detached<\/p>\n
with brick frontages. At the end of the cul-de-sac there is a<\/p>\n
kerb and a landscaped strip. This is bounded by a low wall<\/p>\n
and railing. The carriageway on Castlerosse View measures<\/p>\n
approximately 6.5m. There are 32 houses fronting onto the<\/p>\n
road, and there is a grassed open space on the opposite side.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The appeal site appears as an open field. The boundary within<\/p>\n
the school grounds is marked by a palisade fence.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
I attach photographs taken at the time of inspection.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The proposal is for an extension to Castlerosse housing<\/p>\n
development on lands to the side of 32 Castlerosse View, and<\/p>\n
to the rear of 14-36 Grange Road, Baldoyle, comprising 18 no.<\/p>\n
four bedroom semi-detached houses. The site area is stated to<\/p>\n
be 1.81 acres, and the floor area of each dwelling is stated<\/p>\n
to be 120 sq. metres.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The proposed finishes include brick and vertical tile cladding<\/p>\n
to front walls, sand cement render to other walls, and<\/p>\n
concrete tiles to roof.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
PLANNING AUTHORITY’S DECISIONÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
To grant permission subject to 19 conditions.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The conditions relate to the following:-<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
L…….L……J……………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
1. Standard compliance.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
2. Financial contribution of £11,160 towards<\/p>\n
public services.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
3. Financial contribution of £25,000 towards the<\/p>\n
cost of piping the main water channel on the<\/p>\n
site, removal of temporary fencing, and<\/p>\n
completion and integration of open space areas.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
4. Financial contribution of £2,500 towards the<\/p>\n
development of public open space.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
5. Financial contribution of £18,000 towards<\/p>\n
traffic management in the Baldoyle area.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
6. Financial security.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
7. Surface water drainage requirements.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
8. Foul drainage requirements.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
9. Road provision requirements.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
10. Landscape plan.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
11. Undergrounding of existing overhead lines.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
12. Undergrounding of public services to be<\/p>\n
provided.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
13. Public lighting requirements.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
14. No dwelling to be occupied until services are<\/p>\n
connected.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
15. Levelling, soiling, seeding and landscaping of<\/p>\n
open space area.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
16. Sanitary services requirements.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
17. Street naming and house numbering.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
18. Construction and maintenance requirements until<\/p>\n
development taken in charge.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
19. Main water channel to be kept clear at all<\/p>\n
times, and the banks of the channel to be<\/p>\n
graded.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
J…………………………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
The Planning Authority’s decision was made following the<\/p>\n
submission of additional information on the 5th June, 1996.<\/p>\n
This included the following:-<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
L…….L……J……………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
1. Open space provision of 0.30 acres meets the<\/p>\n
Development Plan requirement exactly. It is<\/p>\n
proposed to link Castlerosse and Admiral Park<\/p>\n
open space areas.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
2. Survey of lands in the vicinity of the school –<\/p>\n
copy of layout plan showing levels. Proposed<\/p>\n
to continue the wall and railing along the<\/p>\n
northern boundary of Admiral Park.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
3. Landscape specification to be submitted upon<\/p>\n
receipt of a favourable determination of the<\/p>\n
application.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
J…………………………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
Clarification of additional information was submitted on the<\/p>\n
6th August, 1996 and this included the following:-<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
L…….L……J……………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
1. Retaining wall, if necessary, to be built at<\/p>\n
the end on the hammerhead to secure its<\/p>\n
foundations. 600mm high concrete bollards to<\/p>\n
be placed at the end of the hammerhead, and<\/p>\n
water channel to be fenced with a 2.0m high<\/p>\n
chain link fence pending the piping and filling<\/p>\n
of the channel. Level of the open space to be<\/p>\n
generally 150mm above road level.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
2. Landscape specification to be submitted upon<\/p>\n
receipt of a favourable determination of the<\/p>\n
application.<\/p>\n
.P<\/p>\n
J…………………………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
GROUNDS OF APPEALÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
These are submitted by O’Neill & Associates on behalf of<\/p>\n
Castlerosse Residents Action Group, and may be summarised as<\/p>\n
follows:-<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
L…….L……J……………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
1. The proposed extension of Castlerosse<\/p>\n
cul-de-sac would create serious traffic hazard<\/p>\n
for existing residents as public open space is<\/p>\n
across the road serving the proposed<\/p>\n
development. Young children would be<\/p>\n
particularly at risk. The proposed access would<\/p>\n
materially contravene the previous permission<\/p>\n
for Castlerosse housing development under Ref.<\/p>\n
PL6\/5\/83933. The proposed access road would<\/p>\n
devalue all of the properties in the immediate<\/p>\n
area.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
2. The proposed development is contrary to the<\/p>\n
zoning objective set for the area in the<\/p>\n
Statutory Development Plan. This is a<\/p>\n
substandard form of development as a number of<\/p>\n
the proposed houses directly overlook adjoining<\/p>\n
properties to the side, and there is inadequate<\/p>\n
provision of open space. The access road is<\/p>\n
only 5 metres wide. It is proposed to include<\/p>\n
an access to the existing primary school off<\/p>\n
the proposed cul-de-sac extension. These<\/p>\n
elements would seriously detract from the<\/p>\n
residential amenities of the area.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
3. The proposed development would cause serious<\/p>\n
disamenity to No. 32 Castlerosse View, as there<\/p>\n
would be four houses backing onto the site wall<\/p>\n
only 8 metres away. There would be overlooking<\/p>\n
of all the private open space at No. 32. This<\/p>\n
would lead to a devaluation of that property.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
4. The public newspaper or site notice does not<\/p>\n
refer to the opening of an entrance to the<\/p>\n
adjoining primary school grounds. The new<\/p>\n
access would lead to an unacceptable increase<\/p>\n
in through traffic in the Castlerosse Estate.<\/p>\n
This would constitute a road hazard, and would<\/p>\n
cause serious residential disamenity. The<\/p>\n
access should either be omitted or the<\/p>\n
applicant should be requested to re-publish the<\/p>\n
statutory notices appropriately worded.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
5. At the very least the building line created by<\/p>\n
Castlerosse View should be continued in the<\/p>\n
proposed development, and brick finishes should<\/p>\n
be used to complement the existing residential<\/p>\n
development. Alternatively the development<\/p>\n
should be served from a different access point.<\/p>\n
Three of the houses could be omitted in order<\/p>\n
to provide for open space requirements; if Nos.<\/p>\n
32 to 35 (inclusive) were omitted, No. 36 could<\/p>\n
be re-orientated in a north\/south direction.<\/p>\n
.P<\/p>\n
J…………………………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
OBSERVERSÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
There are two separate observations submitted to the Board as<\/p>\n
follows:-<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
L…….L……J……………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
(a) Observation from Colette Sadlier, Secretary,<\/p>\n
Castlerosse Residents Association, including<\/p>\n
letters from the following:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Paul and Caroline Doolin, 18 Castlerosse<\/p>\n
Crescent<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Dermot Maddan and Helen McGuinness, 31<\/p>\n
Castlerosse View<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Laurence Ennis, 26 Castlerosse View<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Marie Moss, 30 Castlerosse View<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Garry Brown, 3 Castlerosse View<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Ciara and Michael Walsh, 6 Castlerosse View<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
James McDonagh, 5 Castlerosse View<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Colette and John Sadlier, 12 Castlerosse<\/p>\n
Crescent<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Petition from Castlerosse Action Group<\/p>\n
containing 59 signatures representing 31 of 32<\/p>\n
houses on Castlerosse View, 50 signatures<\/p>\n
representing 35 of 37 occupied houses on<\/p>\n
Castlerosse Crescent and 47 signatures<\/p>\n
representing 28 houses on Castlerosse Drive.<\/p>\n
L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
This submission may be summarised as follows:-<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
L…….L……J……………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
1. The proposed development would present a danger<\/p>\n
to young children. There are already enough<\/p>\n
cars and lorries driving through the estate.<\/p>\n
The proposed development would constitute a<\/p>\n
traffic hazard.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
2. The purchasers of the houses in Castlerosse<\/p>\n
View were led to believe that this road was to<\/p>\n
remain a cul-de-sac.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
3. The proposed school entrance would result in<\/p>\n
Castlerosse being used as a short cut. This<\/p>\n
would create a security hazard.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
4. The proposed development would lead to traffic<\/p>\n
chaos.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
5. The proposed development would result in<\/p>\n
intolerable increased pressure on the existing<\/p>\n
drainage scheme.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
6. Overlooking of existing dwellings.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
7. The linking of Admiral Park and Castlerosse<\/p>\n
estate would become a major security problem.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
8. Devaluation of property.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
9. Dust and dirt resulting from construction<\/p>\n
traffic would lead to disamenity.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
10. The creation of a third 90 degree bend within<\/p>\n
the estate would be hazardous.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
(b) Mary Heaslip and John Owens, 32 Castlerosseÿ<\/p>\n
AAA<\/p>\n
View.<\/p>\n
L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
This may be summarised as follows:-<\/p>\n
L…….J……J……………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
1. Castlerosse View is a very narrow road<\/p>\n
incapable of supporting any more traffic. The<\/p>\n
proposed road layout would create further<\/p>\n
danger.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
2. Castlerosse View separates the houses from the<\/p>\n
open space. The proposed development would<\/p>\n
increase the hazard to children.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
3. The merging of Admiral Park and Castlerosse<\/p>\n
green spaces would greatly reduce security.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
4. The objectors main problem relates to the<\/p>\n
proposed Nos. 33-36 (inclusive). Their house<\/p>\n
would be directly overlooked by four new<\/p>\n
houses, leading to a loss of privacy and<\/p>\n
devaluation of property.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
J…………………………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
FIRST PARTY RESPONSE TO GROUNDS OF APPEALÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
This may be summarised as follows:-<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
L…….L……J……………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
1. There would be no traffic hazard. The proposed<\/p>\n
two 90 degree bends would reduce the speed of<\/p>\n
traffic.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
2. The proposed development complies with the<\/p>\n
zoning objective. The layout is conventional<\/p>\n
and accords with the standards set out in the<\/p>\n
County Development Plan.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
3. The separation from No. 32 Castlerosse View is<\/p>\n
more than twice the minimum required. The<\/p>\n
proposed development would not detract from or<\/p>\n
impair the amenities of No. 32.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
4. The open space provisions meets Development<\/p>\n
Plan standards. The linking of Castlerosse and<\/p>\n
Admiral Park will create a parkland area of<\/p>\n
five acres.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
5. The proposed house types are the same as in<\/p>\n
Castlerosse. There will be no devaluation of<\/p>\n
property in Castlerosse.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
6. The Castlerosse estate road is 6.5 metres wide,<\/p>\n
and not 5 metres. There will be no trafficÿ<\/p>\n
AAA<\/p>\n
hazard or congestion.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
7. The proposed school entrance is intended to<\/p>\n
facilitate children in the proposed development<\/p>\n
and Castlerosse development. Some other<\/p>\n
children may use it. The proposed entrance<\/p>\n
would be in accordance with the proper planning<\/p>\n
and development of the area.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
8. This is the last piece of residentially zoned<\/p>\n
land north of the Grange Road between the coast<\/p>\n
road and the railway line. The site is<\/p>\n
derelict. The proposed development would<\/p>\n
improve the amenities of the area.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
J…………………………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
PLANNING AUTHORITY’S RESPONSE TO OBJECTORSÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
This may be summarised as follows:-<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
L…….L……J……………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
1. This is a reasonable development, and is<\/p>\n
acceptable subject to the 19 conditions<\/p>\n
attached by the Planning Authority.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
2. Castlerosse View has a carriageway of 6.5<\/p>\n
metres. The proposed cul-de-sac extension<\/p>\n
would be 5.5 metres with a 1.5 metre footpath,<\/p>\n
and a 1.85 metre grass verge. A standard<\/p>\n
hammerhead was conditioned, as was a standard<\/p>\n
speed control curve.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
3. The Roads Department sees no objection to the<\/p>\n
proposed pedestrian entrance to the school.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
J…………………………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
DEVELOPMENT PLANÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The site is in an area zoned A – to protect and improve<\/p>\n
residential amenity.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
PLANNING HISTORYÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Ref. 6\/5\/83933 – permission granted on appeal for development<\/p>\n
comprising the erection of 92 houses at this location. This<\/p>\n
included Castlerosse View, which was indicated as ending in a<\/p>\n
cul-de-sac. The front garden of No. 32 was shown extending<\/p>\n
partly across the width of the cul-de-sac between it and the<\/p>\n
site boundary. A footpath also appears to be indicated. The<\/p>\n
cul-de-sac head as constructed is different from that shown on<\/p>\n
the submitted drawings. No conditions in the Board’s<\/p>\n
decisions relate specifically to No. 32 Castlerosse View, or<\/p>\n
the adjoining cul-de-sac.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
PLANNING ASSESSMENTÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
This is a vacant residentially zoned site adjoining older<\/p>\n
residential development to the south, and recently constructed<\/p>\n
housing to the west. I submit that it is suited to<\/p>\n
residential development in principle, and that the density of<\/p>\n
development proposed is reasonable.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
There is a third party appeal against the Planning Authority’s<\/p>\n
decision to grant permission. The main grounds of appeal may<\/p>\n
generally be listed under the following headings:-<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..<\/p>\n
Material contravention of zoning objective.<\/p>\n
L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..<\/p>\n
Material contravention of an earlier permission.<\/p>\n
L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..<\/p>\n
Traffic hazard, Substandard development.<\/p>\n
L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..<\/p>\n
Serious disamenity to existing residential<\/p>\n
development.<\/p>\n
L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..<\/p>\n
Inadequate public notices.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
J…………………………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
Other grounds of objection include the following:-<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..<\/p>\n
Devaluation of property.<\/p>\n
L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..<\/p>\n
Security hazard.<\/p>\n
L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..<\/p>\n
Inadequate drainage and water supply.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
J…………………………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
I address each of these in turn.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Zoning Objectiveÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The zoning objective for this site as set out in the current<\/p>\n
Development Plan is A – to protect and improve residential<\/p>\n
amenity. I consider that the proposed development is in<\/p>\n
general accordance with this objective.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Earlier Permissionÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Under Ref. 6\/5\/83933 the Board granted permission for the<\/p>\n
development of 92 houses at this location. This included the<\/p>\n
Castlerosse housing development. Castlerosse View was<\/p>\n
indicated as ending in a cul-de-sac, with the front garden of<\/p>\n
No. 32 extending partly across the width of the cul-de-sac<\/p>\n
between it and site boundary. A footpath also appeared to be<\/p>\n
indicated. The cul-de-sac head as constructed is different<\/p>\n
from that shown on the submitted drawings. There were no<\/p>\n
conditions relating specifically to this aspect of the<\/p>\n
proposed development.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
I do not consider that the proposed development would be a<\/p>\n
material contravention of the previous permission granted by<\/p>\n
the Board. While the development as constructed does not<\/p>\n
appear to strictly conform with the layout for which<\/p>\n
permission was granted under Ref. 6\/5\/83933, the amendments<\/p>\n
appear to be of a relatively minor nature. The strip of land<\/p>\n
between the cul-de-sac head and the site boundary was not<\/p>\n
shown as public open space, but appeared to form part of the<\/p>\n
front garden attached to No. 32. There does not appear to me<\/p>\n
to be any reason why the first party should not be permitted<\/p>\n
to now seek permission for an extension of the Caselerosse<\/p>\n
View cul-de-sac road.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Traffic Hazardÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The grounds of appeal can be interpreted as indicating that<\/p>\n
the Castlerosse View road has a carriageway of 5 metres. I<\/p>\n
measured the carriageway width and found it to be<\/p>\n
approximately 6.5 metres. The main open space area associated<\/p>\n
with Castlerosse View is on the opposite side of the road from<\/p>\n
the houses. Having regard to the relatively small scale of<\/p>\n
the proposed development (18 houses) I consider that the<\/p>\n
additional traffic generated would not constitute a traffic<\/p>\n
hazard.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Attention has been drawn to the fact that the layout proposed<\/p>\n
includes provision for a pedestrian access to the existing<\/p>\n
primary school. It is stated that this would substantially<\/p>\n
increase traffic along Castlerosse View. The primary school<\/p>\n
also has a main vehicular access onto the Grange Road. I do<\/p>\n
not consider that the traffic generated by the proposed<\/p>\n
pedestrian entrance would constitute a traffic hazard on<\/p>\n
Castlerosse View.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Substandard Developmentÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
I submit that the layout proposed is not substandard, and that<\/p>\n
the proposals for open space provision are satisfactory.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Disamenity to Existing Developmentÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
There is objection to the proposed development because it<\/p>\n
includes provision for four houses backing onto the side of<\/p>\n
the existing 32 Castlerosse View. It is stated that these<\/p>\n
houses are within 8 metres of No. 32 Castlerosse View. The<\/p>\n
proposed rear garden lengths of the subject houses measured to<\/p>\n
the main back wall of the house can be detailed as follows:-<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
L…….L…………J………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
No. 33 18 metres approximately<\/p>\n
L…….L…………J………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
No. 34 18 metres approximately<\/p>\n
L…….L…………J………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
No. 35 22 metres approximately<\/p>\n
L…….L…………J………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
No. 36 22.5 metres approximately.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
J…………………………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
I consider that these rear garden lengths are such that<\/p>\n
serious disamenity resulting from overlooking would not occur.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
There is an aspect of the proposed layout which I draw to the<\/p>\n
attention of the Board. No. 33 extends beyond the established<\/p>\n
front building line of the houses on Castlerosse View. I<\/p>\n
consider this to be an undesirable element in the layout, and<\/p>\n
would recommend the omission of this house in the event of<\/p>\n
permission being granted.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Public Noticesÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
It is argued that the public notices did not refer to the<\/p>\n
provision of a pedestrian entrance to the adjoining school<\/p>\n
grounds. This does appear to be a significant element of the<\/p>\n
proposal, and the Board may consider that a revised public<\/p>\n
notice should be submitted.<\/p>\n
.P<\/p>\n
Other Mattersÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
It is argued that the proposed development would lead to a<\/p>\n
devaluation of property in the general area. I do not agree<\/p>\n
with this, and consider that no substantial evidence has been<\/p>\n
submitted in support of this argument. Subject to the omission<\/p>\n
of house No. 33 I consider that there would be no serious loss<\/p>\n
of amenity to No. 32 Castlerosse View.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
It is argued that the joining of the open space areas between<\/p>\n
Castlerosse and Admiral Park would create a security hazard. I<\/p>\n
consider this to be a positive planning proposal, and do not<\/p>\n
agree that it would result in a security hazard.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
It is argued that the proposed development would put pressure<\/p>\n
on inadequate drainage and water supply. No convincing<\/p>\n
evidence has been submitted in support of this argument.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
RECOMMENDATIONÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
I recommend that the first party be requested to submit a<\/p>\n
revised newspaper notice to include reference to the provision<\/p>\n
of a pedestrian entrance to the primary school.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Should the Board consider that a revised public notice is not<\/p>\n
necessary, I recommend that planning permission be granted.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
With regard to the conditions imposed by the Planning<\/p>\n
Authority I comment as follows:-<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
L…….L………….J…J……………………………..M……………..<\/p>\n
Condition 1 – Reasonable<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Condition 2 – Financial contribution towards the<\/p>\n
provision of public services is<\/p>\n
reasonable.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Condition 3 – It appears to me that the main water<\/p>\n
channel referred to is not on the<\/p>\n
subject site. The piping of this<\/p>\n
channel would however facilitate the<\/p>\n
integration of the open space areas.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the Board may consider<\/p>\n
that this condition is reasonable.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Condition 4 – This does not appear to be<\/p>\n
reasonable as under Condition 10 a<\/p>\n
detailed landscaping plan is<\/p>\n
required, and under Condition 15<\/p>\n
specified works have to be carried<\/p>\n
out to the open space. The Planning<\/p>\n
Authority has not demonstrated how<\/p>\n
there is a shortfall in open space<\/p>\n
provision.<\/p>\n
.P<\/p>\n
Condition 5 – I recommend that this condition be<\/p>\n
deleted. The condition relates to a<\/p>\n
current proposal for traffic<\/p>\n
management in the Baldoyle area, but<\/p>\n
details of this are not given.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Condition 6 – Reasonable.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Condition 7 – Include in a general condition.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Condition 8 – Include in a general condition.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Condition 9 – Include in a general condition.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Condition 10 – Landscaping plan is reasonable.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Condition 11 – Reasonable.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Condition 12 – Reasonable.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Condition 13 – Reasonable.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Condition 14 – Not necessary.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Condition 15 – Reasonable. Include in a condition<\/p>\n
relating to a landscaping plan.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Condition 16 – Not necessary.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Condition 17 – Reasonable.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Condition 18 – Not necessary.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Condition 19 – This does not appear to be<\/p>\n
appropriate as the channel would<\/p>\n
appear to be outside the site<\/p>\n
boundary.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
C…………………………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
FIRST SCHEDULEÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
J…………………………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
Having regard to the zoning objective for the site as set out<\/p>\n
in the current Development Plan relating to this area, the<\/p>\n
scale of the proposal, the existence of a suitable access, and<\/p>\n
to availability of public services, it is considered that the<\/p>\n
proposed development, subject to compliance with the<\/p>\n
conditions set out in the Second Schedule hereto, would not<\/p>\n
endanger public safety by reason of a traffic hazard, would<\/p>\n
not be seriously injurious to the amenities of existing<\/p>\n
residential property in the vicinity or result in a<\/p>\n
devaluation of property, and would be in accordance with the<\/p>\n
proper planning and development of the area.<\/p>\n
.P<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
C…………………………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
SECOND SCHEDULEÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..<\/p>\n
1. The development shall be carried out in accordanceÿ<\/p>\n
AA<\/p>\n
with the plans and particulars submitted to the<\/p>\n
Planning Authority on 4th April, 1996, as amended by<\/p>\n
additional information submitted to the Planning<\/p>\n
Authority on 6th June, 1996, and 7th August, 1996,<\/p>\n
save as may be amended by the following conditions.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Reason: In order to clarify the development to whichÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAA<\/p>\n
this decision relates.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
2. The proposed layout shall be amended by the omissionÿ<\/p>\n
AA<\/p>\n
of house No. 33. Only three houses shall be<\/p>\n
constructed on the plot shown as 33-36 (inclusive).<\/p>\n
Details of a revised layout including this amendment<\/p>\n
shall be agreed with the Planning Authority prior to<\/p>\n
the commencement of development.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Reason: In the interests of visual and residentialÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAA<\/p>\n
amenity, and to enable the established front building<\/p>\n
line of houses on Caselerosse View to be maintained.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
3. Before development commences details of the followingÿ<\/p>\n
AA<\/p>\n
matters shall be agreed with the Planning Authority,<\/p>\n
or in default of agreement shall be as determined by<\/p>\n
An Bord Pleanála:-<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
L…….L……J……………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
(a) All external finishes.ÿ<\/p>\n
AAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
(b) Surface water drainage.ÿ<\/p>\n
AAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
(c) Foul drainage.ÿ<\/p>\n
AAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
(d) Construction and alignment of the proposedÿ<\/p>\n
AAA<\/p>\n
service road extending through the site.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
(e) Undergrounding of the existing overhead lineÿ<\/p>\n
AAA<\/p>\n
which traverses the site.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
(f) Provision of public lighting which shall be toÿ<\/p>\n
AAA<\/p>\n
the requirements of the Planning Authority.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
(g) Front garden boundary treatment of the houses.ÿ<\/p>\n
AAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Reason: In the interest of visual amenities, orderlyÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAA<\/p>\n
development and the proper planning and development of<\/p>\n
the area.<\/p>\n
.P<\/p>\n
4. Before development commences details of aÿ<\/p>\n
AA<\/p>\n
comprehensive landscaping plan for the entire site<\/p>\n
shall be submitted to the Planning Authority. This<\/p>\n
shall include details of the specifications and siting<\/p>\n
of a protective fence by the main water channel, the<\/p>\n
levelling, seeding and landscaping of the area shown<\/p>\n
as open space, and a time scale for the implementation<\/p>\n
of all landscaping works.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity, andÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAA<\/p>\n
the proper planning and development of the area.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
5. All public services to the proposed development,ÿ<\/p>\n
AA<\/p>\n
including electrical, telephone cables and equipment<\/p>\n
shall be located underground throughout the entire<\/p>\n
site.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.ÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
6. An acceptable street naming and house numbering schemeÿ<\/p>\n
AA<\/p>\n
shall be submitted to and agreed with the Planning<\/p>\n
Authority before any of the houses are first occupied.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Reason: In the interests of the proper planning andÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAA<\/p>\n
development of the area.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
7. Financial contribution towards the provision of publicÿ<\/p>\n
AA<\/p>\n
services.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
8. Financial contribution towards the cost of piping theÿ<\/p>\n
AA<\/p>\n
main water channel adjacent to the site, the removal<\/p>\n
of temporary fencing and the completion and<\/p>\n
integration of open space areas.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
9. Bond\/financial security.ÿ<\/p>\n
AA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
L…………………………………………………….M……………..<\/p>\n
_________________________________ÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
DES JOHNSONÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
SENIOR PLANNING INSPECTORÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
February 1997ÿ<\/p>\n
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
mps<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=94"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=94"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=94"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=94"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}