Government-by-numbers
- This topic has 108 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Devin,
The link you posted does not work.
I am just making observations from what I read and hear from various sources. I am by no means a subscriber to the commonly held view that An Taisce object blindly to any form of rural development, compliments to reading material and articles on this site and others. The neatly tailored (I would imagine) PR contained on the An Taisce website was not one of those sources. This posting on this very thread was.@Thomond Park wrote:
……..The An Taisce argument as given from various media reports centres on Four Strands:
1. Sustainability which through the absolute ban on ribbon development eliminates most one-off developments that are car dependent as any applicant would require a regularly shaped site of at least 10 acres to not constitute ribbon development.
2. Preservation of scenic locations where permissions are to be granted only in very exceptional cases, so that point in the AT submission was taken on board although an outright ban would have been better, particularly in sensitive coastal and upland areas.
3. Efficiency of local government, this point is one that is not just made by AT but was very well quantified by Eamon Gilmore when he displayed that local charges have increased by 16 times the rate of inflation since 2000. If the ESB is ever privatised I can see rural dwellers requiring insurance on the last mile of cable.
4. Water quality, I don’t think the fact that 28% of wells in Ireland being contaminated by the run-off from septic tanks can be ignored, would this be tolerated anywhere else? Roche was nailed here and his evasive style cannot get him away from the fact that this is a major problem as experienced not just by rural dwellers but also by many residents in Carlow Town who are currently boiling water to make it safe.
That is just shocking. Is there another developed county in the world that allows that?
On second thoughts, is there another developed country in the world apart from the USA that allows that?
Question
If cost is the issue when providing housing for rural settlers, why is it that many of these sites have state of the art vehicles, SUVs and the like outside the front door, often two or three deep?
Well their car is pretty crappy anyway 😀
That ‘planning’ case is just ghastly, not to mention the design of the structure.
How could that have possibly been let though any sort of planning system?! Has a qualified planner even looked at this case?!
No doubt there’s a string of them alongside it too…Is that the westport – louisburgh road, shame on me for even slightly defending it, but it is a highly populated main road. Last time i ever defend something like that…. promise
“That is just shocking. Is there another developed county in the world that allows that?”
The USA.
A guy swore to me the other night that there is a house on the shores of Lough Swilly painted red, white and black and the Manchester United crest on the side and in the front yard a giant statue of Padre Pio in a glass case. The name of the house is “Nou Camp 98” and it is all lit up at night. Can anybody confirm this? I’d love to see a photo.
Somebody should start a Gallery of One-Off Rural Houses with the American Dream above in Louisburg in it.
Approaching Gweebarra Bridge (West Donegal), there is a model of the Statue of Liberty in a front garden, situated on a rock outcrop overlooking the bay! (have a photo at home, will post if I remember to)
hi devin, did you miss me sweety!
while obviously it is a good thing that people from a place in ireland with land can build their house on their land without the unnecessary heartache the previous system employed i do have reservations as to the design quality of any proposals. are the planners forced to grant permission even if the design is crap? i haven’t being keeping tabs on it and didn’t read all this thread.
must say it’s nice to get something to stop the tree hugger getting their way all the time.this is necessary for the countryside wether people from urban areas ie dubh linn can accept it or not!that is just mad
http://www.mayonews.ie/current/county.tmpl$showpage?value1=33229077752570
De Facto – Mayo News, Wednesday April 20, 2005
Planning a withdrawalWhy did Westport Town Council allow a respected developer to submit a major planning application that, according to Westport Civic Trust, contravenes the Westport Town Development Plan 2003, Departmental Residential Density-Guidelines and Part 5, Planning and Development Act 2000? Both the council and the developer and their respective advisors held a series of pre-planning meetings, yet the application has now been withdrawn. The application refers to a major development at Cloonmonad (alongside the Railway Line Walk) of over 100 houses.
Westport Civic Trust (WCT) has done the people of the town a great favour with their submission, prepared by Gerrard+Associates. (Declaration of interest – I am a founder member of WCT and only examined the submission after it was submitted to the council.) The objection was brave as people call for more houses in Westport. It raised serious issues about the pre-planning process. Six other submissions were made.Planning history
The planning application was received and validated by Westport Town Council on March 4th. It was not available to the public until March 11th – reducing the time-span for submissions by 20%. Requests by WCT for the file were denied during that first week. A WCT member walked the site with a senior council official, finding only one of the three site notices. At one stage the official ‘erected’ one of the (fallen) notices.
In a letter dated April 7th the developer notified the council that the application was being withdrawn. The council received the letter on the same day. On the same day letters were sent to the seven parties who had made submissions advising them that the application had been withdrawn.
People who asked to see the file last week in the council offices were informed that the application had been withdrawn. The implication was that this did not give people the right to view the file. Some of us insisted, regardless. Pre-planning details were presented on one A4 page (with €1 charge for a copy!) A pre-planning file with details of several meetings was not made available.
The Civic Trust submission highlighted four main points:
1. Westport Development Plan
The submission showed that there was only temporary access to the site across the Railway Line Walk, which is a public amenity.
“The proposal does not minimise the potential growth in transport demand, it does not promote and facilitate cycling, walking and public transport. It does not provide viable alternatives to car based transport.”
Another objector stated that the density of the proposal was double what was proposed in the development plan (which allows for increased density in some cases). Concerns were also expressed under sustainability, waste disposal and design headings. A public park was included “in accordance with Westport Town Council’s masterplan for Cloonmonad, prepared by Mitchell+Associates.” This ‘masterplan’ has no legal standing, is not cited in the Development Plan, has not been put on public display and was not available for viewing to Gerrard+Associates. The council plans to build a new access road to the estate but nothing has been finalised. Why allow a developer to proceed with plans when the road details are not finalised.
2. Housing strategy 2001-2006
There is a county policy to develop 20% of residential zoned land for social and affordable housing under Part V of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 and to encourage integration of social and affordable housing within developments. The Act allows planning authorities to issue certificates exempting developments from the social housing requirements. No clearance certificate has been applied for.
There is no reference in the planning application as to how the housing strategy policy is to be complied with. It is a requirement of the Act to do so, and failure to comply renders the application invalid.
3. Environmental impacts
Neither a Heritage Plan nor a Biodiversity Plan (as required under the National Biodiversity Plan) is in place in Westport. No proper assessment of the wetlands of Cloonmonad, an urban greenway, which will be impacted by the proposed access to the development, has been made. Senior road engineer Paddy Mahon in his memo to the Manager dated 6th September 2001 stated: “With regard to the flora and fauna of the wetlands in the vicinity of the Railway Walk an Environmental Impact Assessment can be carried out. This assessment would identify the impact the proposed road and bridge would have on the environment generally, and would make recommendations on how to minimise any impact.” No EIS was carried out. Once this greenway is destroyed it cannot be reinstated.
4. New road
Town councillors passed plans (Part 10, newspaper notice, 4th July 2001) for a new 1 km road and a bridge over the Railway Walk to the development site. Upwards of 150 people made submissions on this proposal. Their concerns were neither considered nor acknowledged by Westport Town Council and became the subject of a complaint to the Ombudsman, who ruled against the council. Has this decision been brought to the attention of councillors in a public meeting yet?
The council’s consultants Mitchell+Associates commented on the Railway Walk in 2002: “The main visual impact on the walkway however, will be the insertion of an access road to the north of the alignment, which will service the still underdeveloped lands at Cloonmonad. The visual impact of the proposed road on the amenity of the walkway will be significant.”
The WCT submission also included details from a traffic study showing no local public transport services to the Cloonmonad/Quay area. “All this points to a need for a Greenway to include a cycle path and pedestrian walk along the Railway Walk as recognised by the Westport Town Development Plan 2003 … However this objective is in jeopardy if the Part 8 Road project is allowed to proceed as a service road for the subject site.”
Pre-planning is a disservice to any developer if the subsequent validated planning application contravenes the law. WCT highlighted serious flaws in pre-planning. The real victims are the people waiting for houses.
There’s a lot of giving out about one off housing, but I don’t think the alternative is much better. Having grown up in a small village in Kerry (population 300 a few years back), a number of estates (one with 70 houses) have sprung up creating an absolute blight on the landscape. I wonder/fear what it will look like in a few years time when the ‘newness’ is gone.
A point I’d appreciate some feedback on: What is it with everyone removing natural hedgerow (often with mature trees) and replacing it with ugly walls. Leaving the hedgerow, in most cases one would hardly notice the house therefore greatly reducing the eyesore factor. Your thoughts/
@flysrmd11 wrote:
A point I’d appreciate some feedback on: What is it with everyone removing natural hedgerow (often with mature trees) and replacing it with ugly walls. Leaving the hedgerow, in most cases one would hardly notice the house therefore greatly reducing the eyesore factor. Your thoughts/
Oh everyone’s got to have a 6 ft wall these days, with turrets if possible, it shows how important you are.
That is a bizarre situation you encountered in Westport Cute Panda, of all the areas in Ireland afflicted by bungalows Clew Bay from Loiusburgh to Newport must be the worst. Long before I became interested in planning I remember listening to relations in Westport talking about houses and unlike most other places in Ireland they weren’t talking about houses, they were talking about sites. ‘As rare as hens teeth’ was the expression used yet literally 1000’s of the vilest one-offs have been built in this area since, it would appear that if something was going to give it was some of the most scenic coastline in Europe.
@flysrmd11 wrote:
There’s a lot of giving out about one off housing, but I don’t think the alternative is much better. Having grown up in a small village in Kerry (population 300 a few years back), a number of estates (one with 70 houses) have sprung up creating an absolute blight on the landscape. I wonder/fear what it will look like in a few years time when the ‘newness’ is gone.
A point I’d appreciate some feedback on: What is it with everyone removing natural hedgerow (often with mature trees) and replacing it with ugly walls. Leaving the hedgerow, in most cases one would hardly notice the house therefore greatly reducing the eyesore factor. Your thoughts/
You are totally correct, give me a one-off anyday at least that way you can choose your neighbours
@JPD wrote:
You are totally correct, give me a one-off anyday at least that way you can choose your neighbours
And this is why the alternatives to housing estates needs to be explored rather than open up a free for all.
@Mob79 wrote:
And this is why the alternatives to housing estates needs to be explored rather than open up a free for all.
I agree that you can{t throw the baby out with the bath water just because suburban housing estates were so badly designed in years gone by. I think that some good work has already been done in relation to developing alternatives to the traditional 16 to the acre housing estate, places like Adamstown and Pelletstown are lightyears ahead of what starter homes delivered in years gone by. This section taken from the Adamstown Masterplan is the best alternative, as it delivers high urban design quality, medium to high density and every possible facility you could want outside a City Centre:
“Development Area 11 – Adamstown Station
77 Adamstown SDZ Planning Scheme South Dublin County Council September 2003
Development Area 11
Adamstown Station
• 475 – 550 Dwelling units
• Up to 37,500 sq. m. of non-residential development
• New District Centre core
• Railway Station – Transport Interchange”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
