|
Dear Councillors,
We submit this letter to you with grave concern to ask the 7 elected Councillors of Newport/Nenagh electoral area for
an immediate answer on relevant unanswered questions. We do so in a public manner, as to date we have not been afforded a
response to these very valid queries and this is a matter of the most serious urgency for all residents of Puckane and its
environs.
Despite numerous requests we are still waiting.
At a recent public meeting held on March 2nd in Kennedy's lounge the concerns of Puckane residents were expressed in relation
to the wide scale rezoning of 68 plus acres (approx) in our village under the Western Area Local Area Plan. (WALAP)
At this open meeting Dail representatives were unable to give any answer why their councillors have made these decisions
which are unsustainable. (As laid out in Chapter 2 of the County Development Plan 2004.) Nor is this approach compatible with
EU guidelines or National and Regional guidelines and strategies. We now ask the council to confirm their figures for the
exact acreage rezoned in the current settlement plan as Puckane has 6 Master Plans zoned, more than any other area in the
WALAP.
Under County Development Plan Guidelines this mass rezoning would see Puckane explode from a charming rural village to
an urban mess with no services or infrastructure in place prior to development. Anywhere From 272 houses (at 4 units per acre)
to 544 Units (at 8 units per acre) would be built (densities as laid out in section 8.4.2 of the WALAP.) This is purely developer
driven Housing and is unwanted by the residents of Puckane. We see this as the creation of a dormitory town without any meaningful
consultation with the local community. Time and again the council has failed to live up to its commitment to Puckane to engage
in agreed upon consultations and even failed to facilitate a scheduled meeting prior to adoption of the plan. Local councilors
have been notable in their absence at our latest meeting. There is across the board disapproval for this plan among the community
of Puckane, so much so that not one local organisation backs the plan in its current form.
From 1996 to 2002 there was a 14.5 % increase in settlements in Puckane and a population increase of 5.0%. 2002 census
figures list Puckane with a population of 269 people (Source CSO) and Section 3.2.3 of the County Development Plan estimates
a 6.5% population increase during the period of the plan to 2011.
Why then is Puckane earmarked for such a massive increase in Housing and population with no regard to the needed infrastructure
and services that this will obviously require? Who stands to gain from all this? We firmly believe it will not be the people
of Puckane and if there is any logic to this unsustainable plan, that the councilors explain it to us. We are all ears.
272 houses would mean an additional 789 people for Puckane from latest census figures (a 293% increase) while 544 Houses
would add 1,599 persons (a 594% increase.) (Source CSO figures of 2.9 persons per private household)
At this rate of projected increase Puckane will be larger than either Ballina or Newport were in 2002. Should anyone require
confirmation on the mess that these once fine villages are now in, One need only look at any edition of "The Guardian"
over the past few years and see what council planning logic has resulted in.
Puckane does not want or need development of this scale.
Even 100 Hundred houses would more than double the population of Puckane. What are the consequences of this for our already
strained services which include (to list a few) Our School, sewerage, road traffic and safety, community facilities for all
including our youth and senior citizens?
The current conditions of road surfaces within the village are sub standard and have not been given basic attention in
years. Our village is inadequately lit and we have no community facility to cater for current population let alone future
projected expansion.
What regard has been paid to pedestrians and cyclists and access for the mobility impaired as per Policy TRANS 2: Pedestrian
Accessibility
" All new development will be required to comply with the required standards for access for people with special mobility
needs, in accordance with the requirements of the Part M of the Building Regulations, 2000 and the advice set out in Buildings
for Everyone (1998) as issued by the National Rehabilitation Board " (WALAP Page 36)
Currently even an agile person has problems with access in Puckane on foot or bike.
In relation to our social and physical infrastructure no adequate provisions have been made. Our local School and its
highly regarded staff are at capacity and currently we have an average of 24 pupils per teacher. (168 students) There are
unsafe drop off and pick up facilities, a lack of recreational space and no room for expansion on its current 1.75 acre site.
How many classrooms will this proposed development require? At International Best practices of 20 Houses equaling 1 classroom.
Puckane will require an additional 6.8 Classrooms for 136 Houses (2 units per acre) and 27.2 classrooms. (8 Units per classroom)
Where and under what time frame will this school of the future be built?
Our Sewerage is at capacity and in need of an upgrade to meet current Proprietary Wastewater treatment standards.
Policy SERV 3: Proprietary Wastewater Treatment
" Proposed new or upgraded waste water treatment plants will be required to include appropriate tertiary treatment
and the removal of phosphorus from the effluent. Systems should be designed, constructed and maintained in accordance with
the requirements of the Wastewater Treatment Manuals, Treatment Systems for Small Communities, Business, Leisure Centres and
Hotels as compiled by the Environment Protection Agency 1999." (Source WALAP 2006 page 40.)
In addition to the unprecedented and unwelcome scale of rezoning by the Council. Our elected representatives have not
even taken on board the recommendations of neither the Planners nor County Manager in his report on submissions to members
March 2006:
"(i) and (iii) having regard to the population projections for the village as outlined in Section 3.2.3. Of the
Plan and genuine level of concern expressed in respect of the extent of lands zoned for residential development within the
village of Puckane, it is considered zoning should be reviewed and a suitable phasing programme for future development identified."
Also, this report stated:
"(ii) As regards infrastructural provision the availability / provision of suitable infrastructure services and facilities
to cater for development is a pre-requisite to development of zoned lands." Instead the Councillors adopted the wording
of " as finances allow and developments take place." One need only look at last weeks article in "The Guardian"
of " Ballina-Newport Residents left High and Dry " to see where this strategy leads. These very councilors who "throw
their hands up" at developers "failing to comply with instructions from the council that all works must be fully
completed prior to pulling out of estates " and who state that " developers leaving works like street lighting and
footpaths incomplete are making a living hell on earth for residents." are the very same councilors who vote these policies
into legislation and thus accommodate the same developer driven permissions. Where does the buck stop?
Additionally, what in monetary terms with regard to the " Developer Contribution Scheme " does the council estimate
to gain from these proposed developments and how much of that is to be applied to Puckane's needs? We ask these pertinent
questions as previous commitments to consult with us on Puckane's future have not been lived up to including the relocation
of the village bounds on the L5006 which is at odds with the " sequential principle " so central to the whole concept
of a village settlement plan. There are many more valid points that remain unanswered that we wish to discuss with local authorities
and are willing to do so at their earliest possible convenience.
Currently we are awaiting the initiation of our " Village Design Statement " (VDS) which the council guaranteed
in the WALAP. Neighbouring lake shore villages of Dromineer and Garrykennedy are also waiting and the council have rescheduled
initial starting dates of spring 2006, to summer 2006 to just 2006. It is now March 2007 and we are now told that they are
experiencing staffing problems for the VDS. May we ask when and where the council advertised for these vacancies to be filled
to clarify its commitment to initiate the process of a VDS for the villages mentioned?
Also, even though discussions with Senior Planners to withhold any decision on planning for large development until the
VDS is completed have occurred, there is no statutory obligation for the planners to do so, despite the fact that it is the
preferred and logical option. To do otherwise would be putting the cart before the horse and defeat the whole purpose of "community
planning" which is facilitated with a VDS and which the council have already made a financial allocation for in their
recent budget.
To proceed granting permissions without local consultation will have a detrimental effect on the Village of Puckane. We
ask for an end to the vague language and waffle so that we can discuss the meat of the situation. We only ask for the Sustainable
and sensitive development that is granted to us by law. We have a right to an input in the future development of our village
and we ask the councilors to answer the questions in this letter. We must also ask for clarity on whether they are prepared
to meet with the people of Puckane or not?
Puckane residents greatly value their quality of life and do not wish to see developments steamrolled into effect which
would have a significant detrimental effect on the surrounding area or on the amenity of adjacent and nearby occupiers
The Puckane Development Association signed up in good faith with the Executive of North Tipperary County Council and the
elected members of North Tipperary in the Nenagh / Newport electoral area and consequently are seeking that the council live
up to their obligations and firm commitments giving to the residents of Puckane
We look forward to our Councillors response and are eager to work constructively with local authorities so that we make
a sustainable approach in planning our course from village past into village future.
|
