Have just received through the letter box, details of a planning submission for 31 houses on the current land where the house named Glaslinn is located (Portrane Road, across from the road down to Community School). The details provided are quite alarming and the timeline for observations/objections back to Fingal Co Co (8th Jan) don't leave a lot of time for something I have not heard of before now!
Details of the planning request can be found here and reference is F15A/0551
http://www.fingal.ie/planning-and-build ... onsonline/
With all of the developments, etc., progressing / planned to be progressed over the near future, I am very pleased that a concerned resident is highlighting these as there appears to be no public representation working with residents in Donabate to ensure that concerns are highlighted and discussed in an open way, and to quote to the letter, try and prevent planning by stealth occurring.
Hopefully people can review the above and make the relevant representations, I know I will.
Glaslinn House planning - Portrane Road
8th Jan certainly doesn't give a lot of time. Trying to open those documents - not working very well. Seems to me their going on land that should be zoned special conservation am I reading that right? I'll go through the rest of the attachments tonight but on those grounds alone I'll be objecting too.blow-in wrote:Have just received through the letter box, details of a planning submission for 31 houses on the current land where the house named Glaslinn is located (Portrane Road, across from the road down to Community School). The details provided are quite alarming and the timeline for observations/objections back to Fingal Co Co (8th Jan) don't leave a lot of time for something I have not heard of before now!
Details of the planning request can be found here and reference is F15A/0551
http://www.fingal.ie/planning-and-build ... onsonline/
With all of the developments, etc., progressing / planned to be progressed over the near future, I am very pleased that a concerned resident is highlighting these as there appears to be no public representation working with residents in Donabate to ensure that concerns are highlighted and discussed in an open way, and to quote to the letter, try and prevent planning by stealth occurring.
Hopefully people can review the above and make the relevant representations, I know I will.
-
muggins2003
- Posts: 9
- Joined: 15 Jan 2014, 12:47
I am very grateful to the person that put the pack through my letterbox this morning.
Would anybody be interested in meeting to discuss this and working on a list of common objections that can be lodged separately but are at least consistent in highlighting the biggest issues?
I am a resident of Baltra Hall and am very alarmed by the development - it will fundamentally change the reasons we bought our house. We really don't have much time to submit an objection so getting a few heads together to discuss the issue might help.
I'm going to find the deeds to my house and also the original planning permission for Baltra Hall and the Links to see whether the "cul-de-sacs" were part of the original planning agreement.
Would anybody be interested in meeting to discuss this and working on a list of common objections that can be lodged separately but are at least consistent in highlighting the biggest issues?
I am a resident of Baltra Hall and am very alarmed by the development - it will fundamentally change the reasons we bought our house. We really don't have much time to submit an objection so getting a few heads together to discuss the issue might help.
I'm going to find the deeds to my house and also the original planning permission for Baltra Hall and the Links to see whether the "cul-de-sacs" were part of the original planning agreement.
Hi Muggins,
Yes, I agree, it may be worth getting a few heads together and raising objections, or getting our issues raised in a consolidated format. I have submitted an objection to the parts of concern from our point of view, and imagine some of these will be shared. Not against the entire development at all, but just against where it will impact on existing residents unreasonably so.
Yes, I agree, it may be worth getting a few heads together and raising objections, or getting our issues raised in a consolidated format. I have submitted an objection to the parts of concern from our point of view, and imagine some of these will be shared. Not against the entire development at all, but just against where it will impact on existing residents unreasonably so.
-
muggins2003
- Posts: 9
- Joined: 15 Jan 2014, 12:47
I have spoken to a few neighbours and they are talking about getting together over the weekend to discuss. It might make sense to share this time and date and arrange a location. I'm not against the development either but will fight the loss of our cul-de-sac even if it is only for pedestrian/bicycle use. it was the reason a lot of us both our houses and were under the illusion that this condition could not be altered.
I will post info setting out when a group of residents are getting together.
I will post info setting out when a group of residents are getting together.
-
Quello Serio
- Posts: 150
- Joined: 26 Nov 2012, 22:07
- Been thanked: 6 times
If I was impacted, there are certainly several aspects of that development that I'd object to ...but a pedestrian link between estates isn't one of them. I'd see that as a good thing. Can you explain why you feel thats a problem? I'd imagine that if residents of the Fairways took the same attitude, then many Links residents wouldn't be happy.muggins2003 wrote:...but will fight the loss of our cul-de-sac even if it is only for pedestrian/bicycle use. it was the reason a lot of us both our houses and were under the illusion that this condition could not be altered.
-
John Spark
- Posts: 33
- Joined: 01 Oct 2012, 12:46
- Been thanked: 1 time
I'd imagine one reason for objecting to the pedestrian link is that, unlike the link between the Links and Fairways, this link is will be put in at the end of a cul de sac in the Links, and people may have bought houses there because the houses were in a cul de sac with no through traffic of cars or pedestrians. This would now change.Quello Serio wrote:If I was impacted, there are certainly several aspects of that development that I'd object to ...but a pedestrian link between estates isn't one of them. I'd see that as a good thing. Can you explain why you feel thats a problem? I'd imagine that if residents of the Fairways took the same attitude, then many Links residents wouldn't be happy.muggins2003 wrote:...but will fight the loss of our cul-de-sac even if it is only for pedestrian/bicycle use. it was the reason a lot of us both our houses and were under the illusion that this condition could not be altered.
For some reason these links between estates seem to end up being used as congregation points as well, which can (probably wouldn't) lead to anti social behaviour.
-
Mr. Stupid
- Posts: 781
- Joined: 15 Oct 2012, 11:54
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 25 times
I think the main issues are the lack of space, major lack of parking and it does seem a shame that one of the few buildings that is architecturally good near the village will be replace by something that looks like it is just to make a developer as much money as possible. Have we learnt anything from the last crash?
I would object to that lane as well, for the simple reason, when parking becomes tight in the new estate, people could be forced to park in the Links cul de sac and then walk through to their house in new development.
No development in the last 15 years has planned correctly for parking and it just seems things will continue that way unless the EU comes in with some directive about it.
I would object to that lane as well, for the simple reason, when parking becomes tight in the new estate, people could be forced to park in the Links cul de sac and then walk through to their house in new development.
No development in the last 15 years has planned correctly for parking and it just seems things will continue that way unless the EU comes in with some directive about it.
Congratulations to all involved. I count 26 submissions, all of which are objections. It's also great to see local residents associations getting involved. Maybe consider submitting observations (from both individuals and residents associations) to Donabate Local Area Plan (DLAP).
-
resident2012
- Posts: 5
- Joined: 28 Jan 2016, 16:22
I have received a response by email to my objection that Additional Information was requested, posting here as it doesn't appear to be on the website just yet:
Details of Additional Information sought
LOCATION: Glaslinn, Portrane Road, Donabate, Co. Dublin.
1. The applicant is requested to submit the following with regard to the proposed road and car parking layout:
(a) Cross-sections of the internal roads showing dimensions and construction details on a revised site layout plan.
(b) A taking-in-charge drawing.
(c) An explanation of how vehicles accessing houses numbers 1 to 7 and the two visitor parking spaces would be able to turnabout.
(d) A justification for the lack of traffic calming on the main access road.
(e) Details of the accesses to neighbouring residential roads. This should include elevations of the revised boundary treatment in the form of a low wall and railing. Details of how proposed pedestrian paths are to be connected to existing should also be provided as well as relevant cross sectional drawings detailing any change in gradient.
The applicant is advised to contact Sean McGrath of the Transportation Planning Section at sean.mcgrath@fingal.ie prior to the submission of any additional information.
2. The applicant is requested to submit the following:
(a) A revised water supply layout drawing showing watermains to be looped such that at least 2 houses are supplied off any loop.
3. The Applicant is requested to address the following:
(a) Confirm the proposed cover level of MH F2 (4.300) and MH F3 (3.992).
(b) All pipelines shall have recommended minimum cover of 1.2 m, with absolute minimum cover of 750mm when encased with 150mm thick concrete, as per the 'Greater Dublin Regional Code of Practice for Drainage Works Version 6.0' FCC April 2006. The applicant is requested to submit a revised design complying with the Code.
(c) Submit details of the proposed private sewers, including levels, gradient and pipe size.
4. The applicant is requested to submit the following with regard to surface water drainage:
(a) As per the GDSDS (Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study) Regional Drainage Policies Volume 2 New Development, Aug 2005, the use of underground attenuation tanks in this instance is not allowed. The applicant is requested to submit a revised drainage design following the principles of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) and in compliance with the principles outlined in the GDSDS.
(b) The applicant is requested to confirm the proposed cover level of MH S5 (4.326m).
(c) All pipelines shall have recommended minimum cover of 1.2m, with absolute minimum cover of 750mm when encased with 150mm thick concrete, as per the 'Greater Dublin Regional Code of Practice for Drainage Works Version 6.0' FCC April 2006. The applicant is requested to submit a revised design demonstrating compliance with the Code.
(d) The applicant is requested to submit details of the proposed private sewers, including levels, gradient and pipe size.
(e) Permeable paving shall only be acceptable within private curtilages and the applicant is requested to submit a revised layout and surface water design accordingly.
5. The applicant is requested to submit full landscaping details, with particular regard to the location of surface water drainage systems. The applicant is advised to contact the Parks and Green Infrastructure Division prior to submission of a response to the foregoing.
6. No details of the proposed public lighting have been submitted. The applicant is requested to submit a revised site layout plan showing the location of the public lighting within the site in addition full details of the type of lighting proposed are requested. The lighting should be of a low energy type such as LED lighting.
Just wondering if this is a victory or we've only managed to kick the can down the road, there are a few points submitted that don't appear to have been addressed in this (like overlooking). Anyone have any interpretations?
Details of Additional Information sought
LOCATION: Glaslinn, Portrane Road, Donabate, Co. Dublin.
1. The applicant is requested to submit the following with regard to the proposed road and car parking layout:
(a) Cross-sections of the internal roads showing dimensions and construction details on a revised site layout plan.
(b) A taking-in-charge drawing.
(c) An explanation of how vehicles accessing houses numbers 1 to 7 and the two visitor parking spaces would be able to turnabout.
(d) A justification for the lack of traffic calming on the main access road.
(e) Details of the accesses to neighbouring residential roads. This should include elevations of the revised boundary treatment in the form of a low wall and railing. Details of how proposed pedestrian paths are to be connected to existing should also be provided as well as relevant cross sectional drawings detailing any change in gradient.
The applicant is advised to contact Sean McGrath of the Transportation Planning Section at sean.mcgrath@fingal.ie prior to the submission of any additional information.
2. The applicant is requested to submit the following:
(a) A revised water supply layout drawing showing watermains to be looped such that at least 2 houses are supplied off any loop.
3. The Applicant is requested to address the following:
(a) Confirm the proposed cover level of MH F2 (4.300) and MH F3 (3.992).
(b) All pipelines shall have recommended minimum cover of 1.2 m, with absolute minimum cover of 750mm when encased with 150mm thick concrete, as per the 'Greater Dublin Regional Code of Practice for Drainage Works Version 6.0' FCC April 2006. The applicant is requested to submit a revised design complying with the Code.
(c) Submit details of the proposed private sewers, including levels, gradient and pipe size.
4. The applicant is requested to submit the following with regard to surface water drainage:
(a) As per the GDSDS (Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study) Regional Drainage Policies Volume 2 New Development, Aug 2005, the use of underground attenuation tanks in this instance is not allowed. The applicant is requested to submit a revised drainage design following the principles of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) and in compliance with the principles outlined in the GDSDS.
(b) The applicant is requested to confirm the proposed cover level of MH S5 (4.326m).
(c) All pipelines shall have recommended minimum cover of 1.2m, with absolute minimum cover of 750mm when encased with 150mm thick concrete, as per the 'Greater Dublin Regional Code of Practice for Drainage Works Version 6.0' FCC April 2006. The applicant is requested to submit a revised design demonstrating compliance with the Code.
(d) The applicant is requested to submit details of the proposed private sewers, including levels, gradient and pipe size.
(e) Permeable paving shall only be acceptable within private curtilages and the applicant is requested to submit a revised layout and surface water design accordingly.
5. The applicant is requested to submit full landscaping details, with particular regard to the location of surface water drainage systems. The applicant is advised to contact the Parks and Green Infrastructure Division prior to submission of a response to the foregoing.
6. No details of the proposed public lighting have been submitted. The applicant is requested to submit a revised site layout plan showing the location of the public lighting within the site in addition full details of the type of lighting proposed are requested. The lighting should be of a low energy type such as LED lighting.
Just wondering if this is a victory or we've only managed to kick the can down the road, there are a few points submitted that don't appear to have been addressed in this (like overlooking). Anyone have any interpretations?
This attached file is now available online. The last note concerns me where it states "Please note all observations/submissions have been taken into consideration when making this decision".
The planning authority did not request the applicant to address any of the other concerns from the 28 submissions!
One could read from this that FCC are happy with the pedestrian/cycle links, (although this will result in anti social behaviour, security and child safety fears for the residents of Baltra Hall and The Links), ridge heights and over shadowing, proximity to existing houses, felling of trees, and demolition of Glaslinn House.
In short, it would appear that FCC are not concerned about the residents on the peninsula or protecting our environment and our local heritage. Is DLAP a smoke screen for the poor planning that lies ahead? Is history to repeat itself!
marvel
The planning authority did not request the applicant to address any of the other concerns from the 28 submissions!
One could read from this that FCC are happy with the pedestrian/cycle links, (although this will result in anti social behaviour, security and child safety fears for the residents of Baltra Hall and The Links), ridge heights and over shadowing, proximity to existing houses, felling of trees, and demolition of Glaslinn House.
In short, it would appear that FCC are not concerned about the residents on the peninsula or protecting our environment and our local heritage. Is DLAP a smoke screen for the poor planning that lies ahead? Is history to repeat itself!
marvel
- Attachments
-
- 00514138.pdf
- Decision_29_01_16
- (86.82 KiB) Downloaded 301 times
-
Mr. Stupid
- Posts: 781
- Joined: 15 Oct 2012, 11:54
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 25 times
If permissions is granted you can take it to An Bord Pleanala and more likely to get a fair hearing there.
It costs (I think) 250 euro so group together and take it from there.
It costs (I think) 250 euro so group together and take it from there.
Any one see this! Any opinions on this?
- Attachments
-
- Managers Orders.pdf
- (331.61 KiB) Downloaded 367 times
If I am reading it correctly, it looks like permission has been granted in all but formal approval! The request for additional information appears to be just lip service, none of the objections appear to have been considered! Quelle surprise! Power to the people!