An Bord Pleanala observation from Puckane Development Association May 17th 2011

8/4/2019 An Bord Pleanala observation from Puckane Development Association May 17th 2011

1/17

From:Puckane Development AssociationC/O Bernie Craughan,

The Boreen,Puckane,Nenagh,

County Tipperary.

To:An Bord Pleanala,64 Marlborough Street,Dublin 1.14th of May 2011

Bord Pleanala Reference:PL 22. 238796

Dear Sir/Madam,

RE: Third Party submission on behalf of Puckane DevelopmentAssociation to An Bord Pleanala regarding the decision of NorthTipperary County Council to refuse Planning Permission for adevelopment of 12 No Single Storey Dewllinghouses, ( Phase 1 of 3Phase Development) new entrance and internal roadways, stormwater attenuation system, landscaping and all associated landscapingand site works at:

Ballycraggan, Puckane, Nenagh, County Tipperary.

Planning Reference North Tipperary County Council: 10/51/0328Bord Pleanala: 22.238796

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Puckane Development Association wish to make the following submission outlining ourconcerns and objection to the proposal referenced above. This objection follows ournumerous detailed submissions lodged with North Tipperary County Council on the site inquestion.

The full grounds of our objection are set out below. We enclose the prescribed statutory feeof25.

2.0 GROUNDSOF OBJECTION

During the course of this planning application the Puckane Development Association (PDA)

have reviewed in detail the plans and particulars submitted in support of this planningapplication and subsequent further information request and We submit to the Board that anumber of significant important issues have not been adequately addressed by the applicantduring both the planning application stage and subsequent Further Information requestdespite being requested by North Tipperary County Council, these include:

Vast Overzoning of development land within Puckane by North Tipperary CountyCouncil within the Western Area Local Area Plan 2006 (105.2 Acres)

1


2/17

The adverse cumulative impact of the overall development of the subject landshas not been assessed; The capacity constraints of service infrastructure within Puckane village toaccommodate for the proposed development; The proposed development does not comply with Smarter Travel: A Sustainable

Transport Future A New Transport Policy for Ireland 2009 - 2020

Non-Compliance with the Masterplan 3 of the Western Area Local Area Plan; Inadequate regard to the Puckane Village Design Statement. The Capacity constraints of service infrastructure within Puckane Village toaccommodate the proposed development is inadequate as per Waste Water DischargeCircular.http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,21025,en.pdf Lack of pedestrian links between the subject site and the village centre. TheDromineer/Urra Road (L5006) is currently substandard and any development proposalsfor the subject site must incorporate the provision of clear pedestrian links with thevillage centre; Traffic Impacts & Road Safety; Internal Layout & Design Failure of the applicant to deal in full with Further Information request issued byNorth Tipperary County Council of September 8th 2010, despite 2 separate FurtherInformation submissions (notably Feb 10th 2011 & March 1st 2011)

Having regard to the above and the applicants failure to address the above mentionedissues, we respectfully submit that the An Bord Pleanala uphold the decision of North

Tipperary County Council and REFUSE planning permission for the aforementioned proposeddevelopment..

Overzoning of Lands in Puckane within the Western Area Local Area Plan

A justification for the proposed development of the subject lands by the applicantsconsultants is based on its current zoning provision within the Western Area Local Area Plan.

However at this juncture I think it is important to make An Bord Pleanala aware of the extentof lands zoned and sequence of numerous amendments (not all of which went on Publicdisplay) made to the Puckane Settlement Plan as part of the Western Area Local Area Plan2006.Although some of this information may not be deemed to be within the remit of a submissionunder An Bord Pleanala rules and guidelines, we feel it is extremely important and pertinentto include in order to understand the many amendments added from draft to adoption andthe level of opposition to the broader question of vast over zoning of lands within PuckaneVillage.

We respectfully submit this brief synopsis and make these points solely for clarity on theBigger Picture of why these particular lands should not be granted planning permission byAn Bord Pleanala.

History of Western Area Local Area Plan (WALAP)Date: Event:

May 2005 Initial Draft of Western Area Local Area Plan (WALAP) producedby North Tipp County Council (no public consultation at thisstage)

August 27th 2005: Nenagh Guardian Newspaper Advert states that Initial WALAPdraft put on Public Display from August 29th to October 10th

2005.

2
http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,21025,en.pdfhttp://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,21025,en.pdfhttp://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,21025,en.pdfhttp://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,21025,en.pdf


3/17

September 15th 2005: First Public Meeting on Draft WALAP hosted by PlanningDepartment of North Tipperary County Council held inDromineer.

October 7th 2005: Puckane Development Association (P.D.A.) hold public meeting todraft our submission to North Tipperary Co Co for October 10th

submission deadline. At this meeting we were only shown a very

poor quality A4 size photocopy and were given inadequatedetails of the extent and exact acreage of lands zoned which onthe night we calculated approximately as 24 Acres forresidential and commercial purposes. Councillor from North

Tipperary County Council agreed with this estimate.(attended and advised/aided by Councillor John Carroll indrafting our submission)At this stage the lands owned by Mr Harty (10.5 Acres) which arethe lands in question in regard to his appeal were not includedon the draft WALAP and we were told by Councillor Carroll that ifwe commented on any lands outside the initial draft oursubmission would be Thrown Out

October 10th 2005: PDA lodge revised submission from Councillor Carrolls draft on

the proposed WALAP

1

November 21st 2005 Presentation of Managers Report to Members.Under Section 20(3) of the planning and Development Act2000

This is the first mention of the appellants lands being proposedfor zoning. Also,Mr Hartys Submission was actually No. 11 andnot No. 12 as stated in his pending appeal.Submission No. 12 is in fact North Tipperary County Councilsown submission on lands (8 Acres) that were planned for Social& Affordable Housing.We mention these facts to avoid any confusion and to clearlydistinguish between the 2 separate parcels of zoned land

Submission No.11 and Submission No. 12

2

are two entirelydifferent parcels of land both within Puckane Village & Environs.The lands in Submission No. 11 were also commented on byanother party Capital Schemes in submission No. 91 of thisreport.

The comments used by Mr. Hartys agent in this pending appealin regard to Brian Kennys comments from DoHELG (SubmissionNo. 228 ) were made by Mr Kenny PRIOR to Mr Hartyssubmission and therefore it is very misleading to portray MrKennys comments:(..This noted that the proposed local area plan was largely in

line with the County Development Plan) as being a truereflection of the DoHELGs view on the extent of lands zoned asMr Hartys lands had not been included in the draft WALAP whenMr. Kenny expressed this view.(DoHELG submission No. 228 was lodged on October 10th 2005)Vast quantities of additional lands were subsequently zonedafter Mr. Kenny made these comments and indeed Mr Kennylater voiced his concerns with the extent of additional landsadded to the draft WALAP and specifically mentioned theoversupply3of lands in Puckane in later comments which hesubsequently made on numerous additional amendments prior

3


4/17

to adoption of the WALAP in March 2006.

In short, These comments noted by the appellant submitted byDoHELG in submission No. 228 were made PRIOR to Mr Hartyslands being proposed for zoning.

(Note: This Managers report to elected members was not seenby any of the village residents until mid to late December)December ?? 2005(date not given onReport)

Sometime between November 21st and December 22nd anadditional Proposed Amendments under Section 20(3)(e) ofthe Planning and Development Act 2002 Report onSubmissions received to the Proposed WALAP was drafted andpresented to Elected members. Hard copy on File signed by Senior Planner Pat Slattery

December 22nd 2005 County Council Meeting held and additional lands added byamendment in addition to those listed on ProposedAmendments under section 20(3)(e) of the planning andDevelopment Act 2002. December 2005.

These additions are noted in The

Addendum to Report on Proposed Amendments under Section20 (3)(e) Planning and development act 2002,but we do not believe this addendum was put on public displayover January 13th to February 10th period of 2006.4

There are also 3 different versions 5 of these Council Minutes ofMeetings of December 22nd 2005 and the Official Record doesnot show reference to this addendum under the appropriateheading

January 16th February10th

Proposed Modifications underProposed Modifications under Section 20(3)(e) of the Planningand Development Act 2000 (as amended) put on Display. Weestimate 68 acres now zoned up from initial 24 acres.Exact acerage was never given to us throughout the process.

February 7th 2006 Public meeting held where senior executive planner Pat Slattery

stated He would not be in favour of the extent of lands zoned asper the Proposed Modifications underProposed Modifications under Section 20(3)(e) of thePlanning and Development Act 2000 (as amended)

February 20th 2006 PDA submission on Proposed Modifications underProposed Modifications under Section 20(3)(e) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended)lodged. We had been granted an extra ten days to lodgesubmission from February 10th deadline as an agreed meetingwith all 7 councillors scheduled for Thursday February 16th,where Councillors were to explain their reasons for extent oflands zoned was cancelled on 5 hours notice

February 27th 2006 Subsequent meeting with Councillors cancelled again on the day.Rescheduled for March 7th

March 1st 2006 Article is published in Nenagh Guardian titled :

Puckane residents hit out at housing development planMarch 7th 2006 Meeting held in Council Planning OfficesMarch 21st 2006 Public Meeting held with over 100 residents attending. No show

again from CouncillorsMarch 24th 2006 We get a copy of the Managers Report to Elected Members dated

March for the first time6More lands added to be zoned.March 27th 2006 WALAP adopted at County Council Meeting

June 16th 2006 Diggers start removing ditches and what was known locally asQuarry Field/Ring Fort from Harty Lands behind GAA field.

4


5/17

December 2006 Speed Limit Bye-Laws Review resulting in Speed limits/VillageBounds changed on L5006 to accommodate Mr. Hartys landswithout prior consultation with PDA and Puckane residents

January 24th 2007 Speed Signs relocated in under 40 minutes by 6 workers 2Diggers and a Lorry. 2pm

February 8th 2007 PDA lobbies Politicians and Council officials to start agreed

Village Design Process prior to developmentFebruary 19th 2007 PDA receives notification from another developer that he intendsto lodge planning permission for 33 acre holding.

March 2nd 2007 Open Public Meeting attended by 100+ and all DailRepresentatives

March 12th 2007 Open letter to Councillors in Nenagh GuardianMarch 21st 2007 Nenagh Guardian ArticlePuckane fears housing boom after

massive land rezoningMarch 23rd 2007 Meet with Director of Services Tom Barry and senior planner

Brian Beck of North Tipperary County council to discuss VillageDesign Statement process

March 30th 2007 Concerns Highlighted on Tipp FM morning show with SeamusMartin Councillor and Senator also phone in

April 6th

2007 TG4 program Pobal do research for program on Zoning inPuckane and on receive confirmation from Council that 105.23Acres have been zoned in Puckane. This is the first time we hadthe exact acreage figure despite numerous requests

April 15th 2007 Pobal program airs Huge local InterestApril 16th 2007 PDA delegation hand in letter of protest insisting that council

dezone lands under section 18.5 of Planning & Development Act2002

April 21st 2007 Nenagh Guardian publishes Why are they waiting? Puckanewants answers

April 23rd 2007 20+ residents attend meeting with 6 of 7 area councilorsApril 26th 2007 Town Councillor S. Morris lodges Ethics complaint with Ethics

registrar of North Tipperary County Council on councilor conduct

in zoning sagaApril 28th 2007 Nenagh Guardian Editorial Whats Going on in Puckane?May 9th 2007 PDA Meet with Tom Barry and Brian beck again in CouncilMay 12th 2007 Nenagh Guardian Article Puckane Re Zoning Probe with

Ethics Registrar

May 13th 2007 Public Meeting in Puckane attended by 6 of 9 General Electioncandidates.

May 22nd 2007 First Village Design Statement meeting held in VillageNov 27th 2007 Primetime Investigates program The Pressure Zone airs on

councilor conduct in zoning around country. Puckane is one of 4locations featured. Major reaction from this program. This sloweddown the scramble in Puckane and the following yearsacknowledgement of the Property Bust slowed down things

even furtherApril 3rd 2009 Planning Reference #09510186 received on this same Site.

Incompleted ApplicationApril 24th 2009 Planning Reference#09510232 received on this same site

WithdrawnJuly 16th 2010 Planning Reference #10510328 received on this site

Refused and currently with An Bord Pleanala (thisapplication)

5
http://www.nenaghguardian.ie/frontpage/puckane-fears-housing-boom-after-massive-land-rezoning-572821.htmlhttp://www.nenaghguardian.ie/frontpage/puckane-fears-housing-boom-after-massive-land-rezoning-572821.htmlhttp://www.nenaghguardian.ie/frontpage/puckane-fears-housing-boom-after-massive-land-rezoning-572821.htmlhttp://www.nenaghguardian.ie/frontpage/puckane-fears-housing-boom-after-massive-land-rezoning-572821.html


6/17

So Puckane originally zoned with 24 acres residential eventually had 105 Acreszoned in total, PDA and residents objected to these massive zoning increases at all

junctures available, but were completely ignored by planning authority & electedrepresentatives, There were at least 5 different versions/amended drafts, in theorya population increase of anywhere between 270 and 500+ persons and a prolongedmedia campaign with over a dozen Front Page Nenagh Guardian, Articles, Tipp FM,

Pobal on TG4 and culminating in being featured on Primetime Investigates27/11/2007. Also in Irish Times (Dr. Elaine Byrne), Examiner (Diarmuid Ferriter), IrishDaily Mail (Joe Higgins)

These particular lands have a vast amount of back lands that both the appellantand persons pushing this zoning had envisaged as lands for future zoning anddevelopment.Should the false Boom have continued, the appellant would most likely have 50house built or in the process of being built and be looking for another 10 or 20 acresto be zoned behind these lands for more development. The proposed access to thiscurrent planning application is the only access off a secondary road to all theseback lands and thus this is only possible chance to access this extensive landbank.

This level of zoning was NOT supported by all major organisations in Puckaneincluding GAA, Tennis, Soccer, Puckane National School etc

It is our contention that as part of the review process of WALAP and the overzoningof lands that occurred in the 2006 adoption that A significant portion of lands withinPuckane will be dezoned to comply with National Spatial Strategy, Regional planningguidelines and strategies and the Planning and Development Act 2010.

Owing to this lands location , detached at a distance from the village core which isapprox 650 metres from village centre on the L5006 (Western approach road) asopposed to the other 2 speed limits/village bounds of 445m on the Southernapproach and 390 Metres on the Northern Approach along the R493, Furthermorethe speed signs were moved from 560 Metres to 677 7 Metres from Village centerintersection of R493 & L5006 solely to accommodate Mr Hartys request to includehis lands (MP3) within the village bounds in December 2006 despite the fact thatthis was the first and primary point on our first submission to the draft WALAP onOctober 10th 2005 8.We were verbally assured by councillors that they would consult with us prior to anyrelocation or revision of the speed signs/village bounds but to no avail.The speed signs in question were subsequently relocated on January 24th 2007

solely to accommodate Mr Hartys request in his initial request to have these landszoned. Site is immediately outside the 50Kph speed Limit but could be relocated9.Of all the 105.2 Acres zoned in March 2006 these lands were the ONLY lands thatwere not inside the existing Village bounds when the WALAP was adopted.10

If ever there was a case of putting Carts before Horses then this is surely it.

We also contend these lands will be both an obvious choice and among the primarylands considered to be dezoned as part of the upcoming review of the WALAP whichwe understand is imminent, starting this summer 2011 and ending with adoption ofthe new WALAP 2011-2017 in March 2012. We further contend that this application

6


7/17

is being pushed forward against a North Tipperary County Council Refusal in orderto minimize chances of being dezoned while it is still an active planning permission.

Cumulative Impact

We contend that the Appellant has failed to address numerous items requested by

North Tipperary County Councils Further Information Request of September 8th2010.

These include:5(b) No Traffic Impact Assessment of the proposed development having regard to

any future development which may take place on additionally zoned lands withinthe site has been submitted.

5(c) No proposals to ensure that the currently proposed development will not resultin any additional flooding of lands in the vicinity of the site.Proposed development will exacerbate already existing flooding issues to adjacentproperties.(Note: Videos of Flooding and sightline issues are available to view at:

www.youtube.com/user/puckanetipp )

7(a) Water services Foul Sewage insufficient design calculations have beensubmitted as requested by Further Information in September 2010.

7(b) Foul Sewerage insufficient design calculations have been submitted asrequested by Further Information in September 2010. Also, It is noted from theWater Services Report dated March 7th 201111 that:The applicant proposes to connect to the existing foul sewage pumping station.

The existing foul sewage pumping station may not have sufficient capacity to caterfor the proposed development and may not have sufficient capacity for theadjoining lands proposed for development by the applicant in future phases.

Stated in Point (1)

7(c) The Appellant did not Submit documentation and maps setting out thedevelopers legal entitlement, including wayleaves to traverse lands outside the siteboundaries, in order to put into effect such methods of disposal of sewage." and isthus acting ultra vires proposing to complete works on lands outside his control thatare required to service the site in question. He has failed to indicate that he owns orhas legal entitlement to undertake works on lands required to service the proposeddevelopment

8(a) The Appellant has failed to indicate where storm water from proposeddevelopment is to be discharged despite requested by Local Authority in theirSeptember 8th Further Informatiion Request, the appellant/agent has failed tosubmit layout drawing demonstrating the proposed route of the discharge of stormwater to the nearest water course as indicated in the Water Services report of March7th 2011.12 Which states in Point (3)

The applicant has not indicated storm water to be discharged to the nearest watercourse. The applicant proposes discharging storm to ground based on anecdotal

7
http://opt/scribd/conversion/tmp/scratch31369/www.youtube.com/user/puckanetipphttp://opt/scribd/conversion/tmp/scratch31369/www.youtube.com/user/puckanetipp


8/17

evidence. This is totally unacceptable. The applicant has not carried out any siteinvestigation/infiltration tests.

We also respectfully submit to An Bord Pleanala that the indirect and cumulativeimpact of wider development within the site has not been assessed with respect tosuch issues as traffic impact, foul effluent and community and social infrastructure

provision

It is stated by the applicant that the instantly proposed development is Phase 1 ofan overall three phase development. However there are no details provided withinthe planning documentation submitted as to what the future additional phases ofdevelopment will include. Accordingly, the cumulative impacts of the developmentof the subject site cannot be assessed. We therefore submit that this planningapplication represents project splitting and should be refused.

National planning policy, including the National Spatial Strategy, Guidelines forSustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas and the Development PlanGuidelines require that the urban extension of established settlements should take

place in a sequential manner. The proposed development does not accord with thisprinciple and will resulting piecemeal, haphazard and uncoordinated developmentand the inefficient provision of infrastructure.Sustainable Planning & Travel

An Bord Pleanala will be aware of the major oversupply of zoned land13and housingnationally together with Government policy as articulated in the National SpatialStrategy and the Regional Planning Guidelines for the Mid-West Region to focus newresidential development in larger urban centres and serviced settlements. Owing tothe severe economic downturn brought about substantially by major regulatoryweaknesses in our planning system and property development sector, nationalplanning policy and legislation together with transport policy has moved onmarkedly in the intervening period since these lands were speculatively zoned fordevelopment. An Bord Pleanala will be aware that the Planning & Development(Amendment) Act 2010 is now law and that within one-year of this law, a Variationof the North Tipperary County Development Plan is required to address theoversupply of zoned land in inappropriate locations.We contend that Puckane with 105.2 Acres zoned will be a primary candidate andlocation for this mandated Dezoning.

The proposed development is entirely car dependent and as a consequencecontravenes Governments current transport policy Smarter Travel: A Sustainable

Transport Future. We would respectfully reference a recent landmark decision by AnBord Pleanala with respect to a proposed phased residential development inDunmore East, County Waterford (PL 24.234725).

In deciding to refuse planning permission the Board noted:

The Board considered that the expansion of the town of Dunmore East shouldbe planned in tandem with the provision of the services and infrastructurenecessary to sustain new development and that the provision of individual

8


9/17

waste water systems to facilitate individual housing schemes was neither aneconomical nor environmentally sustainable approach.

Having regard to the scale of the proposed development (Phase 1 of a muchlarger development) in relation to the town of Dunmore East, it appears tothe Board that the development is, to a substantial degree, aimed atattracting commuters, rather than responding to likely local needs. The

proposed development would, therefore, promote an unsustainabledevelopment pattern contrary to the National Spatial Strategy and othergeneral policies of the Government in relation to sustainable development.

Also An Bord Pleanala considered that the lay-out and design of the proposeddevelopment was generally of a suburban character and likely to detract from thedistinctive character of the town.

Non-Compliance with Masterplan (MP) 3The Puckane settlement plan included within the Western Area Local Area Planprovides a clear development brief for the subject site. This Masterplan states:

To provide low density cluster style development 10.5 acres of land situated westof the GAA pitch on the Dromineer Road as follows

1. To provide 20% serviced sites as part of low density housing. Housingshall be single storey to protect views to and from the lake.

2. To provide an internal access road via the open space/amenity areaand reserve an access to the rear of the GAA pitch to link with thetennis courts; the open space shall be provided as part of the overallmaster plan and as a community benefit.

3. To provide an open space/park as part of the development;4. The overall layout housing to be designed to Arcadian principles, such

that all boundaries forward of the dwellings shall be soft landscapingand not concrete walls, with internal roads designed to be rural incharacter.

5. To provide road widening, footpath and public lighting along theDromineer Road to link to the village centre14

Also within the specific objectives of the Puckane settlement Plan, the followingitems are listed:

1. To provide and improve roads, footpaths, traffic calming, publiclighting and signage within the village as finances allow and asdevelopments take place. To provide new and improved footpaths onthe Urra Road from the Cuan Deirg housing to the junction with theR493. To extend this footpath to Killdangan GAA club and Ballycragganas part of new development along the Urra Road. Development onsites MP1 and MP3 will be required to make a special contribution tothis required infrastructure

11. To require necessary infrastructure along the R493 and L5006 as partof master plans, including (i) a footpath with public lighting linking thedevelopments to the village. (ii) A foul sewer connection to the villagetreatment plant; and (iii) upgrading of the village treatment plant.

9


10/17

Items (i) and (iii) to be agreed with Roads and Water Services sectionsof the Council.

12. The existing school is at capacity and is land locked and not capableof being extended. It is an objective of the plan to provide for a futureschool site within master plan MP3.

The Planning Authority will note that the Department of Environment, Heritage andLocal Government has published Guidelines for the Provision of Schools and thePlanning System. The Guidelines provide that the future location and capacity ofschool infrastructure must be identified in all planning applications for major newurban development. The future school location is not indicated anywhere within theplans and particulars submitted by the applicant.

On examination of the documents, plans and particulars submitted as part of theplanning application and subsequent documents as part of Further InformationRequest it is clear that the planning application does not conform with theMasterplan 3, inter alia, as follows;

There are no proposals submitted to provide road widening, footpath and publiclighting along the Dromineer Road to link the Village centre as requested in theMasterplan 3.(Also Refered to in Endnote # 14)

Capacity of Local Service infrastructure

An Bord Pleanala will be aware of its obligations under the Waste WaterDischarge (Authorisation) Regulations SI No. 684 of 2007 as outlined inCircular Letter PD 7/09

It is noted from the plans and particulars and subsequent Additional Informationdocument submitted with the planning application that the applicant intends toconnect to the public sewer within Puckane. However the existing seweragetreatment plant is currently operating at capacity. Also, despite requests by the localauthority the applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is sufficient capacity tocater for proposed development and subsequent phases. It is evident fromcorrespondence on file that the Local Authority has serious concerns regarding theability of the current infrastructure to cater for proposed development and anysubsequent future phases. It should also be noted that the current PuckaneSewerage Station is only a Secondary treatment plant. Furthermore, should theapplicant be granted permission for the proposed development the resultantsewerage would have to be pumped to this Station as there is not a gravitationalfeed to the treatment plant.

Site Layout Plan 08/116-401 associated with the planning application clearlydemonstrates that the applicant is required to enter onto 3 rd party lands to servicethe proposed development 15. In the subsequent Further information request, theapplicant has failed to demonstrate that he has sufficient title to these lands toenable the proposed connection to proceed.16

Similarly the North Tipperary County Council share our concerns as is evident bydocument

10


11/17

(see Water services Report 24/08/2010 Point 8)17

The Bord will be aware of the implications of the Water Framework Directive andIrelands obligations under this Directive to achieve Good status in all water bodiesby 2015. This is confirmed within the Western Area local Area Plan PuckaneSettlement Plan which states;

Objective SO 13: The existing sewerage treatment plant is at capacity and willrequire an upgrade to accommodate the planned expansion of the village.Developers will be required to enter partnerships towards the provision of animproved facility. This may be dealt with through a number of options that includea public private partnership, a serviced land initiative or through specialdevelopment contribution scheme.

And also Item 2.6 on page 5 of the Puckane Village Design Statement states;

the existing sewerage system has limited capacity. This is of serious concern to thecommunity. Prior to the addition of new housing to the village sewage issues need

to be addressed.

There are no proposals submitted to upgrade the sewerage treatment plant withinPuckane and therefore contravenes the objectives of the Western Area Local AreaPlan.

During the Western Area Local Area Plan consultation and the Village DesignStatement process both Mr. Pat Slattery (Senior Planner) & Mr. Brian Beck (SeniorExecutive planner) of North Tipperary County Council gave assurances to theresidents of Puckane that no development will take place on zoned lands within theVillage until the capacity of the sewerage treatment plant has been adequatelyincreased.

Within the Village of Puckane there is a serious issue relating to the disposal ofstorm water particularly within Ballycraggan. During times of heavy rains floodingoccurs within the hurling field and within Ballycraggan estate itself. An BordPleanala will be aware of the Draft Flood Guidelines for Planning Authorities. No

justification has been provided within the plans and particulars submitted toaddress the issue of flooding within Puckane despite being requested to do so bythe Local Authority. This will be further exacerbating an existing problem as theproposed entrance to the proposed development is the LOWEST area in the Villageas per OS Maps and Data.

Also in a Report titled:WATER SERVICES INVESTMENT PROGRAMME - ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS REPORTdated July 2006Page 6 of this report refers to schemes identified to meet the water services needsover the period 2010-2014 : states in relation to PuckaneUpgrade Sewerage Treatment Plantand on page 10 APPENDIX I - NORTH TIPPERARY COUNTY PRIORITY LIST in referenceto Puckane it also states:Upgrade Sewerage Treatment Plant 18

11


12/17

Furthermore in the March 2006 Managers report to members in reply to submissionNo. 19 by Brian Kenny DoHELG te following comments were made by the CountyManager:

Policy SERV 3: Proprietary Wastewater Treatment

It is the policy of the Council, in granting planning permission for housing in villages, wheresewage treatment facilities are inadequate, to require an applicant to provide a wastewatertreatment system. The Council may require that the new plant is designed in excess of theimmediate needs of the proposed development, the spare capacity can then be used toaccommodate future development. Proposed waste water treatment plants will be required toinclude appropriate tertiary treatment and the removal of phosphorus from the effluent.Systems should be designed, constructed and maintained in accordance with the requirementsof of the Wastewater Treatment Manuals, Treatment Systems for Small Communities, Business,Leisure Centres and Hotels as complied by the Environmental Protection Agency 1999.Note: The developer shall contact the Environment Section of the Council to seek a DischargeLicence prior to making a planning application.

As stated already the Puckane Waste Water treatment plant is currently only asecondary treatment plant.

Traffic Impacts & Road Safety

Despite request by North Tipperary County Council the applicant or his agents hasfailed to submit a Traffic Impact Assessment of the proposed development.

As part of the North Tipp County Councils Further Information request of September8th 2010 and subsequent appeal to the board that applicants agents imply that therequired lines of sight can be achieved. Agents for the applicant have includeddrawings pertaining to detail the required sightlines.

Sightlines shown on Site Layout Plan 08/166-401 are unacceptable as they requirethe removal of boundaries outside the applicants redline and cannot be achievedwithout removal of said boundaries 19

However it is clearly evident from the information supplied by the applicant that herequires permission from Third parties to achieve the required lines of sight due tothe substandard nature of the road network. No letters of consent from adjacentlandowners have been submitted permitting the applicant sight over these lands oralternatively permission to remove any obstacles to achieving adequate sightlines.I would also like to bring to the Boards attention that the lines of sight detail in theapplicant submission are in advance of the stop line20 detailed on the appellantsown drawings. Should the lines of sight be taken from the stop line as detailed it is

our considered opinion that these would in fact be significantly worse than thosethat are currently and inadequately detailed by the appellant.

During the planning application process the Puckane Development Association gotindependent advice from an independent Road Safety Auditor accredited by theNRA. The safety auditor had major concerns regarding the design and operation ofthe junction in its current location due to road speed in the vicinity of the junction,lines of sight achievable from the junction, pedestrian safety / conflict with vehicles

12


13/17

and the design of the junction. These concerns are also shared by North TipperaryCounty Council area engineer in his report where he recommended refusal on thegrounds of inadequate sightline. The report states;

Sightlines Shown on Site Layout Plan 08/116-401 are unacceptable as theyrequire the removal of boundaries outside of the applicants redline and

cannot be achieved without the removal of the said boundaries.

The Senior Executive Office environment within North Tipperary County Council inhis submission on the proposed development voices concerns on the safe egress /ingress to the proposed site.21Sight Distance: Clear sight triangle visibility not achieved due to adjacent property(within visibility splay) not being in applicants ownership/legal entitlement.

The proposed vehicular access junction from the proposed development to theL5006 Dromineer/Urra Road is substandard in both road width and sufficient lines ofsight. The L5006 Dromineer/Urra road adjacent the subject site has a substandardvertical and horizontal alignment is circa 4 meters in width and does not allow for

two cars to pass safely simultaneously. The proposed development for the subjectsite does not contain proposals to upgrade this road. The proposed developmenttogether with the cumulative impacts of the overall development of the subjectlands will generate significant additional traffic movements on the adjacent roadnetwork and would constitute a serious traffic hazard as stated in the reasons forrefusal.

Youtube video of sightlines at the following link:http://www.youtube.com/user/puckanetipp?feature=mhum#p/u

The applicants agents have failed to indicate the required sightlines from theproposed access junction. We submit that the proposed junction in its currentformat has substandard sightlines. Sightlines from the entrance to the proposeddevelopment must be measured using standards from the NRA Design Manual forRoads and Bridges and the DOE Traffic Management Guidelines. This requires thex point of the site line to be taken from the centre point of the access 4.5 metresfrom the edge of the carriageway. The standards allow for a relaxation in thestandards to 2.4 metres for individual residential units. This relaxation does notapply in this instance. The standards require that the Y-distance measurement tothe right of the entrance was taken to the near side of the carriageway, while the Y-distance to the left of the site be taken to the centre of the carriageway as per therequirements contained in the NRA Addendum to TD 42/95.

These are reproduced as Figures 1 & 2 detailed below.

Figure 1: `y' Visibility Distances from the Minor Road

13
http://www.youtube.com/user/puckanetipp?feature=mhum%23p/uhttp://www.youtube.com/user/puckanetipp?feature=mhum%23p/u


14/17

Figure 2: Visibility Standards

Furthermore, an Independent Road Safety Audit should have been undertaken bythe applicant in order to access the suitability of the proposed junction to cater forthe proposed development. Additionally, No Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) hasbeen undertaken as stipulated under 5(B) of the September 8th 2010 FurtherInformation request 22They concede that items 5A, B, C and D are only partially answered andspecifically B) a TIA is not attached and D) details of roads, drainage, etc

Owing to the substandard nature of the adjacent road network and access junctionthe proposed development as submitted would constitute a serious traffic hazardand would endanger the safety of the existing road users.

Conclusion:

The proposed development contravenes national and local planning policy guidanceand particularly the policies and objectives of the Western Local Area Plan. The

14


15/17

proposed development by reason of substandard vehicular sightlines and theoverall cumulative impact of the future phased development of the subject landswould have an adverse impact on the capacity of the local road network and wouldconstitute a serious traffic hazard.

While the applicants agents contend that there is a presumption in favour of

permission where appropriate land zonings apply. We would contend that there area number of other important issues not withstanding land issues that are requiredprior to a successful planning application. These include:

Adequete services to cater for any proposed development. Services such as sewerage, School capacity. Vehicular and pedestrian safety and Adequate access. Flooding impact both on site and on adjacent existing developments.

Outside of these lands being currently zoned during the zoning frenzy in 2005/06and at the height of the property Bubble, the appellant has failed to address any ofthe aforementioned prerequisites for the sustainable and proper development of theappellants lands.

We therefore respectfully submit that the proposed development should be refusedplanning by An Bord Pleanala

Copies of all pertinent documents in the attached Appendix have corresponding numbers to the Endnotes.

15


16/17

1 Copy of PDA submission on Draft WALAP October 10 th 2005 attached.2 Copy of the relevant sections of this November 21st 2005 Managers Report to Elected members in Appendix.3 Copy of comments made by DoHELG by Mr. Brian Kenny in the March 2006 Managers Report:#12 : Brian Kenny, Spatial Policy Unit, Department of Environment Heritage and Local Government, Custom

House, Dublin 1 :

Among the Summary was this point in regard to Puckane :

submission raised concern in respect of the oversupply of land zoned for residential purposes in some

villages and proposed that the issue of phasing be addressed to ensure an efficient and orderly use of the

land. Proposed amendments provide for additional zoning. Submission raises concern that this need forthis additional land has not been justified and may lead to the uneconomic use of infrastructural

resources. Issue of phasing or prioritising development should be addressed.

And in the Managers Comments on this submission were :The issue of density which is a feature of design should be addressed through the Village Design

statements. The concern regarding over-supply of zoned land is acknowledged and has already beenhighlighted to the members. See proposed amendments for area of land proposed to be zoned for housing

in Puckane.

4 We believe that Section 20 of Planning and Development Act was not complied with during the consultation process and asimilar view was also stated by then Solicitor Elizabeth MacGrath (currently a District Court Judge since May 2007) in her

submission No. 23 of the March managers report to elected members.

Drawing the following Summary in that March Report.Letter re-iterates concerns that the provisions of Section 20 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 have not beencomplied with in the consultation process adopted by the Planning Authority to date.5 Version 1 as per Official Minutes meeting Book on file at North Tipperary County Council, Version 2 as FOId by

Primetime Investigates, Version 3 is a hard copy file obtained by PDA at Council Offices.6 The following comments are in the March 2006 Managers Report in regard to the PDA February 20th submission:

This detailed submission raises a number of important issues.

(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 consideredzoning should be reviewedand a suitable phasing programme for future development identified7 Page 20 of the Speed Limit Bye Laws 2006 as Adopted by North Tipperary County Council - December 20068 Copy of PDA submission on Draft WALAP October 10 th 2005 attached. (see Endnote # 1)9 Taken from Managers Report to members November 2005 - submission 11 Summary of Mr. Hartys initial request for

residential zoning Site is immediately outside the 50Kph speed Limit but could be relocated10 See attached map of original and current location of speed signs/ village bounds11 Water Services report March 7th 2011.12 Water Services report March 7th 2011.13If we are to return to realistic development planning, some of this land will have to be dezoned,

and facing up to this has a part to play in deflating the bubble,

John OConnor, Chairman of An Bord Pleannala, October 14th 2009

Source: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1015/1224256692981.html14 Quote from March 14th 2011 e-mail from Kieran Callinan (SEE) to Ann-Marie Devaney (Executive Planner)

In addition, Item 2v, provide connectivity to village has not been addressed. This requires a path and public lighting and

the provision of a path would require setback a boundary outside the applicants site. In light of the aboveI recommend

Refusal.Kieran Callanan SEE, Nenagh Borriskane Area.15 See attached Photo of Plan of Initial sewage connection proposals PRIOR to Further Information Request of September8th 201016 See attached Photo of Plan of Second Choice Sewage connection AFTER the Further Information Request of September

8th 2010.17 Point 8 in Water Services report dated 24/08/2010

The applicant shall be requested to submit documentation and maps setting out the developers legal entitlement, including

wayleaves, to traverse lands outside the site boundaries, in order to put into effect such methods of disposal of storm water

shall be submitted to North Tipperary County Council18 Water Services Investment Programme Assessment of Needs Report Matt Short BE Director of Services.19 Quote from March 14th 2011 e-mail from Kieran Callinan (SEE) to Ann-Marie Devaney (Executive Planner)20 Copy of lines of sight detail in the applicant submission are in advance of the stop line detailed on the applicants own

drawings copy of drawing attached
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1015/1224256692981.htmlhttp://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1015/1224256692981.html


17/17

21 Quote from March 15th 2011 Memo from Fergus OConnor (Executive Engineer) to Michael Woulfe (Senior Engineer)

Re: Sight Distance: Clear sight triangle visibility not achieved due to adjacent property (within visibility splay) not being

in applicants ownership/legal entitlement.Attached Appendix of these sightlines also illustrates this point.22 Quote from March 14th 2011 e-mail from Kieran Callinan (SEE) to Ann-Marie Devaney (Executive Planner)

Thanking You for your time on this Matter.Yours Sincerely.

Signed on Behalf of Puckane Development:

Sean Fay (PRO) ___________________________________.

Bernie Craughan (Co-Chairperson) Signature on Next Page.

(Please return all written correspondence to Bernie Craughan at address listed at topof Submission.)

Also signed by Puckane Residents who lodged Objections already on this Planning Application toNorth Tipperary County Council:

PRINT NAME: SIGNATURE:

Additional Signatures of persons who have already lodged objections to North Tipperary CountyCouncil Planning Reference #10510328 follow on next page (P.T.O) :

Documents

An Bord Pleanala observation from Puckane Development Association May 17th 2011