Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Puckane

Nenagh
Co. Tipperary
February 22nd 2011

RE: Planning Register Reference 10510328. Additional Information


Submitted on behalf of the applicant Tom & Paddy Harty

Dear Sir / Madam,

Further to your correspondence and on review of plans and particulars submitted in


respect to the Additional Information request I respectfully submit that the
important issues raised in my previous submission dated the 18th of August 2010
have not been addressed by the applicant and are still relevant. In respect to the
Additional Information submitted by the applicant I would like to submit the
following;

1. The Planning & Development (Amendment) Act 2010 requires County


Development Plans and Local Area plans to comply with National &
Regional Plans particularly in relation to population growth and
subsequent zoning provision. Any grant of permission is premature in
advance of a comprehensive review of the quantity of zoned land within
the WALAP.
2. Information pertaining to items 7,8 & 9 of the AI request were not
submitted by the applicant during the review of the information
submitted. However issues raised in my previous submission including
the requirements of the WALAP requiring the upgrade of the sewerage
system as a prerequisite to development and promises given to the
local community by North Tipperary County Council assuring us that no
development would or could take place in the village unless our
sewerage treatment plant was adequately increased are still relevant.
3. As documented in my original submission there are significant flooding
issues continuously occurring within Ballycraggan. Should the adjacent
natural flood plain be removed resulting from this development it would
further contribute to the flooding issues within Ballycraggan. No details
have been submitted by the applicant as to how the flooding issues will
be addressed by the applicant.
4. Currently there is 1 no. access to the GAA field from the Dromineer Rd.
The GAA club have recently acquired additional land to enhance
facilities within the village. A further access to the GAA lands currently
exists to the immediate north of the existing GAA field. This access is
within the ownership of the GAA club. There is no requirement for a
third access point to the GAA field through the proposed development.
5. No details have been submitted by the applicant for the widening,
footpath and public lighting along the Dromineer Road despite been
requested to do so.
6. The Sustainable Residential Development on Urban Areas recommends
that housing stock in small villages should not increase the housing stock
of the village by more than 10-15% within the life time of the plan. The
applicant contends that as a result of proposed development the housing
stock within the village will increase by 13%. This is not correct. The
cumulative effect of the proposed development will see an increase of
32% of the housing stock within the village which is significantly more
than that outlined in the Sustainable Residential Development on Urban
Areas.
7. I would contend that the most effective use for the proposed site is for
it to remain in its current agricultural use, as the site is significantly
removed from the village core, does not follow the principles of
sequential development and would further contribute to the haphazard
piecemeal growth of Puckane Village.
8. Despite the contention of the applicant there is a demand within the
area for a development of this nature. A recent survey by the
Department of Environment Heritage and Local Government reveals that
there are currently 11 ghost estates within a 15 mile radius of the
proposed development. This included the Carrigderg estate in the
neighbouring village, Ballycommon.
9. The applicant acknowledges that the existing primary school is currently
at capacity. While the WALAP identifies sites be set aside for future
school facilities it is extremely unlikely in the current economic climate
that these sites will be brought forward.
10. I have had the sightline drawing submitted in response the item 5 of the
AI assessed by an independent Traffic / Road Safety Engineer. The
independent engineer commented that this sightline drawing is
inadequate as it sights over third party lands. No letters of consent from
adjacent landowners have been submitted permitting the applicant sight
over there lands or alternatively permission to remove any obstacles to
achieving adequate sightlines. During the safety engineer site visit he
also noted traffic speeds in the area were in excess of the designated
speed limit permitted and the inadequate road alignment which
currently does not allow for two cars to pass simultaneously in a safe
manner. The road safety engineer has significant reservations in relation
to the proposed access junction and its location.
11. The applicant has failed to address items 5 BC&D of the AI Request.

In light of these and many valid issues raised in this and my


previous submission of the 18th of August 2010, I firmly believe this
permission if granted permission would contravene National,
Regional & local policy, is premature pending a complete review of
the WALAP following the publication of P&D Amendment Act 2010,
will result in a traffic hazard on the adjacent Dromineer Road,
would further contribute to the flooding currently experienced
within the adjacent Ballycraggan estate and would be contrary to
the proper planning and sustainable development of the village. I
respectfully submit that this proposal be refused planning
permission.

Print Name:____________________
Signed:_____________________

Вам также может понравиться