Puckane

Nenagh
Co. Tipperary
March 13th 2011

RE: Planning Register Reference 10510328.

Additional Information Submitted on behalf of the applicant Tom & Paddy
Harty
This includes reference to his most recent “Further Information”
submission of March 1st 2011 and the previous “Further Information”
submission of February 10th 2011

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
18th of August 2010 and also issues raised in my February 23rd 2011
submission on the initial further information submission have not been
addressed by the applicant and are still relevant. In respect to the 2
separate “Additional Information” submissions by the applicant I would like
to submit the following; Many of my original points still apply.

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
submitted by the applicant on March 1st 2011 still do not
adequately address the issues involved.
3. Among these anomalies are items such as: Site slopes are
generally to the North East of the site contrary to the applicants
assertions that they are to the North West and the resultant
flooding and inevitable pooling issues would adversely affect
existing Houses in Ballycraggan. Also, The applicant has failed
again to address sewage overload and capacity concerns to the
current Puckane facility and the most recent plans do not show
How he will legally connect to the Ballycraggan pumping station.
4. Following on from the above mentioned, the applicant has not
displayed his (Quote from NTCC) “legal entitlement, including
wayleaves to traverse lands outside the boundaries, in order to
put into effect such methods of disposal of sewage” as requested
by NTCC in their September 8th 2010 letter.
Furthermore,The latest submission fails to properly address water
discharge to the nearest water course and He has again not
“submitted documentation and maps setting out the developers
legal entitlement including wayleaves to traverse lands outside
the site boundaries” as per NTCC’s September 8th letter.
5. 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 take place in the village unless our
sewerage treatment plant was adequately increased are still
relevant.
6. 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.
7. 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. Furthermore to claim
that a separate 4 acres of lands zoned amenity (to the North of
the current GAA field) and which have been sold (not provided) to
the GAA as part of the proposed developments amenity area is not
in keeping with the stated requirements of the MP3 Masterplan of
the Puckane Settlement Plan. This land is not attached to the MP3
site and has been sold not gifted or freely given.
8. 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. Assertions that possible Developer Levys
obtained from the site will suffice are most definitely not
sufficient.
9. 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 contains 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. Also, Far more of the Village Housing stock than is
stated in the applicants Further Information Submissions are
Holiday homes and Rentals, with more of the current Village
housing stock up for sale by the week. Most Notably the latest
House to be put on the market only this Friday March 11th 2011.
10. 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.
11. Despite the contention of the applicant there is no 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.
12. The applicant acknowledges that the existing primary school is
currently at capacity. While the WALAP identifies sites be set
aside for future school facilities including specifically mentioning
MP3 as a site for a future school site area, no mention of this fact
is in the applicants most recent submission. it is also extremely
unlikely in the current economic climate that these sites could or
will be brought forward.
13. 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 to cars passing simultaneously. The
road safety engineer has significant reservations in relation to the
proposed access junction and its location.
14. Videos of Sightline Issues available here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/puckanetipp?feature=mhum#p/u
other videos of flooding,pooling issues etc are also available at
this Youtube Channel Username “PuckaneTipp”

15. The applicant has still failed to address items 5 BC&D of the AI
Request despite 2 Further Information submissions notably that of
February 10th 2011 and March 1st 2011.

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: __________________________