Demolition begins soon

Since the last post on this site more than a year ago Cork County Council granted permission for development 16/07122, opening out into Monacnapa through the site above. A group of local residents came together and appealed to An Bórd Pleanála last September, pointing out the many problems we saw with the plans. An inspector from An Bórd Pleanála inspected the site and recommended that permission be refused but her decision was overturned by the board members of An Bórd Pleanála.

8.0 Recommendation
8.1. Based on the above assessment I recommend that permission be REFUSED for the proposed development for the reason and considerations set out below.

9.0 Reasons and Considerations

1. The site is within an area zoned for residential development where it is the objective of the planning authority as expressed in the Blarney – Macroom Municipal District Local Area Plan (August 2017) to provide for Medium B Density Residential Development subject to satisfactory access to public road. This objective is considered reasonable. Having regard to the backland location of the site, the significant works required to provide access to the site and the gradient of the proposed access road serving the site it is considered, notwithstanding the proposed improvements, that the intensification of use which would be generated by the proposed development would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard and the obstruction of road users. Therefore, the Board is not satisfied that satisfactory access can be provided at this location. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
2. Having regard to the backland and elevated location of the site relative to adjoining established residential developments together with the topographical constraints associated with the site and the steep sloping boundaries adjoining existing residential estates particularly to the north it is considered that the scale of development proposed and proximity to adjoining established residential developments would result in overbearing impact on adjoining properties. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

It’s disappointing for us. There are problems with the plans but I’m glad to see the entrance to the estate has three speed cushions to slow down traffic.

The grey section of the road slopes at 10%, blue at 8% and orange at 7%.

We’ll keep an eye on things to make sure everything goes as planned. I still wonder how they’re going to get delivery trucks down Mangerton Terrace and out by the convent to the bypass.

Response to 3rd Party Appeal

Edit: some more photos.

2018-04-12: This morning there has been activity!

The digger is now on the property.

16/07122 – Request for Information

Cork County Council have this morning published a letter requesting further information and amendments to the proposed development adjacent to Monacnapa Estate. You can find the PDF through the Council website or their various apps but for your convenience I have copied it out below.

The developer has six months to reply or their application will be declared to be withdrawn.

Thank you to everyone who has helped so far. It’s not over yet, and likely won’t be for quite some time.

O’Leary & O’Sullivan Developments Ltd
C/O Conor Frehill
McCutcheon Halley Planning Consultants
6 Joyce House
Barrack Square
Ballincollig,
Co.Cork

BY REGISTERED POST

15/02/2017

Re: 16/07122
The demolition of existing dwelling house and construction of 88 no. residential units, a crèche and all ancillary site development works including parking, footpaths, foul and storm water drainage (including the provision of a surface water attenuation tank), landscaping and amenity areas. The development includes the creation of a new vehicular entrance along the sites north-eastern boundary from the Monacnappa Estate and a new pedestrian/cyclist entrance along the sites southern boundary from Mangerton Terrace.
At: Castleowen, Monacnapa, Knockacorbally, Blarney,

Dear Sir/Madam,

I refer to your planning application which was lodged with the Planning Authority on the 14/12/2016.

It is considered that the information submitted with the application is not yet sufficient to enable the Planning Authority to make a decision in this case. Therefore, to enable the Planning Authority give further consideration to your application, you are requested to submit six copies of the following further information:-

1. The Planning Authority is concerned that the proposed site layout along the northern and eastern boundaries will contribute to significant loss of direct light entering existing adjacent third party properties. Therefore it is considered that unit No.s 1 and 36 – 42 along the northern boundary and unit No.s 74 – 88 along the eastern boundary should be modified significantly to remove this significant residential amenity impact on existing third party properties adjacent. It is considered that all of these units should be either omitted from the proposed development in its entirety or that these dwelling units should be altered in terms of design to be no more than single storey dwelling units. Furthermore it is considered that 3 No. sections at regular intervals through both the northern and eastern elevation of the revised site layout (a total of 6 No. sections) should be submitted so that impacts on adjoining residents can be fully assessed.
2. The Planning Authority is concerned that back to back relationships of proposed individual units and separation distances of 22 metres are not acceptable given the significant increase in ground levels between properties. It is further considered that the steep increase in levels between these back to back units may well present significant overlooking and residential amenity issues. Therefore the Planning Authority considers that the applicant should submit sections through specific locations of the site showing accurately the proposed level changes. These sections should show the relationship of back to back units in both of the following blocks/areas:
   

   a)  3 No. sections at regular intervals through Unit No.s 14 to 23 and 68 to 73
   b)  3 no. sections at regular intervals through Unit No.s 1 to 13 and 24 to 36

3. The Planning Authority has serious concerns with regard to the possible shadow impact of the proposed development on existing adjoining third party properties located to the north and the east of the site. This issue would be especially prevalent during the winter months. Therefore in order to carry out a complete assessment of any possible impacts the applicant is requested to submit a comprehensive study of the implications of sunlight restrictions especially during the winter months on adjoining residents to both the north and the east of the site.
4. The Planning Authority considers that inadequate detail with regard to the proposed kickabout area has been submitted. In order to carry out a complete assessment of the proposed development and the requirements to satisfy Recreation and Amenity Policy the applicant is asked to submit specific details with regard to the exact purpose, the specific design, scale and layout of the proposed “kickabout area.”
5. The proposed Neighbourhood Play Area located at the south eastern tip of the site is not directly overlooked or supervised by dwelling units. The Planning Authority considers that this proposal is not acceptable in terms of best practice and Guidelines for Residential Amenity Open Spaces. Therefore the applicant is requested to submit a revised site layout map showing this issue addressed so that all proposed open spaces and play areas are fully compliant with design standards for residential development.
6. There are substantial changes in levels between various areas of the development and it is considered that limited details regarding the changes in level and any required retaining structures are provided in the application. A series of detailed section drawings through the site, detailing the various changes of level and proposals for same, should be provided. Detailed proposals for all proposed retaining structures within the proposed development should be provided, including detailed design proposals, elevation & section drawings and retained dimensions of each structure. Particular (but not exclusive) attention should be given to:
   

   a)  the slope between proposed houses 14 and 73 and the road below,
   b)  between the proposed turning area in front of the crèche and the proposed turning area in front of House 70
   c)  along the proposed access road from the entrance to House 7.

7. There is a considerable amount of cut and fill volumes proposed at the site. The side slope analysis/cut and fill diagram submitted should show the cross sections used in its preparation. A cut of up to 5m deep is proposed in one area of the site. No site investigation data has been provided with the application. There is a concern that a cut of up to 5m could encounter rock or other unforeseen ground conditions. Site investigation should be carried out within the site and if any rock blasting will be required, a blasting plan should be submitted for agreement with Cork County Council.
8. While it is acknowledged that a significant level difference is proposed in this area, a potential pedestrian link between the proposed crèche area/pedestrian link to Mangerton Terrace and House 73 or 67 should be investigated.
9. A detailed check/examination of sightlines and forward visibility along the proposed access road should be carried out and submitted along with the proposed finished levels of all ground, including open space, in this particular area.
10. The proposed surface water layout and attenuation system design are not acceptable and are not in accordance with Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDS) best practice. The applicant shall submitted a revised surface water drainage layout which addresses the following:
    

    a)  In accordance with SUDS best practice all surface water should be attenuated as close to source as possible and not piped to a single attenuation device. Options for installation of a number of attenuation devices throughout the site shall be investigated.
    b)  The proposed system design only addresses the runoff rate and does not address the issue of increased runoff volume and is therefore not acceptable in the context of discharge to a large catchment with extensive downstream flooding issues. The system design must address runoff volume and include an element of infiltration to ground.
    c)  The location, type and size of the proposed attenuation tank is not acceptable. In the context of a) and b) above it should be replaced with a suitably designed system. The applicant should note that the proposed tank would also not be acceptable from a long term maintenance point of view and also as blockage of the hydrobrake could result in flooding of third party property down gradient.

11. The Developer should review the amount of attenuation storage proposed. The calculations show initially that c. 1536m3 of attenuation storage would be required but then it is proposed to install a significantly lower volume of 670m3. The calculations would need to be clarified as the site topography is extremely difficult.
12. The housing estate development is within the catchment area of the Martin River. Based on an analysis of the overall Martin River catchment area, the Developer/Applicant should consider attenuating to a maximum outflow (Qbar) of 4(l/s/hectare). The Developer/Applicant should revise the attenuation calculations on that basis.
13. While the capacity should be available in the existing surface water sewer (serving Bracken Wood) to take additional flows, the Developer/Applicant should carry out and submit an assessment of the capacity of the surface water sewer downstream to which it is proposed to connect.
14. The preference would be for a fully reinforced concrete attenuation tank, instead of the proposed masonry tank. The Applicant/Developer is proposing to install the tank at a level which will require significant excavation. The ground conditions should be assessed in this location and submission made. Rock levels may be close to the ground surface in places and if that were the case then the proposals may not be reasonably practicable.
15. The surface water design has resulted in an excessively deep manhole at S4 where the depth to invert is >5m deep. The design should be amended to address this.
16. Two different sightline drawings have been submitted for the new estate entrance road from the Monacnapa Estate. One shows 70m at a 3m setback and the other 45m at a 2.4m setback. The applicant shall clarify which sightline is to be provided.
17. The proposed entrance sightline for the estate road is clearly affected by current on street parking in Monacnapa Estate. The sightline drawing in the traffic and transport assessment indicates provision of over 20m of double yellow line to achieve the sightline and removal of onstreet parking for two dwellings as a result. Provision of the double yellow line is a regulatory road marking and can only by carried out by the Roads Authority in consultation with the Garda Commissioner. The sightline required should not be dependent on provision of this line. The applicant shall redesign the proposed entrance layout such that the sightline can be achieved without the requirement for double yellow lines on the public road within the Monacnapa Estate.
18. While the traffic assessment has shown the effect of traffic volume from the development on the Monacnapa Waterloo Road junction it has not addressed either sightlines or road safety at this junction. Cork County Council data indicates that the current 85% speed on the Waterloo Road at this point is 65km/hr and in these circumstances the proposed increased traffic level will result in a greater hazard on the public road. The applicant shall submit an analysis of the existing Monacnapa Estate/Waterloo Road junction which proposes measures for addressing the speed and restricted sightlines. Mitigation measures including localised traffic calming on the Waterloo Road on either side of the junction are required.
19. A breakdown of the staff numbers and proposed student places on the crèche should be provided such that the parking demand and drop off facilities can be properly assessed.
20. The Planning Authority considers that insufficient information has been submitted in relation to public lighting proposals for the proposed development. Therefore the applicant is requested to address the following:
    

    a)  Applicant to forward a single scaled drawing of the complete development showing the public lights and the contour levels clearly identified on the drawing as follows for 1.5, 3, 5, 10, 15 lux contours. The broken out A3 drawings are not acceptable.
    b)  The background of the Pl drawings submitted is insufficient in detail.
    c)  The drawing to show all boundaries at the front of each house and between the houses. In addition the drawing must show car parking spaces, driveways, etc. for the development.
    d) The design to include for a minimum of 1.5 lux in all the public areas so as to allow for dimming.
    e) Paths to have public lighting and with hinged columns.

This request for further information is without prejudice to any decision the Council may take, either to refuse permission or to grant permission, with or without conditions. Please note that your application shall be declared to be withdrawn if all of the further information as required above is not submitted within 6 months of the date of this letter, or within such additional period, not exceeding 3 months, as may be agreed by the Planning Authority in accordance with Article 33 (3) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 – 2013.

Please further note that where the Planning Authority considers that the further information request has not been fully complied with and requires clarification, the 4 weeks for making a decision (or 8 weeks in the case of an application accompanied by an EIS), does not begin until this clarification has been provided and the request for further information has been fully complied with.

Further consideration of your application is deferred pending receipt of the information requested.

Any response to this letter should clearly state that it is a response to a request for further information in connection with 16/07122 and be addressed to: – Planning Department South1, County Hall, Carrigrohane Road, Cork.

Yours faithfully,

Peter Varian
Senior Staff Officer

Today is the Submissions Deadline for 16/7122

Today is the final day for submissions if you have anything to say about proposed development 16/7122 in Blarney.

More than fifty submissions have been made, including some very detailed critiques of the plans.

If you feel your voice has not been heard, please hurry and write a letter to the planning department in County Hall, but you’ll have to hand it in as the deadline is this afternoon. You can find the planning office on the ground floor under the stairs. Use this template for help and there’s also this post with particular issues that are of concern.

Where does the water come and go from?

It was with interest I examined the maps and documents of the proposed development, 16/7122, to build 88 houses and creche in Blarney to find out where drinking water enters the development, and where waste water exits.

Drinking water will be taken from the mains next to Castleowen:

 

Foul water and surface water will exit through the existing pipes in Monacnapa. It appears that surface water will flow to the left while foul water will flow right towards Blarney and on to the treatment plant (WWTP) shared by Blarney and Tower.

Surface Water System

Foul Water System

There have been numerous problems with the pipe system in Monacnapa. Cork County Council have been called to remedy overflow problems time and again. Even Irish Water have admitted that the pipework will need to be upgraded to cater for the proposed level of wastewater discharge. Public confidence in Irish Water being what it is, I wonder if they’ll ever get around to that..

You have until the 26th of January to lodge an objection to this development. Doing so is simple. You can hand in your letter to the planning office in County Hall. That office can be found on the ground floor, to the right of the main door, under the stairs.

How to object to a planning application

Planning permission (planning no. 16/7122) has been sought to build 88 houses and a creche above Monacnapa Estate, bordering on Bracken Wood, Telephone Terrace and Castleowen. The entrance through Monacnapa Estate is completely inadequate to cope with what we expect to be a huge number of cars travelling to and from the proposed estate.

After a successful meeting last week where there was standing room only it’s important that everyone send objections in to Cork County Council as soon as possible, before Thursday, 26th January. There’s still time to lodge your objection so please don’t leave it too late.

 

Here are some issues you can use in your objection letter. You must base your objection on facts, not emotions. Use your own words. Please do not copy and paste this as “standard letters” will not carry the same weight as a personal letter.

• Much increased traffic through the existing estate to the detriment of existing road users.
• The proposed entrance is near two junctions, with another junction just before the exit to Waterloo Road. Junctions slow down traffic and increase the risk of collisions.
• The proposed entrance is at one of the narrower parts of the road.
• Cars parked on the road reduce the width of the road through Monacnapa Estate to a single lane in places which would be very bad for heavy morning/evening traffic.
• The local sewerage system is already struggling to cope, even before we consider the output from the new development.
• In icy weather the proposed entrance to the new estate could be impassible because of the incline.
• There’s an increased risk of flooding due to run off.
• Residents will experience a loss of privacy as the new development overlooks many existing homes.
• Construction vehicles could cause subsidence and damage existing properties due to the volume of traffic and unsuitable roads. Some walls in the estate are already braced.

 

The County Council has a submissions template that can help you write your own objection. Obviously replace Homer Simpson’s name with your own details! At least we know where Springfield is now.

Springfield, Cork.

 

Objections can be made to the planning department in the County Hall where you can pay in multiple ways, including cash. The fee for each objection is €20.

We need as many people as possible to object to this development. We don’t deny that Blarney needs more housing but this development was ill thought out. If our objections do fail we can lodge appeals with An Bord Pleanála, but only if you have objected previously to the local authority.

Get objections in as soon as possible!

If you want to submit your objection online you can use the Cork County Council website. Currently you’ll receive an error that the secure cert has expired but your data (and most importantly your credit card) will be encrypted. They have a manual you should read as it’s not straight forward to use:

1. You’ll need to create a document with your objection first (in a text editor, Word, LibreOffice, Google Docs etc).
2. Go to https://onlinesubmissions.corkcoco.ie/Default.aspx and click on Search Applications.
3. In “Application No.” enter the number 16/7122 and click “Search Applications”.
4. The next page should display the application details so press the small green button on the left of the page.
5. A form for your name and contact details appears next and a box where you can upload the objection letter you created earlier.
6. Fill in the CAPTCHA to prove you’re not a robot and hit the PAY button where you then enter your payment details and finish the form.

 

 

Proposed Landscape Plan: 16/7122

There will be a meeting to discuss this development in the Convent Hall on January 4th, 2017 at 8pm.

A planning permission notice was erected on December 14th in Monacnappa Estate looking for permission to knock an existing house and build 88 new houses, a creche and supporting infrastructure.

This causes a number of problems for existing residents of the area, including concerns with noise during building, possible subsidence of earth into properties backing on to the site, privacy issues, flooding risks as well as more load on the existing sewerage system that has already caused problems in Monacnapa for some residents. Council workers are regularly working on those pipes already.

If the site is built the influx of perhaps more than 200 extra cars exiting through Monacnapa will create a chaotic situation every morning and evening. Waterloo Road is already very busy in the morning. It’s easy to imagine the congestion resulting from those extra cars. Click on this map to see a larger version of it.

The plan above shows that the new estate will stretch from Bracken Wood, along Monacnappa Estate, Telegraph Terrace and then up to the top of Castleowen. It’s hardly a stretch to imagine that the building work will expand further west and there will be a new entrance from the top of Castleowen especially as there’s a road going in that direction in the plan above. If they didn’t expect to expand the estate they wouldn’t have those two dead end roads at the left of the plan.

There will be pedestrian/cycle lane access to the proposed estate from Mangerton Terrace. If access to the estate proves as problematic as we think it will be, there is a chance that visitors will dump their cars on Mangerton Terrace and the surrounding area and walk up the hill to the estate. Parking is already at a premium on that narrow road of course.

Some more images from the Council website are below. You can see how far up Castleowen the development extends.