DOCSLIB.ORG

JDCA Obs on Aldi

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
JDCA Obs on Aldi J. D. C. A. Julianstown & District Community Association CLG Company number 481750 www. Julianstowncommunity.com Niamh Bn. Uí Loinsigh House Smithstown Julianstown County Meath BY Hand The Secretary An Bord PLeanála 64 Marlborough street Dublin 1 RE: APPEAL AGAINST DECISION OF MEATH COUNTY CONCIL TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION FOR DEVELOPMENT AT STRAND ROAD, LAYTOWN, CO MEATH Planning Authority: Meath County Council Planning Authority File No: LB160330 An Bord Pleanála Case Ref.: PL17.247835 6 February 2017 Dear Sir On behalf of Julianstown and District Community Association CLG (JDCA) I wish to lodge these observations in respect of the above planning application which was approved by Meath County Council on 8 December 2016. Attached please find our full grounds of appeal and the reasons, considerations and arguments on which they are based. We confirm that all the relevant documents on the file, including previous submissions, have been inspected. We enclose a cheque for €50 being the appropriate fee for this appeal. Please direct all correspondence on this matter to Julianstown and District Community Association, Niamh Bn Uí Loinsigh House, Smithstown, Julianstown, Co Meath. Yours sincerely Julianstown and District Community Association CLG Julianstown and District Community Association CLG, No. 481750 Directors: A Monahan, C Ó Domjnaill, J O’Shea, N UíLoinsigh, E Dolphin Observations on PL17.247835 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 THE APPLICANT IS ALDI STORES (IRELAND) LIMITED, NEWBRIDGE ROAD, NAAS, CO KILDARE AND THE APPLICATION IS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A DISCOUNT FOOD STORE AT STRAND ROAD, LAYTOWN, CO MEATH. 1.2 THE JDCA WISHES TO MAKE OBSERVATIONS ON THE APPEAL BASED ON THE FOLLOWING CONSIDERATIONS WHICH ARE SET OUT IN MORE DETAIL BELOW: 1. The development will lead to an unacceptable increase in the number of articulated HGVs travelling on Julianstown Main Street every morning. 2. The traffic impact assessment is inadequate because it does not: a. Consider the impact of the proposed development on the entire transport network b. Identify the catchment area served by the proposed development c. include 5 year and 15 year forecasts as required by guidelines d. take into account the cumulative impact of committed developments and vacant houses. 3. The impact of the proposed development on passenger car traffic in Julianstown has not been assessed due to the inadequacies in the traffic impact assessment. There is a likelihood that some visitors to the proposed development will drive by car via Julianstown and return on the same route. Since the traffic volumes using the Main Street in Julianstown are significantly greater than the capacity of the street, this increase is unacceptable and permission should be refused. 2 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT 2.1 JULIANSTOWN IS A SMALL VILLAGE IN EAST MEATH. THE REGIONAL R132 ROAD WHICH WAS FORMERLY THE N1 MAIN DUBLIN-BELFAST ROAD BECOMES ITS MAIN STREET CONNECTING JUNCTION 7 OF THE M1 WITH DROGHEDA. JULIANSTOWN SITS AT THE INTERSECTION WITH THE R150 LEADING TO LAYTOWN. WE HAVE ATTACHED A MAP IN SCHEDULE 1 SHOWING THE LOCATION OF JULIANSTOWN RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. ALSO INCLUDED IN SCHEDULE 1 ARE PHOTOS SHOWING THE MAIN STREET IN JULIANSTOWN AND ITS HISTORIC BUILDINGS. THIS STREET IS CURRENTLY SUBJECT TO TRAFFIC VOLUMES IN EXCESS OF 20,000 AADT. 2.2 JULIANSTOWN HAD A POPULATION OF 616 IN 2011. IT IS A DESIGNATED ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION AREA. JULIANSTOWN HAS A RICH HISTORY AND THE BRIDGE IN THE VILLAGE WAS THE LOCATION FOR A DECISIVE BATTLE DURING THE IRISH REBELLION OF 16411. IT’S CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES INCLUDE A TERRACE OF SIX COTTAGES BUILT IN THE SWISS STYLE IN THE LATE 19TH CENTURY AS WELL AS THE FORMER RIC BARRACKS AND COURT HOUSE. 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Julianstown 1 Observations on PL17.247835 2.3 JULIANSTOWN IS CLASSIFIED AS A “COMMUTER VILLAGE” IN THE MEATH COUNTY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2013 TO 2019 (THE CDP). THE WRITTEN STATEMENT2 FOR JULIANSTOWN STATES THAT THE GOAL IS THAT: “JULIANSTOWN WILL GROW INTO AN ATTRACTIVE, SAFE AND SUSTAINABLE VILLAGE. FOUNDED ON ITS RICH HISTORY AND ECOLOGY, IT WILL BE HOME TO A VIBRANT, CREATIVE AND ENTERPRISING COMMUNITY, WELCOMING TO ALL.” 2.4 STRATEGIC POLICY SP3 SEEKS: “TO ADDRESS TRAFFIC PROBLEMS ON THE R132 REGIONAL ROAD THROUGH JULIANSTOWN” 2.5 STRATEGIC POLICY SP1 AIMS: “TO PROMOTE THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE VILLAGE AS A COMPACT SETTLEMENT WITH A PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT, A LEGIBLE AND COHERENT PHYSICAL FORM, AND A VARIETY OF LAND USES AND AMENITIES.” (EMPHASIS ADDED) 2.6 MA OBJ 1 REFERS TO TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT: “TO INVESTIGATE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF, AND IF APPROPRIATE, PROGRESS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF, TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND TRAFFIC CALMING OPTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES THROUGH JULIANSTOWN VILLAGE, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE NATIONAL ROADS AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, SPORT AND TOURISM AND THE NATIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY WITH A VIEW TO PROVIDING AN ENHANCED AND SAFER ENVIRONMENT FOR THE VILLAGE.” 2.7 ADDITIONALLY, JULIANSTOWN WAS THE NATIONAL PILOT PROJECT FOR VILLAGE DESIGN STATEMENTS AND JDCA WITH MEATH COUNTY COUNCIL3 DEVELOPED A VILLAGE DESIGN STATEMENT WHICH WAS ADOPTED IN 20104 THROUGH EXTENSIVE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. 2.8 VDS POL AIMS TO: “FACILITATE AND SUPPORT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JULIANSTOWN VILLAGE DESIGN PLAN.” 3 TRAFFIC PROBLEMS IN JULIANSTOWN 3.1 DESPITE THE OPENING OF THE M1 MOTORWAY IN 2003, TRAFFIC VOLUMES PASSING THROUGH MAIN STREET REMAIN EXTREMELY HIGH WITH AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC (AADT)5 IN THE REGION OF 20,000 VEHICLES PER DAY. SINCE THE END OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS THE VOLUMES HAVE STARTED TO GROW AGAIN AT A RATE OF APPROXIMATELY 2.5% PER YEAR. THE ACTUAL VOLUME IS LIKELY TO BE HIGHER SINCE THE TRAFFIC COUNTER EQUIPMENT IS INSTALLED TO THE SOUTH OF THE R150 JUNCTION AND DOES NOT COUNT VEHICLES COMING FROM THE WEST ON THE R150 AND TURNING LEFT TOWARDS DROGHEDA 2 CDP page 411 3 CDP section 7.1 4 http://www.meath.ie/CountyCouncil/Publications/HeritagePublications/File,44006,en.pdf 5 Data from https://www.nratrafficdata.ie 2 Observations on PL17.247835 AND TRAFFIC COMING FROM THE NORTH AND TURNING RIGHT ONTO THE R150 IN THE VILLAGE CENTRE. 3.2 IN TERMS OF HGVS ON AVERAGE AT LEAST 300 ARTICULATED LORRIES USE JULIANSTOWN MAIN STREET DAILY, WITH 55 PASSING BETWEEN 6AM AND 9AM. THERE ARE SIMILAR VOLUMES OF RIGID HGVS. PLEASE SEE THE SCHEDULE 2 WHICH CONTAINS AN EXTRACT FROM THE TII DATA DETAILING AVERAGE HOURLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES BY TYPE OF VEHICLE FOR 2016. 3.3 THIS TRAFFIC CAUSES NOISE, AIR POLLUTION, DAMAGE TO THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND CONSTRAINED MOBILITY (PARTICULARLY OR THE YOUNG, OLD AND INFIRM). THERE ARE VIRTUALLY NO COMFORTABLE PUBLIC AREAS IN THE VILLAGE. WALKING AND CYCLING ARE UNPLEASANT DUE TO THE NOISE AND THE HIGH NUMBER OF HGVS WHICH PASS THROUGH THE VILLAGE. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE A CONVERSATION OUTSIDE IN JULIANSTOWN WITHOUT SHOUTING. 3.4 THE BORD CAN EXPERIENCE WHAT IT IS LIKE IN JULIANSTOWN BY WATCHING THIS SHORT VIDEO: HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/KTPC3RNBAAQ 3.5 WHEN TRAFFIC IS BUSY AT THE AM AND PM PEAKS THERE ARE TAILBACKS OF SEVERAL KILOMETRES, AND WHEN TRAFFIC IS LIGHT AT NIGHT, CARS AND HGVS SPEED THROUGH THE VILLAGE WITHOUT OBSERVING THE 50KM/H SPEED LIMIT. 3.6 AS RECENTLY AS 1990 TRAFFIC VOLUMES IN JULIANSTOWN WERE ESTIMATED TO BE 8,000 VEHICLES PER DAY6 AND EVEN THEN, THIS VOLUME OF TRAFFIC WAS CONSIDERED TO BE EXCESSIVE FOR THE VILLAGE. 3.7 THE HUGE INCREASE IN POPULATION IN EAST MEATH SINCE 2000 HAS NOT BEEN ACCOMMODATED WITH ANY NEW ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE TO CONNECT WITH THE NATIONAL ROAD NETWORK. THE LARGE COMMUTER POPULATION IN THE AREA TRAVELS THROUGH THE MAIN STREET IN JULIANSTOWN TO ACCESSES THE M1 AT JUNCTION 7. 3.8 NEITHER THE EAST MEATH LOCAL AREA PLAN NOR THE ACCOMPANYING STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT HAS ANY ASSESSMENT OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ARISING FROM THE RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES DESPITE THE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM THAT IS BEING CAUSED IN JULIANSTOWN. WE CONSIDER THIS TO BE A SERIOUS OMISSION BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. 3.9 WE HAVE INCLUDED IN SCHEDULE 3 A COPY OF OUR BASELINE ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS IN JULIANSTOWN FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE BORD. 4 INCREASE IN ARTICULATED HGV TRAFFIC IN JULIANSTOWN 4.1 FROM THE INFORMATION ON THE FILE IT SEEMS THAT ALDI INTENDS TO SERVICE THE STORE FROM ITS NEWBRIDGE, KILDARE LOGISTICS CENTRE AND IT ANTICIPATES 1-2 ARTICULATED VEHICLE VISITS PER DAY7. THESE VISITS WILL BE COMPLETED BEFORE THE STORE OPENS8 (9AM SEVEN DAYS A WEEK). IN RESPONSE TO FURTHER INFORMATION ALDI STATED THAT THE HGVS WOULD ACCESS LAYTOWN VIA COLPE AND 6 “By-Pass ‘wll pose major problems for Julianstown’” Drogheda Independent 10 April 1992 7 Traffic Impact Assessment -March 2016 paragraph 8.4 8 Ibid paragraph 8.6 3 Observations on PL17.247835 BETTYSTOWN9. 4.2 THE SHORTEST ROUTE BETWEEN NEWBRIDGE AND THE SITE IS 100KM AND PASSES VIA JUNCTION 7 OF THE M1 AND THE R132 LEADING TO THE MAIN STREET IN JULIANSTOWN10 AND THEN ON TOWARDS COLPE. ASSUMING THAT EACH SERVICE VISIT RETURNS THROUGH JULIANSTOWN - AT A MINIMUM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL INCREASE DAILY ARTICULATED VEHICLE VOLUMES ON THE MAIN STREET IN JULIANSTOWN BY FOUR OR 1.3% AND BY APPROXIMATELY 8% BETWEEN 6AM AND 9AM. 4.3 IN OUR SUBMISSION THIS INCREASE IN ARTICULATED HGV TRAFFIC ON THE MAIN STREET IN JULIANSTOWN IS UNACCEPTABLE FROM A SUSTAINABLE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT POINT OF VIEW AND IS CONTRARY TO THE OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIC POLICIES PERTAINING TO JULIANSTOWN AND THEREFORE PERMISSION SHOULD BE REFUSED. 4.4 IF THE BORD IS MINDED TO GRANT PERMISSION, WE SUBMIT THAT PERMISSION SHOULD ONLY BE GRANTED ON CONDITION THAT SERVICE VEHICLES DO NOT USE JUNCTION 7 OF THE M1. 5 INADEQUATE TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT 5.1 WE RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT (TIA) IS MATERIALLY DEFICIENT AND DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARDS SET IN THE NRA “TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES” (MAY 2014).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Route Options Assessment Report
    Swords/Airport to City Centre Route Options Assessment Volume 1: Main Report October 2014 National Transport Authority Swords / Airport to City Centre Swiftway Route Options Assessment: Volume 1 Main Report Contents Page Executive Summary 1 Swiftway BRT 1 Scheme Objectives 1 The Study Area 2 Route Options Assessment Process 2 The Preferred Route 3 Next Steps 7 Glossary of Terms 10 Definitions 11 1 Introduction and Background 12 1.1 Preamble 12 1.2 Report Structure 12 1.3 Swiftway BRT Network 13 1.4 Swiftway BRT Concept 14 1.5 Swiftway BRT Network Launch 16 2 Transport Planning and Policy Context 19 2.1 Introduction 19 2.2 Greater Dublin Area Draft Transport Strategy 2011-2030 (2030 Vision) 19 2.3 Infrastructure and Capital Investment 2012-16: Medium Term Exchequer Framework 20 2.4 Study of Transport Options for Fingal Corridors 21 2.5 Bus Rapid Transit Core Dublin Network 24 2.6 Integrated Implementation Plan 2013 – 2018 25 2.7 Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan 26 2.8 Conclusion 26 3 Objectives and Alternatives 27 3.1 Introduction 27 3.2 Objectives for the Swords Road Corridor 27 3.3 Alternatives to BRT 27 3.4 Project Objectives 28 4 Study Area 29 4.1 Introduction 29 4.2 Study Area Sections 29 | Issue | 23 October 2014 \\DUBNTS03\DUBLIN_JOBS\225000\225244-10\4. INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-04 REPORTS\4-04-02 CONSULTING\REP005 - OA\ROUTE OPTIONS ASSESSMENT ISSUE - 24 OCT 2014.DOCX National Transport Authority Swords / Airport to City Centre Swiftway Route Options Assessment: Volume 1 Main Report 4.3 Physical Constraints and Opportunities
    [Show full text]
  • Julianstown Road Upgrades, R132 Co. Meath North to South Townlands: Smithstown, Julianstown, Dimanistown East, Ballygarth, Whitecross
    Julianstown Road Upgrades, R132 Co. Meath North to south townlands: Smithstown, Julianstown, Dimanistown East, Ballygarth, Whitecross Site Area: Upgrades over 2,100m of existing R132 road pavement plus tie-in works at four side junctions ITM: North: 712994, 771138 South: 714215, 769572 Record of Monuments and Places ME028-007: Wayside Cross (‘White Cross’) and ME028-067 Battlefield (general area for skirmish along R132 / Julianstown Bridge in 1641) Architectural Conservation Area Julianstown Architectural Conservation Record of Protected Structures Julianstown R132 Bridge RPS MH028-212 / NIAH 14323002 ITM 713403, 770371. Also proposed works on terrace of 6 houses RPS MH028-205, -206, -207, -209, -210, -211 (all NIAH 14323004) plus associated 7th house. Vicinity of Julianstown Barracks, MH028-202, Courthouse MH028-204, Old Mill Building MH028-208 Bungalow MH028-217 and Milestone LA RPS ID Draft No: 91563 Heritage Desk Based Review and Assessment Niall Roycroft, 19th February 2021 1 Non-Technical Summary Meath County Council is proposing to upgrade the R132 and the four associated junctions at Julianstown, (ITM 713403, 770371 centre) in Smithstown, Julianstown, Dimanistown East, Ballygarth, Whitecross townlands, County Meath. Road upgrades are over a distance of 2.1km and include improving road paving, footpaths-cycleways and kerbing realignment. The present R132 is the previous N1 Dublin-Belfast road via Drogheda and has been extensively widened and straightened in the later 20th C. Since the opening of the M1 in 2002, further traffic calming measures, footpaths and central reservations have been installed. There are four significant R132 straightening sections involving cut-off sections of the old road and the whole R132 has been widened over any previous roadside ditches and grass verges and almost all of the present roadside boundary is recent (apart from the cut-off sections).
    [Show full text]
  • Cycle Network Plan Draft Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan
    Draft Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan Draft Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1: WRITTEN STATEMENT 3.8. Dublin South East Sector ................................................................................................ 44 INTRODUCTION 3.8.1 Dublin South East - Proposed Cycle Route Network........................................................... 44 CHAPTER 1 EXISTING CYCLE ROUTE NETWORK ....................................................... 1 3.8.2 Dublin South East - Proposals for Cycle Route Network Additions and Improvements...... 44 3.8.3 Dublin South East - Existing Quality of Service ................................................................... 45 1.1. Quality of Service Assessments ........................................................................................1 CHAPTER 4 GDA HINTERLAND CYCLE NETWORK ................................................... 46 1.2. Existing Cycling Facilities in the Dublin City Council Area..................................................1 4.1 Fingal County Cycle Route Network................................................................................ 46 1.3. Existing Cycling Facilities in South Dublin County Area.....................................................3 4.1.1 South Fingal Sector.............................................................................................................. 46 1.4. Existing Cycling Facilities in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown Area .............................................5 4.1.2 Central Fingal Sector
    [Show full text]
  • Metro North Belinstown to St. Stephen's Green
    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT – METRO NORTH BELINSTOWN TO ST. STEPHEN’S GREEN VOLUME 1 – BOOK 1 OF 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Volume 2 For ease of local identification this Environmental Environmental Impact – Area MN101 Impact Statement (EIS) has been divided into seven Environmental Impact – Area MN102 areas. These areas are numbered Area MN101 to Area MN107 inclusive going from Belinstown in Environmental Impact – Area MN103 north County Dublin to St. Stephen’s Green in the Environmental Impact – Area MN104 city centre. Environmental Impact – Area MN105 The environmental impact of the proposed scheme in each of these areas is set out in individual books Environmental Impact – Area MN106 numbered MN101 to MN107 and which collectively Environmental Impact – Area MN107 make up Volume 2 of this EIS. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is being Volume 2 of the EIS published in three separate Volumes as follows: is set out in 18 Chapters as follows: Chapter 1 Introduction to Areas MN101 -107 Volume 1 Chapter 2 Human Beings: Landuse Introduction to the scheme and a description of the receiving environment Chapter 3 Human Beings: Socio-economics Chapter 4 Human Beings: Noise Volume 1 of the EIS Chapter 5 Human Beings: Vibration is set out in 25 Chapters as follows: Chapter 6 Human Beings: Chapter 1 Introduction Radiation and Stray Current Chapter 2 Need and Objectives Chapter 7 Human Beings: Traffic Chapter 3 Legislation Chapter 8 Flora and Fauna Chapter 4 Planning and Policy Context Chapter 9 Soil and Geology Chapter 5 Alternatives
    [Show full text]
  • Record of Meeting 
    Record Of Meeting Case 06F.PC0156 – Continuance of use of long-term car park known as Eastlands Reference/ at Stockhole, Cloghran, Toberbunny, Dardistown Townlands, Dublin Airport, Description Co. Dublin. Case Type: Section 37B of Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended Meeting: 2nd Meeting Date: 5th June 2013 Start Time: 11.00 a.m. Location: Conference Room, An Bord Pleanála End Time: 11.50 a.m. Chairperson: Philip Green, Executive Sinéad McInerney Assistant Director of Planning Officer: Attendees: Representing An Bord Pleanála Philip Green, Assistant Director of Planning Juliet Ryan, Senior Planning Inspector Marcella Doyle, Senior Executive Officer Sinéad McInerney, Executive Officer Representing Prospective Applicant Yvonne Dalton, Head of Planning, Dublin Airport Authority Liam Gaffney, Lead Project Manager, Dublin Airport Authority Niamh Roche, Project Manager, Atkins Aiden O’Neill, Project Planner, Coakley O’Neill Town Planning Martin Deegan, Project Transport Engineer, Atkins Paramjeet Mankoo, Project Drainage Engineer, Atkins 06F.PC0156 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 7 Record Of Meeting Introduction The prospective applicant was welcomed and the teams were introduced (Appendix 1). The Board queried if the prospective applicant had any comments it wished to make in connection with the record of the pre-application consultation meeting held on 29th April 2013. The prospective applicant stated that it would address any outstanding matters in its presentation. The Board advised the prospective applicant that it has met with representatives of Fingal County Council in order to obtain its views in relation to the proposed development. The issues raised by the local authority will be outlined to the prospective applicant at this meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • Development Plan Motions & Submissions On
    DEVELOPMENT PLAN MOTIONS & SUBMISSIONS ON RPS 1 Proposals for Changes to Record of Protected Structures during process of Draft Fingal Development Plan 2017-2023 The review of the Fingal Development Plan is being carried out under a separate but concurrent process to that of the review of the Record of Protected Structures (RPS). Through the Development Plan process Councillor’s motions and public submissions have been received proposing changes to the RPS. These have been taken into account and included in the review of the RPS and the recommended decision outlined below. Structure/Site Proposal Recommendation Old Milestone, R126, near The Square, Donabate Add to RPS Add to RPS (see report in Additions Section on A228) Donabate Parish Hall, Donabate Add to RPS Add to RPS (see report in Additions Section on A041) Rush Harbour Add to RPS Add to RPS (see report in Additions Section on IH0383) Rogerstown Harbour Add to RPS Add to RPS (see report in Additions Section on IH0458) Old Coal House, Rogerstown Harbour Add to RPS Do not add to RPS Redbrick Beach Shelter, Balcarrick, Donabate Add to RPS Do not add to RPS Balrothery Union Workhouse Add to RPS Do not add to RPS Balrothery Union Workhouse Burial Ground Add to RPS Do not add to RPS Glenmaroon House, Knockmaroon Hill, D15 Separate entries Amendment to RPS (see for individual report in Amendments buildings in RPS Section on RPS No. 756) Individual assessment reports on those sites not being recommended for addition to RPS follow overleaf. 2 NOT TO BE ADDED TO RECORD OF PROTECTED STRUCTURES Old Coal House, Rogerstown Pier, Rush, Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Inspector's Report
    N2 Slane Bypass Road Scheme – Application for Approval of Proposed Road Development County Meath Compulsory Purchase (Roads No. 1) (N2 Slane Bypass Road Scheme) Order 2009 INSPECTOR’S REPORT Promoting Authority: Meath County Council ABP Ref. No. (EIS): PL17.HA0026 ABP Ref. No. (CPO): PL17.KA0015 Observers/Objectors: Details as set out in Appendices II and III Inspector: Michael Walsh __________________________________________________________________________________ PL17.HA0026/KA0015 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 124 NATURE OF APPLICATIONS This is a report to An Bord Pleanála on applications by Meath County Council for approval under Section 51 of the Roads Act 1993 (as amended by the Planning and Development Acts, 2000 to 2010) of the road development described in the Environmental Impact Statement submitted, and for confirmation under Section 76 of and the Third Schedule to the Housing Act, 1966 of the Compulsory Purchase Order described on the title page. This preparation of an environmental impact statement in respect of this development was undertaken on foot of a direction by An Bord Pleanála. These applications were advertised publicly in the press on the 16 th and 19 th December, 2009 in accordance with the appropriate statutory requirements. Written submissions in relation to the likely effects on the environment of this development, written objections to the Compulsory Purchase Order and written objections to the extinguishment of specified public rights of way were invited to be made to An Bord Pleanála not later than the 17 th February, 2010. A full list of those who made submissions and objections is set out in Appendices II and III.
    [Show full text]
  • Record of Protected Structures Appendix 2
    Record of Protected Structures Appendix 2 31 APPENDIX 2: RECORD OF PROTECTED STRUCTURES APPENDIX 2 RECORD OF PROTECTED STRUCTURES NOTE: A major review of the RPS took place in 2016 with a number of additions, amendments and deletions. The review of the Record of Protected Structures (RPS) is an ongoing process. Additions to and deletions from the RPS can continue to be made throughout the life of the Development Plan and therefore an up-to-date electronic version of the RPS will be maintained on the Fingal County Council webpage. The numbering sequence has tried to group entries by geographical location but this is not always possible, in particular when new additions are made to the RPS as these are included at the end of the list, and so the Development Plans maps should also be consulted when seeking to identify Protected Structures. Gaps in the numbering sequence relate to entries that have been deleted from the RPS after going through a statutory process. THE DEFINITION OF A “STRUCTURE” IN THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 IS: Any building, structure, excavation, or other thing constructed or made on, in or under any land, or any part of a structure so defined, and – (a) where the context so admits, includes the land on, in or under which the structure is situate, and (b) in relation to a protected structure or proposed protected structure, includes – (i) the interior of the structure, (ii) the land lying within the curtilage of the structure, (iii) any other structures lying within that curtilage and their interiors, and (iv)
    [Show full text]
  • Greater Dublin Drainage Scheme
    Greater Dublin Drainage Scheme Planning Policy Review for Potential Development Sites Submission to: Jacobs Engineering Merrion House Merrion Road Dublin 4 By: AOS Planning Limited 2nd Floor The Courtyard Great Strand Street Dublin 1 Tel 01 874 7704 E-mail: [email protected] March 2012 . Greater Dublin Drainage Scheme Planning Review of Potential GDDS Sites Table of Contents 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1 2. Methodology ........................................................................................................ 1 3. Relevant Planning Considerations ....................................................................... 1 3.1 Land Use Zoning ...................................................................................................... 1 3.2 Airport Safety and Noise Zones ................................................................................. 5 3.3 Local Objectives ....................................................................................................... 7 3.4 Other Relevant Objectives ........................................................................................ 7 4. Planning Review of Potential Development Sites ............................................... 7 4.1 Annsbrook ............................................................................................................... 9 4.2 Baldurgan .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Dáil Éireann
    DÁIL ÉIREANN AN COMHCHOISTE UM IOMPAR, TURASÓIREACHT AGUS SPÓRT JOINT COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT, TOURISM AND SPORT Dé Céadaoin, 25 Meán Fómhair 2019 Wednesday, 25 September 2019 The Joint Committee met at 10.30 a.m. Comhaltaí a bhí i láthair / Members present: Imelda Munster,* Mark Daly, Catherine Murphy, Frank Feighan, Kevin O’Keeffe. John O’Mahony, Pádraig Ó Céidigh. * In éagmais / In the absence of Deputy Jonathan O’Brien. I láthair / In attendance: Deputies Declan Breathnach and Bernard J. Durkan and Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile. 1 JTTS Business of Joint Committee Chairman: Apologies have been received from Deputy Jonathan O’Brien. I propose that we go into private session to deal with some housekeeping matters. Is that agreed? Agreed. The joint committee went into private session at 10.32 a.m. and resumed in public session at 10.36 a.m. Julianstown Bypass: Discussion Chairman: I remind members, delegates and those in the Visitors Gallery to turn off their mobile phones completely as they may interfere with the recording and broadcasting equip- ment, even when left in silent mode. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by abso- lute privilege in respect of their evidence to the joint committee. However, if they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.
    [Show full text]
  • Greater Dublin Drainage Project Irish Water
    Greater Dublin Drainage Project Irish Water Environmental Impact Assessment Report: Volume 3 Part A of 6 Chapter 21 Material Assets June 2018 Envir onmental Impact Assessment Report: Vol ume 3 Part A of 6 Irish Water Environmental Impact Assessment Report: Volume 3 Part A of 6 Contents 21. Material Assets .......................................................................................................................................... 1 21.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 2 21.2 Major Utilities and Natural Features ............................................................................................................ 4 21.2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4 21.2.2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................ 4 21.2.3 Impact Assessment Criteria ........................................................................................................................ 5 21.2.4 Baseline Environment ................................................................................................................................. 8 21.2.5 Predicted Potential Impacts ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport and Tourism Wednesday 25 September 2019 Submission from Julianstown and District Community Association
    Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport and Tourism Wednesday 25 September 2019 Submission from Julianstown and District Community Association Mr Chairman, members of the committee Thank you very much for inviting representatives of Julianstown and District Community Association to attend here today to give evidence about the heavy traffic and its effect on the village of Julianstown in County Meath. Julianstown is a village of 600 people situated on the R132 road between Drogheda and junction 7 of the M1 motorway (see attached map). The R132 used to be the old N1 Dublin- Belfast road. In 2003 the M1 motorway opened taking through traffic around Drogheda. However, the traffic volumes remained high and continue to be grossly excessive for a small village. While it might have been expected to alleviate traffic congestion in Julianstown the M1 has had little effect since (a) it remains the primary access route for traffic to South Drogheda and East Meath and (b) the area has seen very high population growth in the last decade with more planned. In fact even today there is enough zoned land in the Southern Environs of Drogheda to accommodate a population of more than 18,000 which is just short of the size of Sligo. While there have been some suggestions that the heavy traffic is caused by toll-avoidance, this has not been borne out by technical studies on the traffic in the area. According to a briefing prepared by the NRA in 2016 (see Annex 1). It has always been recognised by the Authority, and borne out in traffic studies undertaken, that the old N1 (existing R132) route would continue to attract significant traffic volumes due to the commercial/residential traffic movements in and around Drogheda town, the movements to/from Drogheda, and the movements to/from Drogheda Port.
    [Show full text]