Masters in Planning and Sustainable Development

PD6214 RESEARCH PAPER: PLANNING & SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Public Participation in the Planning Process: A Retrospective View of Contested Development- A Case Study of the Castlerock Estate,

Castleconnell, Co. Limerick.

Áine Bourke

Student no: 111380481

UCC Centre for Planning Education & Research

2

Public Participation in the Planning Process: A Retrospective View of Contested Development- A Case Study of the Castlerock Estate, Castleconnell, Co. Limerick.

Áine Bourke Masters in Planning and Sustainable Development

In the planning world, much emphasis is placed on public participation, particularly within the local planning system. The idea behind public participation being carried out at this level revolves around the thought process that engagement with the public and the planning authorities will create more effective, efficient and sustainable planning of development for the future of local areas. However, it has become evident that there are a number of different levels in which participation with the public can occur, some of which are much more effective than others, having the ability to impact results into the future of a development and its effect on the surrounding area and people. The process of reviewing objectors feelings to proposed developments in a retrospective manner is something which is rarely, if ever, done. The way in which an objector feels regarding developments which affect them ties in with the importance of allowing the public to participate in the decision-making process. A review of objector’s opinions and feelings towards developments could provide valuable insight into the way in which it is perceived now, whether anything needs to be improved upon or learned from for the benefit of the area and any future similar developments. This research involves two parts; investigating the planning process and its interaction with the public, and investigating the opinions and feelings of objectors to a specific development- the Castlerock Estate in Castleconnell, Co. Limerick- to determine how they feel now that the development has been built and given time to become embedded into the area. This investigation studied the key points of the objection determining, overall, that while objectors are generally content with the development today, there are still underlying issues with some of the points originally raised. Keywords: Public Participation, Planning System, Contested Development, Development Review, Local Authority

3

Table of Contents:

Chapter Page

Chapter 1- Introduction 6

Chapter 2- Literature Review 8

Chapter 3- Methodology 16

Chapter 4- The History of the Development 20

4.1- The Nature of the Development 20

4.2- The Context of the Development 20

4.3- Issues and Recommendations highlighted in the Planning

Report 21

4.4- The Issues Raised by the Objectors 22

4.5- The Issues highlighted by the An Bord Pleanála

Inspector 24

4.6- Noteworthy Conditions 25

Chapter 5- Interview Analysis 28

5.1- Why did people object to the proposed development

and how do they feel now? 30

5.2- How do the objectors feel about the development

today, 13 years after it was given planning permission? 46

5.3- What would you change about the development if you

could? 47

5.4- Given that the development has (mostly) been completed

and knowing how it turned out, would you still object again? 49

5.5- Thoughts of the objector on Public Participation in the

Planning System 50

Chapter 6- Discussion 52

Chapter 7- Conclusions 55

Bibliography 58

Appendix 1- Interview Scripts 62

4

Appendix 2- Development PLACE Maps 85

Appendix 3- Castlerock Estate Planning Documents 88

5

List of Figures:

Figure Page

2.1- Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation (1969) 10

5.1- Are you an owner/occupier? 30

5.2- Reasons for objection in terms of access 32

5.3- Is access still an issue for the objectors? 33

5.4- Reasons for objection in relation to layout/design and density 36

5.5- Are layout/design and density still an issue today? 37

5.6- Reasons for objections relating to recreational green space

provisions 38

5.7- Is the provision of recreational green space still an issue? 39

5.8- Reasons for objection in relation to the treatment of Rock Lodge 40

5.9- Is the treatment of Rock Lodge still an issue? 41

5.10- Reasons for objection in relation to trees on site 43

5.11- Is the treatment of the trees still an issue today? 44

5.12- Reasons for objection in relation to the loss of a high amenity

Site 45

5.13- Is the loss of a high amenity site still an issue today? 45

5.14- Given that the development has (mostly) been completed,

and knowing how it turned out, would you still object to it? 49

List of Tables:

Table Page

5.1- Objectors points picked up on by the Planning Authority &

An Bord Pleanála 29

6.1- Issues which could have either been corrected by the Planning

Process, or were inevitable in their outcomes 54

6

Chapter 1- Introduction:

The idea behind this research originated from a thought process which

questioned people’s feelings around new developments and why we do not look back at

the decisions that we have made in the past in order to examine how they have turned

out after a period of time, particularly in cases where the proposed developments had

been contested. The Irish Planning System was introduced in 1963 in order to gain

control of the development occurring in the country. From this time new developments,

or expansions of development, were required to gain permission from the city or county

council before any building or construction could take place.

This research intends to investigate the planning process and its interaction with

the public, and to investigate the feelings of objectors at the time they objected to a

specific development in relation to how they feel now. The first part of this research

looks at the planning system as a whole, how it works and the role public participation

plays in the decision-making process on specific development. This was done to

explore the reasons we include public participation in our planning system, at what

levels we partake in this process and its effectiveness at these levels, with an emphasis

placed on this in relation to objectors opinions on a specific development.

The second part of this research looks at the case study of the Castlerock Estate

in Castleconnell, Co. Limerick, which was objected to at the time of its proposal, and

resultantly taken to An Bord Pleanála in an appeal. This development was granted

permission some 13 years ago and has since been developed. This investigation will

study the feelings of the objectors in order to determine whether they still feel the same

way about the development today, or if their opinions have changed over time; have

their fears been brought to life or were they premature?

This research aims:

To investigate the process of the planning system and its emphasis on public

participation in order to determine the level at which they interact at.

7

To investigate the feelings of objectors to a development which was given

permission a number of years ago compared to how they feel now.

To open a dialogue into whether planning authorities should conduct

retrospective reviews of development in order to amend issues which have

arisen as a result of a grant of permission and learn from past decisions to aid

future decision making.

It is evident throughout the following paper that these aims and objectives have

been carried out, with interesting findings discussed in the final chapters.

8

Chapter 2- Literature Review:

The Planning and Development Act (PDA) 2000 is a document which lays out the

way in which planning is carried out on a legal basis in Ireland today. This Act,

according to Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government,

“remains the basis for the Irish planning code, setting out the detail of regional planning

guidelines [...] as well as the basic framework of the development management [...]

system” (2015). This act states at the very beginning that it aims “to provide, in the

interests of the common good, for proper planning and sustainable development

including the provision of housing” (PDA 2000, pg.18). This idea of sustainable

development and working in the interests of the common good are inherent in the

planning system today where planners are encouraged to work towards planning “for

place (spatial and physical) and people (cultural, political and social)” (Silver, 2014, pg.

104), doing what is best for the benefit and interest of the most people possible. With

doing this decision-making based on what is felt to be best for the common good and in

the interest of planning and sustainable development, the practice of participation with

the public has been introduced into the planning system to aid this. These will all be

discussed to gain insight into the process of public participation in the planning system,

how decisions are made, and the profession’s standpoint on review within the planning

system.

The planning process in Ireland is technical but relatively straight forward in

terms of how decisions are made on applications for proposed developments. If a

development does not fall under what the Planning and Development Regulations state

is exempted, an application for the proposed development must be made to the relevant

planning authority. When submitting an application, “the applicant shall within a period

of 2 weeks before the making of a planning application- (a) give notice of the intention to

make the application in a newspaper in accordance with article 18, and (b) give notice

of the intention to make the application by the erection or fixing of a site notice in

accordance with article 19” (Planning and Development Regulations, 2015, pg.58),

within which must state precisely what is intended to be developed in order to inform the

public. These Regulations also state that the site notice must be erected and legible for

9

five weeks for the public to view it from the date that the planning authority receive the

application. Within the application, all the relevant maps and drawings must be included,

and upon being deemed valid, the application is made available for the public to view.

Once an application has been received by the planning authority, the public, or any

relevant bodies, have five weeks to make submissions or observations on the proposed

development. These must be acknowledged and considered by the authority in their

decision, and cannot be determined until the five weeks have passed, in order to ensure

those wishing to submit have a chance to do so. This decision has to be made within

five to eight weeks after the application is submitted subject to no requests of further

information. This puts the decision making process on hold, and upon a decision being

made, each person or body who objected or submitted on the application will be notified

of said decision. Once a decision has been made the applicant, along with those who

objected, or submitted, have a period of four weeks to submit the decision to An Bord

Pleanála for appeal if they wish to do so; a feature of the Irish planning system which is

almost unique in the world. This appeal board has the power to overturn or reinforce the

decision made by the planning authority, however, only the applicant or those who

made a submission or objection have the power to seek an appeal.

The theory of public participation in the planning system is one which is widely

discussed and researched, particularly surrounding questions on the various levels of

public participation that can occur and how it should occur between the public and the

planning authority in order to carry out effective and sustainable planning. Kørnøv

(2007) discussed how this idea of public participation has the ability to improve planning

by creating an active relationship between the planners and the public. This, in turn,

opens a dialogue between the planners and the communities, who often have a better

knowledge and more information about their local area than that of the planners.

However, with this he also states that while there is general support for the thought to

conduct public participation, “it can be difficult to ensure that it actually happens and

works satisfactorily” (pg.720). This is important to remember when it comes to thinking

about why there is public participation in the planning process and the impacts it can

have on the positive future of an area for both the society and the environment

impacted, as well as the economy. Adding to this, Creighton (2005) also discusses the

10

importance of carrying out public participation in the planning process, stating that the

concerns, values and needs of the public being incorporated into governmental

decision-making is the root of participation. With this participation should include good

interaction between those making the decision (the planner) and those members of the

public who wish to participate (pg.7).

Research surrounding the theory and practice of public participation conducted

by Arnstein (1969) is likely the most influential and referenced work on the topic. Her

piece ‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation’ (1969) discusses the various levels of

participation and how there is a significant difference between conducting an “empty

ritual of participation and having the real power needed to affect the outcome of the

process” (pg.216). This thought of participation being an empty ritual hinges on the lack

of power distribution that so often occurs where only some, the more powerful in

society, benefit. In the case of planning, this side of power which so often benefits as a

result of empty participation can often be the developer and in order for decisions to be

made in the interests of the common good and sustainable development, participation

needs to be more inclusive with the public rather than just a rubberstamp to say it has

been done.

Fig. 2.1- Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation

(1969).

11

Arnstein discusses eight rungs of a ladder which represent the various levels of

public participation that can occur. These levels range from the non-participation rungs

of Manipulation and Therapy to the rungs dealing with the degrees of citizen power

which include Partnership, Delegated Power and Citizen Control. While these rungs

represent quite different sides of the spectrum, the middle ground of the degrees of

tokenism could be noted as the ones which take place most often within the Irish

Planning System. These rungs include Informing, Consultation and Placation. Within the

rungs of informing and consultation the public can hear what is being proposed and

have their thoughts, feelings and opinions on the matter heard. However, within these

levels the public does not have an assurance that what they say is actually taken into

account. The slightly higher level of placation, where the public have the right to advise

but the decision-making power remains with the planners, would appear to also be

popular within the Irish planning system, particularly within the public participation that

surrounds the decision-making process on a planning application.

Irish planning and environmental law is required by the United Nations’ Aarhus

Convention and the 2003/35/EC Directive to ensure “that every citizen has a right to

participate in decision-making on environmental matters” (Scannell, 2011, pg. 3). This

Convention and Directive have been introduced into and ratified by Ireland, making

compliance with them necessary and legally binding.

The Aarhus Convention is a framework built upon three pillars, the second of

which relates to public participation in environmental decision-making. This pillar,

according to the Convention, gives the public the right to participate in the making of

decisions which may have an environmental impact and are related to planning. The

United Nations’ Implementation guide to the Aarhus Convention (2000) states that this

pillar is divided into three sections; the first of these relates explicitly to public

participation and specific activities/developments. Article 6 of the convention outlines

regulations that each party must follow. These regulations include those which state that

the public must be informed of these specific activities, such as within proposals for

development, “early in an environmental decision-making procedure, and in an

adequate, timely and effective manner” (Article 6(2)). This includes setting up a

12

procedure to allow opportunities for the public to participate (6(2)(d)(ii)), allowing for all

the relevant information to be obtained and examined by the public as they so wish

(6(2)(d)(v)), and providing reasonable time frames to inform the public and allow them to

participate. The article also enforces that the public can submit comments or objections

on any proposed applications (6(7)), “shall ensure that in the decision due account is

taken of the outcome of the public participation” (6(8)) and that the public is informed on

the final decision that is made.

The regulations set out by the Aarhus Convention aforementioned are put in

place in Ireland through the 2003/35/EC Directive which aims to provide for public

participation in creating and allowing plans to go ahead that have been amended with

regards to the thoughts and opinions of the public, and public participation. This

directive further sets out what is stated in the Aarhus Convention and ensures that the

member states, such as Ireland, who have ratified the convention and directive fulfil

their duties on a legal capacity to ensure that those members of the public who wish to

participate on a decision they feel strongly about have the ability to do so.

As mentioned at the beginning of this section, the Irish planning system follows

these regulations strictly and carefully in the technical process of allowing for and

carrying out public participation. However, as discussed with the different levels and

types of participation, such as Arnstein’s ladder and Creighton’s participation

continuum, the level on which planning partakes in and interacts with public participation

is just as important as the act itself. A balance between the levels of Placation, which

allows the public to advise while the power to decide remains with the planning

authority, and Partnership, which “enables them [the public] to negotiate and engage in

trade-offs with traditional power holders [the planners and the developer]”, as discussed

by Arnstein (1969) could be noted as being an ideal level of public participation for the

Irish planning system, particularly in the case of contested development. This level of

participation allows for balance between the society, the economy and the environment

to be reached where the points raised by those who object are heeded and taken

seriously with all stakeholders in the development and its future, having their points

taken into consideration and negotiated on. The idea that participation is best done as a

13

“continuum” where four steps of informing and listening to the public, engaging in

problem solving and then developing agreements also fits in with these levels of

placation and partnership (Creighton, 2005, pg.9). Combined overall, these would allow

for an effective and efficient level of public participation between the planning authority,

the public, and the developer to ensure developments reach their full potential while

suiting the needs of everybody involved.

This theory and practice of public participation in the Irish planning process

should also be relevant to the way in which decisions are made in relation to specific

developments. It is evident throughout literature based around strategic decision-

making that “the relationship between an organisation and its stakeholders” is highly

important (Lenz, 1980, 1981; Nutt and Backoff, 1987: cited in Streib, 1992, pg.349).

Within this statement, organization can be substituted with planning authority, while

stakeholders can be substituted by a developer and the public impacted on by the

proposed development in question. Moote and McClaran also input a similar thought on

decision-making and public participation in the planning process, stating that it is “a

basic goal of public participation, intended to ensure that the public interest is being

met” (1997, pg.476).

As previously mentioned, the planning system in Ireland has implemented

regulations surrounding public participation and inclusion within the planning process.

With this, there have also been laws and regulations put in place surrounding the

process in which a planner makes decisions. Both of these are interlinked within the

Planning Regulations and can be seen with policies such as those which state that

while a planning authority must make their decision on a development within 8 weeks of

the receipt of application, they “shall not determine an application for permission until a

period of 5 weeks, beginning on the date of receipt of an application” (Regulation 30,

pg.77). This enforces that decisions cannot be made before the time for (public)

submissions or objections has elapsed. This regulation ties in with the legislation within

the Act such as 34(3)(b) which states that “a planning authority shall, when considering

an application for permission under this section, have regard to- any written

submissions or observations concerning the proposed development made to it in

14

accordance with the permission regulations by persons or bodies other than the

applicant”. Together, the Act and the Regulations do allow for public participation to

occur effectively as decisions cannot be made until after the appropriate period for

public submissions has passed, with any submissions having to be taken into account,

and have had due regard for, when the final decision is being made.

While it is evident that there is a working process for public participation to

interlink with the decision-making process in order for more sustainable development to

occur in the interests of the common good and proper planning, this only works if the

public do in fact submit on a proposed development. The only provision for the planning

authority to set up public meetings regarding development is within the drafting of a

development plan.

Research into decision-making and best practice is often done with results

concluding the most appropriate ways to make decisions coming down to following

specific steps. An effective decision-making process, according to the University of

Massachusetts Darthmouth (2016), has seven steps which will aid in ensuring that

“more deliberate, thoughtful decisions” are made (pg.1). These steps include identifying

the decision to be made, which in the case of planning applications is whether or not to

grant permission, gathering relevant information, weighing up the evidence, and taking

action, with the final step being to review the decision made. These steps are very

important to follow in terms of making a decision, and can be applied to any discipline or

profession in terms of best practice and how a decision should be made.

This final step of reviewing the decision made is one which could be noted as

important in terms of best practice in the planning process. As discussed by the

University of Massachusetts Darthmouth (2016, pg.2), this final step involves evaluating

the decision to grant planning permission for the, then proposed, development in order

to conclude whether or not it needs to be rethought and reevaluated. Other sources

which explained the process of decision-making and how it should be done in terms of

best practice, such as Swenet.org (2004), included the final step of making decisions as

“follow-up and decision evaluation” in order to examine the decision over time and

determine whether what did occur matches the desired results of the time. Literature

15

surrounding planning and decision-making in management by Hill and McShane (2008)

also included a “Rational Decision-Making Model” within which the final step to making

rational decisions came the review process. This step explained that a decision “should

always” be evaluated after “a suitable period” of time to decide whether the decision (to

grant planning permission for the proposed development) was a good one, with a

reevaluation process carried out if negative results are found.

Within the Irish planning process, these steps for making good and competent

decisions on development proposals always seem to be followed up until the final step

which is review. While those members of the public can have the planner’s decision

reviewed in terms of appeal, and there is an entire review process laid out in legislation

surrounding the process of creating and monitoring development plans, there is no

review process set out in legislation for the planning authority to ever review the

decisions they have made in the past. Research into whether other planning systems

outside of Ireland carry out this process of reviewing decisions made on specific

developments has also appeared to come up negative. The International Manual of

Planning Practice details the various planning systems worldwide, however when words

such as ‘review’ and ‘assess’ were searched, the main hits relating to planning review

processes were linked to the review of development plans. While this process of review

appears to be popular, it was not evident that specific retrospective reviews of

developments have been legislated for in any country, worldwide.

Much of the literature found and consulted during the research stage regarding

planning and decision making related to management and business as opposed to

planning in the sense being discussed. When consulting planning literature, the review

proportion, if mentioned at all, surrounded review of development plans, with nothing

discussed, or mentioned, relating to the final stage of decision making as (retrospective)

review. This may be something that could, and should, be looked into in future research.

16

Chapter 3- Methodology:

The method chosen to carry out this research mainly consisted of conducting

interviews with objectors to the Castlerock Estate development, who were willing to

participate and discuss their objections. This case study was chosen on the basis of

meeting certain criteria, which included being heavily objected to, appealing the

council’s decision to An Bord Pleanála, the development being given permission despite

objections, being built, and being in use for a number of years. These parameters were

important to be met for the carrying out of this research as the development had to be

contested in order to interview people, and it had to have been built a number of years

ago in order to have allowed people enough time to have genuine opinions and feelings

about the development as it stands today.

A list of objectors was compiled from the Limerick City and County Council

intranet database and the Castlerock Estate planning case file (ref. 02/710). From these

sources, it was discovered that some 17 people objected to the development. An

attempt was made to contact all of these objectors, however, not all were still in the area

or willing to be interviewed. From this list of 17, nine objectors were willing to be

interviewed regarding their feelings to the development then and now, a feedback rating

of 53%.

Once interviews were organised relevant documents such as the objection

letters, the planning report and decision to grant, and the An Bord Pleanála Inspector’s

Report and decision to grant, were distributed, via email, to each interviewee. The

interview was recorded with the verbal permission of each objector to allow for a more

in depth analysis of answers given. Each objector was kept anonymous to allow and

encourage them to express their feelings and opinions freely. With this, a cover letter

from the Centre for Planning, Education and Research in University College Cork was

presented to each objector to show that this research is valid and genuine.

The history of the case study development and the way in which it was dealt with

by both the planning authority at Limerick County Council and An Bord Pleanála is

discussed first. This chapter is broken up into segments such as ‘The Nature of the

17

Development’, ‘The Context of the Development’, ‘The issues and recommendations

highlighted in the Planning Report’, ‘The issues raised by the objectors’, ‘The issues

highlighted by the An Bord Pleanála Inspector’, and ‘Noteworthy Conditions’. These

were discussed in this order to explain the nature of the case and how the development

came to be, tying in with the decision making and public participation within the planning

process.

The interview questions were carefully chosen with a specific reason for asking

each. The questions were broad and open ended, which allowed those being

interviewed to expand on their answers. Prompts for each answer were also provided to

aid and encourage the interviewer to expand more so as to get the most out of each

interview.

The first question ‘Can you confirm that you did object to the development in

question?’ was asked to ensure that those who were being interviewed did object. This

was asked as it was discovered, when organising the interviews, that some were initially

unaware that they had objected. If any interviewee answered no to this question, an

additional question exploring why they believe their names were provided on objection

letters and on the file relating to this case on the Planning Authority’s intranet database.

A second part to this question asked the interviewers if they are “an owner/occupier”.

When asking this question it was also stressed that it did not have to be answered if the

objector was uncomfortable with the question. This question was asked in order to gain

an insight into people’s investment into the area, with the thought that owner-occupiers

would have more investment into the area than that of renters.

The second question asked was ‘Why did you object to this development?’ with

objectors being given the opportunity to answer freely before additional prompts relating

to the various objection points were given. This was done in order to gain an insight into

why each individual objector objected to the development, specifically relating to each

objection point, as the same letter was sent by each, allowing for the possibility that

some objectors did not feel as strongly about certain points than others. With this, each

objector was asked if they had any other reasons for objecting that they would like to

discuss.

18

The third question asked ‘How do you feel about this development today, 13

years after it was given planning permission?’ which allowed the objectors to expand

and give their opinions on how they feel about the development today. With this

question, each objector was also asked what they like or dislike about the development.

This question intended to get objectors to expand more on their answers in order to

expand on their feelings about the development today.

The fourth question asked objectors ‘Is there anything about this development

that bothers you?’, with prompts such as the design/layout of the development, the open

space provisions, pedestrian and vehicular access and the treatment of both Rock

Lodge (the protected structure on the site) and the trees, being given to encourage

objectors, again, to elaborate more on their answers. This question was asked to gain

more of an insight into how the objectors feel about the development now, particularly if

they did not expand in the previous question regarding their likes and dislikes.

The final questions asked the objectors ‘Given that the development has been

(mostly) completed and knowing how it turned out, would you still object to it?’. This was

asked in order to gain insight into the feelings of the objector regarding their thoughts on

objecting and interacting with the planning system. With this, an additional question

asking ‘Would you change anything about the development if you could?’ was designed

to allow the objectors being interviewed to expand on their thoughts of how the

development could be made better in their opinion.

The research being carried out is largely qualitative, with much of the collected

data being based around opinions and memories of those proving the information. The

analysis of this data is also aided by quantitative methods consisting of graphs and

charts depicting numbers and scales for each analysis point between each objector.

The interviews were analysed by taking specific points and questions from the

research and comparing and contrasting the objectors’ answers to each in order to

determine an overall consensus of feelings and opinions relating to each point being

discussed. Points such as access, layout and density, recreational green space and the

treatment of Rock Lodge and the trees on the site were all discussed regarding the

19

objectors feelings towards them then and now. The question surrounding how the

objectors feel about the development today was also analysed, specifically relating to

the main points which objectors stated they liked and/or dislike, in order to gain insight

into their feelings today. An analysis of the things that objectors stated they would

change today if they could was also done to examine those points that they feel should

be altered to improve the development today. The question surrounding would you

object again was also scrutinized to determine how many of the objectors felt it was

important to still object to the development.

Public participation in the planning system was also analysed in terms of

additional answers that some of the objectors gave surrounding their feelings on the

topic and how they interacted with the planning authority surrounding this development.

20

Chapter 4- The History of the Development:

4.1 The Nature of Development:

The Castlerock Estate is located in Coolbane, Castleconnell, Co. Limerick. Planning

permission was applied for this estate in 2002 for the development of 160 dwelling houses,

6 duplex houses and 6 apartments with landscaped parkland and all necessary roads,

walls and drainage connections over a 6.34 hectare site (ref. 02/710). This proposal was

phase 2 of a larger housing development on the land for which Phase 1, which entailed the

construction of 87 no. dwellings with landscaped parkland and all ancillary & site works and

new entrance, along with the alteration of the entrance and boundaries to existing house,

was granted planning permission in 2001 (ref. 01/2275). Despite multiple objections from

local residents and resident groups, across various grounds, permission was inevitably

granted for this Phase 2 development by Limerick County Council, and subsequently, An

Bord Pleanála (see Appendices 2 and 3).

4.2 The Context of the Development:

The Planner’s Report for this second phase stated that the land on which the

development would be located had, according to the 2001 Castleconnell Local Area Plan

(LAP), been zoned for residential use and placed within Phase 1, of three phases, of the

order in which land was to be developed in and surrounding the village over the next 20

years. This LAP identified lands which were deemed suitable for residential development

and broke them down into phases regarding the order in which they were considered to be

most suitable for development, with a policy relating to development being carried out

according to these phases.

Therefore, in terms of the suitability of this land for the level of development that the

applicant proposed, it was found that the planning application was in line with the policy of

the current Castleconnell LAP, relating to which the Planning Report Assessment stated

that “it is the policy of the Plan that Phase 1 be developed first” (pg.1). This meant that the

development was, in principle, acceptable to carry out.

21

4.3 The issues and recommendations highlighted in the Planning Report:

Within the Planning Report, it was stated that the Planning Authority were generally in

favour “of the layout of this scheme and the concept behind it” of this proposed Phase 2

development being carried out, with the exception of some concern regarding the

development’s design.

These concerns included reorganisation of some housing located on land in the north

east corner of the site which had previously been laid out in the LAP as being reserved for

access to future potential development land. The reorganisation of some units in the rear of

the proposed development was deemed to be necessary in order to provide sufficient

overlooking and passive surveillance of the proposed public pedestrian route, via Coolbawn

Lane, so as to curb any potential antisocial behaviour and aid with public safety on the

route. While there is a provision of a large open space within the site, concerns by the

planner in relation to the lack of smaller open spaces nearer to the houses were raised,

suggesting that specific houses be omitted in order to make two new pockets of open space

available which would provide safe spaces for young children to play closer to their homes.

The terraced housing was proposed without front garden space, however it was stated in

the Planning Report that the authority “would be anxious to ensure that all dwellings have a

front garden” (pg.3). With this it was also suggested that the aesthetics of the estate could

be improved by “softening the car parking by breaking it up with landscape” (pg.3) and

redesigning roads so as to encourage the reduction of traffic speed which would be

prominent on the proposed straight roads.

With these concerns assessed, recommendations of further information were

requested. These specified issues such as site layout to be revised where the

aforementioned access point to potential future development land is blocked, that the

proposed pedestrian route via Coolbawn Lane be passively surveilled by specifically

reoriented houses, and that revisions of design were to include new, specified, pockets of

open space be submitted. With these, the terraced houses with no front garden provisions

were to be redesigned with at least 6 meters of front garden space, the estate aesthetics

were to be improved by the softening of the parking provisions through landscaping, and

traffic calming measures were to be planned for the estate’s roads. Requests for information

22

on potential future issues such as lighting plans for the safety of people in the estate were

also sought from the developer.

4.4 The Issues Raised by the Objectors:

This development was met with a number of objections from local residents, all of whom

submitted the same objection letter to the local authority, with additional letters outlining

further points being submitted separately by both The South Castleconnell Resident’s

Group and another objector, ‘G. & P. Waldmann’. The main letter focused on 8 specific

points with which the local residents were concerned in relation to the proposed

development.

The first point related to the ‘Validity of the Planning Application’, with objectors stating

that the application was invalid due to a technicality in that some of the map’s lacked North

Arrows.

The second point related to the site itself, with objectors stating that no thought had

been given to the special nature of the site, which they considered to be an area of high

amenity, in relation to the development. Despite the site being zoned for residential

development, objectors felt that there was no thought given to the LAP statement regarding

how the “quality of the design is the main criteria on which housing development will be

assessed so that the protection of high amenity landscape features will be ensured”, with

the site being threatened by such a development.

The Protected Structure, Rock Lodge, an 18th Century home, and its curtilage would be

impacted upon by the proposed development given that a substantial proportion of the

houses are sitting within the view, thus materially contravening the LAP, which states that

the view of the surrounding parkland from the north of Rock Lodge is a protected view

(marked V4).

The fourth point on this objection letter related to the fact that some of the trees on the

site which are outlined in the LAP, along with the tree lined avenue, will be lost to houses.

23

Along with this, a misleading tree survey was provided in which around 20 trees are

missing.

Objectors note that one of the access points to the site via Belmont Road is lined with

houses, meaning that future access will be blocked.

In terms of the design and layout of the proposed estate, some houses will create

overlooking and loss of privacy to existing owners on Coolbawn Lane, while the insertion of

the proposed types of housing are unsuitable and out of character for the area. Objectors

noted that the LAP dictated that the “quality of design is the main criteria on which housing

development will be assessed and that house design will be appropriate to the architectural

character of the area”.

The impact of the proposed development on the existing roads is something that the

objectors felt concerned about. With this they stated that the proposed site access off

Belmont Road was not realistic given the scale of the development and the grade of the

road, being a small country road which is not likely to handle predicted traffic coming from

the estate, coupled with what is already there. The safety of pedestrians on the road was

also a cause for concern given the lack of footpaths and road markings on the only realistic

pedestrian route into the village. There were also concerns regarding the proposed

pedestrian route into the village which is “inadequate due to its size”, the existing pinch

points which make footpaths unviable, and the fact that this small lane serves as the only

vehicular access point for c.12 houses.

The final point surrounded the provision of recreational areas/green space within the

site concluded this main objection letter. Within this, objectors stated their concern for the

lack of adequate green space/recreational areas for the large number of residents, with

what was allocated being unsuitable for children playing due to its location being far away

from the highest densities of housing and its nature as wetland.

In terms of the objection made by The South Castleconnell Residents Group, 3 points

were emphasised as being important to be noted regarding this development. These

included Access, Public Roads, and Site Design and Layout, all of which raised the same

points as the main objection letter. In addition to this, a further point was raised stating that

24

terraced housing “is unacceptable and will detract from the environment” (Castleconnell

LAP 2001) given that these types of houses are inappropriate for an historic rural village

and will ruin the natural amenity of Castleconnell. With this it was also noted that the other

concerns raised in the main objection letter were also important to be noted.

A further objection (G. & P. Waldmann) was also submitted in relation to the previous

submissions. This objector stated that they “could find nothing to alleviate our concerns and

our objection”, asking that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be carried out to

evaluate the impacts of the development, along with access through Coolbawn Lane to be

closed off permanently. This submission also further raised concerns regarding the type of

cramped town housing proposed, the increase of vehicular and pedestrian traffic creating

an increased hazard, the lack of room for paving in relation to Coolbawn Lane, and the lack

of consideration for the Castleconnell LAP.

4.5 The issues highlighted by the An Bord Pleanála Inspector:

Upon the granting of permission to this proposed development, The South

Castleconnell Residents Group took the decision to An Bord Pleanala for appeal. Within

this, the inspectorate considered the most salient points of the submission to be the

Principle of Development, the Impact on Protected Structures and Trees, the Design of the

Scheme, and Vehicular and Pedestrian Access.

The Inspectorate gave her opinion regarding each of these points upon taking both the

objector and developer’s reasoning into account. In terms of the Principle of Development,

the Inspectorate deemed the site as zoned appropriately for residential purposes and the

phasing of the development in line with those polices of the LAP’s phasing plan for

development in the village. She noted that the site was not located within a special area of

control, and was in-fact well removed from those within the village, along with questioning

the zoning of the land in terms of impact on the village’s historic and rural nature lies with

the Local Authority and the 2001 LAP.

The protected structure, Rock Lodge, was unoccupied at the time of proposal, and has

been until its recent purchase (c.2015-2016). The views of the house are restricted from the

25

North due to tree cover, with the 2001 LAP protecting this view, which the inspectorate

deemed as “somewhat at odds with the residential zoning given to the lands”. She noted

that the Phase 1 permission will impact the site negatively, but the addition of this second

phase would not have any more of an impact to the land and its surroundings.

While some trees will be lost, it was distinguished that a number of them were to be

retained and protected, particularly during the construction period.

The inspectorate indicated that the density of the development was in line with the

Planning Authority’s assumed average, and was appropriate for the site which is close to

the village, with densities matching what exists in the village being deemed unsustainable.

The design and types of housing were not thought to be at odds with the setting or to

create adverse loss of privacy or overshadowing, however the alteration of the design to

create passive surveillance on the pedestrian route was noted as important to create safety

on the route.

The vehicular access onto the site at Belmont Road had already been given permission

for Phase 1, with the financial contributions to upgrade the road, the use of this access was

not deemed to be adversely negative. The pedestrian access route which was deemed too

dangerous by objectors due to its size and lack of footpath was considered to be of benefit

to the village and health of the locals who would be encouraged to travel by foot over car.

The shared surface opportunities of the lane would also provide natural traffic calming, thus

becoming safer for pedestrians.

Overall, the An Bord Pleanala inspectorate considered the proposed development

acceptable in principle, as it was envisaged that the amenities which were enjoyed by the

existing residential properties would not be adversely affected, which resulted in the grant

of permission subject to conditions.

26

4.6- Noteworthy Conditions:

The Castlerock Estate was given planning permission by An Bord Pleanala subject to

17 conditions. While this could be thought to be positive for both the developer, who was

given permission to build an estate, which had the potential to benefit both the local village

and the economy, and the objectors who, despite losing their appeal, had their voices

heard and taken note of, some of the conditions attached to the permission are worth

mentioning.

The third condition stated that

Appropriate childcare facilities, including adequate drop-off facilities and open space, in accordance with the Planning Guidelines on Childcare Facilities issued by the Department of the Environment and Local Government in June 2001, shall be provided and shall be subject to a separate application for permission to the planning authority.

This condition was very important in terms of the benefits that it would bring to the local

area and the families living within the estate once it is developed. The Planning Guidelines

on Childcare Facilities states that in “new housing areas, planning authorities should

require the provision of at least one childcare facility for new housing areas”, with at least

one facility with a minimum of 20 spaces per 75 dwellings (2001, Appendix 2, pg.14).m

However, the attachment of a condition which specifies that the applicant must

apply for another development is not one which is enforceable by the Planning Authority, as

it is not possible for an authority to force a developer to apply for a new development. It is

also not a precise condition given that there is no time limit stated in which the developer

has to satisfy it. Given that this condition was invalid, a loophole meant that it was never,

and unlikely to be ever, developed. In order for this ‘amenity of the area’, according to the

Board’s reason for attaching the condition, to be a valid condition, it could have been

conditioned to be built prior to the commencement of the entire development, or stated

instead that plans, both in terms of physical plans and timescales to develop the crèche,

must be submitted to the Authority prior to commencement of the development.

Despite a condition such as the one aforementioned being included conditions

which have benefitted and shown that the objectors and existing residents surrounding the

27

proposed development had valid points that were listened to, have also been included. This

can be seen particularly with condition 11, which states that

Full details of the barrier to be erected at either end of the pedestrian path so as to prevent its use by all motorised vehicles shall be submitted to the planning authority for agreement prior to commencement of development.

This ensured that the developer stopped the possibility of any vehicles using Coolbawn

Lane to gain access to or from the development, which satisfied an important concern of

the objectors. Other issues which concerned objectors such as recreational space, design,

roads, and trees were all included to some extent on the conditions attached to the grant of

permission.

28

Chapter 5- Interview Analysis:

This section will look, in depth, at the answers objectors gave in their interviews

relating to the development in question, the Castlerock Estate in Castleconnell, Co.

Limerick. This analysis is based around a selection of points and thoughts which arose

during the interview stage (see Appendix 1). The points of analysis, which are

discussed below, were those which were felt to be the more salient points and issues

raised both from the objection letters which were submitted to Limerick County Council

and An Bord Pleanála at the time of the development proposal, and those raised by

objectors in the interviews.

The interviews conducted raised a number of interesting points regarding why

people objected to the development originally, how they feel about the development

now, whether there is anything that specifically bothers them in relation to this

development and their original objection points, whether or not they would object again

knowing how the development turned out, and what they would change about the estate

if given the chance to do so. With this, this analysis section will also seek to examine

certain objector’s feelings towards public participation in the planning system and their

experiences with it, particularly in relation to this development. Despite not being asked

any specific questions relating to public participation in the planning system during the

interviews, some of the objectors offered strong opinions which were felt to be too

important to this research to be ignored.

Table 5.1 depicts those objection points that were raised by the local objectors at

the time of the development proposal and submitted to Limerick County Council. With

this, each point is marked as to whether the County Council, and subsequently An Bord

Pleanála, picked up on and dealt with it in relation to the Planning and Inspector’s

Reports and the conditions attached to both permissions to grant the development.

29

Objector’s Points Council An Bord Pleanala

------- Planning Report Conditions Inspector’s Report Conditions

Validity of Planning Application

N X N X N X N X

The Site N X N X Y O N X

Protected Structure

N X N X Y O N X

Trees N X Y O Y O Y O

Access Y O N X Y O Y O

Design and Layout of Proposed Estate

Y O N X Y O Y O

Existing Roads N X N O Y O Y O

Recreational Area/ Green Space

Y X-Wetland, & O- more green space

Y O Y O Y O

At the beginning of each interview, those participating were asked two questions,

the first confirming that they did, in fact, object to the development, while the second

asked if the interviewee was an owner/occupier. This second question was asked in

order to attempt to gain insight into the investment, of those who objected, into the area.

It was felt that asking this question was important as those who have bought or built

their own homes would be likely to be more invested in staying in the area than those

who have rented their homes. With this it was felt that those who are owner/occupiers

are more likely to object to developments which will impact them, than those who may

only be holding a temporary residency in a rented home.

Table 5.1- Objectors points picked up on by the Planning Authority and An Bord Pleanala

Y- Addressed, N- Not Addressed, O- Dealt With, X- Not Dealt With

30

From the results of asking this question it is clear that a significant proportion of

those who had objected were owner/occupiers. There was only one objector, Objector

4, whose interview was conducted via postal mail, who answered no to this question.

However, as noted in Appendix 2, it is unclear whether or not the objector stated no to

being an owner/occupier or no to their comfort in answering the question. If the latter is

the case then the total number of owner/occupier objectors who were interviewed is

100%.

5.1- Why did people object to the proposed development and how do they feel now?

Within the interview proportion of this research it became apparent that, while

each person recognised that they did object to the development, it was interesting to

see that a proportion (22%) did not initially recall objecting. Within this, a number of

objectors gave reasons which were not on the objection letter such as Objector 1’s

statement that their friendship with one of the “main objectors ... who went around

canvassing for objectors” was likely the initial reason for their objection to the

89%

11%

Are you an Owner/Occupier?

Yes

No/Unanswered

Figure 5.1- Are you an Owner/Occupier?

31

development; or to provide their neighbours, who had stronger reasons for objecting,

with support, which played a role in the influence of objections from Objector’s 2 and 9.

With this Objector 6 also stated an additional reason for their objection being their role

with the Castleconnell Development Forum, which “sought to safeguard development in

the area”.

It could be determined from this that many of those who objected to the

development, while having their own reasons, may have been influenced by, or had

stronger reasons to do so in the interest and for the well being of, their neighbours and

friends.

In terms of reasons for objecting in relation to the points raised in the objection

letters, it is interesting to note the apparency of mutual concern among neighbours and

friends, as aforementioned. It would appear that the objectors to this development felt

that everybody submitting the same objection letter would result in a stronger outcome

than that of individually objecting specifying their own specific points of objection. This

has been evident, more so than as aforementioned in the previous paragraph, in the

levels of responses to each individual point of importance to object to, where, for

example, some objectors felt the most important point was access to the development,

while the integrity of the protected structure, Rock Lodge, on the site was not something

of importance at all.

In terms of the most important points of the objection letters, the various access

points to and from the site appears to have been the biggest reason for people objecting

to the development, where 100% of people interviewed felt that at least one of the

possible access points would impact their lives in a negative way, to warrant the

development plans to, at least be altered.

32

While not every objector had issues with the same access points, it was clear

that the Coolbawn Lane pedestrian access point was the most contested. In terms of

this Coolbawn Lane access point, six of the nine objectors interviewed felt that there

would be major issues with pedestrian access going through here. The reasons for

objecting to this point of access were overall quite similar amongst the objectors. The

objection letter stated that Coolbawn Lane is a cul-de-sac which already serves 12

houses with cars, therefore it “cannot be used as a pedestrian access” as it is very

narrow with multiple pinch points preventing it from being widened. With this, there is

also a dangerous junction where the Lane meets with Castleconnell’s main street, which

combined with the nature of the Lane, as mentioned, would make it “extremely

dangerous for any large number of pedestrians to use this (as) a thoroughfare for either

cycling or walking as there are no footpaths and they are forced to walk in the middle of

the road” as footpaths are not a viable option given the pinch points.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Coolbawn Lane Access

Belmont Road Access

Other Access (i.e. Stradbally North)

None

Reasons for Objection: Access

Of Total No. Objectors

No. Of Objectors

Fig. 5.2- Reasons for objecting in terms of Access.

33

The issue with the Coolbawn Lane access, as mentioned in the objection letter,

matches up with those reasons given by the objectors who were interviewed. Each

objector, 1,2,3,7,8,and 9, took issue with the pedestrian access at Coolbawn Lane

mentioning these points as cause for concern relating to the future of the lane and the

proposed development. These objectors, such as Objector 3, stated these issues with

statements like “the lane would become the natural way for people from the estate to

get to the village centre, which would bring a sizable number of people onto a narrow

lane which could not accommodate footpaths and had the potential to change a quiet

cul-de-sac into a much busier thoroughfare”. With this, the objectors expressed their

fears that over time despite being a pedestrian access point, that vehicles could begin

to use it as another way to and from the estate. This appeared to be a great cause for

concern as four of the six who took issue with the Coolbawn Lane access also

mentioned this fear. Objector 2 stated that “the addition of more vehicles on a road

which “is only barely the width of a car and a quarter” would have made the road

“extremely dangerous”.”

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Coolbawn Lane Access

Belmont Road Access

Other Access (i.e. Stradbally North)

No Issue

Still an Issue?: Access

Of Total No. Objectors

No. Of Objectors

Fig. 5.3- Is Access still an issue for the Objectors?

34

In terms of their feelings today, despite their concerns relating to the lane’s

access, many of the objectors have said that while issues still remain, “there has been

more life on the road and it has been friendly since” the estate was built (Objector 9).

Others, such as Objector 2, stated that they “never thought it would be a negative

development” unless car access was ever given to the estate via Coolbawn Lane,

adding that “I like seeing people on the road and it has actually worked out even better

than I could have anticipated”.

However, issues do still remain regarding this access point, as a number of these

objectors, such as 3,7,8 and 9, feel that pedestrians on the lane have created hazards

as people treating the lane expressly as a pedestrian path which “will eventually cause

an accident” (Objector 8). Objector 3 also expressed fear of the danger that still exists,

particularly with people pulling out of their driveways, or with the amount of people that

now use the lane, which is the likely cause of a number of break-ins, as there is no

longer a cul-de-sac to stop a thief escaping. While objectors, overall, are content with

the pedestrian access, Objector 7 stated that it has impacted on their privacy, and there

is more noise surrounding their home now as children tend to play on the lane, which is

also a hazard. Objector 9 also added that while the lane is friendly now, in a few more

years, particularly as children grow up, antisocial behaviour could become a factor on

the Lane.

In terms of the Belmont Access, to which four people objected to, the main

objection letter raised points that “Belmont Road is a country road, and not designed to

take traffic generated by over 300 homes”, and with this “the substantial number of cars

will be unable to get out onto the N7 in the morning and likewise in the evening”.

Moreover, this road was deemed to not be suitable for pedestrians given there is no

footpath on the road. Those objectors who had concern for access onto Belmont Road

stated these feelings in the interviews. Objectors 7 and 9 stated that “Belmont Road

would not be able to handle the levels of pedestrian and car traffic it would need to take,

given that there were no footpaths on it and points of the road were not wide enough for

two cars to pass” (Objector 7). While Objector 8 added that this access was not

sustainable as to get to the village, cars have to drive in a loop around. This objector

35

went so far as to say that this access point should have been through the Stradbally

North estate, which is much closer to the village centre, despite residents from this

estate also objecting in relation to that possibility.

This access point was given permission in the first phase of the development

which was applied for in 2001 (ref. 01/2275) and as a result, it could not be changed

despite the objections for the phase 2 proposal to which these objections were made.

Regardless of this, objectors still feel that Belmont Road should have a footpath to

increase safety levels for pedestrians, according to Objector 9 who stated that this was

something they would change if they could. Objector 1 also stated that the road

conditions coming in and out of the estate on Belmont Road were poor and they “would

have expected the council to improve them”. These points of issue are ones which lie

with Limerick County Council as the final grant of permission for the development

conditioned the developer to pay a bond and an additional sum of money to the

authority in order to contribute to expenditure and maintenance relating to the

development.

Other than these points, there does not seem to be much in the way of issues

with the Belmont Road access which was given despite objections. However, it is

important to note that despite the lack of protest for this access point today, the

unforeseen circumstances of an unfinished development and the construction of the M7

motorway in 2009-2010 have likely added to the positive attitude towards this previous

point of objection. Had the development been finished, coupled with the lack of close

access to the M7, the fears which were objected to would likely have come true for

these objectors.

The possibility of access through the Stradbally North housing estate also led to

objections on this development. Objector’s 4, 5 and 6 all raised fears that this proposed

development could create a “thoroughfare” of pedestrians and possibly cars, through

their estate (Objector 5). Despite this access point relating to the Phase 1 part of the

development, this fear was very real for these objectors. However, since the

development was never finished and the estate did not expand to almost join Stradbally

North, none of these objectors have any remaining issues with estate access today.

36

However, had the estate been finished, the relief expressed by Objector 4 may have

resulted in a much different account.

The Layout and design of the development was objected to due to the three

storey terraced housing which would create overlooking onto some of the existing

residents of the area. With this, there was further criticism of the estate’s design due to

this type of housing being “totally unsuitable and out of character”, according to the

main objection letter.

While more of the objectors felt that these points of layout and design, and

density of the development, were less important than other issues, some still feared

their impacts on the overall area. Objectors living closer to Coolbawn Lane are noted to

have more of a concern relating to these points than those who live elsewhere. Both of

these points also appeared to overlap with Objectors’ 3, 7 and 8 taking issue with both,

along with Objector 6 who worried about the layout and design of the estate. With this, it

is also important to note that the majority of those who did take an issue to these points

live on Coolbawn Lane, with only one from Stradbally North.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Layout/Design Density

Reasons for Objection: Layout/Design & Density

Felt it was an issue to be addressed

Did not feel it was an issue to be addressed

Fig. 5.4- Reasons for Objection in relation to Layout/Design and Density.

37

Objector 3 stated that they felt it important to object as these three storey

terraced houses were planned to be built right up to the boundary of their garden. This

created a, very valid, fear of many houses overlooking them. With this they also

expressed fears that the high density of the estate would take from the area’s amenities

rather than adding to them. Objector 7 held fears regarding the density of the proposed

development and the future of the village as a whole, stating that the Castleconnell LAP

had zoned land for residential development over a 20 year period, however, this phase,

coupled with phase 1, would fill almost 50% of this within the first few years of the plan,

which they felt to be “too many houses, too quickly”. This objector was also vocal

regarding the planned design and layout “which is out of keeping with the historic

village”. Objector 6 also added their reservations regarding the design and layout of the

estate due to the possible access that could be created through Stradbally North.

It is evident that, today, there is not as much of an issue remaining surrounding

these points and the objector’s feelings. While most no longer have an issue with the

layout and design of the development, some feelings have remained such as those of

Objector 8’s with terraced housing not fitting in well with the environment. Adding to this,

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Layout/Design Density

Still an Issue?: Layout/Design & Density

Still an Issue

No Longer an Issue

Fig. 5.5- Are Layout/Design and Density still an issue today?

38

it is interesting to see those such as Objector 2, who originally took no issue with the

layout and design of the development, state that they feel these houses seemed to be a

little cramped in comparison to the rest of the estate. Many of the objectors also stated

that in terms of their feelings towards the layout and design, particularly in relation to the

housing, that there is a good mix of housing types within the estate “where everybody

can find something” (Objector 1).

Density also remains an issue for some today, although still less than during the

time of the objections. However, while some Objectors such as 2, 3, 4 and 5 are still not

concerned about density of the estate today, it is important to note that these also

stated that they are glad that the development was never completed. Objector 2 feels

that if it was to ever be completed, it would be too big, “which would be a pity”, while

Objector 3 feels that the density remains too high for the rural setting they are in.

Objectors such as 4 and 5, who objected over access to Stradbally North, would likely

also take issue with the density of the overall development if it is ever finished as this

could lead to a possibility of reopening this access route.

56%

44%

Reasons for Objection: Recreational Green Open Space

Yes No

Fig. 5.6- Reason for Objections relating to Recreational Green Space Provisions

39

In terms of recreational green space within the development, five of nine

objectors felt there was an issue with what was being provided. These issues ranged

from the amount being provided for in relation to the numbers of houses being provided

(Objector 4), to the lack of suitable space being set out for the proposed recreational

green space, given what was proposed is wetland (Objector 9), and the lack of sufficient

green space and sports facilities would take from the local amenities rather than adding

to them (Objector 3 and 6).

While the recreational green space that was planned for in the north east of the

development, and conditioned by An Bord Pleanála for, was never provided, a different,

smaller piece was provided. With this, today, 56% of the objectors do not have an issue

with what was provided, including some of those who did originally have an issue, such

as Objectors 8 and 9.

However, interestingly, Objector 7 has realised that this point has made an

impact on their feelings towards the development as time has passed. They stated in

the interview that children lack sufficient play areas, and as a result they play on the

44%

56%

Still an Issue?: Recreational Green Open Space

Yes No

Fig. 5.7- Is the provision of the Recreational Green Open Space still an issue?

40

streets and on Coolbawn Lane. Despite this original recreational green space being

prone to flooding, as noted by Objector 4 and 9, it is not a regular occurrence, leaving

little in the way for a valid reason for the developer not providing it within the first

growing season after development begins, as conditioned.

Objector 3, also importantly noted, that they felt without the space that was

intended to be provided there would be little for the children to do as they grow older.

This is particularly because no sports facilities, or even sports opportunity facilities, such

as what the large recreational green space would have provided, were provided.

The treatment of Rock Lodge, a protected structure, and its surrounding

curtilage, was something mentioned on the main objection letter as being important to

have been concerned about and objected to. This objection letter stated that due to the

protected nature of the building and its curtilage, its integrity should be protected from

the surrounding houses to be built. This letter also raised the point that the view north of

the Lodge was protected, and would be destroyed by houses. With this point, it was

noted in the Inspectors Report that the integrity of the Lodge had already been impacted

on due to the zoning of the land for residential development and the previously granted

planning permission for the first phase of the development (ref.01/2775).

33%

67%

Reasons for Objection: Treatment of Rock Lodge & its Curtilage

Yes No

Fig. 5.8- Reasons for objecting relating to the treatment of Rock Lodge

41

While the integrity of Rock Lodge was objected to on the main objection letter,

only 33% (three of nine) of objectors stated that they had felt it was something that was

concerning in terms of the proposal for development surrounding it. Objector 1 raised a

point that despite being unsure of its importance to the area, the fact that the building

was protected meant that the grounds surrounding it should be reserved, to an extent,

“in keeping with the building”. Objector 3 felt that there were better uses for the land that

would not impact the building, particularly as the local village had very little in terms of

amenity land at the time.

Only one objector (Objector 8), of nine, felt that this building should have had its

historic character protected from being destroyed by surrounding development. In fact

many of the objectors interviewed even stated that they did not feel the protection of the

building’s integrity was something to be concerned about at all, with some not even

knowing of its existence on the land.

Interestingly, now that the development has been completed, more people have

expressed their concerns over the treatment of Rock Lodge than had originally. The

44%

56%

Still an Issue?: Treatment of Rock Lodge & its Curtilage

Yes No

Fig. 5.9- Is the treatment of Rock Lodge still an issue?

42

majority of the feelings regarding the building from then to now have remained the

same. These objectors, 1, 3 and 8, feel that the way the building was treated was

inappropriate, being lost on a hill in the middle of a very modern development with

houses located too close and a large inappropriate fence being erected surrounding it.

With this, Objector 2, who had stated that while they did not feel that the building had

any architectural merit to it to warrant protection, also stated that “what they did to Rock

Lodge was a disaster”. This objector stated that there was no longer enough land

around the building to give it balance and that it now sticks out on a hill above the rest of

the estate, conveying that “it’s the kind of flaw in the design that really should never

have happened”, with “even a few hundred yards around the front of the house would

have made a huge difference”.

While the protection of integrity of Rock Lodge does not seem to overly impact

any of the objectors today, those who did express their feelings towards how the

building was treated raised valid points that they felt were important.

The treatment of the trees on the site was something that, it appears, many were

concerned about. The main objection letter’s comments on the trees within the site

related to certain trees which would contravene the LAP if lost to houses and the

inclusion of a tree survey, by the developer, which did not accurately show all of the

trees on the land. However, most of those who stated that they felt the trees should

have been protected better were not concerned about the contravention of the LAP or

the inaccurate tree survey, but were concerned over the welfare of the trees themselves

and how they looked on the land.

43

As seen from Fig. 5.10, 67% of objectors stated that they were concerned about

the trees and how they would be treated in relation to the proposed development. The

consensus relating to people’s feelings on the outcome of the trees, if this development

was to go ahead, was the same- that trees, particularly those which are over a century

old and native to the country, should be protected and conserved. Some felt that the

landscape and amenity value of the land would be destroyed in the place of housing if

the development was to go ahead.

67%

33%

Reasons for Objection: Treatment of the Trees on Site

Yes No

Fig. 5.10- Reasons for Objection in relation to trees on site

44

In terms of people’s opinions relating to the trees today and how they were

treated during and after the development of the estate, it is evident that some people’s

feelings have changed. While the general consensus of objectors still do not have an

issue with the lack of protection of trees, some objectors still hold the feeling that more

trees should have been kept, particularly such as Objector 1 who believes that the

estate feels quite bare and new looking without the maintenance of the old trees.

However, despite the felling of many of the trees during the development, objectors

such as 2 stated that despite some of the native species being felled, they are happy

with what is in the estate and that at least some of them were well maintained.

In terms of amenity value of the site, the main objection letter stated that the site

and area in general were ones of “natural beauty” and “great charm” and that it is not

felt “that any regard has been given to the fact that this is an area of high natural

amenity with a sense of isolation close to the village of Castleconnell”.

33%

67%

Still an Issue?: Treatment of the Trees on Site

Yes No

Fig. 5.11- Is the treatment of the trees on site still an issue today?

45

It is clear, however, from the interviews that the majority of objectors (78%), did

not feel that this site was one of high amenity value in need of protection. Many of those

who commented on the amenity value of the site stated that they never went onto the

land prior to the development proposal, as it was privately owned. However, those that

did feel there was amenity value to the land stated that they wished for the land to

become a local amenity site (Objector 6), with Objector 3 adding that the site also had a

value in terms of reminiscence when they used to take their children onto the land.

22%

78%

Reasons for Objection: Loss of a High Amenity Site

Yes No

22%

78%

Still an Issue?: Loss of a High Amenity Site

Yes No

Fig. 5.12- Reasons for objection relating to the loss of a high amenity site

Fig. 5.13- Is the loss of a high amenity site still an issue today?

46

Today not much has changed in terms of feelings towards the site being high

amenity and lost to development. Those who felt that the site had a high amenity value

still feel the same way, such as with Objector 6 who added that if they could they would

include the recreational green space that was never provided in order to provide an

amenity value to the site.

From this it is very likely that the reason for including the point in the objection

letter related to a possible fear that more points for objection had to be raised than

needed to help get their other, more important, points across.

5.2- How do the objectors feel about the development today, 13 years after it was given

planning permission?

In terms of objector’s feelings about the development today, there appears to be

an overall positive feeling towards the development, however, there are also still some

negative feelings surrounding the development as aforementioned in the previous

section. It is evident that in terms of aspects about the development that objectors

stated they do and don’t like, the positives far outweigh the negatives. Many of the

objectors stated that they felt the development had turned out to be a success with five

of the nine interviewed mentioning that the estate was aesthetically pleasing and had

nice people living there. Three mentioned that the development of the estate has also

brought about a new, popular, walking loop around the village where people can walk

along Coolbawn Lane, through the estate, onto Belmont Road and back into the village.

This was noted as something that was very positive and beneficial from the

development that was not foreseen. Objector 1 also added, with others such as

Objector’s 2 and 9, that the development of the estate has actually brought a new lease

of life and vitality to the village, with many children playing and filling up the local

primary schools.

However, with these positive aspects of the development also came some

negative ones. These mainly surrounded the remaining issues of pedestrian safety on

Coolbawn Lane, which still worries a number of local residents and objectors as they

believe an accident will occur some day, and the call for more appropriate recreational

47

green space, which was never provided as planned despite being conditioned by An

Bord Pleanála, which is particularly important when children grow older and need more

available recreational space. With these types of negative aspects being the more

popular consensus, multiple objectors, such as 4 and 5 specifically, stated that they

were glad the development was interrupted by the recession, while other objectors,

such as 1, 3 and 8 feel that the development looks unfinished. Both of these statements

contradict each other when looking at the opinions as a whole. Some felt that the estate

is too large, or close to it, and are glad that the developer was not able to finish building,

while with this, some also felt that the way the estate looks, particularly at the entrance

is unsightly. These kinds of differences of opinions which have come from the same

root, despite being caused by an unforeseen circumstance rather than a mistake made,

show that it is impossible to please 100% of the people 100% of the time.

5.3- What would you change about the development if you could?

Multiple different aspects of the development were picked out and altered by the

objectors when asked what they would change if they could. These ranged from

ensuring better protection of Rock Lodge to creating more recreational space and

facilities for the children in the estate, rebuilding better housing or changing nothing at

all.

In terms of protecting Rock Lodge objectors such as 1 and 3 stated that they

would have ensured its better protection, with more space being afforded to it and “a

better merging of its curtilage and the new development could have created a better

outcome here” (Objector 1).

The most popular opinion surrounding alterations to this development dealt with

feelings of more recreational green space and facilities needing to be provided on the

site. Many of these objectors felt that they should have been provided at the start of the

development process and “contingent on the houses being built”, or at least have had

funds set aside for the planning authority to ensure they were carried out (Objector 3).

The large recreational green space and facilities such as a crèche, were both

conditioned to be provided with the development by An Bord Pleanála, and while it

48

could be noted that the condition relating to the provision of a crèche (condition no.4)

was not an enforceable condition, the green space condition stated that this space was

to be provided according to a detailed scheme and timetable for implementation agreed

upon with the planning authority (condition no.15). These appear to still be very

important to the objectors and have raised questions as to why they were never

constructed.

Some objectors are still not entirely happy with the layout and design of the

estate and stated that they would redesign all the buildings (Objector 7) or just remove

some such as the terraced townhouse style buildings. However, most objectors feel that

the estate looks nice, is friendly and has a good mix of housing suitable for different

needs of residents.

Interestingly none said they would get rid of the estate altogether. This could lead

to thoughts that the objectors don’t have an issue with it being developed anymore and

would mainly only change minor things such as adding a footpath to Belmont Road,

ensuring that the facilities and recreational green space were implemented at the start

of the development so that they would happen, or adding extra pedestrian access

points.

49

5.4- Given that the development has (mostly) been completed and knowing how it

turned out, would you still object again?

When asked if they would still object today, the majority of the objectors stated

that they would. Many of these stated their reasons for this surrounded the importance

of having their voices heard to ensure that the issues they had objected for were heard

and heeded by the planners and An Bord Pleanála. It was stated by Objector 2 that

objecting “was extremely important” to ensure that worries such as the possibility of the

vehicular access onto Coolbawn Lane never became a possibility. Objector 3 also

added that they would object again even if it made no difference to how the

development turned out “as people will always pursue their own selfish interests”, and

despite being happy with the development today, stated that “you never know that

before the thing begins”. Only two of the objectors (Objectors 6 and 9) stated that they

would not object today knowing how the development turned out as they are not

impacted by the development as it stands and have no issues with it.

It is evident that the majority of these objectors feel that the ability to object to a

development is very important, particularly as if they had not objected they could have

67%

22%

11%

Would You Still Object Today?

Yes

No

Unanswered

Fig. 5.14- Given that the development has (mostly) been completed and knowing how it

turned out, would you still object to it?

50

had very different opinions regarding the outcome of the development as it stands

today.

5.5- Thoughts of the Objector on Public Participation in the Planning System.

While not expressly asked their opinions relating to public participation in the

planning system, it became clear that some objectors had a lot to say on the matter. It is

evident from the objector’s answers to aforementioned questions such as ‘would you

object again?’, to which most were ‘yes’, that the majority of these people feel that it is

important to be able to object and submit opinions on fears and worries that may arise

and go unnoticed by the planning authority making a decision. It could be derived from

those who stated they would object again and feel that it is an important process, that

the process of public participation within planning authority decision-making is one

which is valuable and effective, particularly as the public opinion must be given due

regard within the decision-making process.

Some objectors went further than hinting at their thoughts and feelings towards

public participation in the planning process, such as Objector 2 who described how it is

always good to look at a proposed development in order to raise points about possible,

valid, issues which could be sorted to help create a more positive outcome for all. Also

adding, “I think the business of being able to object is very important” but once a

developer tries to meet the objectors in the middle, it is a better outcome.

However, with the positive opinions always also come negative ones. Objector 7,

when discussing the need for community facilities in the development to be enforced on

at the start of development to ensure they are carried out, stated that they have “no

confidence in the planning” as public meetings were held with local councillors in the

past to ensure that these types of community facilities were put in place before any

more residential development was carried out. However, these meetings did not seem

to have worked, much to the disdain of this objector. It would appear that the levels of

public participation here were on the lower levels of tokenism on Arnstein’s Ladder of

Citizen Participation, where citizens have been heard but not necessarily heeded.

51

Objector 9 appeared very vocal regarding their opinions of public participation in

the Irish planning system. Within this they made known their distrust of the planning

authority to inform them of what is going on. They stated that “public participation here,

is where they talk to you... they don’t listen”, adding that “planners don’t seem to listen

to the people”, they sit there and let you speak but in the objectors experience, they

don’t take notes and don’t seem to care about what the public have to say; “they have

their mind made up and they come across with that kind of an attitude”. In addition to

this, this objector stated that the way in which the planning authority have interacted

with the public prior to the proposal for the Castlerock Estate development in question,

formed one of the main reasons for their objection on this particular development.

From these opinions given on public participation in the planning process, it is

apparent that for the most part, objectors are happy with the levels of public

participation that occur in relation to specific developments. They feel that they can

object to and raise points that they feel are important and the planning authority is

legally obliged to have regard to their opinions. This is an essential tool for the public as

without this many issues could be created, surrounding development, which are never

resolved. As previously stated, there are also negative opinions surrounding public

participation. However, these opinions seem to revolve around levels of participation

outside of those laid out in the decision-making process. The issues that these objectors

seem to raise mainly surround the levels of public participation at public meeting levels,

where it is felt that public opinion is not listened to, where the participation lies within the

lower rungs of Arnstein’s degrees of tokenism instead of at a higher level between

placation and partnership, where public opinion is taken more seriously.

52

Chapter 6- Discussion:

Within the analysis of the nine interviews conducted, multiple questions were

asked surrounding objector’s feelings to the development then and now, their thoughts

on objecting again today, and their opinions on public participation within the planning

and decision-making process.

Objectors were asked their opinion based on specific points of the main objection

letter, to investigate how they felt about each of these points then and how they feel

about them now. This was done in order to determine any change of opinions on points

and the reasons behind these. It became evident from the analysis that points such as

access, recreational green open space, and the treatment of Rock Lodge, a protected

18th Century building located on the development site, appeared to be the main reasons

for people objecting. These specific issues were also the ones which objectors continue

to have the most issue with today. While the general consensus surrounded the

development being stated as a nice estate and a success, concerns relating to points

such as pedestrian safety from the Coolbawn Lane access point, or the lack of sufficient

green recreational space suitable for children to play on, particularly as they grow older,

have not been entirely alleviated.

Points such as the high amenity value of the site, the design/layout and density

of the development, and the treatment of the trees on the site, some of which were a

cause for concern for many of the objectors at the time of objection, appear to have

been alleviated over time. Objectors seem to be happy, overall, regarding how these

points have been dealt with, or just happened to turn out, and no longer feel their

concerns remain.

Questions relating to how the objectors feel about the development now, if they

would object again, and what they would change about the estate if they could were

also asked. The general consensus from their feelings towards the development was

very positive with the estate deemed to be nice looking and much vitality having been

brought to the village, particularly with the presence many children. This shows that

many of the concerns and fears that the objectors had have been replaced by the

53

feeling that the development turned out to be a success in the end. With saying this

however, it is also important to note that a large proportion of objectors stated they

would object again, despite knowing how the development would turn out. Many felt that

the ability to object to development is very important to ensure the public voice is heard,

particularly given that it is impossible to fully know how the development will turn out

before construction begins. While the overall opinion on the development was positive,

many also gave input into things they would change. Many of these related to points of

objection where concern had not been fully alleviated, such as the provision of

recreational green open space and facilities. As stated in the analysis chapter, it was an

interesting discovery that despite objecting to the development of the estate, none of the

objectors said they would get rid of the development entirely, but only change those

aspects that seem to bother them the most.

The final point of analysis covered opinions surrounding public participation in the

planning system. It was discovered within this that objectors appear to consider that the

process of being able to object to a development and know that their opinions will have

to be given regard to is a vital part of the decision-making process and the future of

development in the local area. However, points were also raised regarding the issues of

the level at which public participation meetings are held at. Objectors made known their

aggrievance regarding these meetings being held to low levels of tokenism which

impacted the way this particular development turned out, such as Objector 7’s point

relating to attending meetings where developments should not be allowed until the

relevant facilities were implemented first.

54

Objector’s Points

Could have been corrected in Planning Process

Inevitable in how it turned out today

The Site: amenity value

No- Land was already zoned in the LAP- so for this particular development application, issues with amenity of site could not have been ‘corrected’.

Yes- Land was zoned for housing and the process of making the estate to suit the rural character of the area would not have been economically sustainable.

Protected Structure

Yes- More space could have been afforded to curtilage of Rock Lodge.

Yes- Due to LAP land zoning, but No- as the council could have ensured more space was given to Rock Lodge’s surroundings.

Trees No- The council did their best on protecting some of trees, as due to land being zoned it would be impossible to save them all.

Yes- With the LAP allowing for residential development, it was inevitable that many trees would be lost to development.

Design and Layout of Proposed Estate

Yes- In terms of the layout of the houses, which the council did ensure was well done.

Yes- In terms of type & design of houses as it was not economically sustainable to ensure more rural type houses with more space were provided.

Access/Existing Roads

Yes- The council did their best with Coolbawn Lane but they could have added lights and footpath on Belmont Road for pedestrian safety.

Yes- To the amount of cars on Belmont Road as the 1st phase was already given permission, which set a precedent for Phase 2.

Recreational Area/ Green Space

Yes- A condition for a construction timetable for the large recreational green space was to be agreed with council; however, this never came to fruitition.

No- The council could have ensured it was provided as planned.

Of those issues raised by the objectors and how they are perceived to have

turned out today, it could be noted that it was inevitable in how some turned out, while

others could have been corrected by the planning process. In terms of issues raised

such as access, while the treatment of Coolbawn Lane, particularly in ensuring that it

was only kept as a pedestrian access, was deemed a success, the treatment of

Belmont Road could have been improved upon. The lack of a footpath, or even street

lighting, on a road which is widely used by the community could be seen as a failure on

Table 6.1- Issues which could have either been corrected by the planning process, or were

inevitable in their outcomes.

55

the part of council and the planning process. Similar could be said for issues such as

the recreational green space which was to be provided. This space was conditioned to

be included as per a strict timetable agreed with the county council; however, it appears

to never have been enforced upon and could be seen as another failure of the council

and the planning process.

This is something which could be done in the future in order to aid local planning

authorities determine what could have been done differently and what was inevitable;

enabling them to correct, and learn from, mistakes for the future.

Overall, it is clear the development and the overall level of public participation

relating to the Castlerock Estate has been a success in the eyes of the objectors,

despite the few comments of things that could be fixed or improved upon in the future.

56

Chapter 7- Conclusions:

The point of this research was two-fold. The first surrounded the investigation of

the planning process and its interaction with the public. The purpose of this was to

explore the reasons we include public participation in our planning system, at what

levels we partake in this process and its effectiveness at these levels, particularly in

relation to the case study of the Castlerock Estate in Castleconnell, Co. Limerick. The

second part of this research was aimed at investigating, in a retrospective manner, the

feelings of objectors to a contested development a number of years after it has been

given planning permission and been built. This was done to study the opinions and

feelings of those members of the public who objected to the development in order to

determine how, or if, they may, or may not, have changed over time.

In terms of the interaction between the planning process and the public, it can be

concluded that, for the most part, objectors (the public) appear to be happy with how the

system works. They have the ability, under the legislation, to make a submission on an

application which has to be given due regard by the planning authority making the

decision. With this, as happened in this particular case, the public are also afforded the

opportunity to take their objections further, to an An Bord Pleanála appeal, if they are

unhappy with the original decision made. However, it is also evident, in terms of public

participation on a public meeting scale outside of specific development, that the degree

of tokenism which often occurs in these meetings is not appreciated by the public.

These degrees of tokenism seem to make the public feel unimportant and as if their

time has been wasted, as they do not feel listened to, which can result in resentment

towards the planning authority in the future, as has happened in this development

between Objectors 7 and 9.

Many objectors feel that the development has been a success, with much vitality

being brought to the local area from the many young families who live there now.

However, it is clear that fears, such as the dangers surrounding pedestrian access on

Coolbawn Lane where some have stated that pedestrians treat the lane as if it is fully

pedestrianised which is an accident waiting to happen, or the treatment of Rock Lodge

turning out to be a disaster as not enough space was afforded to its surroundings, still

57

remain. Issues of recreational green space also remain as the provision of the large

planned space never occurred.

With this, it is also important to note that the way in which the development

turned out today is partly due to the recession. This is something that could not have

been foreseen by anybody when the plans for this development were being decided on.

While the general consensus relating to this development as it stands today is a positive

one, had the estate been built in its entirety, a different feeling may have emerged,

particularly as a number of objectors stated that they were happy that the developer

never finished due to the recession as they would not like to see the anymore

development on the site.

While, no matter what decision is made on a development in the end and how it

turns out, it is, as seen in this case study on Castlerock, difficult to make everybody

100% happy on every aspect of a development. As discussed in the introduction to the

literature review, planning and planners aims lie in seeking to strike the balance of

making decisions and doing things for the common good and in the interests of proper

planning and sustainable development, trying to equalise society, economy and the

environment as much as possible. It is also evident, and has been throughout history,

that nobody is perfect and mistakes do get made, whether they are the fault of one

person or body, or due to unforeseen circumstances. However, it is not impossible or

improbable for these past decisions to be looked back on after a period of time in order

to see if anything does need to be fixed, changed, or just learned from. This idea of

reviewing is something which is always included as the final step to any literature on

decision-making, and as Scannell (2011) stated- “this extraordinary time is also a time

to reflect and reform” (pg.18).

Despite the fact that decision-making is an inherent process of planning, this final

step of review is rarely, if ever, done in terms of specific development. This had led to a

question being posed from this research as to why planning doesn’t do this final review

step for developments which had been previously granted permission and constructed

as a result? Should there be provisions within planning authorities, in the interests of

carrying out best practice, which allow a sub, or quality control type, team within the

58

development control section which is dedicated solely to reviewing a sample of

developments that were constructed, some years later? This team could carry out

research into how those who objected and/or those who are affected by the

development feel about the development today. This would be done in order to

determine questions such as ‘is there anything which can be improved upon that may

have been missed?’, to learn from mistakes that could have been avoided, or learn from

things that have worked out positively which could be altered or reapplied when making

decisions on similar developments in the future. This kind of process could take the

planning system that one step further in terms of their effectiveness with both their aim

to do things for the common good and in the interests of proper planning and

sustainable development. This could be implemented particularly with the inclusion of

an effective level of public participation, where people feel their voices are being heard

on issues that they have with the specific development, for which something can be

done about through open dialogue and discussions.

59

Bibliography:

Arnstein, S. (1969) A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of

Planners, vol. 35(4), pp.216-224.

Arnstein, S. (1969) A Ladder of Citizen Participation [Photograph]. Available at:

http://www.partnerships.org.uk/part/arn.htm [Accessed: 29 May 2016].

Creighton, J. (2005) The Public Participation Handbook: Making Better Decisions

Through Citizen Involvement. California: Jossey-Bass. Available at:

http://bayanbox.ir/view/4490440812782636475/The-Public-Participation-Handbook-

Making-Better-Decisions-Through-Citizen-Involvement.compressed.pdf [Accessed 21

May 2016].

Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. (2015). Planning

Legislation. [online] Available at: http://www.environ.ie/planning/legislation/planning-

legislation [Accessed 20 May 2016].

Eur-lex.europa.eu. (2016). EUR-Lex - 32003L0035 - EN - EUR-Lex. [online] Available

at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32003L0035

[Accessed 19 May 2016].

Government of Ireland (2001) Childcare Facilities: Guidelines for Planning Authorities.

Dublin: The Stationery Office. Available at:

http://www.environ.ie/sites/default/files/migrated-

files/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,1601,en.pdf

[Accessed: 12 May 2016].

Government of Ireland (2012) Planning and Development Act number 30 of 2000.

Dublin: The Law Reform Commission.

Government of Ireland (2015) Planning and Development Regulations 2001-2013

(updated 2015). Dublin: The Stationery Office.

Hill, C. & McShane, S. (2008) ‘Chapter 5: Planning and Decision-Making’. Principles of

Management. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin. Available at:

60

https://jakanugraha.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/principles-of-management.pdf

[Accessed 23 May 2016].

Kørnøv, L. (2007) Tools for Sustainable Development, Aalborg, Denmark: Narayana

Press.

Moeller, J. & Jorgensen, L. (2005) ‘Denmark: European Union + EEA’, pp. 88-97. In:

Eds. Ryser, J & Franchini, T. International Manual of Planning Practice. The Hague:

ISOCARP.

Moote, M. & McClaran, M. (1997) ‘Viewpoint: Implications of Participatory Democracy

for Public Land Planning’. Journal of Range Management, Vol. 50, No. 5 (Sep., 1997),

pp. 473-481. Available at: http://0-

www.jstor.org.library.ucc.ie/stable/pdf/4003701.pdf?acceptTC=true [Accessed 21 May

2016].

Scannell, Y. (2011). ‘The Catastrophic Failure of the Planning System’. Dublin

University Law Journal 393 vol. 18(1).

Silver, M. (2014) ‘The role of planning in the twenty-first century and beyond’ pg.103-

106. In MacDonald, K., et. al. Challenging theory: Changing practice: Critical

perspectives on the past and potential of professional planning, Planning Theory &

Practice, (vol.15:1). Available at:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14649357.2014.886801 [Accessed 20 May

2016].

Streib, G. (1992) ‘Applying Decision Making in Local Government’. Public Productivity &

Management Review, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 341- 354. Available at: http://0-

www.jstor.org.library.ucc.ie/stable/pdf/3380615.pdf?acceptTC=true [Accessed: 20 May

2016].

61

Swenet.org. (2004). Planning and Decision Making. [online] Available at:

http://www.swenet.org/Materials/109/BadawyPlanningandDecisionMaking.htm

[Accessed 22 May 2016].

United Nations (1998) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in

decision-making and access to justice in Environmental Matters. Denmark: UNECE.

Available at: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf

[Accessed 20 May 2016].

United Nations (2000) The Aarhus Convention: An Implementation Guide. New York

and Geneva: UNECE. Available at:

http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/implementation%20guide/english/part1.pdf

[Accessed 20 May 2016].

University of Massachusetts Darthmouth (2016). Decision-making process - UMass

Dartmouth. [online] Available at:

http://www.umassd.edu/media/umassdartmouth/fycm/Decision_making_process.pdf

[Accessed 21 May 2016].

62

Appendix 1-

Interview Scripts

63

Interviews were conducted with 9 objectors who were available and willing to

participate in this research. Each objector was asked the same questions, given that

they all submitted the same objection letter to the council at the time of the decision-

making process. This was done in order to gain feedback in relation to a specific set of

questions, while allowing each objector to expand on each question as much as they

need.

Objector 1:

1. Can you confirm that you did object to the development in Question?

Objector 1 did not initially remember objecting to this particular development but stated

that on review of the objection letter and recalling those who also objected, it is likely

that their objection was based on friendships with “main objectors ... who went around

canvassing for objectors”.

Upon further thought into the case, they also stated that their objection was likely based

on the possibility that the landscape would be altered, more so than houses being built,

as the “big old trees” on the land could be destroyed.

a. Are you an owner occupier?

Yes.

2. Why did you object to this development?

Despite not initially remembering objecting, Objector 1 felt that the possible knocking of

multiple old oak and beech trees was a concern. In terms of the objection point relating

to high amenity, they did not feel that the site itself was of much public amenity use

given house was occupied and people may not have been permitted to enter the land.

However the trees, such as the tree lined avenue to Rock Lodge would have been their

main reason for objecting.

The thought of hundreds of houses going into this land “without proper consideration”

being given to the infrastructure also likely led to their objection, with the feeling that

64

these houses would only be served by one entrance, Belmont Road, as Coolbawn Lane

would not have been a viable vehicular access point given its size.

This objector also stated that many buildings that were historically important in the

village have been lost and despite being unsure if Rock Lodge was important in this

sense, felts that if it was designated as protected then the grounds around it should be

reserved “in keeping with the building”, to an extent.

In terms of recreational green space this objector felt that not a huge amount was

provided, but as time has passed, there is now a children’s play area within walking

distance which is beneficial.

3. How do you feel about the development today, 13 years after it was given

planning permission?

Objector 1 felt that, apart from knowing it exists, this development did not impact “in any

real way” on their day-to-day life since it has been built.

Although it looks quite unfinished when driving in from the Belmont side, it has led to an

increase in children attending the local schools and has brought about an increase in

youth and vitality into the village.

They also feel that there appears to be a good mix of housing, with “quite a selection of

properties there, where everybody can find something”, which is what has happened

since its development, with a diverse population from elderly and single people living in

smaller units, to families in larger units. From this point of view, Objector 1 felt that the

development has been successful.

4. Is there anything about the development that bothers you?

The first thing the objector mentioned in this regards came to be the trees. While some

of the trees have been replaced around the development, they feel it is still quite bear

and new looking despite being 13 years old.

When asked about issues which had been raised such as the terraced housing, open

space, and design and layout of the development, objector 1 stated that they did not

65

feel there were issues in terms of things such as housing types or garden provisions as

many new estates have smaller gardens now. However, they did think that some more

garden space could have been afforded to homes given the rurality of the development.

The objector noted that the entrance to the estate is unsightly due to the boarding put

up, but this seems to be “a legacy to the boom and lack of completion of the estate”.

With this the road conditions coming in and out of the estate are poor and would have

expected the council to have improved these, particularly for a development which has

been developed 13 years.

5. Given that the development has been (mostly) completed and knowing how it

turned out, would you still object to it?

While this objector did not say yes or no to this question, they did mention some

positive aspects the estate has created, such as its connections between Belmont road

and Coolbawn Lane, which have created an amenity walking loop for the enjoyment of

the general public.

It was also noted to be a safe area for children, despite likely being the biggest estate in

the village. People tend to drive slowly around it and children are quite safe playing

outside.

a. What would you change about the development if you could?

When asked this final question, Objector 1 stated that they would have liked to see the

surrounds of the house and its garden protected more, as Rock Lodge is lost on a hill in

the middle of a very modern development, a better merging of its curtilage and the new

development could have created a better outcome here.

Objector 2:

1. Can you confirm that you did object to the development in Question?

Yes.

66

a. Are you an owner occupier?

Yes.

2. Why did you object to this development?

Objector 2 felt that this estate would not have a major impact on their life but did have

some concerns regarding its development which lead to their objection. They felt it was

a possibility that in creating an access point onto Coolbawn Lane that it could become

used by vehicles also. This was a concern for them as being a resident here and using

the Lane daily, the addition of more vehicles on a road which “is only barely the width of

a car and a quarter” would have made the road “extremely dangerous”.

However, they also objected to support their neighbours living closer to the

development, who had other stronger issues for objecting.

Objector 2 stated that this was their only concern regarding this development, with

points raised such as the amenity of the site which would be lost to houses, the

protection of Rock Lodge, and the layout and design of the estate not overly concerning

them. They stated that the land was not open to the public so they had no leisure

amenity value from it and visual amenity did not impact them as they could not see it,

they did not feel that the Lodge had any architectural value worth protecting, and had no

issues with the design or types of housing planned for the development. However,

despite not being able to see the trees on the land, they felt it was a pity to knock such

mature native species in the way of houses, despite retaining some.

It is important to note that this objector also stated “I felt that if our specific issues could

be resolved that estate was going to be an addition to the village because it looked like

it was going to be a high quality build, and a high standard of planning, which I think has

proved to be the case anyway”.

67

3. How do you feel about the development today, 13 years after it was given

planning permission?

When asked this question, Objector 2 did not feel there was anything that they disliked

about the estate, and in terms of liking it a number of things were mentioned. “As far as

estates go”, it is nice looking and the retention of the green space that is there “with

mature trees in it, is of immense benefit”. There are huge benefits of the safe walking

route which was also provided, as an unintended consequence, by the development of

the estate, and without it “there is actually no short circular walk in Castleconnell”.

Adding that there is benefit in the local people who grew up in the village being able to

buy houses and start families of their own, which without this development, they may

have not been able to do here.

Objector 2 also stated that the development has brought new and different people into

the village who mix well, adding “All in all it’s a very positive development but then I

never thought it would be a negative development” unless vehicular access was given

on Coolbawn Lane. Despite the worry that there could be vehicular access on the Lane,

the objector “felt that pedestrian traffic could only add to our road. I like seeing people

on the road and it has actually worked out even better than I could have anticipated.”

This objector also mentioned that Castlerock estate has an excellent residents

association which helps ensure things such as no antisocial behaviour occurring and

that the estate is safe for the children, which “is critical” to the way the estate has turned

out. The people living there have made it a nice place for everybody- even the non-

residents.

4. Is there anything about the development that bothers you?

In terms of the terraced housing, Objector 2 thought that they look “a little bit cramped”,

in comparison to the other houses surrounding, which is a shame.

The treatment of Rock Lodge was also discussed with the objector stating “what they

did to Rock Lodge was a disaster”, it doesn’t have enough land around it to give it

balance, looks hideous and sticks out above the rest of the estate. “It’s the kind of flaw

68

in the design that really should never have happened”, with “even a few hundred yards

around the front of the house would have made a huge difference”. With this, when

asked, it was said to be the fault of both the county council zoning and picking up on the

plans, and the developer trying to build as much as possible, which lead to the way the

building was treated.

It was added by this objector, in a previous section that in principle the knocking of any

mature native species (trees) is to be regretted but they are happy some were retained.

5. Given that the development has been (mostly) completed and knowing how it

turned out, would you still object to it?

Objector 2 stated that they would object again as it “was extremely important” to ensure

that vehicular access onto Coolbawn Lane was not going to be an issue, along with the

creating ensurance that the privacy of neighbouring objectors living closer to the

development remained intact. Also adding that while they failed in stopping the

development from going ahead at all, what they did achieve was positive.

a. What would you change about the development if you could?

When asked this question, Objector 2 hinted that they would not like to see the

development finished to its original plan, stating “if they ever finish that estate it will be

too big” and too cramped, which would be a pity.

In an addition to the final question, Objector 2 described how it is always good to look at

a proposed development in order to raise points about possible, valid, issues which

could be sorted to help create a more positive outcome for all. Also adding, “I think the

business of being able to object is very important” but once a developer tries to meet

the objectors in the middle, it is a better outcome.

Objector 3:

1. Can you confirm that you did object to the development in Question?

Yes.

69

a. Are you an owner occupier?

Yes.

2. Why did you object to this development?

Objector 3 objected to this development due to the possibility that the very narrow cul-

de-sac that is Coolbawn Lane would be opened to both pedestrian and vehicular

access. This Lane would become the natural way for people from the estate to get to

the village centre, which would bring a large amount of people onto a narrow lane which

could not accommodate footpaths and had the potential to change a quiet cul-de-sac

into a much busier and dangerous thoroughfare. There are blind spots on the Lane

when pulling out of driveways or around corners which could be even more dangerous

to pedestrians, particularly children, who don’t expect cars coming. While it was

proposed that this lane would only accommodate pedestrian traffic, the objector was

also worried about the risk that it could also become a vehicular access point, despite

permission only being given for pedestrian access.

This objector also felt it important to object as their garden directly overlooks the land

and houses were planned to be developed right up to the garden, looking directly into

their yard, stating “you have no idea what, really, that amount of houses is going to look

(like) to you. There would have been green fields coming up to my back garden and

now you’ve got three or four hundred houses. Given the choice I’d prefer the green

fields”.

The objector considered the site to be a high amenity one where they used to go with

their kids, with Rock Lodge and beautiful trees, such as the tree lined avenue, going to

be turned into a housing estate, and “there could have been better uses put to that

area” as Castleconnell doesn’t have a lot of amenity land.

There was also a potential worry that antisocial behaviour could be brought to the lane

along with the feeling that a high density estate with not enough green space and sports

facilities would be built, thus taking away from the amenities rather than adding to them.

70

Objector 3 also stated, regarding their objection that “once houses are going in, you

always fear the worst, despite what is in the planning (as) things don’t always turn out

like that”.

It was also mentioned that the objector was annoyed that the development was also

applied for in 2 applications, the 1st stage was passed and then automatically the 2nd

stage was acceptable. The first stage was for a smaller number of houses which seems

acceptable, but once that was granted it made it more acceptable for the 2nd phase to

be given permission. Had both phases been applied for together the local residents

would have known the extent of the entire development. “We felt this was quite

underhand ...and... it was a way to get around the planning process”.

3. How do you feel about the development today, 13 years after it was given

planning permission?

13 years later, the objector stated that some of their reservations are no longer there,

and “in general I am reasonably happy with the estate”. While this objector stated that

they have never had an issue with houses being built, more green and amenity space

should have been provided. With this, they felt that there were too many houses given

permission in too small an area, and as the estate was never finished, there are some

eyesores with cordoned off areas. “It is a fault, in my opinion, on the planning authorities

that they didn’t give planning permission in a more sustainable way. That permission

was given for so many houses without the necessary infrastructure.”

Objector 3 also added that the pedestrian way is used a lot and hasn’t diminished the

existing properties apart from the added danger from the amount of pedestrians coming

up and down.

Despite the few issues that this objector has with the estate, overall they appear to be

happy with its outcome as it is today.

4. Is there anything about the development that bothers you?

In terms of the design and layout of the development, the objector feels that the high

density of the development is not appropriate for the rural village setting, with issues

71

possibly having arisen with this and the amount of green space and playing facilities

provided, which may not be enough for older children as they grow up. This objector

also questioned the appropriateness of the provided duplex apartments in a rural

village.

While the pedestrian access has its benefits, this objector believes it still has its

problems as it brings so many people onto the Lane, which has lead to break-ins,

whereas before the development was built the lane was never used by anybody other

than residents on it. It also still brings a fear of danger to those driving on the Lane who

have to watch for pedestrians.

In terms of Rock Lodge, it was not treated well as it was completely surrounded by

inappropriate fencing and close housing.

5. Given that the development has been (mostly) completed and knowing how it

turned out, would you still object to it?

Objector 3 stated that knowing how the estate “turned out, it probably wouldn’t have

made a lot of difference” but would likely still object to the development today “as people

will always pursue their own selfish interests”. But despite this, the objector isn’t

particularly upset with how it turned out in the end, stating that the estate is quite well

looked after and they are happy with the treatment of the pedestrian access and the

trees, “but you never know that before the thing begins”.

a. What would you change about the development if you could?

Objector 3 stated they would change a number of things about the estate, such as the

density levels, ensuring Rock Lodge was protected, the provision of more than one

pedestrian access point, and improving the amenities of the estate to provide more

facilities for children.

This objector also stated that the way in which the application was applied for should

have been a red light to planners, and the provision of facilities should have been

ensured before the rest of the development began, or alternatively funds set aside to

provide these facilities later. There are very few public facilities, with no playground or

crèche, etc provided which should have been “contingent on the houses being built”, or

72

at least have funds set aside for the authority to provide these facilities should the

developer stop building in the end.

Objector 4:

This interview was done in writing via postal mail due to the objector’s unavailability but

willingness to participate in the conducted research.

1. Can you confirm that you did object to the development in Question?

Yes.

a. Are you an owner occupier?

No – this objector did not go into more detail regarding this question. It is unclear

whether they said no to being an owner occupier or whether they were uncomfortable

with answering the question. However, they are still living here so it is assumable that

their level of investment into the area was, and still is, high.

2. Why did you object to this development?

The land on which the development was proposed to be built on is a flood plain, with

some of the land becoming a “lake in the winter”, mentioning particularly this year where

water levels were very high on the land due to the volumes which were released from

Parteen Weir.

The protection of the trees on the land was a concern for this objector who stated they

were told particular trees would not be felled, some of which were over a Century old,

feeling that they should have been protected more.

Vehicular access for the proposed development concerned this objector given the

possibility that access to and from the development could run through their estate,

Stradbally North.

The objector also felt that, given the number of houses proposed on the land that the

planned amount of recreational green space to be provided should have been

questioned.

73

3. How do you feel about the development today, 13 years after it was given

planning permission?

The objector’s only note on this question was that they were “glad [the] development

was interrupted by the recession”.

4. Is there anything about the development that bothers you?

While it was noted that overall, not much bothers the objector about the development

the lack of open space provisions and the lack of protection of the trees on the land

were noted in particular as bothersome. However they did state their relief that the

development entrance does not go through their estate.

5. Given that the development has been (mostly) completed and knowing how it

turned out, would you still object to it?

The objector stated that they would still object again, knowing how it turned out, but did

not give more detail as to why.

a. What would you change about the development if you could?

This question remained unanswered upon completion and return of this postal interview.

Objector 5:

1. Can you confirm that you did object to the development in Question?

Yes.

a. Are you an owner occupier?

Yes.

2. Why did you object to this development?

Objector 5 stated that their main reason for objecting to this development was the

possibility that access could be created through their estate, Stradbally North, which

would create a “thoroughfare” of too much traffic (both pedestrian and possibly

74

vehicular), given that the development, if built to its entirety would almost adjoin

Stradbally North.

In terms of issues such as the protection of Rock Lodge and the surrounding trees, this

objector was not aware of their existence and as a result, did not feel they were

important to be protected. This objector also felt the same regarding issues such as

design and layout or recreational green space. They did not feel that the site was high

amenity, but they did not want development to occur on it.

3. How do you feel about the development today, 13 years after it was given

planning permission?

Objector 5 stated “right now I can say it’s grand, it hasn’t impacted on us” and that the

fact that development was never finished, houses were never built up against their

estate and the access through never happened which “meant that I could live with it”.

This objector feels that so long as the development is not finished then it won’t impact

them and they are okay with it.

The drainage relating to the site would have concerned this objector had the

development actually occurred on the part which would have impacted them most, to

the north-west of the site.

4. Is there anything about the development that bothers you?

This objector did not sate that there was anything of consequence that bothers them

about the development today.

However, they did state that “because they never finished it off, it never impacted on us

the way we thought it would”.

5. Given that the development has been (mostly) completed and knowing how it

turned out, would you still object to it?

Objector 5 would still object today on the basis that permission was being given for the

entire estate, but not if what was applied for is what is currently there today as there

wouldn’t have been an issue for them.

75

a. What would you change about the development if you could?

This objector does not feel like there is anything they would change about the

development that is there today as they do not go into that estate and it has no impact

on them.

Objector 6:

1. Can you confirm that you did object to the development in Question?

Yes.

a. Are you an owner occupier?

Yes.

2. Why did you object to this development?

Objector 6 objected to the development as part of the Stradbally North Resident’s

Association. This person was also a part of the Castleconnell Development Forum

which “sought to safeguard development in the area”, particularly with their cul-de-sac

and a possible through access which could have occurred between the two

developments.

This objector did feel that this land was high amenity which would be lost to houses.

Around this time the Castleconnell Development Forum was in favour of recreational

space being created for the entire local community but the layout and design of this

proposed development created reservations around access to and from this space

through their cul-de-sac.

The integrity of Rock Lodge, its curtilage and the trees on the land was not of concern to

this objector, stating that their main concern surrounded their estate and access to it.

The amount of green space being provided within the proposed development would

have been a concern for the Castleconnell Development Forum for which the objector

was a part of, but in terms of this specific objection, the main concern was ensuring that

the access through the Stradbally North estate did not occur.

76

3. How do you feel about the development today, 13 years after it was given

planning permission?

Objector 6 feels that this development “seems to be a fairly well laid out development”

which has worked, with some green areas having been provided, but feels “there should

be more [...] for the amount of houses”.

They do not think that there is anything that they particularly dislike about it stating that

“it has quite a pleasant design” and that there is a good mix of houses here also, which

is nice.

4. Is there anything about the development that bothers you?

There is nothing about the development that currently stands that bothers this objector,

who stated that they “have no issues or problems with it”, with the current access

through the estate or with the types and designs of houses.

However, the provision of the park and recreational area would have been an asset to

the area, given that they had been planned for. From the communities point of view the

inclusion of facilities such as Astroturf pitches “would have been good for the village”,

but none of this was ever built.

5. Given that the development has been (mostly) completed and knowing how it

turned out, would you still object to it?

Objector 6 stated that they would not object to the development again, knowing how it

turned out, as they are satisfied that the cul-de-sac access was never held up and as

the development has not created any issues for them.

a. What would you change about the development if you could?

The only thing that this objector stated they would change about this development

relates to the addition of the recreational area that never went ahead. Apart from this

the objector likes the layout and how it works well for families.

77

Objector 7:

1. Can you confirm that you did object to the development in Question?

Yes.

a. Are you an owner occupier?

Yes.

2. Why did you object to this development?

Objector 7 stated that there were a number of reasons for objecting, with the main ones

being the high density of the proposed estate, “the modern estate character which is out

of keeping with the historic village”, and “the safety concerns over increased

pedestrians in Coolbawn Lane”.

This objector stated that in terms of pedestrian and vehicular access, there was a

concern that Belmont Road would not be able to handle the levels of pedestrian and car

traffic it would need to take, given that there were no footpaths on it and points of the

road were not wide enough for two cars to pass.

However, in terms of the other objection points raised such as the protection of the

integrity of Rock Lodge and the protection of old trees, this objector did not seem to

have as much concern.

This objector also added that the 2001 Castleconnell LAP planned for some 700

dwellings to be provided over 20 years and in 2002 planning applications had amassed

to some 400 proposed houses to the local area, which was felt to be “too many houses,

too quickly”.

3. How do you feel about the development today, 13 years after it was given

planning permission?

While this objector seemed to avoid saying whether they liked or disliked the

development, they did offer insight into the issues they have encountered with the

development since it has been built. Some of these issues include the inadequate

78

drainage on the site which has lead to some of householders having swampy back

gardens, the lack of a play area for children so they play on the road, there are

insufficient parking spaces provided for visitors to the estate, and nobody knows if more

development will happen since the developer went bust.

This objector also stated that there are too many houses which are more appropriate to

an urban setting, and no facilities such as crèches and play areas were provided for the

people living there. The developer tried to build over 300 new houses and never

provided any of these facilities as was supposed to do.

4. Is there anything about the development that bothers you?

The objector offered quite a lot in terms of things that bother them about the estate.

These included the increase in noisiness surrounding them now with more pedestrians

using and children playing in the lane, along with car and house alarms often going off.

There is “a loss of privacy” and their view is now filled with roofs of houses which are

located right outside their back garden.

The density of the estate is still an issue for this objector, which is coupled with the lack

of childcare facilities and recreational green space in the NE, which were never

provided despite both being conditions on the permission.

The hazard from pedestrians on the laneway as people forget that cars drive use the

lane and tend to treat it as a playground, along with the provision of an insufficient

barrier to stop motorbikes using the pedestrian route is something that also bothers this

objector.

5. Given that the development has been (mostly) completed and knowing how it

turned out, would you still object to it?

Objector 7 stated that they would still object to it today due to the amount and style of

houses, loss of privacy, noise and the increase in hazard on Coolbawn Lane.

79

a. What would you change about the development if you could?

This objector stated that they “would have redone it and made it a better quality of

housing”, provided more space for parking, a play area for children and bungalows for

older people as they don’t want houses with stairs and there is no provision for those in

the estate.

They also stated that community facilities and green spaces such as crèches and

recreational space, which should be provided for housing developments, “should go in

at the start” of the development as otherwise they may not happen.

When asked if they would like to add anything, they said that this estate has an

unanswered question of development and what is going to happen in the future

surrounding this development, stating that they have no confidence in the builders, and

no confidence in the planning.

It was also added that the local community group invited councillors to meet regarding

stopping development in the area until adequate community facilities are provided first,

however this does not seem to have worked.

Objector 8:

1. Can you confirm that you did object to the development in Question?

Yes.

a. Are you an owner occupier?

Yes.

2. Why did you object to this development?

The main reasons behind Objector 8’s objection to this development surrounded the

issues of pedestrian access onto Coolbawn Lane. This objector feared that given the

small and “tight” size of Coolbawn Lane with its high amount of traffic from houses lining

the road and the poor visibility exiting the cul-de-sac, that “this development threatened

to open the whole thing up” and they weren’t sure would this lead to motorbikes, etc.

being used on the lane. They stated their nice quiet and safe cul-de-sac would no

80

longer become a cul-de-sac and would be opened up to a lot of people walking past,

which is also dangerous for pedestrians, particularly children, and is not why they built

their home here; “It was changing very radically, the nature of our site”.

They also felt that the Belmont Access is away from the village and should have been

relocated through Stradbally North as it is a much more sustainable route.

Objector 8 also stated that there should have been a less dense development with more

trees and more open space provisions “which would be more suited to the

development”. The amenity space that was never provided also floods every fourth or

fifth winter, which the objector felt was not really a very good amenity site.

In terms of the protection of Rock Lodge and the trees, Objector 8 stated that they felt

these should have been protected more, with houses proposed too close to Rock Lodge

which would take from its historic character and the thought that all of the trees should

be preserved, not just some.

3. How do you feel about the development today, 13 years after it was given

planning permission?

Objector 8 stated that while they feel the estate is not bad looking, with good quality

housing provided, some of it was built in too urban a manner, and the townhouses don’t

fit in. The long entrance with empty land on either side which wasn’t developed also

looks quite bleak.

They also feel that there is still an issue with pedestrian access on Coolbawn Lane,

which is an accident waiting to happen.

4. Is there anything about the development that bothers you?

In terms of things that still bother this objector regarding the development, it was stated

that the terraced townhouses do not fit in well with the environment; people treat

Coolbawn Lane as if it is specifically a pedestrian road, which will eventually cause an

accident; people tend to use the lane as a pick up/drop off spot for residents of the

81

estate; and the treatment of Rock Lodge and its surrounding curtilage should have been

better protected as the access to the house and the land surrounding it was destroyed.

The development proposed was also felt to be too urban and dense for a small rural

village, and while what is provided in terms of green space is quite nice, no park or

playground was provided.

5. Given that the development has been (mostly) completed and knowing how it

turned out, would you still object to it?

Objector 8 stated that they would still object to this development today because of the

Coolbawn Lane access and the density of the houses within it.

a. What would you change about the development if you could?

When asked this question, Objector 8 stated that they would remove the townhouses as

they are not appropriate to the style of the development, and would make a vehicular

entrance to the estate through Stradbally North as it is a much more sustainable path to

the village than the access through Belmont Road.

With this they would also turn the land which was never developed into an eco-park or

arboretum which would look well and help to alleviate the flooding issues the land has.

Objector 9:

1. Can you confirm that you did object to the development in Question?

Yes, they objected as part of a group.

a. Are you an owner occupier?

Yes.

2. Why did you object to this development?

Objector 9 stated that their objection was based around the uncertainty of how the

development would affect the cul-de-sac, particularly if vehicles gained access to the

Lane from the development. With this, Coolbawn Lane and Belmont Road are very

82

narrow and dangerous for people walking with no footpaths provided. The concerns of

their neighbours were also felt as important to support in their objection.

The amount of recreational green space, its location as proposed, and the fact that the

largest part is wetland also caused concern for this development leading to their

objection. The trees on the site were also felt to be important to be protected.

This objector, importantly, noted that a large reason for objecting was to do with the

County Council’s treatment of their land and zoning designations, as theirs, and their

neighbours, back gardens were zoned for apartments. With this, the objector felt that

issues could be created through some wanting to develop their land and others not, as

things such as access roads would need to go through each other’s land. They also

added that “Limerick County Council have no word”, they never improved the roads or

added footpaths and lighting on Belmont Road and Coolbawn Lane, stating that the

planning department created issues and never resolved them, much to the disdain of

this objector.

In terms of the high amenity value of the site, the protection of Rock Lodge and the

design and layout of the site were not felt, by this objector, as something which was

important to be questioned in relation to the site being developed for housing, however

Rock Lodge now “looks foolish” the way it has been left in the middle of the estate.

3. How do you feel about the development today, 13 years after it was given

planning permission?

Objector 9 feels that it has been a good thing in some ways, as there are nice people

living in the estate and there is no hassle from them. There has been more life on the

road and it has been friendly since it has been built. But with this, they worry that in a

number of years time when the young kids grow up, if that will still be the case, or will

there be more antisocial behaviour along the Lane.

There is also a good community spirit in the estate and the Lane is used as part of a

loop walk, which is fine.

83

4. Is there anything about the development that bothers you?

There isn’t anything in particular that bothers this objector. Apart from a motorbike using

the lane which has seemed to stop recently, there are no issues with things such as the

design and layout, housing types, or the provision of green space. However, they did

note that the condition of the road and the attempt at a shared surface footpath that was

included by the council was not very good, along with the dislike of many trees having

been felled, which could be replaced to give the site a more appealing mature look.

It was also noted that there are no facilities for those living in the estate, anything that

was planned and conditioned never occurred, and they should have been implemented

at the start of the development.

Objector 9, despite not having many issues with the development today, did discuss

their disdain for the planning system, stating that “public participation here, is where

they talk to you... they don’t listen”; adding that “planners don’t seem to listen to the

people” they sit there and let you speak but in the objectors experience, they don’t take

notes and don’t seem to care about what the public have to say; “they have their mind

made up and they come across with that kind of an attitude”.

5. Given that the development has been (mostly) completed and knowing how it

turned out, would you still object to it?

This objector stated that knowing how the development turned out, they wouldn’t object

today. At the time a large part of their objection was due to the treatment of the locals,

with zoning of land and lack of explanations relating to what was happening, so “any

torment we could cause them, we caused them”. “They couldn’t trust the planning

crowd” to tell them what was going on, but they have no issues with the development as

it stands today.

a. What would you change about the development if you could?

This objector stated that they wouldn’t change anything about the estate as it doesn’t

affect them. There is a nice mix of housing inside, but it would be a huge advantage if

84

they were to put a footpath along Belmont Road in order to improve the safety of those

walking along it.

They also added that there have been some bad mistakes in the past and “it seems like

people don’t have any vision for a village”, particularly a sleepy village like

Castleconnell. Stating that the Council won’t try and undo the mistakes they’ve made

and “come talk to the community to see what could be done about it”, also asking what

happens when the young children in the estate grow up to be teenagers, there was no

foresight into this to ensure that facilities such as community centres, etc. were

provided; “That’s the planners job” to think about these things”.

85

Appendix 2-

Development

PLACE Maps

86

87

88

Appendix 3-

Castlerock Estate

Planning

Documents

PL13.203130 An Bord Pleanala Page 1 of 17

INSPECTOR’S REPORT Development: 160 houses, 6 duplex units and 6 apartments with associated parkland and all necessary roads, walls and drainage connections at Coolbane, Castleconnell, Co. Limerick Planning Application Planning Authority : Limerick County Council Planning Authority Register Reference : 02/710 Type of Application : Permission Applicant : Park Developments (Ireland) Ltd. Planning Authority Decision : Grant subject to conditions Planning Appeal Appellant : South Castleconnell Residents Group Type of Appeal : 3rd Party v. Decision to grant Observer(s) : None Date of Site Inspection : 25/07/03 Inspector : Pauline Fitzpatrick Appendices 1. Photographs 2. Extracts from the Castleconnell Local Area Plan 2001 3. Plan of scheme granted permission under planning ref. 01/2275

PL13.203130 An Bord Pleanala Page 2 of 17

1.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The site has a stated area of 6.54 hectares and is located to the south of Castleconnell village. It is within the curtilage of Rock Lodge which is a two storey 3 bay country house accessed by a narrow driveway off Coolbawn Lane to the north. The site can be divided into three sections. The first is to the east of the said driveway and is roughly rectangular and concave in shape. The highest point of the site is along the northern boundary. It is bounded by a dormer dwelling to the north with the shared boundary delineated by low planting. The Ballybrophy Rail line bounds the site to the east with the shared boundary delineated by a thick hedgerow. The driveway to the house which is lined with trees delineates the site to the west. The lands to the south are undeveloped. Conditions along the south-western boundary were noted to be wet on day of inspection. The second section of the site is to the west of the driveway and is roughly triangular in shape. There are a number of drains traversing the site. In general the site falls are from north and east to west. There are stands of mature deciduous trees on the site with the south-western sections noted to be wet underfoot. This section of the site is bounded by a dormer dwelling to the north and the driveway lined with trees along the east. The lands to the west are undeveloped. The third section is a small square plot adjacent to the existing house and associated outhouses. Coolbawn Lane is c. 230 metres in length (from the driveway of Rock Lodge to the T-junction in Castleconnell village). It is relatively narrow with no footpaths and with limited sight distances. Approx. 12 houses have access off Coolbawn Lane. The site forms part of a larger area which is proposed to be developed for housing. There is a permission for 87 houses on the lands immediately to the west and south under reg. reg. 01/2275. One access from the Belmont Road to the south is proposed to serve the overall scheme. The point of access from the Belmont Road is outside the village’s speed limit and has good sight distances. 2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposal was originally lodged with the planning authority on the 29/04/02 and sought permission for 172 dwellings with the access arrangements to connect into the residential development granted on the lands to the west and south with access off Belmount Road. A tree survey and services report accompanies the application. Following a request for further information revised plans and details were received by the planning authority on the 18/12/02. As revised the proposal is for: • 20 no. three storey, 4 bed terraced units ( C) • 24 no. two storey 4 bed terraced units (C1 & C2) • 20. no. two storey semi-detached three bed with option for attic conversion(D)

PL13.203130 An Bord Pleanala Page 3 of 17

• 52 no. two storey three bed terraced units (E1) • 12 no. three storey four bed terraced units (E2) • 10. no. end of terrace, two storey three bed units (E3) • 18 no. two storey 4 bed semi-detached units with option for attic conversion (F) • 6 no. 2 bed apartments at ground floor with 6 no. four bed duplex units over (G) The scheme is to be developed in 4 phases. The layout and road network is to tie into that being developed on the adjoining lands to the west and south-west. One large open area is to be provided to the north and is to adjoin that to be developed with the lands to the west. Smaller incidental spaces are to be developed elsewhere in the estate. The external finishes are to be a mix of brick and plaster. Future access to zoned lands to the east is provided for. A landscaping scheme including retention of existing avenue to Coolbawn Lane as a pedestrian link to the village centre is also provided. The road and drainage infrastructure and storm drainage has been redesigned to take into account a finished flood level of 87 feet (Poolbeg). The storm drains have also been designed to incorporate flow from the existing streams traversing the site. The applicant is to comply with Part V of the 2000 Act by the provision of a financial contribution rather than by the transfer of dwelling units. Details received by the planning authority on the 20/01/03 identified the site for a proposed childcare facility which is to be the subject of a separate application. Following a clarification of further information request revised details relating to catchment analysis and storm water drainage were submitted on the 14/04/03. Note: Objections to the proposal received by the planning authority have been forwarded to the Board and are on file. It is considered that the main issues arising can be summarised as follows: 1. Validity of application 2. Sustainability of the extent of housing development occurring in Castleconnell 3. Protection of amenity value of the site 4. Impact on amenities of adjoining property 5. Impact on protected structure, trees and views 6. Impact on future access arrangements 7. Suitability of house design 8. Adequacy of and impact on road network 9. Open space provision 10. Need for an EIS

PL13.203130 An Bord Pleanala Page 4 of 17

3.0 TECHNICAL REPORTS The reports from the A/Chief Fire Officer dated 15/05/02 and 06/05/03 refer. Compliance with the requirements of the Fire Authority required. The reports from the Executive Engineer, Annacotty Office received 11/06/02, 26/06/02 and 16/01/03 refer. There is no objection to the proposal subject to certain requirements. The Mid-Western Health Board in a report dated 21/05/02 has no objection to the proposal. The reports from the S.E.E. Water Services dated 17/01/03 refers. Further information in relation storm and foul water disposal is recommended. Development to be phased in accordance with restrictions on water supply pending the upgrading of Clareville Treatment Plant. A limit of 40 units should apply until signing of contract for the said upgrading. While an extensive catchment has been considered it has been treated as a rural catchment although it is quite likely that the area, particularly to the west of the existing N7, is likely to be developed in a short period of time. Details relating to design of culvert and pipeline are required. The planning reports dated 19/06/02, 21/01/03 and 02/05/03 refer. The first two recommended a request for further information and subsequently a clarification of further information. The last report notes that a childcare facility is to be developed within phase 3 and is reasonable. The planning authority has examined the entire scheme as proposed by the developers and notes that the phases complement each other. The planning officer is satisfied that the issue of the catchment area has been identified. A grant of permission subject to conditions is recommended. Iarnrod Eireann in a report dated 27/05/02 stipulates boundary requirements to the rail line. The report from the Housing Strategy Officer dated 13/01/03 refers. It states that no development shall take place until an agreement under section 96 has been made. 4.0 PLANNING AUTHORITY NOTIFICATION OF DECISION The planning authority decided to grant permission for the above described development subject to 28 conditions. Of note: Condition 17: Large open space area to be provided within 1st planting season after the commencement of development. Condition 18: Each house to be provided with composting facilities Condition 22: Proposed development shall include a ‘bring centre’ at a suitable location. Condition 23: Management scheme to be submitted Condition 26: The road and services being provided in north-east corner of the site to be brought up to the site boundary.

PL13.203130 An Bord Pleanala Page 5 of 17

Condition 27: 19 units in proximity to existing dwelling units to be two storey in design only. Condition 28: 40 units only to be constructed until planning authority has indicated that there is sufficient water supply available. Details of said units to be forwarded to planning authority. Details of future phasing to be submitted. 5.0 GROUNDS OF APPEAL The appeal from the South Castleconnell Residents Group refers. The submission is made up of two parts the first by the South Castleconnell Residents Group with the second by the Residents Group at Coolbawn Lane, Castleconnell. The salient points of the submission are considered to be as follows: 5.1 Principle of Development • The proposal should be assessed in conjunction with the existing permission under

ref. 01/2275. The two application would equate to over 300 houses. • The site to which 01/2275 refers is nearer to the village and is more suitable for

development. It should not be used as a precedent for the current proposal. • While the site’s residential zoning is noted no consideration has been given to the

special nature of the site which the development plan seeks to protect while no regard is had to the fact that it is within a historic village which is a centre for tourism.

5.2 Impact on Protected Structure and Trees • The proposal would have a negative impact on the view of Rock Lodge (protected

structure) which is an objective of the plan to preserve. • The proposal will result in the loss of trees which are listed for protection in the

local area plan. • The tree survey would not appear to be accurate. 5.3 Design of Scheme • The house types proposed are unsuitable and out of character and do not accord

with the local area plan requirements. There are too many terraced house type E1 and E2 which are inappropriately located to the rear of the estate and do not complement existing development. The local plan states that certain house types and designs especially terraced housing and apartments are inappropriate for a historic and rural village.

• The density is inappropriate for such a site. • The issue of tenure and the propensity for such units to be purchased by investors

is a concern. • The 2 metre high concrete boundary walls are inappropriate in an area

characterised by stone walls. • House types ‘C’ are to be located on a part of the site which is prone to flooding

PL13.203130 An Bord Pleanala Page 6 of 17

• A number of House types ‘C’ infringe on the open space identified in the Castleconnell Local Area Plan and should be omitted.

• The proposal does not have adequate open space. The open space proposed is not suitable as a play area as it is wetland and is located at a distance from the part of the scheme with the highest density. It is recommended that the area immediately surrounding Rock Lodge be developed as parks and gardens.

5.4 Vehicular and Pedestrian Access • Taken with the existing permission Belmont road is not designed to accommodate

the traffic generated by the two schemes. Cars will be unable to get out onto the N7. The proposal is premature until the road network is improved.

• The use of Coolawn Lane as a pedestrian route by both the proposed development and that granted permission under ref. 01/2275 (321 units in total) would have a detrimental effect on the amenities enjoyed by residents along the road.

• Coolbawn Lane along which pedestrian access is proposed cannot accommodate two way traffic at certain points. It currently accommodates vehicular traffic for c. 12 houses. There are pinch points along the road which cannot be widened. A footpath of adequate width could not be provided and thus would endanger public safety.

• There is the potential of the path’s use by motorbikes and cyclists. • The proposed creche will result in greater pedestrian movements as it will not be

confined to residents of the scheme. • The junction of the cul-de-sac with the village centre is only 4.9 metres wide and

has restricted vision. • The road would be unsuitable for construction traffic. • Alternative pedestrian routes to the village are available. A condition restricting

the number of units to be constructed until a proper pedestrian access can be provided should be attached.

6.0 APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO GROUNDS OF APPEAL A submission by RPS McHugh on behalf of the applicant refers. The salient points of the submission are considered to be as follows: 6.1 Principle of Proposal • Permission granted under reg. ref. 01/2275 was for 87 units and not 153 as

suggested by the appellants. Thus the combined total is 255 and not 300. • The principle of the development of the site at the density proposed has been

established by the local area plan and complies with same. The site is within phase 1 and would have a density of just over 10 units per acre

• The lands to which 01/2275 refer are not closer to the village as contended but about the same as the appeal site.

• The planning authority was aware of the full extent of development on the overall lands when assessing the proposal. It was not assessed in isolation.

PL13.203130 An Bord Pleanala Page 7 of 17

• The main scenic route in the area is along River Shannon with special control areas designated along the length of the river in the vicinity of the town. The site is well removed from these areas.

6.2 Impact on Protected Structure and Trees • V4 is a view of surrounding parkland from north of Rock Lodge. The objective is

not to retain the land as is but to maintain the main features of this view. V4 relates mainly to the site of the previously permitted development under ref. 01/2275 and focuses on the view of Rock Lodge and its associated trees from the north. Part of this area is proposed as open space under the development permitted under ref. 01/2275. The tree groups identified as T5 and T6 on the Castleconnell Amenity Map in the Local Area Plan are to be retained under ref. 01/2275.

• The curtilage of Rock Lodge is well defined and the site lies outside same. • The layout of the scheme allows for the retention of the row of trees following the

hedgerow from Coolbawn south to Rock Lodge. • Inevitably the development will result in the loss of a number of trees. The layout

has been designed in a manner which minimises tree loss. 6.3 Design of Proposal • No three storey housing is proposed along the boundaries with other properties. • To mirror the existing pattern of detached low density housing on large plots

would be unsustainable. The mix of dwellings is in accordance with the Local Area Plan and the Residential Density Guidelines.

• Due cognisance should be had to the mix of houses granted in 01/2275 which consists mainly of detached and semi-detached units.

• The boundary walls will be the same as that permitted under ref. 01/2275 and there is no wall proposed along the pedestrian route.

• The issue of flooding was fully investigated and assessed and a finished floor level of 87 feet (Poolbeg) proposed. This was acceptable to the Board on adjacent lands in appeal ref. 96/2609.

• The applicant does not agree that a number of house type C infringe on land zoned open space. The houses are within residentially zoned land.

• The location of the open space is in accordance with the development plan zoning objectives and the amount provided is well in excess of the development plan requirement.

6.4 Vehicular and Pedestrian Access • The issue of adequacy of Belmont Road to accommodate the permitted and

proposed development was assessed under reg. ref. 01/2275. It was concluded that there is sufficient adequacy to accommodate the proposals and the potential development of the lands to the west.

• The principle of a pedestrian link along Coolbawn Lane has been accepted under reg.ref. 01/2275. It is in accordance with sustainable development. With only 12 dwellings using the lane for vehicular access purposes and the natural traffic calming provided by the pinch points referred to by the appellants, the lane would

PL13.203130 An Bord Pleanala Page 8 of 17

be a safe environment for pedestrian access. Any proposals to seal off the lane from pedestrian traffic would be contrary to the permission issued under 01/2275.

• No bicycles or motorbikes will have access from Coolbawn Lane. Such access can be easily controlled by the type of barrier/gateway provided.

• Reference to the restricted sight distances at the junction of the lane and the village is noted. This may actually slow down vehicular traffic but would not have any adverse implications for pedestrians.

• The capabilities of the lane to accommodate emergency vehicles is not affected by the proposal.

• All construction traffic is to use Belmont Road • The applicant does not have rights across lands to the north and west of the site to

provide the pedestrian link suggested by the appellants although provision is made within the site to accommodate such a link if pursued by the planning authority.

7.0 PLANNING AUTHORITY RESPONSE TO GROUNDS OF APPEAL No response has been received. 8.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 01/2275 – permission granted for 87 dwellings on lands to the north and south of Rock Lodge (to the west and south-west of the appeal site). Originally permission was sought for 153 dwellings but the proposal was subsequently revised. There are 20 conditions attached to the permission. Of particular note is condition 16 which requires the proposed pedestrian route to be provided prior to completion of the first phase. The pedestrian link is shown on the plans accompanying the application. I note that the submission from the agent for the applicant received on the 27/02/02 in item 16 states that bollards will be provided at each end to ensure that it is not used by vehicular traffic. 9.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROVISIONS The Castleconnell Local Area Plan 2001 refers. Section 6.1 states that except in exceptional circumstances it shall be policy to ensure that the development of residential zoned land is controlled in such a manner that the land in Phase 1 is 50% fully developed before development on land in phase 2 is permitted etc. Quality of design is the main criteria on which housing development will be assessed so that the protection of existing high amenity landscape features will be ensured. House design will be appropriate to the architectural character of the area. The design and layout of housing estates will have regard to the principles as outlined in the Residential Density Guidelines.

PL13.203130 An Bord Pleanala Page 9 of 17

Three phases of development have been outlined in the plan which it shall be the objective of the Local Authority to pursue. This phasing takes into account lands that can be served by the new sewerage scheme and provides for the protection of the existing environment. The site is within an area zoned for residential phase 1. In phase 1 all land is located in close proximity to the village centre so as to optimise the use of existing facilities. No particular density requirements will be applied to the area, although it is considered that development on land in Phase 1 will be of higher density than lands in Phase 2 and 3. The Council will initiate such works as are necessary to create safe pedestrian linkages between the newly established residential areas and the village centre. These links will allow access to the range of services available in the village centre and to the amenity areas located along the river. The plan’s requirements for residential development are set out in Section R of the plan which is attached in appendix 1 • Rock Lodge is a protected structure. • The view of surrounding parkland from north of Rock Lodge is listed to be

maintained. • The trees following the hedgerow from Coolbawn south to Rock Lodge are listed

for preservation. 10.0 ISSUES AND ASSESSMENT Following an examination of the documentation on file and a site inspection I consider that the main issues arising in the case can be summarised as follows:

1. Principle of Development 2. Impact on Protected Structure and Trees 3. Design of Scheme 4. Vehicular and Pedestrian Access arrangements

The proposal, taken in conjunction with the residential development permitted on adjoining lands, is significantly below the 500 dwelling unit threshold at which an EIS is mandatory as set out in Classes 10 and 13, Part 2, Schedule 5 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001. I consider that there is sufficient information on file to allow for a proper assessment and I do not consider that the proposal would be likely to have significant effects on the environment as to warrant invoking the procedures whereby an EIS can be sought for a sub-threshold development. 10.1 Principle of Development As per the adopted Castleconnell Local Area Plan the site is zoned for residential purposes. The plan identifies a phasing programme for the development of the residentially zoned lands in line with the various lands’ location relative to the village with the appeal site designated as zone 1 due to its relative proximity to same and its

PL13.203130 An Bord Pleanala Page 10 of 17

ability to avail of existing services. The plan states that development of each phase cannot commence until 50% of the earlier phase is fully developed. I consider both the zoning and the general phasing approach to be reasonable and note that the planning authority, in assessing the earlier proposal for a development on lands to the west and south-west, enforced this phasing programme by precluding the development of lands identified as phase 2 to the south. The site is not within an area identified as a special control area in the development plan and indeed is at a remove from the said zone which adjoins the River Shannon to the west of the site. I would agree with the agent for the applicant that the appellant’s objection to the development of the site in terms of its impact on the historic and rural characteristics of the village would appear to actually question the principle of the zoning. In my opinion the appropriate forum in which to raise such concerns was during the drawing up of the local area plan. 10.2 Impact on Protected Structure and Trees Rock Lodge is listed as a protected structure in the current local area plan. It is a two storey three bay structure with associated outbuildings and is currently unoccupied. By reason of the tree cover in the immediate vicinity views of the house are restricted when viewed from the north. I note that the local area plan has identified the view of surrounding parkland from north of Rock Lodge for protection. This is somewhat at odds with the residential zoning afforded the said lands and indeed it must be accepted that a permission for a residential development directly to the north-west of the house has already been granted permission (ref. 01/2275). This, in itself, will have a material impact on the parkland setting of the house. In my opinion the current proposal which is to the north-east and east of the house would not have any materially greater impact on the said view than the permitted development. In terms of the protected structure itself again the permitted residential scheme is proposing to construct directly infront and to the rear of the house and I am of the opinion that the current proposal would not have any greater material impact on the setting and curtilage of the building. I note that no comment has been received from the relevant prescribed bodies on the proposal. The site does have a number of mature trees both along the existing avenue and on the site which are worthy of retaining. The stand of trees along the hedgerow from Coolbawn to Rock Lodge referred to by the appellants which is listed for protection in the local area plan is actually outside the appeal site. Inevitably the development of the site would result in the removal of a number of the trees however I note that the trees along the avenue and a number in the open space areas are to be retained which will afford a level of amenity to these spaces and a certain sense of maturity to the overall scheme. Subject to adequate protection of the trees during construction phase I consider the proposals to be acceptable. 10.3 Design of Proposal The local area plan does not stipulate a density requirement for residential schemes in phase 1 save that it would be higher than the density in later phases. I note that the planning authority in drawing up the plan and identifying adequate lands for residential zoning assumed an average density of 10 units per acre. It is stated that

PL13.203130 An Bord Pleanala Page 11 of 17

densities higher than 10 units per acre will be considered in certain locations particularly on land adjoining the village. The proposal for 172 dwellings units on a site 6.54 hectares in area, equates to a density of 26 units per hectare (10.6 units per acre) which, on a site in proximity to the village, is in line with the local area plan and is considered acceptable. Concern has been expressed by the appellant about the design and mix of residential units proposed especially the dominance of terraced dwellings and the inclusion of duplex units. In addition to their visual impact there is concern as to their potential tenure. I would suggest that the ability of the planning system to control the type of tenure in residential developments is limited and that it is not realistic to assess the proposal using the probable type of tenure as a decisive factor. The proposal incorporates a mix of house design and size in accordance with the recommendations of the Local Area Plan and the Residential Density Guidelines and is generally acceptable. I note the appellants concerns regarding the percentage of terraced units proposed but subject to suitable external treatment I would not consider such a design to be at odds with their setting. I could not identify the section of the local area plan which states that certain house types and designs especially terraced housing and apartments are inappropriate and indeed I note that Section R of the plan advocates a mix of housing including terraced houses in larger schemes. I would concur with the agent for the applicant that a development which reflects the pattern and density of development in the vicinity would simply be unsustainable. In terms of the impact on the amenities of adjoining residential property two dwellings back-on or side-on to the site. The proposed dwellings in the immediate vicinity of same are to have garden lengths in excess of 11 metres as required in the local area plan and the residential density guidelines. Following a further information request the options for 2nd floor development in the said units was omitted and this was reinforced by a condition attached to the permission granted by the Planning Authority. Subject to suitable boundary treatment I do not consider that the amenities of the said properties would be adversely affected by either loss of privacy or overshadowing. The retention of the existing driveway which connects to Coolbawn Lane is proposed. I consider that the actual treatment of the scheme adjoining same is very important to ensure that the amenities and security of the route is retained and that the amenities of the existing dwellings served by the lane are not adversely affected. Dwellings within the scheme are either to back-on to or side-on to the path. Following a further information request a number of end of terrace units have been redesigned so they are orientated onto the path and are considered a reasonable approach allowing for a certain level of passive surveillance. Boundary treatments to the dwellings which directly abut the path should be of a high standard to ensure that the amenities of the route are retained. Such details should be agreed with the planning authority prior to commencement of development. I note that potential for access to the small area zoned for residential purposes to the north-west of the site has been provided for in line with the indicative marker in the relevant local area plan map.

PL13.203130 An Bord Pleanala Page 12 of 17

As can be extrapolated from the zoning map in the local area plan no part of the appeal site abuts the lands zoned for open space as suggested by the appellants. With regard to the location of a number of house type D on land prone to flooding I note that the applicant has confirmed, by way of further information, that the finished floor level of the dwellings are to be set at 87 feet (Poolbeg) which is 2 feet above the historical peak flood level and is considered acceptable. In my opinion the open space, in terms of area, is acceptable while its location which takes due cognisance of the provision in the permitted development adjoining will result in a space which could have a meaningful amenity role. It is also noted that the overall open space will directly abut lands to the north-west which are zoned for open space. I note that the planning authority have attached a condition to its notification of decision to grant permission restricting the number of houses to be developed until a sufficient water supply is available. As extracted from the report from the Senior Executive Engineer Water Services the Clareville plant serving the area is to be upgraded and that the restriction would be until the contract for the improvement works has been signed. While I note that a phasing programme accompanies the application I recommend that a condition requiring a revised phasing scheme, bearing in mind the water supply restrictions, be submitted for the agreement of the planning authority. I note that the applicant proposes to provide childcare facilities in the next phase of development with a site identified for such purposes to the south of Rock Lodge. This is considered reasonable but I recommend that a condition be attached ensuring that such a provision is realised. 10.4 Vehicular and Pedestrian Access The proposed vehicular access arrangements are to tie in with the permitted development on the lands to the west and south with one access serving the overall lands to be developed from Belmont Road to the south. This access was the subject to the earlier application granted permission under ref. 01/2275. This arrangement is considered acceptable to the Roads Section subject to a financial contribution of ε500 per unit for the necessary road improvements. Inevitably the provision of a footpath along Belmont Road connecting the site to the village could be developed as part of same. The existing driveway connecting into Coolbawn Lane is proposed as a pedestrian link to the village. As stated Coolbawn Lane currently serves c.12 dwellings and is c.230 metres long. It is relatively narrow with a width of c. 5 metres and is not served by a footpath. Concern is expressed as to public safety due to the level of pedestrian traffic which would arise from the current and permitted developments and the inability to provide a footpath to an acceptable width. I note that the proposal to use the route as a pedestrian route formed part of the proposal permitted under reg.ref. 01/2275. Inevitably the proposed development for 172 units will increase the potential pedestrian traffic. I would concur with the appellants that the ability to provide a footpath of adequate width would not be possible without seriously restricting the road width and consider this to be a valid issue. However I would not

PL13.203130 An Bord Pleanala Page 13 of 17

advocate the closure of the route and consider it desirable in encouraging pedestrian links. In my opinion the vehicular movements that would arise from the existing dwellings would not be material with vehicles travelling at low speeds. The potential for developing a shared surface arrangement with traffic calming measures should be pursued. Such works would be undertaken by the local authority and I consider that a financial contribution towards same is desirable. I do not consider that the restricted sight distances at the junction of Coolbawn Lane and the village is problematic for pedestrian traffic and indeed note that the area is within the 30mph speed limit. I would concur with the agent for the application that the preclusion of motorbikes etc along the path can be readily achieved through use of appropriate barriers. Details of the barriers can be sought by way of condition. 11.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION The development of the site for residential purposes in proximity to Castleconnell village is in line with the Local Area Plan zoning and is considered acceptable in principle. The proposal essentially forms part of a larger development on lands to the south of the village with access from Belmont Road and it is reasonable to assume that the planning authority assessed the proposal in this context. Subject to certain conditions I would not envisage that the amenities currently enjoyed by existing residential properties would be adversely affected. The issue of the conflict of pedestrian access to the village through Coolbawn Lane and the vehicular movements arising from the houses along the lane can be satisfactorily addressed by way of condition

DECISION GRANT permission for the above described development for the reasons and considerations set out below subject to conditions.

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS Having regard to the residential zoning provisions for the site as set out in the current Castleconnell Local Area Plan it is considered that, subject to compliance with the conditions set out below, the proposed development would not seriously injure the amenities of the area or of property in the vicinity, would be acceptable in terms of traffic safety and convenience and would not be prejudicial to public health. The proposed development would, therefore, be in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area

PL13.203130 An Bord Pleanala Page 14 of 17

CONDITIONS 1. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the plans and particulars

lodged with the application as amended by the plans and details received by the planning authority on the 18th day of December 2002, 17th day of January 2003 and the 14th day of April 2003, except as may otherwise be required in order to comply with the following conditions.

Reason: In the interest of clarity 2. Within eight weeks of the date of this order, the developer shall enter into an

agreement with the planning authority under section 96 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 (as amended) in relation to the provision of social and affordable housing in accordance with the requirements of the planning authority’s housing strategy unless, before the expiry of that period, they shall have applied for and been granted an Exemption Certificate under Section 97of the Planning and Development Act, 2000.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Part V of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 (as amended). 3. Appropriate childcare facilities, including adequate drop-off facilities and open

space, in accordance with the Planning Guidelines on Childcare Facilities issued by the Department of the Environment and Local Government in June 2001, shall be provided and shall be the subject to a separate application for permission to the planning authority.

Reason: In the interest of the amenities of the area and to comply with planning guidelines for childcare facilities. 4. Water supply and drainage arrangements including the disposal of surface water,

shall comply with the requirements of the planning authority for such works and services.

Reason: In the interest of public health and to ensure a proper standard of development. 5. Prior to commencement of development a phasing programme for the

development taking into consideration water supply arrangements, shall be submitted to the planning authority for agreement.

Reason: To provide for the orderly development of the site 6. All service cables associated with the proposed development (such as electrical,

communal television, telephone and public lighting cables) shall be run underground within the site.

Reason: In the interest of orderly development and the visual amenities of the area.

PL13.203130 An Bord Pleanala Page 15 of 17

7. (a) Fulls details of the screen walls which shall abut the pedestrian route shall be submitted to the planning authority for agreement prior to commencement of development. In all other locations screen walls shall be provided to screen rear gardens from public view. Such walls shall not exceed two metres in height, shall be in brick or concrete block or similar durable materials and shall be suitably capped and rendered on the site facing public areas.

(b) Rear garden walls shall be bounded with 1.8 metre high concrete block walls, suitably capped, or by 1.8 metre high concrete post and timber fence inserts.

Reason: In the interest of visual and residential amenity 8. Prior to commencement of construction of the houses, details of the materials,

colours and textures of all external finishes to the proposed dwelling units shall be submitted to the planning authority for agreement and shall complement the finishes to be employed in the development permitted to the west and south-west under planning reference 01/2275.

Reason: In the interest of orderly development and the visual amenities of the area. 9. Public lighting shall be provided in accordance with a scheme, the details of

which shall be submitted to the planning authority for agreement prior to commencement of development.

Reason: In the interest of amenity and public safety 10. The internal road network serving the proposed development, including turning

bays, junctions, parking areas, footpaths and kerbs shall be in accordance with the detailed requirements of the planning authority for such works.

Reason: In the interest of amenities and public safety 11. Full details of the barrier to be erected at either end of the pedestrian path so as to

prevent its use by all motorised vehicles shall be submitted to the planning authority for agreement prior to commencement of development.

Reason: In the interest of amenities and public safety 12. Prior to the commencement of development, proposals for a street name, house

numbering scheme and associated signage shall be submitted to the planning authority for agreement.

Reason: In the interest of orderly development 13. The areas shown as public open space on the lodged plans shall be reserved for

such use and shall be soiled, seeded, levelled and landscaped in accordance with a detailed scheme, including a timetable for implementation, to be agreed with the planning authority.

Reason: In the interest of the amenities of the occupants of the proposed housing

PL13.203130 An Bord Pleanala Page 16 of 17

14. All trees, shrubs and groups of trees specified for retention shall be enclosed

within stout fences, details of which shall be agreed with the planning authority. The fences shall enclose at least the area covered by the spread of the branches, shall be erected before any site works begin and shall be maintained during the construction period.

Reason: To ensure the survival of such trees and shrubs during the construction period, in the interest of visual amenity. 15. Prior to the commencement of development, the developer shall lodge with the

planning authority a cash deposit, a bond of an insurance company, or other security to secure the provision and satisfactory completion and maintenance until taken in charge by the planning authority of roads, footpaths, watermains, drains, public open space and other services required in connection with the development, coupled with an agreement empowering the planning authority to apply such security or part thereof to the satisfactory completion or maintenance of any part of the development. The form and amount of the security shall be as agreed between the planning authority and the developer or, in default of agreement, shall be determined by An Bord Pleanala.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory completion of the development. 16. The developer shall pay a sum of money to the planning authority as a

contribution towards expenditure that was and/or that is proposed to be incurred by the planning authority in respect of traffic calming and improvement works along Coolbawn Lane facilitating the proposed development. The amount of the contribution and the arrangement for payment shall be agreed between the developer and the planning authority or, in default of agreement, shall be determined by An Bord Pleanala.

In the case of expenditure that is proposed to be incurred, the requirement to pay this contribution is subject to the provisions of Section 26(2)(h) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963 generally, and in particular, the specified period for the purposes of paragraph (h) shall be the period of seven years from the date of this order.

Reason: It is considered reasonable that the developer should contribute towards the expenditure that was and/or that is proposed to be incurred by the planning authority in respect of works facilitating the proposed development.

PL13.203130 An Bord Pleanala Page 17 of 17

17. The developer shall pay a sum of money to the planning authority as a contribution towards expenditure that was and/or that is proposed to be incurred by the planning authority in respect of works facilitating the proposed development. The amount of the contribution and the arrangement for payment shall be agreed between the developer and the planning authority or, in default of agreement, shall be determined by An Bord Pleanala.

In the case of expenditure that is proposed to be incurred, the requirement to pay this contribution is subject to the provisions of Section 26(2)(h) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963 generally, and in particular, the specified period for the purposes of paragraph (h) shall be the period of seven years from the date of this order.

Reason: It is considered reasonable that the developer should contribute towards the expenditure that was and/or that is proposed to be incurred by the planning authority in respect of works facilitating the proposed development. ________________ Pauline Fitzpatrick Inspectorate September, 2003

_____________________________________________________________________ PL 13.203130 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 6

An Bord Pleanála

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACTS, 2000 TO 2002

Limerick County

Planning Register Reference Number: 02/710

An Bord Pleanála Reference Number: PL 13.203130

APPEAL by South Castleconnell Residents Group care of Dermot Kelly of The Beeches, Castleconnell, County Limerick against the decision made on the 6th day of May, 2003 by Limerick County Council to grant subject to conditions a permission to Park Developments (Ireland) Limited care of R.P.S. McHugh, 16 Herbert Place, Dublin in accordance with plans and particulars lodged with the said Council. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: The construction of 160 dwelling houses, 6 duplex and 6 apartments together with landscaped parkland and all necessary roads, walls and drainage connections on a site of 6.34 hectares at Coolbane, Castleconnell, County Limerick.

DECISION GRANT permission for the above proposed development in accordance with the said plans and particulars based on the reasons and considerations under and subject to the conditions set out below.

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS Having regard to the residential zoning provisions for the site as set out in the current Castleconnell Local Area Plan and to the planning permission granted for residential development in the immediate vicinity, it is considered that, subject to compliance with the conditions set out below, the proposed development would not seriously injure the amenities of the area or of property in the vicinity, would be acceptable in terms of traffic safety and convenience, would not be prejudicial to public health and would be in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

_____________________________________________________________________ PL 13.203130 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 6

CONDITIONS 1. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the plans and

particulars lodged with the application as amended by the plans and details received by the planning authority on the 18th day of December 2002, 17th day of January 2003 and the 14th day of April 2003, except as may otherwise be required in order to comply with the following conditions.

Reason: In the interest of clarity

2. The terrace of seven houses backing onto the proposed pedestrian link to

Coolbawn Lane shall be omitted and the area thus freed shall be incorporated into the adjoining open space. The seven houses omitted by this condition may be replaced elsewhere within the development site and shall be the subject of a separate application for planning permission.

Reason: In the interest of residential amenity and the amenities of the pedestrian route by creating a more open aspect along its western side.

3. Within eight weeks of the date of this order, the developer shall enter into an

agreement with the planning authority under Section 96 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 (as amended) in relation to the provision of social and affordable housing in accordance with the requirements of the planning authority’s housing strategy unless, before the expiry of that period, they shall have applied for and been granted an Exemption Certificate under Section 97of the Planning and Development Act, 2000.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Part V of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 (as amended).

4. Appropriate childcare facilities, including adequate drop-off facilities and

open space, in accordance with the Planning Guidelines on Childcare Facilities issued by the Department of the Environment and Local Government in June 2001, shall be provided and shall be the subject of a separate application for permission to the planning authority.

Reason: In the interest of the amenities of the area and to comply with planning guidelines for childcare facilities.

5. Water supply and drainage arrangements including the disposal of surface

water, shall comply with the requirements of the planning authority for such works and services.

Reason: In the interest of public health and to ensure a proper standard of development.

6. Prior to commencement of development a phasing programme for the

development, taking into consideration water supply arrangements, shall be submitted to the planning authority for agreement.

Reason: To provide for the orderly development of the site.

_____________________________________________________________________ PL 13.203130 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 6

7. All service cables associated with the proposed development (such as electrical, communal television, telephone and public lighting cables) shall be run underground within the site. Ducting shall be provided to facilitate the provision of broadband cabling throughout the development.

Reason: In the interest of orderly development and the visual amenities of the area.

8. (1) The proposed development shall include a “Bring Centre”. Details in this

regard shall be submitted to the planning authority for agreement prior to commencement of development.

(2) Each house shall be provided with composting facilities in accordance with the requirements of the planning authority.

Reason: In the interest of orderly development and the amenities of the area.

9. (1) Full details of the screen walls which abut the pedestrian route shall be

submitted to the planning authority for agreement prior to commencement of development. In all other locations screen walls shall be provided to screen rear gardens from public view. Such walls shall not exceed two metres in height, shall be in brick or concrete block or similar durable materials and shall be suitably capped and rendered on the site facing public areas.

(2) Rear garden walls shall be bounded with 1.8 metre high concrete block walls, suitably capped, or by 1.8 metre high concrete post and timber fence inserts.

Reason: In the interest of visual and residential amenity.

10. Prior to commencement of construction of the houses, details of the materials,

colours and textures of all external finishes to the proposed dwelling units shall be submitted to the planning authority for agreement and shall complement the finishes to be employed in the development permitted to the west and south-west under planning register reference number 01/2275.

Reason: In the interest of orderly development and the visual amenities of the area.

11. Public lighting shall be provided in accordance with a scheme, the details of

which shall be submitted to the planning authority for agreement prior to commencement of development.

Reason: in the interest of amenity and public safety.

12. The internal road network serving the proposed development, including

turning bays, junctions, parking areas, footpaths and kerbs shall be in accordance with the detailed requirements of the planning authority for such works.

Reason: in the interest of amenities and public safety.

_____________________________________________________________________ PL 13.203130 An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 6

13. Full details of the barrier to be erected at either end of the pedestrian path so as to prevent its use by all motorised vehicles shall be submitted to the planning authority for agreement prior to commencement of development.

Reason: In the interest of amenities and public safety.

14. Prior to the commencement of development, proposals for a street name,

house numbering scheme and associated signage shall be submitted to the planning authority for agreement.

Reason: In the interest of orderly development.

15. The areas shown as public open space on the lodged plans shall be reserved

for such use and shall be soiled, seeded, levelled and landscaped in accordance with a detailed scheme, including a timetable for implementation, to be agreed with the planning authority.

Reason: In the interest of the amenities of the occupants of the proposed housing.

16. Prior to commencement of development, a management scheme providing

adequate measures relating to the future maintenance of private open spaces, roads and communal areas in a satisfactory manner shall be submitted to the planning authority for agreement.

Reason: To ensure the adequate future maintenance of this private development in the interest of residential amenity.

17. All trees, shrubs and groups of trees specified for retention shall be enclosed

within stout fences, details of which shall be agreed with the planning authority. The fences shall enclose at least the area covered by the spread of the branches, shall be erected before any site works begin and shall be maintained during the construction period.

Reason: To ensure the survival of such trees and shrubs during the construction period, in the interest of visual amenity.

18. Prior to commencement of development, a landscaping scheme shall be

submitted to the planning authority for agreement. This scheme shall include details of all existing trees and hedgerows on the site, specifying those proposed for retention, together with measures for their protection during the period in which the development is carried out. The site shall be landscaped in accordance with the agreed scheme, which shall also include a timescale for implementation.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

_____________________________________________________________________ PL 13.203130 An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 6

19. The road and services being provided in the north east corner of site to provide access to adjoining residentially zoned lands shall be brought to the site boundary. A revised site layout plan showing compliance with this requirement shall be submitted to the planning authority for agreement prior to commencement of development.

Reason: In the interest of the orderly development of the area.

20. The following units shall be two storey only:

(i) the eleven houses identified as house types E1 and E3 located on Road 14 (Drawing number 991-482-202) in the north east corner of the site between the pedestrian route and the railway line,

(ii) the four houses identified as house types E1 and E3 located on Road 17

(Drawing number 991-482-202) in the northern portion of the site,

(iii) the two northern most houses identified as house type F located on Road 16 (Drawing number 991-482-202), and

(iv) the two houses identified as house type D, which are located adjacent

to the dwellings referred to in (iii) above, located on Road 16 (Drawing number 991-482-202).

Reason: In the interest of clarity and orderly development.

21. Prior to the commencement of development, the developer shall lodge with the

planning authority a cash deposit, a bond of an insurance company, or other security to secure the provision and satisfactory completion and maintenance by the planning authority of roads, footpaths, watermains, drains, public open space and other services required in connection with the development, coupled with an agreement empowering the planning authority to apply such security or part thereof to the satisfactory completion or maintenance of any part of the development. The form and amount of the security shall be as agreed between the planning authority and the developer or, in default of agreement, shall be determined by An Bord Pleanála.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory completion of the development.

_____________________________________________________________________ PL 13.203130 An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 6

22. The developer shall pay a sum of money to the planning authority as a

contribution towards expenditure that was and/or that is proposed to be incurred by the planning authority in respect of works facilitating the proposed development. The amount of the contribution and the arrangements for payment shall be agreed between the developer and the planning authority or, in default of agreement, shall be determined by An Bord Pleanála.

In the case of expenditure that is proposed to be incurred, the requirement to pay this contribution is subject to the provisions of section 26(2)(h) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963 generally, and in particular, the specified period for the purposes of paragraph (h) shall be the period of seven years from the date of this order.

Reason: It is considered reasonable that the developer should contribute towards the expenditure that was and/or that is proposed to be incurred by the planning authority in respect of works facilitating the proposed development.

Member of An Bord Pleanála duly authorised to authenticate the seal of the Board. Dated this day of 2003.