Category Archives: Local area

My submission to An Bord Pleanála re. the proposed Morrison’s Island project

I had but 24 hours to put together a submission to An Bord Pleanála in respect of Cork City Council’s proposed flood defence/public realm works at Morrison’s Island.  I used all 24 of them and had I had 3 times that, could have used all of that too!  However, time being what it was, my submission had to be a distillation of my gravest concerns,  You can read them here: Submission to ABP.  It was hard not to also mention that which perplexes me most: with the finest minds from a multiplicity of disciplines advising that the Morrison’s Island project is not what is best for Cork, why are Cork City Council and the OPW not listening?  We can only hope that An Bord Pleanála will.

  

What’s next for Haulbowline Island?

Remediation of Haulbowline Island – or at least its partial remediation – was in the news yesterday:

The government had promised a “whole of island” approach to the remediation but now seems unable to decide which department is responsible for taking the project forward.

I was concerned about this last June and followed it up in the Council Chamber through a motion which you will find at this link: Motion.  The response from the Department to my motion is here: Response to motion.  (The highlighting is my own.)

Friends of the Irish Environment who had brought the European Commission to see the East Tip contamination in 2011 were also concerned. Their information is that survey work on the island had not merely found the remaining 11 hectares to be physically connected with the 9 hectares of the East Tip but also that the area around the steelworks factory site was that of greatest contamination on the island. They alerted the European Commission to the government’s “breach of promise” by not following through on remediation of either the steelworks factory site or the South Tip: EU_complaint_Haulbowline_full_1.05.18.  (Again, the highlightling is my own.)

Haulbowline is one of this country’s worst pollution legacies. That the government might address the clean-up of only the bit that is relevant to keeping Ireland out of trouble with the European Commission is disgusting, especially as lack of funding cannot be cited as an excuse. Whatever departments are passing the buck on this one need to sort it out fast and get on with it 😠

My submission to the road closure licence application for total closure of the R610 at Glenbrook

To whom it may concern

This submission pertains to the total road closure proposal advertised on 19thDecember for the R610 Glenbrook – Victoria Terrace/Bath Terrace/Sommerville Terrace from 12thJanuary – 4thMarch 2019.

I write on my own behalf and on the behalf of many others who have expressed their concerns to me with regard to this proposed closure which will sever the connection between the residents of Monkstown and their nearest services in Passage West.  It is also essential to point out in the strongest way possible that the service providers of Passage West depend upon the custom of the residents of Glenbrook and Monkstown and that of stopping passing traffic for survival of their businesses.  The proposed road closure would impact severely on the convenience of the people of Glenbrook and Monkstown and on the businesses of Passage West town centre.

For most of us the proposed total road closure is a temporary phase during which inconvenience must be minimised and safety must be maximised.  However for the businesses in Passage West town centre and in Monkstown, this proposed total closure follows over a year of sequential partial road closures and approximately three months of total road closures.  These ongoing restrictions in trade are a tremendous threat to their viability.  Several reported a 40% drop in turnover during a previous total road closure. Others either cut staff hours or laid off staff entirely.  For some of these businesses, implementation of the Lower Harbour drainage scheme may lead to permanent closure.  This is a heavy price for Passage West/Monkstown to pay for the beneficial gain of a wider audience.  Once again, I echo the calls of local businesses in asking that the County Council assists their survival with such practical measures as a rates reduction in the same way as the County Council is assisting Irish Water by their ongoing granting of road closure licences.

Specifically with regard to the current road closure application, I ask that Cork County Council would take the following considerations into account and condition the road closure licence accordingly.

  1. As in previous total closures of the R610, the applicant proposes to provide a shuttle bus through Passage West to connect with the regular diverted Bus Eireann service.The Bus Eireann service calls to Monkstown only once per hour during most of the daytime period when the R610 is to be totally closed.  Residents of Monkstown who would normally come to Passage West during the day for services would, rather than tackling the circuitous and higher risk back roads, most likely take their custom elsewhere.  Over the period of a proposed almost two-month closure, this would have a massively negative impact on businesses in Passage West.  To relieve the severity of this loss of custom, I ask that a regular shuttle bus connecting Monkstown, Glenbrook and Passage West would be scheduled for once every 15 minutes.  This service would supplement the hourly Bus Eireann service, thereby providing a realistic alternative to residents who would otherwise drive to Carrigaline or Douglas.
  1. One quarter of the children attending Scoil Barra Naofa (Monkstown primary school) live in Passage West or Glenbrook.There are many others who, although living in Monkstown, attend afterschool care either in private homes or in crèches in Passage West.  Parents driving to and from Monkstown school have already been significantly inconvenienced by road closures imposed in Passage West.  They have received no assistance from Irish Water or from Ward & Burke in overcoming this inconvenience.  The road closure now proposed for Glenbrook would present their greatest inconvenience to date.  They would endure the proposed partial closure of the R610 during the morning rush hour.  When collecting at either 1.30pm or 2.30pm, the R610 through Glenbrook would be totally closed. They would have no choice other than to use the back roads to get to Passage West.  Their most likely route from Scoil Barra Naofa would be up the Glen in Monkstown, along the back road to Rochestown Monastery and turning right at the monastery to re-enter Passage West via Church Hill.  The back road to the monastery is a narrow, winding road which necessitates careful, slow driving.  At several points along its length, two cars are unable to pass.  The inadequacy of this road to cope with diverted traffic has been well rehearsed in applications for previous total closures of the R610.  During the last total closure, traffic management relieved the danger of travelling the back road to the monastery.  Traffic management does not appear to be part of the current proposed total closure. Consequently the risk and inconvenience to Scoil Barra Naofa parents would again be unrecognised.  Foggy and icy weather is most frequently experienced during the January – March period and these are precisely the months during which the proposed total closure would force cars onto the elevated back roads.  At least some of this risk could be alleviated by the shuttle bus requested in 1. Above. It could be scheduled to serve Scoil Barra Naofa, particularly at school closing time.  Availability of a shuttle bus would would alleviate the risk of pushing cars onto the back roads and it would provide a realistic alternative to parents and minders who would have to endure this significant inconvenience for a period of almost two months.
  1. It is highly likely that Bailey’s Lane would be used as a rat-run to circumvent that area of the R610 which would be totally closed.No traffic management has been proposed for Bailey’s Lane.  This is not acceptable.  Bailey’s Lane is narrow.  It cannot take two-way traffic.  Residences along Bailey’s Lane have no footpath interface between their front gates and passing traffic.  Moreover, the structural condition of the road is questionable.  It is imperative that Bailey’s Lane is either closed entirely to all but residents or that it is used as an official diversion in the same way as Fair Hill was used in previous total closures of the R610.  It is not acceptable that the current laissez-faire, cross-our-fingers-and-hope-for-the-best approach would be adopted.  This approach would serve no-one’s interests other than those of the contractor.
  1. Should Bailey’s Lane be used as an official diversion similar to Fair Hill in the previous total closure of the R610, it would be fair recompense to the residents that traffic calming would be provided, perhaps in the form of ramps at the Passage West end.Traffic on Bailey’s Lane frequently travels far quicker than is safe or acceptable. To require the contractor to install traffic calming would be a long-term benefit to the residents and would compensate them for the risk and inconvenience of accommodating R610 traffic for what would be almost a two-month period.
  1. During the working week, it is proposed that the southbound lane of the R610 would be open during rush hour and during the night-time period.However the southbound lane of the R610 is often blocked by cars queuing for the Cross River Ferry.  Moreover during the evening rush hour, cars coming from Ringaskiddy/Monkstown are forced to do almost a U-turn to join the ferry queue.  This further slows the movement of the queue that stretches back to Glenbrook. If the only lane of the R610 to be opened is the southbound lane and that southbound lane were to be blocked by the ferry queue, there would be total impasse.  There simply is not adequate road width to do what is proposed. Cars coming from the south would be waiting at traffic lights to pass through the single open lane; cars waiting for the ferry would be queuing in the southbound lane; cars coming from Passage West town centre would be travelling through the single open lane.  It would be necessary that the contractor would actively manage traffic passing through the partial closure during rush-hour periods.  Traffic build-ups may also be alleviated if Doyle’s Shipping were to be required to ensure two vessels were servicing the crossing at all peak times.  It may also help if the County Council were to liaise with Doyle’s Shipping on their traffic management methodology which allows cars from Ringaskiddy no option other than to do that U-turn into the ferry queue.  I am mindful that whilst the applicant for this road closure licence is not Doyle’s Shipping, appropriate traffic management is a key consideration in Cork County Council’s permitting of the Cross River Ferry operation.
  1. Direct communication with residents living alongside the proposed works is critical and was not adequate during previous total road closures.  It is essential that one-to-one contact would be made with alladjacent homes.  A blanket leaflet drop is notsufficient.  It is equally critical that residents would be forewarned of days when works are expected to be additionally noisy, when dusty activities are due to take place, or when tides might favour working longer hours than proposed.  Again, such consultation notably did nottake place during previous closures despite commitments from the contractor. It is also essential that residents would receive adequate notice of any water outages.
  1. Emergency services mustbe effectivelynotified in advance of any future road closures. Our experience heretofore has been that although the central control office of the National Ambulance Service was informed of the road closure, notification did not filter down to the drivers.  In the case of this proposed closure, we have been advised by the contractor that direct contact was made before Christmas with the local emergency service office and that they will be provided with weekly updates.  However, although similar reassurances have been provided before, during previous total closures we were all beyond lucky that no tragedy resulted from the significant delays experienced when misinformed ambulances did not know how to reach emergency callouts.  This proposed Glenbrook closure is for an almost two month period.  There can be no room for misinformation or mixed messages.
  1. Experience from previoustotal road closuresin Passage West is that signage is critical.  During times of total closure, delivery trucks may attempt to reach Passage West town centre by using either the Lackaroe Road or the back road to the Monastery.Clear signage indicating that thisroad is not suitable for heavy vehicles will be necessary at the bottom of Carrigmahon Hill, at the Rochestown Inn junction, at Monastery Cross and on Church Hill.  It is also important that signage on the N28, N40 and at Rochestown would clearly indicate that through traffic into the town centre is possible and that Passage West town centre is indeed open for business.
  1. I have run out of words to describethe condition of the road surface between Raffeen and Glenbrook.Its condition is appalling and deteriorating.  Although supposedly temporary, some stretches are in place for almost two years.  I have received angry reports from residentswho have had to bear the costs of abnormal repairs to their cars, most particularly to their suspension systems.  I have received frustrated communications from cyclists who no longer use the R610 because it has simply become too dangerous for them.  This is all as a consequence of the appalling quality of these temporary road surfaces.  The temporary surface recently laid in Glenbrook is particularly dreadful.  I raised the quality of the Glenbrook surface as an unacceptable issue in my submission to the previous total closure of the R610.  I was contacted by a representative of the contractor who addressed each of the points of my submission in turn.  The contractor’s representative agreed with my criticism of the temporary surface in Glenbrook, acknowledged that this had been raised as an issue by others also and reassured me that it would be improved.  I cannot see any improvement nor that the contractor followed through on this commitment.
  1. The quality of clean-up after both total and partial closures has, to date, been abysmal.The centre of Monkstown village, particularly around the grassy island and Sandquay area remains like a construction site.  The soil on the island is rough and full of stones.  The area is littered.  The road is dirty.  The bus stop remains covered with a black plastic sack.  The road sign lies in the mud.  It is not acceptable.  Residents tolerate the construction phase of the project, knowing that it is essential to the installation of the Lower Harbour scheme.  It is absolutely unacceptable that any contractual footprint would remain post-construction.  It is essential when the works are underway in Glenbrook that the road would be regularly swept, that litter would be cleaned up and that when the works are complete, that the area would be returned to the status quo within a short period of days.

I should appreciate contact from either Cork County Council or the Lower Harbour drainage project team to address my concerns as outlined above.  I also expect that the procedures for road closure applications as outlined below and on the County Council’s website would be followed:

  • If any observations/objections are received, the applicant will be contacted in this regard and will be required to engage directlywith the Third Party to seek resolution to issues raised.
  • Once issues have been resolved, the Roads Authority needs written confirmation from the organiser of how objections/observations were addressed.  The Roads Authority may also seek confirmation from the Objector/s whether their needs have been satisfactorily addressed ….

To facilitate direct contact with myself with regard to these proposed closures of the R610 in Passage West, I confirm that I consent to the transfer of this information and my details to the applicant.

Regards,
Marcia D’Alton.

____________________________________
Marcia D’Alton
Independent Member, Cork County Council

Mobile: 085 – 7333852
Website: www.marciadalton.net
Facebook: www.facebook.com/cllrmarciadalton
Twitter: @marciadalton

Cork County Council makes a planning application for improvements to the Ballinrea Road, Carrigaline

As part of the planning approval for the new three-school campus on the Ballinrea Road, Cork County Council was conditioned to provide a number of improvements to roads in the vicinity. It is starting to do that now in preparation for the schools’ expected opening in January 2020. It has advertised a planning application for road improvements between Carrigcourt and Glenwood to include:
 
– provision of new footpaths and cycleways
– uncontrolled pedestrian crossings
– junction realignment
– road narrowing and a raised table junction
– set down areas
– new road markings and signs
– installation of public lighting.
 
It proposes junction realignment at Carrigcourt, Dun Eoin and Glenwood with the installation of traffic calming and alterations to drainage.
 
The full planning application can be inspected at the Carrigaline Area Office on Church Road or purchased (at a reasonable fee) from Monday 10th December 2018 until Friday 18th January 2019. You can also access it here:
 
Submissions or Observations with respect to the proposed development may be made in writing to:
Senior Engineer,
Cork County Council,
Regional & Local Road Design Office,
Inishmore,
Ballincollig,
P31 WT69
 
or emailed to: part8.rlrdo@corkcoco.ie
 
and must reach the Senior Engineer before 4pm on Friday 1st February 2019.
 
All submissions should be clearly marked “Ballinrea Road Improvement Scheme Part 8”.
In addition, after screening a determination was made that an EIA Report is not required.  In accordance with Article 120 (3), as amended by S.I. No. 296 of 2018, a person may, within 4 weeks from the date of the planning notice (7 December 2018), apply to An Bord Pleanála for a screening determination as to whether the development would be likely to have significant effects on the environment. Such a submission should be addressed to the Secretary, An Bord Pleanála, 64, Marlborough Street, Dublin, 1.

URDF funding announcement includes Passage West & Carrigaline!

The official detail of the Urban Regeneration & Development Fund has arrived!  It includes €1.9m towards the purchase of the #PassageWest dockyard and €750k towards development of the #Carrigaline Western Relief Road in Category A projects. Delighted to see that it also includes funding for planning for improvement to the public realm in #Carrigaline as one of the Category B projects. As the biggest town in the county, Carrigaline deserves that.
 
(Just to refresh, Category A projects are those that can happen immediately. Category B projects are the preparatory steps necessary to enable bigger projects down the line.)
 
Great to see funding granted to the Port of Cork and to Irish Rail too for projects that should have positive repercussions on the entire Cork area. Wow 😅 You’ll find a link to the funding announcement that came from government at this link: URDF List for Publication 251118

Projects submitted for funding to the Urban/Rural Regeneration & Development Fund 2018

The following are the projects which have been submitted by Cork County Council for funding under two new government grants, the Urban Regeneration & Development Fund and the Rural Regeneration & Development Fund.  The Urban fund is targeted specifically at cities and larger towns in Metropolitan areas.  The Rural fund is targeted at towns outside of these areas and with populations of less than 10,000.

Urban Regen Dev Fund – List of Applications

Rural Regen Dev Fund – List of Applications

Community Enhancement Programme allocations 2018

Great to see a total of €282,115 being allocated to 59 groups in South Cork for projects they had asked to be funded under the Community Enhancement Programme. This is a fund distributed by the Department of Rural and Community Development and administered by Cork County Council. The groups and projects awarded funding throughout the county are listed in full here:
CEP South LCDC Cork County Group amount description Final

Funding was also granted under a specific Men’s Shed Fund to 12 Men’s Sheds in South Cork.  The groups, their proposed projects and the funding amounts can all be seen here:
SOUTH CORK

Clarke’s Hill upgrade is approved by the Ballincollig-Carrigaline Municipal District

Part 8 planning permission has been granted for Cork County Council‘s proposed upgrade of Clarke’s Hill, Rochestown. The Manager’s Report was brought to today’s meeting of the Ballincollig-Carrigaline Municipal District. Residents had made 22 submissions to the Part 8 consultation. The issues clearly causing most concern are the erection of traffic lights at the Rochestown Road/Clarke’s Hill junction (which works well on a courtesy basis), the excessive use of traffic lights (4 in a little more than 1 km stretch of road), the absence of any cycle lane, the removal of the trees which lend this area its pleasant ambience and the inadequacy of Coach Hill to serve as a relief road for traffic when the upgrade is being constructed.
 
A copy of the Manager’s report is available here:
(Please note that the highlighting is my own done as part of the meeting prep!)
Councillors had many queries and echoed many of the concerns raised by residents at today’s meeting.
 
The engineers say the traffic lights at the Rochestown Road/Clarke’s Hill junction are essential to provide safe egress to houses opposite Clarke’s Hill. They committed to reviewing the traffic light proposals as part of the detailed design phase. They assure that they have put genuine effort into counting every tree which may be affected by the scheme and will replace where at all possible. They continue to advise against the cycle facilities because installing them would mean additional land take. Also they say the NTA advises not to install a cycle lane where the gradient is more than 5%. (Clarke’s Hill has a gradient of 9%.) And they have indicated their intimate understanding of Coach Hill’s being incorporated into the traffic management part of the construction phase.
 
The upgrade is necessary but I am especially unhappy about the absence of cycle facilities. It is proposed to install two 2m wide footpaths as part of the scheme, one on either side of the road. I am of the strong opinion that one of these footpaths should be removed to provide a cycle lane for bikes going up Clarke’s Hill. If traffic on Clarke’s Hill increases as part of the M28 scheme (as is predicted), this would be the least we could do to increase safety for all vulnerable road users.
 
The scheme will now go to full Council for approval.