From: Puckane Development Association C/O Bernie Craughan, The Boreen, Puckane, Nenagh, County Tipperary.

To: An Bord Pleanala, 64 Marlborough Street, Dublin 1. 14th of May 2011 Bord Pleanala Reference: PL 22. 238796 Dear Sir/Madam, RE: Third Party submission on behalf of Puckane Development Association to An Bord Pleanala regarding the decision of North Tipperary County Council to refuse Planning Permission for a development of 12 No Single Storey Dewllinghouses, ( Phase 1 of 3 Phase Development) new entrance and internal roadways, storm water attenuation system, landscaping and all associated landscaping and site works at: Ballycraggan, Puckane, Nenagh, County Tipperary. Planning Reference North Tipperary County Council: 10/51/0328 Bord Pleanala: 22.238796
1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Puckane Development Association wish to make the following submission outlining our concerns and objection to the proposal referenced above. This objection follows our numerous detailed submissions lodged with North Tipperary County Council on the site in question. The full grounds of our objection are set out below. We enclose the prescribed statutory fee of 25. 2.0 GROUNDS
OF

OBJECTION

During the course of this planning application the Puckane Development Association (PDA) have reviewed in detail the plans and particulars submitted in support of this planning application and subsequent further information request and We submit to the Board that a number of significant important issues have not been adequately addressed by the applicant during both the planning application stage and subsequent Further Information request despite being requested by North Tipperary County Council, these include: Vast Overzoning of development land within Puckane by North Tipperary County Council within the Western Area Local Area Plan 2006 (105.2 Acres)

 The adverse cumulative impact of the overall development of the subject lands has not been assessed; The capacity constraints of service infrastructure within Puckane village to accommodate for the proposed development; The proposed development does not comply with Smarter Travel: A Sustainable Transport Future A New Transport Policy for Ireland 2009 - 2020 Non-Compliance with the Masterplan 3 of the Western Area Local Area Plan; Inadequate regard to the Puckane Village Design Statement. The Capacity constraints of service infrastructure within Puckane Village to accommodate the proposed development is inadequate as per Waste Water Discharge Circular. http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,2 1025,en.pdf Lack of pedestrian links between the subject site and the village centre. The Dromineer/Urra Road (L5006) is currently substandard and any development proposals for the subject site must incorporate the provision of clear pedestrian links with the village centre; Traffic Impacts & Road Safety; Internal Layout & Design Failure of the applicant to deal in full with Further Information request issued by North Tipperary County Council of September 8th 2010, despite 2 separate Further Information submissions (notably Feb 10th 2011 & March 1st 2011) Having regard to the above and the applicants failure to address the above mentioned issues, we respectfully submit that the An Bord Pleanala uphold the decision of North Tipperary County Council and REFUSE planning permission for the aforementioned proposed development.. Overzoning of Lands in Puckane within the Western Area Local Area Plan A justification for the proposed development of the subject lands by the applicants consultants is based on its current zoning provision within the Western Area Local Area Plan. However at this juncture I think it is important to make An Bord Pleanala aware of the extent of lands zoned and sequence of numerous amendments (not all of which went on Public display) made to the Puckane Settlement Plan as part of the Western Area Local Area Plan 2006. Although some of this information may not be deemed to be within the remit of a submission under An Bord Pleanala rules and guidelines, we feel it is extremely important and pertinent to include in order to understand the many amendments added from draft to adoption and the level of opposition to the broader question of vast over zoning of lands within Puckane Village. We respectfully submit this brief synopsis and make these points solely for clarity on the Bigger Picture of why these particular lands should not be granted planning permission by An Bord Pleanala. History of Western Area Local Area Plan (WALAP) Date: Event: May 2005 Initial Draft of Western Area Local Area Plan (WALAP) produced by North Tipp County Council (no public consultation at this stage) August 27th 2005: Nenagh Guardian Newspaper Advert states that Initial WALAP draft put on Public Display from August 29th to October 10th 2005. 2

September 15th 2005: October 7th 2005:

October 10th 2005: November 21st 2005

First Public Meeting on Draft WALAP hosted by Planning Department of North Tipperary County Council held in Dromineer. Puckane Development Association (P.D.A.) hold public meeting to draft our submission to North Tipperary Co Co for October 10th submission deadline. At this meeting we were only shown a very poor quality A4 size photocopy and were given inadequate details of the extent and exact acreage of lands zoned which on the night we calculated approximately as 24 Acres for residential and commercial purposes. Councillor from North Tipperary County Council agreed with this estimate. (attended and advised/aided by Councillor John Carroll in drafting our submission) At this stage the lands owned by Mr Harty (10.5 Acres) which are the lands in question in regard to his appeal were not included on the draft WALAP and we were told by Councillor Carroll that if we commented on any lands outside the initial draft our submission would be Thrown Out PDA lodge revised submission from Councillor Carrolls draft on the proposed WALAP 1 Presentation of Managers Report to Members. Under Section 20(3) of the planning and Development Act 2000 This is the first mention of the appellants lands being proposed for zoning. Also,Mr Hartys Submission was actually No. 11 and not No. 12 as stated in his pending appeal. Submission No. 12 is in fact North Tipperary County Councils own submission on lands (8 Acres) that were planned for Social & Affordable Housing. We mention these facts to avoid any confusion and to clearly distinguish between the 2 separate parcels of zoned land Submission No.11 and Submission No. 12 2 are two entirely different parcels of land both within Puckane Village & Environs. The lands in Submission No. 11 were also commented on by another party Capital Schemes in submission No. 91 of this report. The comments used by Mr. Hartys agent in this pending appeal in regard to Brian Kennys comments from DoHELG (Submission No. 228 ) were made by Mr Kenny PRIOR to Mr Hartys submission and therefore it is very misleading to portray Mr Kennys comments: (..This noted that the proposed local area plan was largely in line with the County Development Plan) as being a true reflection of the DoHELGs view on the extent of lands zoned as Mr Hartys lands had not been included in the draft WALAP when Mr. Kenny expressed this view. (DoHELG submission No. 228 was lodged on October 10th 2005) Vast quantities of additional lands were subsequently zoned after Mr. Kenny made these comments and indeed Mr Kenny later voiced his concerns with the extent of additional lands added to the draft WALAP and specifically mentioned the oversupply 3 of lands in Puckane in later comments which he subsequently made on numerous additional amendments prior 3

to adoption of the WALAP in March 2006. In short, These comments noted by the appellant submitted by DoHELG in submission No. 228 were made PRIOR to Mr Hartys lands being proposed for zoning. (Note: This Managers report to elected members was not seen by any of the village residents until mid to late December) Sometime between November 21st and December 22nd an additional Proposed Amendments under Section 20(3)(e) of the Planning and Development Act 2002 Report on Submissions received to the Proposed WALAP was drafted and presented to Elected members. Hard copy on File signed by Senior Planner Pat Slattery County Council Meeting held and additional lands added by amendment in addition to those listed on Proposed Amendments under section 20(3)(e) of the planning and Development Act 2002. December 2005. These additions are noted in The Addendum to Report on Proposed Amendments under Section 20 (3)(e) Planning and development act 2002, but we do not believe this addendum was put on public display over January 13th to February 10th period of 2006.4 There are also 3 different versions 5 of these Council Minutes of Meetings of December 22nd 2005 and the Official Record does not show reference to this addendum under the appropriate heading Proposed Modifications under Section 20(3)(e) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended) put on Display. We estimate 68 acres now zoned up from initial 24 acres. Exact acerage was never given to us throughout the process. Public meeting held where senior executive planner Pat Slattery stated He would not be in favour of the extent of lands zoned as per the Proposed Modifications under Section 20(3)(e) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended) PDA submission on Proposed Modifications under Section 20(3) (e) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended) lodged. We had been granted an extra ten days to lodge submission from February 10th deadline as an agreed meeting with all 7 councillors scheduled for Thursday February 16 th, where Councillors were to explain their reasons for extent of lands zoned was cancelled on 5 hours notice Subsequent meeting with Councillors cancelled again on the day. Rescheduled for March 7th Article is published in Nenagh Guardian titled : Puckane residents hit out at housing development plan Meeting held in Council Planning Offices Public Meeting held with over 100 residents attending. No show again from Councillors We get a copy of the Managers Report to Elected Members dated March for the first time6 More lands added to be zoned. WALAP adopted at County Council Meeting Diggers start removing ditches and what was known locally as Quarry Field/Ring Fort from Harty Lands behind GAA field.

December ?? 2005 (date not given Report)

on

December 22nd 2005

January 16th February 10th February 7th 2006

February 20th 2006

February 27th 2006 March 1st 2006 March 7th 2006 March 21st 2006 March 24th 2006 March 27th 2006 June 16th 2006

December 2006 January 24th 2007 February 8th 2007 February 19th 2007 March 2nd 2007 March 12th 2007 March 21st 2007 March 23rd 2007 March 30th 2007 April 6th 2007

April 15th 2007 April 16th 2007 April 21st 2007 April 23rd 2007 April 26th 2007 April 28th 2007 May 9th 2007 May 12th 2007 May 13th 2007 May 22nd 2007 Nov 27th 2007

April 3rd 2009 April 24th 2009 July 16th 2010

Speed Limit Bye-Laws Review resulting in Speed limits/Village Bounds changed on L5006 to accommodate Mr. Hartys lands without prior consultation with PDA and Puckane residents Speed Signs relocated in under 40 minutes by 6 workers 2 Diggers and a Lorry. 2pm PDA lobbies Politicians and Council officials to start agreed Village Design Process prior to development PDA receives notification from another developer that he intends to lodge planning permission for 33 acre holding. Open Public Meeting attended by 100+ and all Dail Representatives Open letter to Councillors in Nenagh Guardian Nenagh Guardian Article Puckane fears housing boom after massive land rezoning Meet with Director of Services Tom Barry and senior planner Brian Beck of North Tipperary County council to discuss Village Design Statement process Concerns Highlighted on Tipp FM morning show with Seamus Martin Councillor and Senator also phone in TG4 program Pobal do research for program on Zoning in Puckane and on receive confirmation from Council that 105.23 Acres have been zoned in Puckane. This is the first time we had the exact acreage figure despite numerous requests Pobal program airs Huge local Interest PDA delegation hand in letter of protest insisting that council dezone lands under section 18.5 of Planning & Development Act 2002 Nenagh Guardian publishes Why are they waiting? Puckane wants answers 20+ residents attend meeting with 6 of 7 area councilors Town Councillor S. Morris lodges Ethics complaint with Ethics registrar of North Tipperary County Council on councilor conduct in zoning saga Nenagh Guardian Editorial Whats Going on in Puckane? PDA Meet with Tom Barry and Brian beck again in Council Nenagh Guardian Article Puckane Re Zoning Probe with Ethics Registrar Public Meeting in Puckane attended by 6 of 9 General Election candidates. First Village Design Statement meeting held in Village Primetime Investigates program The Pressure Zone airs on councilor conduct in zoning around country. Puckane is one of 4 locations featured. Major reaction from this program. This slowed down the scramble in Puckane and the following years acknowledgement of the Property Bust slowed down things even further Planning Reference #09510186 received on this same Site. Incompleted Application Planning Reference#09510232 received on this same site Withdrawn Planning Reference #10510328 received on this site Refused and currently with An Bord Pleanala (this application)

So Puckane originally zoned with 24 acres residential eventually had 105 Acres zoned in total, PDA and residents objected to these massive zoning increases at all junctures available, but were completely ignored by planning authority & elected representatives, There were at least 5 different versions/amended drafts, in theory a population increase of anywhere between 270 and 500+ persons and a prolonged media campaign with over a dozen Front Page Nenagh Guardian, Articles, Tipp FM, Pobal on TG4 and culminating in being featured on Primetime Investigates 27/11/2007. Also in Irish Times (Dr. Elaine Byrne), Examiner (Diarmuid Ferriter), Irish Daily Mail (Joe Higgins) These particular lands have a vast amount of back lands that both the appellant and persons pushing this zoning had envisaged as lands for future zoning and development. Should the false Boom have continued, the appellant would most likely have 50 house built or in the process of being built and be looking for another 10 or 20 acres to be zoned behind these lands for more development. The proposed access to this current planning application is the only access off a secondary road to all these back lands and thus this is only possible chance to access this extensive land bank. This level of zoning was NOT supported by all major organisations in Puckane including GAA, Tennis, Soccer, Puckane National School etc It is our contention that as part of the review process of WALAP and the overzoning of lands that occurred in the 2006 adoption that A significant portion of lands within Puckane will be dezoned to comply with National Spatial Strategy, Regional planning guidelines and strategies and the Planning and Development Act 2010. Owing to this lands location , detached at a distance from the village core which is approx 650 metres from village centre on the L5006 (Western approach road) as opposed to the other 2 speed limits/village bounds of 445m on the Southern approach and 390 Metres on the Northern Approach along the R493, Furthermore the speed signs were moved from 560 Metres to 677 7 Metres from Village center intersection of R493 & L5006 solely to accommodate Mr Hartys request to include his lands (MP3) within the village bounds in December 2006 despite the fact that this was the first and primary point on our first submission to the draft WALAP on October 10th 2005 8. We were verbally assured by councillors that they would consult with us prior to any relocation or revision of the speed signs/village bounds but to no avail. The speed signs in question were subsequently relocated on January 24th 2007 solely to accommodate Mr Hartys request in his initial request to have these lands zoned. Site is immediately outside the 50Kph speed Limit but could be relocated 9. Of all the 105.2 Acres zoned in March 2006 these lands were the ONLY lands that were not inside the existing Village bounds when the WALAP was adopted.10 If ever there was a case of putting Carts before Horses then this is surely it. We also contend these lands will be both an obvious choice and among the primary lands considered to be dezoned as part of the upcoming review of the WALAP which we understand is imminent, starting this summer 2011 and ending with adoption of the new WALAP 2011-2017 in March 2012. We further contend that this application

is being pushed forward against a North Tipperary County Council Refusal in order to minimize chances of being dezoned while it is still an active planning permission. Cumulative Impact We contend that the Appellant has failed to address numerous items requested by North Tipperary County Councils Further Information Request of September 8th 2010. These include: 5(b) No Traffic Impact Assessment of the proposed development having regard to any future development which may take place on additionally zoned lands within the site has been submitted. 5(c) No proposals to ensure that the currently proposed development will not result in any additional flooding of lands in the vicinity of the site. Proposed development will exacerbate already existing flooding issues to adjacent properties. (Note: Videos of Flooding and sightline issues are available to view at: www.youtube.com/user/puckanetipp ) 7(a) Water services Foul Sewage insufficient design calculations have been submitted as requested by Further Information in September 2010. 7(b) Foul Sewerage insufficient design calculations have been submitted as requested by Further Information in September 2010. Also, It is noted from the Water Services Report dated March 7th 201111 that: The applicant proposes to connect to the existing foul sewage pumping station. The existing foul sewage pumping station may not have sufficient capacity to cater for the proposed development and may not have sufficient capacity for the adjoining lands proposed for development by the applicant in future phases. Stated in Point (1) 7(c) The Appellant did not Submit documentation and maps setting out the developers legal entitlement, including wayleaves to traverse lands outside the site boundaries, in order to put into effect such methods of disposal of sewage." and is thus acting ultra vires proposing to complete works on lands outside his control that are required to service the site in question. He has failed to indicate that he owns or has legal entitlement to undertake works on lands required to service the proposed development 8(a) The Appellant has failed to indicate where storm water from proposed development is to be discharged despite requested by Local Authority in their September 8th Further Informatiion Request, the appellant/agent has failed to submit layout drawing demonstrating the proposed route of the discharge of storm water to the nearest water course as indicated in the Water Services report of March 7th 2011.12 Which states in Point (3) The applicant has not indicated storm water to be discharged to the nearest water course. The applicant proposes discharging storm to ground based on anecdotal

evidence. This is totally unacceptable. The applicant has not carried out any site investigation/infiltration tests. We also respectfully submit to An Bord Pleanala that the indirect and cumulative impact of wider development within the site has not been assessed with respect to such issues as traffic impact, foul effluent and community and social infrastructure provision It is stated by the applicant that the instantly proposed development is Phase 1 of an overall three phase development. However there are no details provided within the planning documentation submitted as to what the future additional phases of development will include. Accordingly, the cumulative impacts of the development of the subject site cannot be assessed. We therefore submit that this planning application represents project splitting and should be refused. National planning policy, including the National Spatial Strategy, Guidelines for Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas and the Development Plan Guidelines require that the urban extension of established settlements should take place in a sequential manner. The proposed development does not accord with this principle and will resulting piecemeal, haphazard and uncoordinated development and the inefficient provision of infrastructure. Sustainable Planning & Travel An Bord Pleanala will be aware of the major oversupply of zoned land13and housing nationally together with Government policy as articulated in the National Spatial Strategy and the Regional Planning Guidelines for the Mid-West Region to focus new residential development in larger urban centres and serviced settlements. Owing to the severe economic downturn brought about substantially by major regulatory weaknesses in our planning system and property development sector, national planning policy and legislation together with transport policy has moved on markedly in the intervening period since these lands were speculatively zoned for development. An Bord Pleanala will be aware that the Planning & Development (Amendment) Act 2010 is now law and that within one-year of this law, a Variation of the North Tipperary County Development Plan is required to address the oversupply of zoned land in inappropriate locations. We contend that Puckane with 105.2 Acres zoned will be a primary candidate and location for this mandated Dezoning. The proposed development is entirely car dependent and as a consequence contravenes Governments current transport policy Smarter Travel: A Sustainable Transport Future. We would respectfully reference a recent landmark decision by An Bord Pleanala with respect to a proposed phased residential development in Dunmore East, County Waterford (PL 24.234725). In deciding to refuse planning permission the Board noted: The Board considered that the expansion of the town of Dunmore East should be planned in tandem with the provision of the services and infrastructure necessary to sustain new development and that the provision of individual
8

waste water systems to facilitate individual housing schemes was neither an economical nor environmentally sustainable approach. Having regard to the scale of the proposed development (Phase 1 of a much larger development) in relation to the town of Dunmore East, it appears to the Board that the development is, to a substantial degree, aimed at attracting commuters, rather than responding to likely local needs. The proposed development would, therefore, promote an unsustainable development pattern contrary to the National Spatial Strategy and other general policies of the Government in relation to sustainable development. Also An Bord Pleanala considered that the lay-out and design of the proposed development was generally of a suburban character and likely to detract from the distinctive character of the town. Non-Compliance with Masterplan (MP) 3 The Puckane settlement plan included within the Western Area Local Area Plan provides a clear development brief for the subject site. This Masterplan states: To provide low density cluster style development 10.5 acres of land situated west of the GAA pitch on the Dromineer Road as follows 1. 2. To provide 20% serviced sites as part of low density housing. Housing shall be single storey to protect views to and from the lake. To provide an internal access road via the open space/amenity area and reserve an access to the rear of the GAA pitch to link with the tennis courts; the open space shall be provided as part of the overall master plan and as a community benefit. To provide an open space/park as part of the development; The overall layout housing to be designed to Arcadian principles, such that all boundaries forward of the dwellings shall be soft landscaping and not concrete walls, with internal roads designed to be rural in character. To provide road widening, footpath and public lighting along the Dromineer Road to link to the village centre 14

3. 4.

5.

Also within the specific objectives of the Puckane settlement Plan, the following items are listed: 1. To provide and improve roads, footpaths, traffic calming, public lighting and signage within the village as finances allow and as developments take place. To provide new and improved footpaths on the Urra Road from the Cuan Deirg housing to the junction with the R493. To extend this footpath to Killdangan GAA club and Ballycraggan as part of new development along the Urra Road. Development on sites MP1 and MP3 will be required to make a special contribution to this required infrastructure To require necessary infrastructure along the R493 and L5006 as part of master plans, including (i) a footpath with public lighting linking the developments to the village. (ii) A foul sewer connection to the village treatment plant; and (iii) upgrading of the village treatment plant.

11.

12.

Items (i) and (iii) to be agreed with Roads and Water Services sections of the Council. The existing school is at capacity and is land locked and not capable of being extended. It is an objective of the plan to provide for a future school site within master plan MP3.

The Planning Authority will note that the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government has published Guidelines for the Provision of Schools and the Planning System. The Guidelines provide that the future location and capacity of school infrastructure must be identified in all planning applications for major new urban development. The future school location is not indicated anywhere within the plans and particulars submitted by the applicant. On examination of the documents, plans and particulars submitted as part of the planning application and subsequent documents as part of Further Information Request it is clear that the planning application does not conform with the Masterplan 3, inter alia, as follows; There are no proposals submitted to provide road widening, footpath and public lighting along the Dromineer Road to link the Village centre as requested in the Masterplan 3. (Also Refered to in Endnote # 14)

Capacity of Local Service infrastructure An Bord Pleanala will be aware of its obligations under the Waste Water Discharge (Authorisation) Regulations SI No. 684 of 2007 as outlined in Circular Letter PD 7/09 It is noted from the plans and particulars and subsequent Additional Information document submitted with the planning application that the applicant intends to connect to the public sewer within Puckane. However the existing sewerage treatment plant is currently operating at capacity. Also, despite requests by the local authority the applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is sufficient capacity to cater for proposed development and subsequent phases. It is evident from correspondence on file that the Local Authority has serious concerns regarding the ability of the current infrastructure to cater for proposed development and any subsequent future phases. It should also be noted that the current Puckane Sewerage Station is only a Secondary treatment plant. Furthermore, should the applicant be granted permission for the proposed development the resultant sewerage would have to be pumped to this Station as there is not a gravitational feed to the treatment plant. Site Layout Plan 08/116-401 associated with the planning application clearly demonstrates that the applicant is required to enter onto 3 rd party lands to service the proposed development 15. In the subsequent Further information request, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that he has sufficient title to these lands to enable the proposed connection to proceed.16 Similarly the North Tipperary County Council share our concerns as is evident by document
10

(see Water services Report 24/08/2010 Point 8)17 The Bord will be aware of the implications of the Water Framework Directive and Irelands obligations under this Directive to achieve Good status in all water bodies by 2015. This is confirmed within the Western Area local Area Plan Puckane Settlement Plan which states; Objective SO 13: The existing sewerage treatment plant is at capacity and will require an upgrade to accommodate the planned expansion of the village. Developers will be required to enter partnerships towards the provision of an improved facility. This may be dealt with through a number of options that include a public private partnership, a serviced land initiative or through special development contribution scheme. And also Item 2.6 on page 5 of the Puckane Village Design Statement states; the existing sewerage system has limited capacity. This is of serious concern to the community. Prior to the addition of new housing to the village sewage issues need to be addressed. There are no proposals submitted to upgrade the sewerage treatment plant within Puckane and therefore contravenes the objectives of the Western Area Local Area Plan. During the Western Area Local Area Plan consultation and the Village Design Statement process both Mr. Pat Slattery (Senior Planner) & Mr. Brian Beck (Senior Executive planner) of North Tipperary County Council gave assurances to the residents of Puckane that no development will take place on zoned lands within the Village until the capacity of the sewerage treatment plant has been adequately increased. Within the Village of Puckane there is a serious issue relating to the disposal of storm water particularly within Ballycraggan. During times of heavy rains flooding occurs within the hurling field and within Ballycraggan estate itself. An Bord Pleanala will be aware of the Draft Flood Guidelines for Planning Authorities. No justification has been provided within the plans and particulars submitted to address the issue of flooding within Puckane despite being requested to do so by the Local Authority. This will be further exacerbating an existing problem as the proposed entrance to the proposed development is the LOWEST area in the Village as per OS Maps and Data. Also in a Report titled: WATER SERVICES INVESTMENT PROGRAMME - ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS REPORT dated July 2006 Page 6 of this report refers to schemes identified to meet the water services needs over the period 2010-2014 : states in relation to Puckane Upgrade Sewerage Treatment Plant and on page 10 APPENDIX I - NORTH TIPPERARY COUNTY PRIORITY LIST in reference to Puckane it also states: Upgrade Sewerage Treatment Plant 18
11

Furthermore in the March 2006 Managers report to members in reply to submission No. 19 by Brian Kenny DoHELG te following comments were made by the County Manager: Policy SERV 3: Proprietary Wastewater Treatment It is the policy of the Council, in granting planning permission for housing in villages, where sewage treatment facilities are inadequate, to require an applicant to provide a wastewater treatment system. The Council may require that the new plant is designed in excess of the immediate needs of the proposed development, the spare capacity can then be used to accommodate future development. Proposed waste water treatment plants will be required to include appropriate tertiary treatment and the removal of phosphorus from the effluent. Systems should be designed, constructed and maintained in accordance with the requirements of of the Wastewater Treatment Manuals, Treatment Systems for Small Communities, Business, Leisure Centres and Hotels as complied by the Environmental Protection Agency 1999. Note: The developer shall contact the Environment Section of the Council to seek a Discharge Licence prior to making a planning application. As stated already the Puckane Waste Water treatment plant is currently only a secondary treatment plant. Traffic Impacts & Road Safety Despite request by North Tipperary County Council the applicant or his agents has failed to submit a Traffic Impact Assessment of the proposed development. As part of the North Tipp County Councils Further Information request of September 8th 2010 and subsequent appeal to the board that applicants agents imply that the required lines of sight can be achieved. Agents for the applicant have included drawings pertaining to detail the required sightlines. Sightlines shown on Site Layout Plan 08/166-401 are unacceptable as they require the removal of boundaries outside the applicants redline and cannot be achieved without removal of said boundaries 19 However it is clearly evident from the information supplied by the applicant that he requires permission from Third parties to achieve the required lines of sight due to the substandard nature of the road network. No letters of consent from adjacent landowners have been submitted permitting the applicant sight over these lands or alternatively permission to remove any obstacles to achieving adequate sightlines. I would also like to bring to the Boards attention that the lines of sight detail in the applicant submission are in advance of the stop line20 detailed on the appellants own drawings. Should the lines of sight be taken from the stop line as detailed it is our considered opinion that these would in fact be significantly worse than those that are currently and inadequately detailed by the appellant. During the planning application process the Puckane Development Association got independent advice from an independent Road Safety Auditor accredited by the NRA. The safety auditor had major concerns regarding the design and operation of the junction in its current location due to road speed in the vicinity of the junction, lines of sight achievable from the junction, pedestrian safety / conflict with vehicles
12

and the design of the junction. These concerns are also shared by North Tipperary County Council area engineer in his report where he recommended refusal on the grounds of inadequate sightline. The report states; Sightlines Shown on Site Layout Plan 08/116-401 are unacceptable as they require the removal of boundaries outside of the applicants redline and cannot be achieved without the removal of the said boundaries. The Senior Executive Office environment within North Tipperary County Council in his submission on the proposed development voices concerns on the safe egress / ingress to the proposed site.21 Sight Distance: Clear sight triangle visibility not achieved due to adjacent property (within visibility splay) not being in applicants ownership/legal entitlement. The proposed vehicular access junction from the proposed development to the L5006 Dromineer/Urra Road is substandard in both road width and sufficient lines of sight. The L5006 Dromineer/Urra road adjacent the subject site has a substandard vertical and horizontal alignment is circa 4 meters in width and does not allow for two cars to pass safely simultaneously. The proposed development for the subject site does not contain proposals to upgrade this road. The proposed development together with the cumulative impacts of the overall development of the subject lands will generate significant additional traffic movements on the adjacent road network and would constitute a serious traffic hazard as stated in the reasons for refusal. Youtube video of sightlines at the following link: http://www.youtube.com/user/puckanetipp?feature=mhum#p/u The applicants agents have failed to indicate the required sightlines from the proposed access junction. We submit that the proposed junction in its current format has substandard sightlines. Sightlines from the entrance to the proposed development must be measured using standards from the NRA Design Manual for Roads and Bridges and the DOE Traffic Management Guidelines. This requires the x point of the site line to be taken from the centre point of the access 4.5 metres from the edge of the carriageway. The standards allow for a relaxation in the standards to 2.4 metres for individual residential units. This relaxation does not apply in this instance. The standards require that the Y-distance measurement to the right of the entrance was taken to the near side of the carriageway, while the Ydistance to the left of the site be taken to the centre of the carriageway as per the requirements contained in the NRA Addendum to TD 42/95. These are reproduced as Figures 1 & 2 detailed below. Figure 1: `y' Visibility Distances from the Minor Road

13

Figure 2: Visibility Standards

Furthermore, an Independent Road Safety Audit should have been undertaken by the applicant in order to access the suitability of the proposed junction to cater for the proposed development. Additionally, No Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) has been undertaken as stipulated under 5(B) of the September 8 th 2010 Further Information request 22 They concede that items 5A, B, C and D are only partially answered and specifically B) a TIA is not attached and D) details of roads, drainage, etc Owing to the substandard nature of the adjacent road network and access junction the proposed development as submitted would constitute a serious traffic hazard and would endanger the safety of the existing road users. Conclusion: The proposed development contravenes national and local planning policy guidance and particularly the policies and objectives of the Western Local Area Plan. The
14

proposed development by reason of substandard vehicular sightlines and the overall cumulative impact of the future phased development of the subject lands would have an adverse impact on the capacity of the local road network and would constitute a serious traffic hazard. While the applicants agents contend that there is a presumption in favour of permission where appropriate land zonings apply. We would contend that there are a number of other important issues not withstanding land issues that are required prior to a successful planning application. These include: Adequete services to cater for any proposed development. Services such as sewerage, School capacity. Vehicular and pedestrian safety and Adequate access. Flooding impact both on site and on adjacent existing developments. Outside of these lands being currently zoned during the zoning frenzy in 2005/06 and at the height of the property Bubble, the appellant has failed to address any of the aforementioned prerequisites for the sustainable and proper development of the appellants lands. We therefore respectfully submit that the proposed development should be refused planning by An Bord Pleanala Copies of all pertinent documents in the attached Appendix have corresponding numbers to the Endnotes.

15

1 2

Copy of PDA submission on Draft WALAP October 10th 2005 attached. Copy of the relevant sections of this November 21st 2005 Managers Report to Elected members in Appendix. 3 Copy of comments made by DoHELG by Mr. Brian Kenny in the March 2006 Managers Report: #12 : Brian Kenny, Spatial Policy Unit, Department of Environment Heritage and Local Government, Custom House, Dublin 1 : Among the Summary was this point in regard to Puckane : submission raised concern in respect of the oversupply of land zoned for residential purposes in some villages and proposed that the issue of phasing be addressed to ensure an efficient and orderly use of the land. Proposed amendments provide for additional zoning. Submission raises concern that this need for this additional land has not been justified and may lead to the uneconomic use of infrastructural resources. Issue of phasing or prioritising development should be addressed. And in the Managers Comments on this submission were : The issue of density which is a feature of design should be addressed through the Village Design statements. The concern regarding over-supply of zoned land is acknowledged and has already been highlighted to the members. See proposed amendments for area of land proposed to be zoned for housing in Puckane.
4

We believe that Section 20 of Planning and Development Act was not complied with during the consultation process and a similar view was also stated by then Solicitor Elizabeth MacGrath (currently a District Court Judge since May 2007) in her submission No. 23 of the March managers report to elected members. Drawing the following Summary in that March Report. Letter re-iterates concerns that the provisions of Section 20 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 have not been complied with in the consultation process adopted by the Planning Authority to date. 5 Version 1 as per Official Minutes meeting Book on file at North Tipperary County Council, Version 2 as FOId by Primetime Investigates, Version 3 is a hard copy file obtained by PDA at Council Offices. 6 The following comments are in the March 2006 Managers Report in regard to the PDA February 20th submission: This detailed submission raises a number of important issues. (i) and (iii) Having regard to the population projections for the village as outlined in Section 3.2.3. of the Plan and genuine level of concern expressed in respect of the extent of lands zoned for residential development within the village of Puckane, it is considered zoning should be reviewed and a suitable phasing programme for future development identified 7 Page 20 of the Speed Limit Bye Laws 2006 as Adopted by North Tipperary County Council - December 2006 8 Copy of PDA submission on Draft WALAP October 10th 2005 attached. (see Endnote # 1) 9 Taken from Managers Report to members November 2005 - submission 11 Summary of Mr. Hartys initial request for residential zoning Site is immediately outside the 50Kph speed Limit but could be relocated 10 See attached map of original and current location of speed signs/ village bounds 11 Water Services report March 7th 2011. 12 Water Services report March 7th 2011. 13 If we are to return to realistic development planning, some of this land will have to be dezoned, and facing up to this has a part to play in deflating the bubble, John OConnor, Chairman of An Bord Pleannala, October 14th 2009 Source: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1015/1224256692981.html 14 Quote from March 14th 2011 e-mail from Kieran Callinan (SEE) to Ann-Marie Devaney (Executive Planner) In addition, Item 2v, provide connectivity to village has not been addressed. This requires a path and public lighting and the provision of a path would require setback a boundary outside the applicants site. In light of the above I recommend Refusal. Kieran Callanan SEE, Nenagh Borriskane Area. 15 See attached Photo of Plan of Initial sewage connection proposals PRIOR to Further Information Request of September 8th 2010 16 See attached Photo of Plan of Second Choice Sewage connection AFTER the Further Information Request of September 8th 2010. 17 Point 8 in Water Services report dated 24/08/2010 The applicant shall be requested to submit documentation and maps setting out the developers legal entitlement, including wayleaves, to traverse lands outside the site boundaries, in order to put into effect such methods of disposal of storm water shall be submitted to North Tipperary County Council 18 Water Services Investment Programme Assessment of Needs Report Matt Short BE Director of Services. 19 Quote from March 14th 2011 e-mail from Kieran Callinan (SEE) to Ann-Marie Devaney (Executive Planner) 20 Copy of lines of sight detail in the applicant submission are in advance of the stop line detailed on the applicants own drawings copy of drawing attached

21

Quote from March 15th 2011 Memo from Fergus OConnor (Executive Engineer) to Michael Woulfe (Senior Engineer) Re: Sight Distance: Clear sight triangle visibility not achieved due to adjacent property (within visibility splay) not being in applicants ownership/legal entitlement. Attached Appendix of these sightlines also illustrates this point. 22 Quote from March 14th 2011 e-mail from Kieran Callinan (SEE) to Ann-Marie Devaney (Executive Planner) Thanking You for your time on this Matter. Yours Sincerely.

Signed on Behalf of Puckane Development:

Sean Fay (PRO) Bernie Craughan (Co-Chairperson) ___________________________________. Signature on Next Page.

(Please return all written correspondence to Bernie Craughan at address listed at top of Submission.) Also signed by Puckane Residents who lodged Objections already on this Planning Application to North Tipperary County Council: PRINT NAME: SIGNATURE: Additional Signatures of persons who have already lodged objections to North Tipperary County Council Planning Reference #10510328 follow on next page (P.T.O) :