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.

  

 

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 19^thDecember for the R610 Glenbrook – Victoria Terrace/Bath Terrace/Sommerville Terrace from 12^thJanuary – 4^thMarch 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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

 

Submission/petition to Cork County Council re. proposed total closure of the R610 through Passage West

Ward and Burke are proposing two complete road closures in #PassageWest. The first is to lay the sewer in the road from Glenbrook Wharf – Lucia Place during July/August and the second is to lay it from the Town Hall – Oysterhaven Boats (ish) during September/October.  They say they need these closures to lay the sewer.  In addition to this, Ward and Burke already have permission to close the Back Road for July and other partial closures between Passage West, Glenbrook and Monkstown.

The presentation given by Ward & Burke to councillors on these proposed complete road closures is here:

Passage West Road Closure Presentation

 

My submission to the M28 planning application

My submission to the M28 planning appplication is at the link below.  This is a TII/Cork County Council project.  We need vastly improved connectivity out of Ringaskiddy and if there is to be a motorway, that’s fine too.  But at least let it follow a route that will actually keep traffic free-flowing and won’t destroy people’s lives:

Submission to ABP, 18-08-2017

 

My submission to the proposed apartment development in Pembroke Wood, Passage West

Today was the closing day for submissions to the proposed development of 24 apartments on a green space in Pembroke Wood, Passage West.  My submission is below.  I hope it shows how appallingly inappropriate I think this proposal:

Submission to CCC, 10-08-2017_2

 

My submission to the Further Information request on the proposed Ringaskiddy incinerator

An Bord Pleanála invited Indaver Ireland to submit Further Information on their planning application for a proposed incinerator in Ringaskiddy.

Specifically, the Board asked Indaver to address:

1. “Possible discrepancies” in the dioxin modelling data
2. The Department of Defence’s submission which stated that the incinerator would impact on helicopter navigation safety at the Haulbowline Island Naval Base.

Indaver submitted a number of reports in response to this Further Information: one from their air modelling expert, another from their dioxin modelling expert, one from an academic which peer-reviewed the work of the dioxin modelling expert, one from their aviation consultant, another from a new aviation consultant and a report on a site visit to a UK Naval Base with helicopter capability immediately adjacent to an operational incinerator.

Because this information was deemed to be significant, the Board threw it open to the public for their comments.  Today was the last day by which those comments would be received.

There have been some wonderfully competent submissions made by CHASE and others, the import of at least some of which will undoubtedly leak out over the next few weeks.  Below is a link to my own.  It poses deeply concerning questions about the air dispersion modelling carried out by Indaver to which I would dearly love – but will probably never get – answers.

Submission to ABP, 21-07-2017

 

My submission to the consultation on the National Clean Air Strategy

Another gruesomely last minute submission to what was too important a consultation not to have an input to.  Submissions on the National Clean Air Strategy were invited by the Department of Communications, Climate Action and the Environment.  It would be rewarding if even some of the actions asked for below were given credence in the final Strategy.

From:
Cllr Marcia D’Alton
22 Hillcrest,
Pembroke Wood,
Passage West,
Co. Cork.

To whom it may concern

I should be grateful if the following comments would be taken into account in the drafting of the National Clean Air Strategy.

All Environmental Impact Statements accompanying planning applications should be required to measure down to at least PM1.  At present, planning applications rarely discuss particulates smaller than PM2.5.

Establish a network of units monitoring air pollution in real time so that communities can be informed of air quality in their local area.  At present, the network of real time monitoring is abysmal and not at all in compliance with Ireland’s requirements under European legislation.  Critical parameters would include PM10, PM2.5, PM1 and ozone.  Real time results would be made fully accessible to all through the internet.

Install comprehensive ambient air monitoring units in all Strategic Employment Areas and zones of industrial development.

Through the planning process, establish a minimum acceptable distance of 300 metres between schools and busy roads.

Develop a policy of constructing ring roads around cities, thereby keeping traffic from travelling unnecessarily through residential areas.  Urban motorways through residential areas must be discouraged at all costs.  As mentioned in the discussion document, residential areas already deal with the build-up of residential pollutants.  It is absolutely unacceptable that they would also have to deal with pollutants from traffic on urban motorways.

Encourage dense planting of mature trees along major roads to act both as a visual/psychological barrier between traffic and residential homes and as a pollutant sink.

Extend the financing of significantly enhanced public transport to areas outside of Dublin.  At present, many living in suburban homes in cities outside of Dublin cannot take their cars off the road long enough to get them valeted.  A congestion charge as suggested in the discussion document would be entirely unacceptable when no reasonable alternative to the private car is on offer.  That is the case for those living in most urban areas outside of Dublin.

Facilitate the development of cycling as a real alternative to the private car.  Policy and funding needs to stop considering cycling within periurban as recreational.  In my Ballincollig-Carrigaline Municipal District of County Cork, greenways compete for the same tiny funding pot as tourism routes such as the Waterford Greenway.  Yet the level of bicycle/pedestrian traffic they are expected to carry in what are generally more restricted spaces is vast multiples of that which the more rural routes carry.  They need separate consideration and additional, dedicated investment.

Most major ports are adjacent to residential areas.  Yet there is never any independent ambient air monitoring to assuage affected residents.  This is especially critical for ports handling bulk cargo.  It is imperative that all major ports would be obliged to install real-time ambient air monitoring to measure parameters representative of the by-products of engine and generator emissions.  It is equally imperative that all ports, regardless of size, which handle bulk cargo would be obliged to install real-time monitoring to measure levels of particulate in ambient air.

Shoreside electrical power to be provided at all ports which ships berthing overnight should be obliged to use in preference to their own generators.

Often the most polluting offenders in a port situation are partner companies conveying, handling and storing dusty bulk cargo in warehouses and grain stores adjacent to the port.  These companies are not subject to any form of monitoring either by the Environmental Protection Agency or the local authority.  Nor at the time of planning application are they considered to be potential pollutors under the Air Pollution Act.  This must change.

Disappointing to see that waste to energy gets only a glancing mention in the discussion document.  National waste policy sets an upper acceptable limit for the combined capacity of waste to energy facilities to be provided in Ireland.  Taking both constructed and permitted facilities into account, this national upper capacity limit has been reached.  Therefore in accordance with current waste policy, planning permission should not be granted for any additional waste to energy facilities in Ireland.  Energy from the combustion of residual waste is not clean energy.  Feedstock is unpredictable and dirty.  Emissions quality is utterly dependent on the efficacy of a series of scrubbers and other pollution control equipment.  Energy conversion into electricity is grossly inefficient.

European policy is that waste combustion in incinerators must always be classified as waste disposal (D10) unless it can prove that it is energy recovery (R1).  In Ireland, we grant planning permission to incinerators merely on the promise of their delivering R1.  It is essential that Irish policy reflects European policy in this regard and that the infrastructure necessary to efficiently use both the heat and electricity generated by the waste combustion process would form an integral part of the planning application for any new incineration facility.

Vastly improved resourcing for local authorities to carry out their functions under the Air Pollution Act is essential.  At present, they are barely struggling.  Perhaps consider an environmental fund at national level financed via pollution levies which could, over a defined period of time, be used to fund the setting up of properly resourced air monitoring functions within local authorities.

We have no strategies in place in this country by which to tackle existing pollution.  For example, ambient air monitoring in the village of Monkstown on the shores of Cork Harbour, was conducted by the EPA over a 7 month period during 2007/2008.  It found that levels of PM10 were high.  The resulting recommendation was that PM10 would be monitored continuously.  In the following 12 years, traffic has multiplied, permission has been granted for a major port facility nearby, third party grain storage and handling has increased, new industrial facilities have established and planning permission is now being sought to convey all port goods by road via an urban motorway.  Yet ambient levels of any size of particulate matter have never been measured again.

I attach a motion I proposed to Cork County Council in February 2016 requesting real-time ambient air monitoring in Cork Harbour.

Air monitoring in Cork Harbour

Regards,

Marcia D’Alton.
Independent Member, Cork County Council

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

 

My submission to the OPW’s proposed Lower Lee (Cork City) Flood Relief Scheme

I lodged a short submission to the proposed Cork City Flood Relief Scheme at the very last minute on Friday.  We had been given a brief presentation on the scheme by the consultants working on behalf of the OPW, had been given an opportunity to ask questions and were assured that the proposed scheme was being misrepresented in an unfair way by those opposed to it.

Nonetheless, I have my own concerns.  They are fuelled by the enormous professional respect I hold for many who are vocal in their opposition to the scheme as proposed.  Including indeed, my own professor in UCC when I was an undergraduate.

So I put the basis of my (very untechnical!) concerns in the following note to the OPW which they graciously acknowledgedthis morning:

Flood Relief

 

My submission to the Lidl planning application for Barry’s Field, Douglas

Whilst I enjoy shopping in Lidl for myself and the family, I have concerns about the proposed location of a Lidl store in Barry’s Field, Douglas.  I am not happy that those concerns have been addressed in the planning application and so I have outlined them in a submission to Cork County Council as follows:

My submission to CCC, 27-01-2017_2

 

My submissions to the first draft of the Local Area Plans

PassageWest-Monkstown

Ringaskiddy_2

Ringaskiddy Martello Tower

Douglas-Rochestown

Marino Point_2

 

My submission to the proposal to extract soil from the Martello Tower peninsula to use on the East Tip of Haulbowline Island

A planning application (16/6219) has been lodged with Cork County Council in the name of the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Forestry to remove 134,000 cubic metres of topsoil and subsoil from 9.3 hectares of ground within an overall site area of 12.1 hectares and to include onsite screening and crushing of some excavated material, transport of approximately 114,000 cubic metres of material off-site to East Tip, Haulbowline Island, remediation and reprofiling and landscaping of site with retained material post extraction.

My submission to the planning application is here:
Submission to CCC, 04-10-2016

 

Submission to proposed M28 Cork – Ringaskiddy scheme

Click on the following link to see my submission to the latest proposals for the M28 Cork – Ringaskiddy scheme:

Submission to M28, 13-05-2016

 

My submission to Indaver Ireland’s planning application to develop a contract incinerator at Ringaskiddy

Below you will find a link to my submission to An Bord Pleanála in relation to Indaver Ireland’s planning application to develop a 240,000 tonne contract incinerator to burn a combination of hazardous and non-hazardous waste in Ringaskiddy.

The proposed development was regarded as Strategic Infrastructural Development within the meaning of the Strategic Infrastructure Act 2006.  This is a piece of legislation the primary purpose of which is basically to fast-track major items of infrastructure through the planning process.  Any project that is determined to be strategic infrastructure applies for planning permission directly to An Bord Pleanála.

As many of you will know, this is the third time Indaver has applied to built a hazardous and non-hazardous contract incinerator on this site.  The previous two applications were in 2003 and 2008.  I have been involved in opposing this proposal from the outset and have, once again, made a submission to An Bord Pleanála against the proposed development:

My objection to An BP, 06-03-2016

 

My submission to the Preliminary Consultation on the Local Area Plan

Cork County Council,
Floor 13,
County Hall,
Cork.

24^th January, 2015.

RE: Preliminary Consultation on Ballincollig-Carrigaline Municipal District Local Area Plan

Dear Sir,

I welcome this Preliminary Consultation on the review of the Ballincollig-Carrigaline Municipal District Local Area Plan. I should be grateful if my comments would be given consideration when the first draft of the Local Area Plan is being drawn up.

Although I represent the Ballincollig-Carrigaline Municipal District, I live in Passage West. I spent the first 30 years of my life in Douglas. I have a child attending school in Carrigaline and regularly walk recreationally in Ringaskiddy. So as my particular familiarity is with the eastern/southern area of the Municipal District, my submission focuses on this area.

The development of both Ballincollig and Carrigaline as satellite towns of Cork City was a defined aim of Cork County Council in the 1970s. That strategy has worked and both towns are now the largest in the county. The concept of the Metropolitan town is well defined in Paragraph 3.3.1.1 of the Preliminary Consultation. Paragraph 3.1.1 identifies Ballincollig, Carrigaline and Passage West as being the three Main Towns in the Municipal District.

Although all three towns serve a similar function and the development of Ballincollig and Carrigaline was encouraged concurrently, there is woeful inequity between the quality of residential amenity and environment provided for in Ballincollig against that provided for in Carrigaline and Passage West. This difference is highlighted even by a comparison between the opening paragraphs of Sections 3.2 and 3.3. Paragraph 3.2.1.1 on Ballincollig describes the town as being “modern”, “well provided for in terms of schools, community facilities and amenities … enjoys excellent access to the national road network … an attractive and convenient residential and employment location”. By comparison, paragraph 3.3.1.1 on Carrigaline simply describes the strategic aims of large Metropolitan towns. Carrigaline and Passage West have simply not been serviced by community facilities, amenities, infrastructural capacity and integrated public transport as Ballincollig has. This Local Area Plan must be grabbed as an opportunity to set this inequity right for the 30,000 people living in the greater Carrigaline area.

Throughout my comments in this submission, I am mindful of the Guidelines for Planning Authorities on Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas produced by the Department of the Environment, Community & Local Government in 2009. They describe high quality residential areas as being those which:

• Prioritise walking, cycling and public transport and minimise the need to use cars
• Deliver a quality of life which residents and visitors are entitle to expect in terms of amenity, safety and convenience
• Provide a good range of community and support facilities, where and when they are needed and that are easily accessible
• Present an attractive, well-maintained appearance, with a distinct sense of place and a quality public realm that is easily maintained
• Are easy to access for all and to find one’s way around
• Promote the efficient use of land and of energy and minimise greenhouse gas emissions
• Provide a mix of land uses to minimise transport demand
• Promote social integration and provide accommodation for a diverse range of household types and age groups
• Enhance and protect the green infrastructure and biodiversity
• Enhance and protect the built heritage.

 

Passage West

• Being sister towns, it is understandable that Passage West and Monkstown are always thrown into the same pot when it comes to planning. But the reality is, both are socially so far removed from one another that the coalescing of the two settlements does neither town any particular service.
• Yet despite these assets, Passage West is a dark, narrow town where there is little employment, less commerce and much dereliction. It does not even begin to reflect Cork County Council’s strategic aims for large Metropolitan towns.
• Passage West has many assets that are incontrovertibly valuable. It is beside Cork Harbour. It has magnificent architecture. It has a rich industrial and maritime heritage. These assets should make it one of the most desirable places to live in the county.
• Passage West’s fortunes have always been related to the sea. In the 1700s, Passage West was the port of Cork. The channel from Passage West to the city was undredged and shallow, so ships moored off Passage West to discharge their cargo. The first quay in Cork Harbour was opened in Passage West in 1836. In the 1800s, Passage West was an industrial hive of shipbuilding of European importance. Since the decline of shipbuilding in the early twentieth century, Passage West has turned its back on the sea. If this town is to reinvent itself, it is most likely to succeed by once again being mindful of its age-old relationship with Cork Harbour.
• So it is vital that particular emphasis is put in the Local Area Plan on:
  • creating visual and physical links between the town and the water
  • enhancing marine-related infrastructure
• Too much emphasis was placed in the existing Local Area Plan on the Dockyard site. It is true that the future of the Dockyard site is critical to the future of Passage West, but there are several other brownfield sites in the town centre which are also extremely influential. The convent and convent school dominate the town and have been derelict for far too long. Steampacket Quay, once the heart of Passage West, is adjacent to Penny’s Dock and is an embarrassment at the end of the very popular Railway Line. The pocket of land at the end of Beach Road is, whilst small, predominant and influential. These key sites also deserve attention within the Local Area Plan.
• To this end, it is helpful that the Preliminary Consultation proposes incorporating the convent within the town centre core. As the convent and its site have been recently purchased, I hope it is not too late for this inclusion to positively influence whatever development is proposed over the coming months.
• I very strongly support the Paragraph 3.4.3.2 suggestion of a non-statutory planning brief for both the Dockyard and the convent. Together, both occupy a large portion of Strand Street. However my fear is that as the Dockyard is also for sale at present, the non-statutory planning brief will be delivered too late to be of any real benefit.
• I also support very strongly the suggestions made in Paragraph 3.4.5.5 in relation to:
  • Providing greater connectivity between the town centre and the water
  • Developing an urban design/public realm strategy for the town centre
• The Town Team concept as recommended by Retail Ireland (Retail Ireland Town Centres Policy Paper, 2012) would be tremendously beneficial to Passage West. The Town Team concept came from the UK. It would involve Cork County Council’s identifying Passage West as a pilot town where new partnerships between retailers, landlords, the local authority, representative groups, etc. would be formed to establish targets and achieve demonstrable improvements in town centre locations. With its paucity of commercial outlets, Passage West would be the ideal town to include in such a pilot.
• In the absence of commercial outlets on the main street, many of the older on-street buildings have been converted into apartments. These have no dedicated parking. If there is to ever be enhancement of the streetscape within Passage West town centre, it is important to consider where off-street parking might be developed for the residents of these apartments.
• Paragraph 3.4.3.2 describes Passage West as being a “commuter settlement with good access to the employment nodes of Ringaskiddy and Cork City”. This is not true. Roads may be provided, but the roads are intolerably congested. A journey to Cork City along the R610 in the morning can take up to an hour. Tailbacks in the am peak through Rochestown reach Hop Island and beyond. Poor drainage on the R610 past the Suez Pond coupled with the speed and volume of traffic makes this section of the road increasingly dangerous. I am aware of several families who have moved from Passage West to Cork City because they are simply no longer able to take the frustration of the morning’s commute.
• Congestion on the R610 has not been mentioned anywhere in the Preliminary Consultation. It is no longer acceptable to brush over this legacy of overdevelopment of lands all dependent on a single linear road. I would really welcome any suggestions the first draft of the Local Area Plan might propose to go even some small way towards resolving this issue.
• Although a small settlement, Passage West is highly car dependent. Both the primary and secondary schools are situated a considerable way up Church Hill. The topography of the town is steep and few wish to climb Church Hill in the morning. In addition, the main retail outlet (Eurospar) is on the eastern end of the town. This makes it inaccessible other than by car to most residents. To be fair, whilst congestion in Passage West is incomparably better than in other Metropolitan towns, poor planning decisions have led to dependence on the private car in a way that is most unsustainable.
• It would be a positive aim for the Local Area Plan to enhance walking routes to both the primary and secondary schools. Whilst Church Hill will always remain a challenge, placing a handrail close to the wall along the footpath would assist those who are less able-bodied. Although significant residential development has been permitted at the northern end of the town, there is no footpath along Church Hill to connect these residential developments to the school. The provision of this footpath is long overdue.
• Paragraph 3.4.4.3 inaccurately implies that the Railway Walk will be extended from where it ends at present in Fr. O’Flynn Park through Passage West, Glenbrook, Monkstown and on down to Carrigaline. My understanding is that this will not be the case. As far as I am aware, the intention is that the proposed Greenway will be developed from the ferry at Glenbrook through Monkstown and on south. Passage West and Glenbrook will be excluded. This is significant because, as mentioned in Paragraph 3.4.5.5, the town centre environment is restricted and “difficult to navigate as a pedestrian, cyclist and by car”. It is important that the Local Area Plan would give consideration as to how cyclists visiting and passing through Passage West would best and safely be accommodated.
• I have had many discussions with the relevant sections of Cork County Council about how best to bring bicycles through Passage West town centre. There are really only two options. The first is to create a boardwalk-type extension to the Greenway on the water side of the Dockyard. This would be very attractive but will clearly work only in the context of a redeveloped Dockyard. Furthermore, it would lead to a winding Greenway which would come along Steampacket Quay to Penny’s Dock, divert to the boardwalk, rejoin the road at the end of Dock Terrace and share a carriageway with cars until it rejoins the dedicated Greenway at the Cross River Ferry. The second option is to examine the feasibility of reopening the tunnel built to serve the Cork Blackrock and Passage Railway.
• This 450 metre-long tunnel currently lies disused and boarded up at one end. Nonetheless, it is a remarkable and quite unique piece of industrial heritage. The first 50 metres at the Passage end was built by a process called “cut and cover”. At the Glenbrook end, the construction necessitated blasting through solid rock. It incorporates a large shaft to permit the release of smoke and steam and cavities along its length to allow anyone trapped inside to escape the path of an oncoming train. This tunnel is the only one of its kind on a narrow gauge track in the whole country. Cork County Council has recently surveyed the tunnel and found it to be in sound condition. Whilst its opening for public access would call for thought, particularly with regard to safety, the tunnel would be a fantastic and novel addition to the Greenway and an attraction in its own right.
• Paragraph 3.4.6.3 is not correct. There is a marina in Monkstown. It is privately owned. There is no marina in Passage West. There is, however, a public pontoon in Passage West. Whilst this is very welcome and of great assistance to small boat handling, it does not and will never function as a marina.
• In general in Passage West, although as mentioned above the pontoon is hugely welcome, access to water needs to be greatly enhanced. There are several slipways in the town but not one of them has vehicular access. Many are in poor condition. It is vital that provision of a slipway with vehicular access for Passage West and associated parking is a particular aim of the Local Area Plan.
• The proposed dezoning of R6, R7 and R8 is welcome. In the context of existing infrastructure, these lands should never have been zoned. But the same concerns apply to the proposed zoning of lands around Monkstown Golf Course. Any houses built on these lands into the future would rely on an inadequate country road network for connection to the R610 and would be so remote from schools and services in the closest centre of population that their residents would be utterly dependent on the car. This would be unsustainable.
• The Preliminary Consultation has no mention of either community facilities or dereliction. Both are critical to Passage West. It is really important that the Local Area Plan would contain a strong commitment to improved community facilities and to tackling dereliction.
• The pleasant residential environment of Monkstown is threatened by the high volume and speed of through traffic. Parking becomes a particular issue during the summer in the vicinity of the Sandquay and marina. On-street parking by users of the marina creates a dangerous bottleneck in an area of particularly poor visibility around Carlisle Place. A traffic calming scheme and interim parking arrangements to serve the marina were prepared several years ago. Their provision would enhance the residential environment of Monkstown, improve the amenity that is the riverside walk and deliver vastly improved safety for the village generally. Provision of traffic calming and parking in Monkstown needs to be an aim of the Local Area Plan.

 

Carrigaline

• The existing Local Area Plan had an aim towards improving Carrigaline’s town centre and residential amenities. In reality, there has been little progress in this regard throughout that period. It is now critical that these deficits are addressed.
• Although it is true that housing is urgently needed nationally, infrastructural improvements, traffic management, diversification of transportation options, provision of amenity space and community facilities and upgrading of the streetscape for existing residents are all critically urgent in the context of Carrigaline. It is my opinion that there should be no further rezoning of land for housing in or close to the Carrigaline development boundary until these issues are prioritised and addressed comprehensively.
• Section 3.3.2.6 suggests considering rezoning of lands between Carrigaline and Ringaskiddy for residential housing. This would be entirely retrograde. Any development on lands here would be disconnected from Carrigaline town to the extent that they could never form part of the Carrigaline community. This would be sprawling, inefficient land use which would create yet further reliance on unsustainable forms of transportation.
• Section 3.3.3.1 comments on the limited employment supply in Carrigaline because of its proximity to the Ringaskiddy Strategic Industrial Zone. If Carrigaline was designed to act as the residential hub for the Ringaskiddy Strategic Industrial Zone, then this is all the more reason to enhance infrastructural links between Carrigaline and Ringaskiddy. There isn’t even a bus service between the two settlements. However, the reality is shown in Paragraph 3.3.3.3, which tells us that actually only 21% of employees living in Carrigaline are working in Ringaskiddy. So it is critical that further employment is created within the Carrigaline development boundary and that infrastructural links between Carrigaline, the city and the Metropolitan area generally are enhanced and diversified.
• Traffic congestion in and around Carrigaline is almost untenable. This applies equally to traffic from housing estates in the northern end of the town going towards the town centre and to traffic from Carrigaline generally to Cork City. The upgraded N28 will assist with the latter. But it is critical that there is greater ease of movement in and around Carrigaline town. Otherwise, the town will stagnate and lose business to the more easily negotiable southern suburbs of Cork City. To this end, I ask that the Local Area Plan would have an aim of updating the 2007 Carrigaline Area Transportation Study. I ask also that the study would examine the best ways of delivering all modes of transportation in and around Carrigaline.
• Paragraph 3.3.3.4 recognises the “opportunities” to address the high car dependency rates between Carrigaline and Ringaskiddy. Frankly, it is not sufficient to recognise these opportunities. They need to be delivered on. Building a greenway between Carrigaline and Ringaskiddy is of vital importance in the short-medium term. I am aware that the County Council believes this will be more straightforward after the N28 upgrade. But for the present, there is a hard shoulder almost all the way along the N28 from the Shannonpark roundabout to Ringaskiddy. Cycling is reasonably safe. What is not safe is negotiation of the Shannonpark roundabout. If in the immediate term the County Council could address safe access for bicycles to the N28, it would be of significant assistance.
• I agree strongly with locating significant retail developments within the town core as proposed in Paragraph 3.3.4.5. However, we must not forget that those who are shopping – in particular grocery shopping – need to travel by car. So again, freeing up road space into the town centre is vital. At present, it is somewhat of a challenge to make it across the Bothar Guidel to the significant retail developments on the other side of the river.
• I also agree strongly with the aims of Paragraph 3.3.5.7 in relation to enhancing the town centre streetscape. At present, Carrigaline main street is narrow, colourless and dominated by the car (both moving and stationary). Whilst I appreciate that delivery of the inner relief road would expand opportunities and options for streetscape enhancement, the wait for the inner relief road has been long and it is no longer practical to link streetscape enhancement to its delivery. Carrigaline and its people deserve better.
• Both as part of the streetscape enhancement and further into the future, the provision of open space as suggested in Paragraph 3.3.5.5 is very welcome and badly needed. I ask that this network of open space would be designed in such a way as to also act as a corridor for wildlife, thereby making its purpose doubly valuable.
• In summary for Carrigaline, I think it well past time that quality of life and environment for existing residents is given priority over provision of extra residential housing. Carrigaline has massive potential as a place to live and work but has been allow to lag well behind governmental recommendations for high quality residential areas.

 

Ringaskiddy

• I am entirely aware that development of the Strategic Industrial Zone at Ringaskiddy has been an aim of Cork County Council, the Industrial Development Authority and the Irish government over many years. However, sadly, so many aspects of Ringaskiddy epitomise what is now regarded as unsustainable development. This review of the Local Area Plan presents an excellent opportunity to challenge and address those failings.

• The Ringaskiddy Strategic Industrial Zone is located at the end of a peninsula into which there is simply one road. That there is no alternative to the private car for all those employed there has led to the horrendous peak hour traffic congestion that has come to characterise the N28. The upgrade of the N28 will be welcome in this regard when it comes, but realistically, it only touches addressing the unsustainability of traffic and transport arrangements to this Strategic Industrial Zone. I have already spoken above about the need for a Greenway from Carrigaline to Ringaskiddy. This must link with the Greenway which we anticipate will come as far as the Raffeen junction with the existing N28. An enhanced bus service to Ringaskiddy is essential. If Bus Éireann does not co-operate in this regard, then Cork County Council might, in conjunction with the industries, explore the possibility of shuttle buses from designated car parks to coincide with the factory shifts.

• Paragraph 3.5.3.1 has a stated intention of not providing for any significant population growth in Ringaskiddy. The irony is that this approach makes traffic congestion worse. It is not possible for either employees of industry or, in particular, students of the National Maritime College, the Beaufort Institute or Imerc to get residence anywhere that involves not needing a car. Realistically, there is only one development in Ringaskiddy where students can rent a house. So either student/visitor accommodation should be considered in Ringaskiddy or interconnectivity between Carrigaline and Ringaskiddy should be significantly improved.

• Cork County Council and the IDA have an aim of attracting high quality industry to Ringaskiddy. This is laudable. However, it is so often forgotten that high quality industry demands a high quality environment for its employees. Ringaskiddy does not represent that high quality environment and yet has immense potential to do so. Industry and warehousing is given land right out to the edge of the water, whilst factory employees and students are relegated to exercising on the footpath along the N28 that runs between the industries and the road. It is so important that a strip of land along the water’s edge is kept such that it can be developed as public amenity. That such an amenity can be offered to its employees will make Ringaskiddy more attractive, not less attractive, to high quality industry. This needs to be a policy of the Local Area Plan.

• The Local Area Plan zoning maps should show Paddy’s Point as being an amenity area dedicated to the public. This was a commitment of the Port of Cork’s planning application.

• When industry is given planning permission, visual screening from the water must be regarded with the same importance as zoning from the land. Cork Harbour is finally developing as a unique tourism offering and, whilst it is quite possible to accommodate tourism and industry side by side in our multi-faceted harbour, it is essential that the visual impact of the industrial zone would be softened whenever possible.

• It would be of tremendous benefit to the sensitive harbour landscape if industrial development on high ground visible from the harbour were kept to a minimum. Equally important is that the Local Area Plan would have a policy of no high building or stack developments between the water and heritage buildings such as the Ringaskiddy Martello Tower. The Martello Tower runs the risk of becoming an island in the midst of industrial development. This would destroy its potential to fulfil its role as a critical element of the valuable heritage triangle formed by Forts Camden, Carlisle and Westmoreland. To this end, it would be of potential tourism value if the land between the Martello Tower and the sea were considered for dezoning.

• I ask that a particular aim of the Local Area Plan would be to develop a sports complex/sports hall in Ringaskiddy village. This would be of tremendous benefit to residents, students and employees of industry. The Local Area Plan could show particular commitment to this suggestion by zoning a patch of ground for this purpose. The Cork Area Strategic Plan (CASP) has long since recognised the need to provide high quality open space and amenities for workers.

• It is appropriate that the Local Area Plan would indicate what land in the Ringaskiddy/Shanbally catchment is to be zoned for development of the new amalgamated Ringaskiddy/Shanbally school.

• The recent trend towards development of a university/research hub at the eastern end of the Ringaskiddy peninsula is hugely positive and very welcome. This trend should be reinforced by the Local Area Plan. To do so is clearly in line with the long-held CASP aim for Ringaskiddy: “The Cork Harbour Area would offer a superb environment for a Cork Technopole”.   To that end, I ask that the Local Area Plan would have as a specific aim that further development at the eastern end of the Ringaskiddy peninsula would compliment and build on this trending university campus.
• I welcome the commitment of Paragraph 3.5.5.1 to giving greater recognition to the needs of the established residential population in Shanbally/Ringaskiddy. For far too long, residents of Ringaskiddy have felt like intruders in the Strategic Industrial Zone. Yet there is such a gulf between this commitment and that of Paragraph 3.5.3.2, which states the need to ensure that the amenity and quality of life experienced by the residents will not be compromised by development of Ringaskiddy as a strategic employment centre. However, both of these commitments are well worth incorporating in the Local Area Plan. Even the provision of high quality recreational spaces would go such a long way towards improving the facilities for Ringaskiddy residents.
• In this regard, there is a particular need to monitor and control noise, dust and air quality in Ringaskiddy. There is also a need to control night-time port-related traffic movement. The quality of life enjoyed by some residents in Ringaskiddy has been very badly impacted by their proximity to the port. There is a concern that this impact may be magnified by the new and expanded facilities for which the Port of Cork has been given planning permission. It is critical that the Local Area Plan would state its awareness of this issue and its commitment to work with the Port and the residents on ensuring port impact is reduced rather than amplified.

• Ringaskiddy village and its people are tremendous assets to the Strategic Industrial Zone. They are essentially markers for port and industrial performance. They are permanent, on-the-ground adjudicators of whether port and industry are delivering that high quality environment so essential to optimising the marketability of Ringaskiddy. Additionally, an attractive, welcoming Ringaskiddy will enhance use of the ferry terminal, encouraging tourists to spend some time enjoying the village offerings before moving on to pursue the remainder of their trip.

• CASP is clear that “greater emphasis should be given to promoting and developing the harbour as a facility for water-based sport and leisure activity”. Some of the most valuable access points for dinghy sailing and windsurfing are on the eastern end of the Ringaskiddy peninsula. Gobby Beach is an undeveloped gem. Lands to the east of the Haulbowline Island bridge are equally valuable. Access to the water for development of watersports centres is increasingly difficult to find. Most harbourside land is in private ownership. But a watersports centre on the eastern shores of the Ringaskiddy peninsula offers shelter for inexperienced participants whilst permitting those who are more adept almost immediate access to the wider expanse of Cork Harbour without crossing shipping lanes. I ask that the Local Area Plan would, at a minimum, mention this potential for the eastern shores of the Ringaskiddy peninsula and would, preferably, identify the most suitable area(s) where such development might be supported.

• The same issue of restricted access to waterside sites is a real impediment to the development of public water transport between Cobh and Ringaskiddy. However, the concept would be a highly sustainable one, would relieve the congested road network of many trips and should be a stated desire of the Local Area Plan.

 

Cork City South Environs including Douglas

• All of the issues pertaining to the Cork City South Environs addressed by the Preliminary Consultation are worthy of addressing in the Local Area Plan.

• Where I consider the approach of the Preliminary Consultation to fall down is in the way it coalesces all of the neighbourhoods in those southern suburbs. Togher and Douglas, for example, do not consider themselves to be part of the same town and for the Local Area Plan to do so demeans their unique residential identities. In fact, to take consider all these neighbourhoods as simply being suburbs of the city reinforces the argument that they should indeed be part of city rather than county territory.

• I feel very strongly that the Local Area Plan needs to give more attention to the potential offered by the Tramore Valley Park and Vernon Mount complex. The Cork City South Environs comprises the largest population in this Municipal District. It deserves a regional park of import equal to that in Ballincollig. The Tramore Valley Park and Mount Vernon complex offers the ideal opportunity to develop such a landmark facility.

• The dense, linear development of the Rochestown area leaves residents heavily reliant on the private car. The road network struggles to accommodate demand, particularly at peak. It is critical that the upgrade of the existing N28 would increase rather than reduce travel routes and transportation options for residents of Rochestown and Maryborough.

• When planning permission was granted for the development of Mount Oval, a long-term commitment was made to provide an on-ramp to the N28. This commitment needs now to be reflected in the Local Area Plan. Provision of this on-ramp would relieve demand for the R610 and Douglas village and offer increased options to residents.

• Upgrading of Clarke’s Hill and Coach Hill must be a stated priority of the Local Area Plan. These are bus routes which take more than their fair share of traffic and offer poor to no pedestrian facilities.

 

Cork Harbour 

• Cork Harbour has not been mentioned at all in the Ballincollig-Carrigaline Preliminary Consultation document. Yet the harbour is one of the area’s greatest assets. It is critical that consideration for its future development forms an integral part of this Local Area Plan.

• Maximising accessibility to Cork Harbour is vital. In this regard, I refer to visual accessibility as much as physical accessibility. Public footpaths along the harbour’s edge must be prioritised. This, as suggested in the context of Ringaskiddy, would be a welcome stated objective of the Local Area Plan. Of course it will not be possible to provide for such footpaths in every location, but it is important to have a conscious aim to provide them wherever possible. Highly developed facilities are not necessary; accessibility is the priority.

• It would be welcome stated aim of the Local Area Plan to accommodate and encourage services/facilities along such amenities as the Hop Island – Passage West Railway Line. Such services/facilities include toilets, coffee docks, seats and picnic stations.

• Cork Harbour is common and equally valuable to four of the Municipal Districts in County Cork: Ballincollig-Carrigaline, Cobh, East Cork and Bandon-Kinsale. I ask that the Local Area Plan would have a stated aim of the development of a plan specific to Cork Harbour. This plan would build on the draft Cork Harbour Study and set out the best means by which all stakeholder interests in our multi-faceted harbour can be most advantageously and sustainably accommodated into the future. The findings and conclusions of this plan would then be incorporated into the Local Area Plans for each of the four surrounding Municipal Districts.

Yours faithfully,
Marcia D’Alton
Independent Member, Cork County Council

 

Submission to the Department of the Environment, Community & Local Government on the next round of River Basin Management Planning

WFD SWMI Consultation,
Water Quality Section,
Department of the Environment, Community & Local Government,
Newtown Road,
Wexford.

3rd December, 2015.

 

RE: Significant Water Management Issues in Ireland – Public Consultation

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for the opportunity to input into the preliminary consultation for the next cycle of River Basin Management Planning in Ireland.

I have read the Significant Water Management Issues in Ireland document in full. It identifies most of the primary issues affecting water quality in Ireland. The introduction of the Integrated Catchment Management Concept is welcome. I support it strongly as the only way by which good water quality management will be achieved. The increased focus on community involvement is long overdue and also very welcome.

However, like so many of our responses to European Directives in Ireland, the document is very strong on identifying targets to be achieved, problems to be tackled and not so strong on the ways in which we in Ireland must change our modus operandi by which to achieve these targets. But we will never hit the environmental targets we set with a “business as usual” approach.

 

• Agriculture

One of the aims of Food Harvest 2020 is to increase milk production by 50% now that milk quotas have been abolished. Cork County Council has also spoken positively about the potential the rich grasslands of the county offer for massively increased dairy production. Significant Water Management mentions the difficulty of achieving the Water Framework Directive targets in the context of Food Harvest 2020. It does not dwell on this issue, other than to comment on how research work currently underway will identify better how agriculture impacts on water at a catchment level.

Whilst research is always valuable, we already know how agriculture impacts on water quality, both at the individual stream level and at catchment level. The fact is that to increase the numbers of cows is to increase the volume of slurry produced. It is to increase poaching along riverbanks where cattle get direct access to flowing water. It is to increase the need to intensify grassland management. There is no getting away from this and if we are to attempt Food Harvest 2020 with any cognisance of the Water Framework Directive, Ireland will need to invest heavily in farmer education, slurry treatment and guidelines to protect watercourses from direct access by cattle. It will also be necessary to build centralised biogas plants similar to those in Denmark and Germany for improved management of agricultural slurries. These could offer tremendous potential to rural communities but have never been incentivised in Ireland.

Incentives such as planting of riparian zones and the designation of buffer zones for water source protection are only ever offered to farmers availing of agri-environmental schemes. It is necessary to introduce them across the board. Most farmers are stewards of the countryside. With education and guidance, they will be happy to work towards achieving better water quality. But it is no longer good enough that such agri-related water quality measures are conducted only on farms participating in agri-environmental schemes.

 

• Urban Wastewater Treatment Discharges

Irish Water is putting investment into several of the major wastewater treatment schemes without which Ireland continues to fail the requirements of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive. The Cork Lower Harbour wastewater treatment plant is a stark example of a long-awaited wastewater treatment scheme which, when delivered, will end the discharge of significant volumes of raw sewerage.

However, the discussion of urban wastewater in the Sustainable Water Management Issues document does not link wastewater with land use policy. I believe this link is critical. We as a country need to carefully examine our policy of one-off house construction. In particular, we need to consider the impact on the environment of disparate house-building in rural areas. Haphazard siting of houses requires installation of a septic tank or biocycle unit. Treatment of wastewater in discrete units in this way is less effective, less efficient and more difficult to monitor than treatment of wastewater in a communal treatment plant. Planning houses in clusters rather than scattered or in a linear form along a country roadside would allow far greater control of domestic wastewater treatment and discharge.

We are also culpable at all planning levels of building on flood plains. Flood plains perform an essential riparian function. Not merely do they allow vast areas onto which a full river can spill. They also soak rainwater running towards a river, filtering sediment and other pollutants from it before it reaches the water. Yet because they have been constructed on, many floodplains in our larger towns are no longer available to perform this essential function. It is critical that the impact of building on floodplains would be acknowledged as being highly retrograde in terms of water quality.

 

• Hazardous chemicals

Issue 13 discusses hazardous chemicals, particularly heavy metals and PAHs, in our watercourses. It is essential that endocrine disruptors would also be considered. These insidious chemicals strike at the heart of many of the most fundamental aspects of nature.

It is critical that we examine the source of these chemicals in our discharges to water.

One of the key contributors to hazardous chemicals in the water environment is urban wastewater. When wastewater is treated, much of the hazardous content is captured in the sludge. Irish government policy is for the beneficial use of sewage sludge (biosolids) in agriculture. Although the Code of Best Practice advises for the spreading of sludge at a rate which optimises the trapping of these hazardous compounds in soil, it is an indisputable fact that the sludge to land policy may permit levels of hazardous compounds in our agricultural environment to accumulate. The assimilative capacity of soil is limited and so, ultimately, these compounds will make their way to watercourses.

Ireland’s sludge to land policy was drawn up almost 20 years ago. It is well past time that it was revisited. In 2013, almost 24,000 tonnes of untreated sludge was landspread in Ireland. Septic tank sludges are regularly disposed of by landspreading. Research, technology and the microchemical composition of sewage sludge have all moved on. The Sustainable Water Management Issues document needs to identify this sludge policy as being in need of updating.

The Sustainable Water Management Issues document does not identify the link between industry and hazardous chemicals in our watercourses. Producer responsibility dictates that industry must take cognisance of the ingredients of cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, etc. It is time that Ireland focused on this link with a view to reducing the ongoing build-up of hazardous compounds such as these in our environment generally.

 

• Road drainage

Runoff from roads is not mentioned at all in the Sustainable Water Management Issues document. Yet this is a significant source of water pollution. Rainwater running off our impervious urban surfaces contains petrol, oil, heavy metals and PAHs. Fertiliser use on golf courses and residential gardens increases the nutrient load of runoff. Runoff also raises the temperature of smaller water bodies, often with adverse effects on fish life.

Drainage in Ireland typically involves collecting as much stormwater as possible and removing it quickly to avoid flooding. But this approach not just maximises the direct introduction of these pollutants into surface water, it also causes flooding further downstream.

There are many best practice methods by which road drainage and stormwater generally can be more effectively managed. Many local level policy changes can make a real difference. These include incentives towards the installation of green roofs, the development of neighbourhood-constructed wetlands, bioretention systems and infiltration basins.

Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems need to become the norm rather than the exception in Ireland if we are to combat the unsustainable effects of our “collect and dispose” method of stormwater management.

 

• Determination and the allocation of resources

The very first issue listed for consideration in the Sustainable Water Management Issues document is affordability. If the starting point towards achieving any targets is what we cannot afford, then we will never achieve those targets.

The hesitancy of the “Can we really do it?” ethos is reflected throughout the document. Thus the document lacks determination, punch and the will to succeed. It is essential that resources are dedicated to achieving compliance with the Water Framework Directive. It is essential that if additional tasks are to be undertaken by local authorities, they would be adequately staffed and financed. It is essential that all community stakeholders buy into achieving Ireland’s targets under the Water Framework Directive.

But equally and perhaps more important is that the same level of buy-in is committed to by both industry and the government. Industry is the source of much of the cyclical and difficult to treat compounds found in Ireland’s rivers and lakes. Policies and strategies of other governmental departments have the potential to significantly impact on achieving the targets of the Water Framework Directive. It is not sufficient to address achieving these targets in an integrated way merely at catchment level. A multi-sectoral, cross-departmental approach is also essential.

Yours faithfully,

______________________________________

Marcia D’Alton, B.E., M.Eng,Sc.,
Independent Member, Cork County Council

 

Submission to the National Roads Design Office on the Carr’s Hill Interchange proposal

Project Engineer,
M28 Cork to Ringaskiddy Motorway Scheme,
Cork National Roads Office,
Richmond,
Glanmire,
Co. Cork.

29^th November, 2015.

 

RE: Proposed Carr’s Hill Interchange and associated works

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to proposals for a new interchange at Carr’s Hill to facilitate the anticipated upgrade of the existing N28 to motorway status.

The N28 connects the Strategic Employment Area of Ringaskiddy to Cork City and beyond. As of An Bord Pleanala’s decision last year to grant planning permission to the Port of Cork for relocation and construction of new facilities at Ringaskiddy, the N28 will also need to connect port traffic to the rest of the country. This is a significant ask for a road that is already suffering extreme congestion. Much investment has gone into the Ringaskiddy cluster and both the relevant authorities and the local population put tremendous store by what Ringaskiddy can deliver for employment and the economy generally. There is widespread support for upgrading the N28 such that it may ease current traffic congestion and help Ringaskiddy to become more efficient in every way.

Despite this widespread support for the upgrade of the N28, the current proposals for the Carr’s Hill Interchange and associated works have engendered an unprecedented level of concern. Socio-economically, the local population is dominated by working families who are well educated and who contribute significantly to the local economy. They are busy people who devote the majority of their lives to their children, their work and to the commuting associated with both. Typically, these people simply do not have the time to engage in public consultations.

There is a clear message being delivered to the Cork National Roads Office when these people, in their hundreds, have expressed their massive concern about the Carr’s Hill Interchange proposals. These are people who live in the N28 corridor and who have an incomparable level of familiarity with the regional and local roads within the N28 corridor. They use those roads every day, at all times of the day. They use them for school deliveries, for getting to work, for shopping, for going to church, for calling to friends. With the single exception of the Greenway along the former railway line connecting Passage West to Cork City, the regional and local roads in the N28 Corridor are notably devoid of cycling infrastructure. The pattern of development is too linear to facilitate easy walking. Housing in and around Rochestown in particular is on steep hills. Local facilities are few and far between. Those that are available are generally at the bottom of these hills. It follows that, of necessity, these people are highly car-dependent.

This is one of the primary reasons that extreme congestion is not seen just on the N28. It is seen throughout the N28 corridor. Those who live with and negotiate that congestion every day are those most qualified to voice opinions on the proposed Carr’s Hill Interchange and associated works. I concur strongly with all of their concerns.

  

• Inadequate size of roundabout at Maryborough Ridge

One key element of the Carr’s Hill Interchange proposals is the closure of the Mount Oval and Maryborough Hill slip roads. The Cork National Roads Office advises us that these slip roads are not to motorway standard. It is proposed that the thousands of commuters who use these roads every day will instead use the new Carr’s Hill Interchange. This means that Mount Oval residents would come out of Mount Oval, turn right, go up Garryduff and turn right down onto the new roundabout at Maryborough Ridge. Maryborough Hill residents would come up the hill to use the Maryborough Ridge roundabout. Carrigaline, Passage West and Monkstown residents who currently travel up Moneygourney to access the Maryborough Hill slip road would use the Maryborough Ridge roundabout instead. Many Douglas residents choose not to sit in the congested mess that is Douglas village traffic every morning and access the N40 by the Maryborough Hill slip road. It is simply not possible for the roundabout at Maryborough Ridge to accommodate this level of commuting traffic at peak. The roundabout is too small. It was not designed for this. The approach roads are too narrow. Neither the roundabout nor Maryborough Hill will ever accommodate more than one lane of traffic. The Carr’s Hill Interchange proposal falls at this very first hurdle. The Maryborough Ridge roundabout and its approach roads are too small.

 

• Unacceptable volume of traffic through Maryborough Ridge

To drive all this traffic through Maryborough Ridge is extremely unfair. Maryborough Ridge is a residential estate. It was always planned that a distributor road connecting Maryborough Hill to the N28 would run through it. But even the proposal for that distributor road generated concern when the development was at planning stage:

“The proposed through road will become a link road serving the N28 and will result in large volumes of traffic travelling through a built up area at high speed ad will cause segregation of the overall estate into the future. Also such a proposal endangers users of the open green areas adjoining and pedestrians wishing to cross the through road.”

These were the comments of the Assistant Area Engineer of Cork County Council in April, 2004 when the construction of Maryborough Ridge was being considered by Cork County Council. These were concerns expressed about envisaged local commuter traffic even when there were other existing local alternatives by which the local traffic could access the N28. It is incomparable to what is proposed now by the Cork National Roads Design Office. The levels of risk to residents, noise and air pollution are incomparable. It is entirely unsustainable to propose bringing this level of traffic through a residential estate.

 

• Closure of the Mount Oval slip road is unacceptable

The proposed closure of the Mount Oval slip road is unacceptable. The reason it is unacceptable is simple: the development of 800 houses at Mount Oval would not have been approved by the planning authority without the existence of that slip road. The road through Foxwood was always intended as a distributor road to the N28 and was shown as such in a 1999 variation of the 1996 County Development Plan. This variation was prompted by the Bacon Report. It signalled an acceptance of higher density development for suitable sites and made specific proposals for improved road access to lands that were accepting higher density development. The Mount Oval development was considered to be one such parcel of land.

In his comments in February 2000 on the planning application for Mount Oval, the Chief Planning Officer of Cork County Council said that: “This spine of distributor roads will facilitate traffic movement in the area with the off-ramp access from Sli Charrig Dhonn providing an alternative to the local road network. The connection through Foxwood … comprises an integral part of the original estate layout – the section of road through Foxwood has no frontage development and has obviously been designed to link into the spine/distributor road system.”

The use of the word “integral” is highly relevant.

It was again reflected in the comments of the An Bord Pleanala planning inspector: “The construction of the spine road, while it will facilitate traffic management in the wider area, is an essential element of this development…”.

The planning application for high density development in Mount Oval would have been looked at in an entirely different light were the spine road with off-ramp access to the N28 not available. This is because it was widely acknowledged by developers and both planning authorities that the local roads were in need of essential upgrading. It is 16 years since the first major planning application for Mount Oval was lodged. In all this time, with the exception of the short stretch from Garryduff to Maryborough Hill those local roads have not been upgraded in any way. But traffic has increased significantly in that time. So dependence on the Mount Oval slip road is greater than was ever envisaged. Frankly, the Roads Design Office has no authority to propose closure of a road that was deemed essential to permitting high density development. It would be far more appropriate were the plans for the upgrading of the N28 to incorporate proposals to develop the long-promised on-ramp to Mount Oval rather than to eliminate the existing essential off-ramp.

 

• Congestion and inadequacy of local roads around Mount Oval

Because the roundabout at Maryborough Ridge would suffer intolerable congestion and because the journey to that roundabout would increase commuting trips by several kilometres, it is inevitable that local traffic would divert to the Rochestown Road. Mount Oval residents will come down Clarke’s Hill or Coach Hill to access the N28 via the on-ramp at the Rochestown roundabout.

The R610 is already massively congested. In his frustration, one resident of Passage West videoed and timed his movement along the R610 in the morning peak. Typically, it took him 7 minutes to travel 900 metres. Delays are caused largely by the pinch point that is the Rochestown roundabout. Cork County Council attempted to improve through-flow by providing an extra lane onto the roundabout west-bound. This helped ease congestion for a while but has shown no capacity to keep pace with car use generally. Tailbacks every morning stretch from the Rochestown roundabout to Hop Island. The R610 cannot accommodate more traffic. Drivers of cars on the R610 always co-operate with traffic from Clarke’s Hill attempting to join the Rochestown roundabout queue. But to expect cars waiting at the bottom of Clarke’s Hill to turn right through that westbound stream of traffic without any visibility of what is coming on the eastbound lane is utterly unreasonable.

 

• Inadequacy of right-hand turning lane at the bottom of Clarke’s Hill

It is equally unreasonable to offer a right-hand turning lane at the bottom of Clarke’s Hill as a solution to the increased number of cars that would leave the N28 at the Rochestown road off-ramp. It would be insufficient. This right-hand turning lane is needed already to ease the tailback in the evening peak to and through the Rochestown roundabout. This congestion in turn creates a tailback on the N28 off-ramp. It is not right that provision of this essential right-hand turning lane should be considered only in the context of the N28 upgrade.

 

There are additional issues for cars attempting to leave the N28 off-ramp to get onto the Rochestown roundabout. Visibility is appalling. It is impossible to see traffic coming from the Douglas direction until it comes past the bridge supports. If increased commuter traffic were to use the Rochestown off-ramp in an attempt to avoid the longer route associated with the proposed Carr’s Hill Interchange, it would be essential to improve visibility and safety at this location.

 

• Clarke’s Hill and Coach Hill cannot accommodate additional traffic

Clarke’s Hill and Coach Hill cannot safely and sustainably their existing volume of traffic. This has not been acknowledged in any part of the proposals by the National Roads Design Office. In fact, Coach Hill has not even been mentioned. At present, Clarke’s Hill is so narrow that a bus and car cannot pass simultaneously at the bend at the top. The pinch point in the middle of Coach Hill is sufficiently wide for only one lane of traffic. Visibility at the bottom of Coach Hill is appalling, particularly for right-hand turning traffic. It is not a panacea to say that upgrades for both Clarke’s Hill and Coach Hill are at design stage. Upgrading of these roads has been planned since Mount Oval was granted planning permission. In the intervening 16 years, it still has not happened.

 

• Increase in noise pollution

What about the residents of Wainsfort, Newlyn Vale and all those who already have heavy traffic in their back gardens? All those whose exposure to noise already keeps them awake at night? Many of these are people for whom an existing tolerable situation was made far worse by TII’s recent destruction of trees along the Bloomfield Interchange and N40. The National Roads Design Office proposals do not contain one reference to existing noise levels currently endured by adjacent residents. That these noise levels will be intensely augmented by the volume and nature of traffic proposed for the M28 is a fundamental consideration. It is not a defence to say that the project is simply at route selection stage; that these issues will be assessed as part of the Environmental Impact Statement for the overall project. These are issues about which people have tremendous concern. Yet when one resident of Wainsfort asked at the public briefing about proposals to provide noise screening to his property as part of the overall upgrading project, he understood from an RPS representative that the Wainsfort section of the N28 may be regarded as existing development rather than a new development and may therefore not even be subject to assessment as part of the Environmental Impact Statement. This is entirely unacceptable.

The proposed leading of all N28-bound local traffic through Maryborough Ridge would also create significant noise pollution for the residents of this estate. Again, it is not adequate to propose noise barriers along either side of the distributor road through the estate. Noise barriers have an unpleasant visual aspect and would cut residents on the south side of the road off from neighbours, play areas and facilities in the northern part of the estate.

 

• Increase in air pollution

The M28 is to carry a significantly higher proportion of heavy vehicles than the existing N28. Port of Cork figures indicate that by 2033, there will be an overall increase of over 3,350 HGVs travelling to and from the Ringaskiddy port facilities each day. That excludes either further port or industrial development in Ringaskiddy.

 

Air pollutants from cars and trucks are found in higher concentrations near major roads. People who live, work or attend school near major roads have increased incidence and severity of asthma, cardiovascular disease, impaired lung development in children, pre-term and low-birthweight infants, childhood leukemia and premature death. Particles largely generated by diesel exhausts have been shown by recent research carried out in the Netherlands to cause problems at levels well below those stipulated in current EU air-quality directives. It found that for every increase of 5 µg/m³ in annual exposure to PM_2.5, the risk of death for men rises by 7%.

Yet yet this proposal for the Carr’s Hill Interchange involves accommodating a massively increased number of HGVs on a road running particularly close to residential housing in Rochestown. It plans to concentrate all N28-bound local traffic through the Maryborough Ridge housing estate. The proposal from the National Roads Design Office does not even mention the new school campus to be provided for both primary and secondary school children in Maryborough Ridge. It is not acceptable that the risks from heavy traffic are not assimilated into the route selection stage of a proposal such as this. It is essential that the adverse effects of air pollution on vulnerable residents are minimised from the outset by good design. Only residual effects should be dealt with by mitigation.

 

 

• Proposal fails to comply with government policy

At the most fundamental of levels, this proposal for the Carr’s Hill Interchange is wrong. In 2009, the government produced an 11-year policy document for the future of transport in Ireland. This policy document, Smarter Travel: A New Transport Policy for Ireland, outlines the actions that must be achieved across all sectors in society to achieve defined goals towards reduced emissions from transport and modal shift.

Through this policy document, the government promises society that “individual and collective quality of life will be enhanced”. It commits to actions which will help to “reduce health risks and the incidence of accidents and fatalities”. Above all, the government pledges that “land use planning and the provision of transport infrastructure and services will be better integrated”.

Despite these commitments from government towards more sustainable transport, the key elements of the Carr’s Hill Interchange proposal are to:

• Eliminate two key local access ramps to the N28
• Replace the two key local access ramps with an interchange system comprising four roundabouts and a longer distance of several kilometres
• Attempt to force all local commuting traffic to the one point of access to the N28
• Bring all local commuting traffic through a residential estate.

The on-the-ground reality of these proposals would lead to:

• Traffic diverting to an already over-congested regional road in an attempt to avoid the unwieldy proposed interchange
• Increased levels of noise endured by a significantly larger number of residents
• Increased levels of air pollution endured by a significantly larger number of residents
• Increased traffic congestion on local roads causing increased commuting times, increased driver frustration and, in turn, increased emissions from crawling traffic.

Each one of these outcomes is contrary to the government’s policy as outlined in Smarter Travel. It is well understood that the purpose of TII is to provide national road infrastructure and services. But the N28 does not exist in a vacuum. There are 7,000 people working in Ringaskiddy. These people do not live on the N28. They must all make their way their way to work and school on regional and local roads connecting to the N28. If the provision of a faster, more efficient N28 impacts negatively on those regional and local roads, the only beneficiary will be HGVs travelling to and from the port. Longer travel times and more congestion impacts negatively on worker mentality, worker delivery and worker wellbeing.

TII would be justified in saying that regional and local roads are within the remit of the local authorities. But fundamentally, Smarter Travel commits to better integration of land use planning and the provision of transport infrastructure. The National Roads Design Office with its close links to both Cork County Council and TII would be in an ideal position to plan for an upgraded N28 whilst delivering improved options to daily commuters on an over-subscribed regional and local road network.

Sadly, the current proposals are diametrically opposed to the Smarter Travel aims and make a mockery of the TII mission statement: to “contribute to the quality of life for the people of Ireland and support the country’s economic growth”. Certainly, it is important to facilitate industry and the port. But industry cannot function without the people that are the power behind the economic growth that industry is designed to drive.

 

Conclusion

The Carr’s Hill Interchange proposals are unacceptable. They would increase congestion on roads that would result in longer journey times for local commuters, thereby wasting time, generating stress, increasing sick days, diminishing family life, diminishing leisure time, fostering obesity and adding to noise and air pollution in established residential environments.

If an interchange is required for the M28, then it needs to increase commuter options, not eliminate them.

Traffic between Ringaskiddy and Cork City does not have to move fast; it simply has to move. I can see little logic in encouraging HGVs to hurtle into the Bloomfield Interchange only to be halted by a one-lane loop onto the N40 eastbound. Far safer to control their speed from further out. Some residents have suggested that if the motorway were to finish before the Maryborough Hill on-ramp, it would allow retention of the Maryborough Hill and Mount Oval slip roads. This appears to be a sensible option. It would allow HGV and other Ringaskiddy-related traffic the benefits of the motorway whilst retaining existing commuter routes for local traffic.

This proposal provides a once in a lifetime opportunity to sort out several long-standing problems in the road network in and around the Bloomfield Interchange:

• Provision of the long planned Mount Oval on-ramp would reduce congestion on local roads and increase overall traffic efficiency for communities along the N28 corridor.
• At present, traffic coming from the city and attempting to come off the N40 at the Rochestown off-ramp has to cross merging traffic coming from Mahon and the Jack Lynch Tunnel. Considerations to improving the safety of this treacherous manoeuvring would be very welcome.
• As mentioned above, visibility at the bottom of the Rochestown off-ramp for traffic wanting to exit onto the R610 is very poor. This needs to be improved for increased safety.
• Drivers attempting to exit from the Rochestown Church direction endure intolerably long delays whilst giving priority to traffic coming from Douglas and from the N40. Those enduring these delays several times each day deserve consideration as part of this project.

Please be open to the feedback received from all those so concerned about this Carr’s Hill Interchange proposal. It is not the right solution. There are better solutions which will encompass a wider range of needs and which will deliver far greater overall better value for money and quality of life.

Yours faithfully,

_____________________________________________

Marcia D’Alton, B.E., M.Eng.Sc.
Independent Member, Cork County Council.

 

My submission to the Shannonpark Masterplan

Senior Planner,
Planning Policy Unit,
Cork County Council,
Floor 13,
County Hall,
Cork.

8^th November 2015.

 

RE: Proposed Amendments to the Carrigaline Electoral Area Local Area Plan – Shannonpark Framework Masterplan

 

Sir,

In respect of Proposed Amendment No. 4 to the Carrigaline Electoral Area Local Area Plan which is to give effect to the Shannonpark Framework Masterplan, I appreciate the opportunity to make the following observations:

• There is a significant housing need both nationally and in County Cork. I recognise that Cork County Council has earmarked these lands at Shannonpark for a significant housing development to respond to that need.

• It would be a grave injustice to the future Shannonpark community if the quality of standards of housing quality or environment were to be in any way compromised in an attempt to respond to the urgency of this housing need.

• Although Shannonpark is legitimately regarded as situate on the outskirts of Carrigaline, existing poor road infrastructure and resultant significant traffic congestion will in reality distance the Shannonpark community from Carrigaline town centre. It is recognised that the recommendations of the Carrigaline Area Traffic and Transportation Plan are to improve that infrastructure. However, again reality is that this plan was drafted eight years ago. The road network between Shannonpark and Carrigaline has seen little real improvement in that time, whilst the volume of traffic using it has significantly increased.

• Bearing this infrastructural deficit in mind, it is vital that the new community being planned for Shannonpark in this Framework Masterplan would incorporate a range of housing types: from bigger homes for larger families to small one-bedroom bungalows for the older resident. The proposed neighbourhood centre concept is also welcome with a view to minimising short car trips.

• However, despite welcoming the neighbourhood centre concept, this Framework Masterplan must not lose sight of the CASP Update 2008 aims for Carrigaline as outlined in the Carrigaline Electoral Area Local Area Plan. It clearly states that the focus for Carrigaline is consolidation of the town centre. The Framework Masterplan outlines an aim for 1,000 additional houses on the outskirts of Carrigaline town and does not contribute in any real way to this aim.

• It is also fair to observe that although Paragraph 1.2.1 of the Carrigaline Electoral Area Local Area Plan clearly states the target growth for population in 2020 for Carrigaline to be 14,066, the Census of Population indicates the population of Carrigaline to have been 14,924 in 2011. So according to the latest Census, the 2020 population target for Carrigaline was already exceeded four years ago.

• Whilst the fact that the population aims for Carrigaline appear to have already been exceeded does not negate the need for additional housing in Metropolitan Cork, it highlights the absolute urgency with which current infrastructural deficits in Carrigaline must be addressed. It is essential that the Framework Masterplan would include targeted proposals to improve infrastructural links between Shannonpark and Carrigaline town centre.   The vague intentions of Paragraph 1.4.22 of the Proposed Amendment are by no means sufficient.

• I note Paragraph 1.4.18 of the Proposed Amendment states that the Transport Assessment on the Shannonpark lands identified that the provision of Phase 1a houses would not have a significant impact on prevailing traffic conditions. It would be good to know what the definition of “significant” in this context is. With a current westbound traffic queue of 99 vehicles at the Shannonpark roundabout and a queue of 17 vehicles southbound, it is difficult to appreciate how additional impact could be anything other than significant.

• The Cork County Development Plan 2014 has a clear aim of supporting the principal of independence for older people. Paragraph 5.7.6 advises that the particular needs of ageing people should be incorporated into the design, housing mix and location of new housing development. I would particularly like the Framework Masterplan to have a specific aim for a purpose-designed cluster of either sheltered housing or small, single storey dwellings for the elderly. The best location for such housing would be adjacent to the neighbourhood centre. There is a real deficit of sheltered housing for the elderly in County Cork.   Shannonpark would be the ideal place to start providing for this increasingly pressing need in our society.

• The Framework Masterplan proposes four pedestrian links between the Masterplan lands and the adjacent Heronswood estate. Whilst I recognise that Cork County Council is attempting to increase permeability and thereby reduce the need for private car use, the on-the-ground reality is that this proposal will not work. We have repeated evidence that either permitted or accidental access between estates simply creates rat-runs for anti-social behaviour. Many estates in Cork City are attempting to block off such access at significant financial cost. In the case of Shannonpark, planned linkages between the new estate and the existing Heronswood estate would simply serve to create a massive 2,000 house estate. Not merely would this facilitate anti-social behaviour, it would make parental control of smaller children very difficult. Furthermore, several of the pedestrian links suggested in the Framework Masterplan would run through front gardens of residences in Heronswood. I ask that the Framework Masterplan would exclude these four proposed pedestrian links. This would be reflective of the ethos of Paragraph 3.3.1 of the County Development Plan which recognises that the creation of sustainable communities extends beyond the physical environment to “less tangible issues such as people’s perception of what constitutes an attractive and secure environment”.

• The proposed continuation of the walkway/cycleway along the old railway line through the Masterplan lands and on through Heronswood is a policy that would want separate and careful consideration before statutory inclusion in the Masterplan. Is it fair to bring leisure cyclists and commuter cyclists through residential areas? Would this proposal increase burglaries in the residential areas by providing a quick get-away? Would this proposal increase anti-social behaviour linkages between residential areas? Such issues need serious thought. In principle, I very strongly support the continuation of the walkway/cycleway along the old railway line in all directions. However, none of our Greenway development to date has led users through existing residential housing estates.

• I am very disappointed with the limited scale of the transport interchange proposed in the Framework Masterplan. I am also very disappointed at the public’s inability to contribute its opinion to the possible scale of this transport interchange. Astra Construction indicated at its public information session on Friday last that Cork County Council has indicated it requires 50 car parking spaces to be provided with this phase of the transport interchange.   This is very small. According to the last Census of Population, over 5,000 people travelling to school, work or college currently do so by private car. Fifty car parking spaces will provide no realistic alternative to the private car. In fact, 50 spaces is unlikely to be sufficient to even provide a realistic business opportunity to a private operator offering routes other than those offered by Bus Eireann. If the Framework Masterplan is going to advocate for a transport interchange, then let it be adequately large to give realistic indication of the feasibility of the longer-term larger facility planned for the western side of the R611.

• I have extreme concerns about the link road which the Framework Masterplan proposes should run east-west through the Masterplan lands:1.  The link road will serve not just residents of the new housing but also commuters heading for Ringaskiddy who wish to short-cut tailbacks on the Shannonpark roundabout. It will therefore be used as a link road serving the N28, at least until the N28 upgrade is in place. This would potentially result in large volumes of traffic travelling through a built up area at high speed.2.  This nature of road would segregate the overall estate into the future.3.  The proposed link road would endanger users of the open green areas adjoining and pedestrians wishing to cross it. Children living on the north side of the estate will want to cross to use the neighbourhood centre. No ramps or signalised crossing points are proposed in the Framework Masterplan. Carriageway widths are relatively wide and no traffic calming details at all are specified in the Framework Masterplan.

  4.  In speaking to Astra Construction at their public information evening, the architects indicated that County Council traffic calming for this link road is to comprise consideration of camber and a hedge between both carriageways. This will NOT work as a traffic calming measure. In fact, if a hedge is planted between the two carriageways it runs the risk of increasing rather than decreasing danger to crossing children.

  5.  This link road should benefit the residents of the estate rather than serve as a relief road for others.

  6.  This proposed road would link the R611 and the Fernhill Road. The Framework Masterplan acknowledges that the Fernhill Road needs upgrading. But in reality, Ballyhemiken Bridge on the Rock Road is listed on the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage as being of regional importance. It would be destroyed if it were to be widened and so it will never safely accommodate more than one lane of traffic. We need to be cognizant of how much traffic it is safe to deliberately lead onto the Fernhill Road because of the restriction at Ballyhemiken Bridge.

• I ask that the Framework Masterplan would require ramps for traffic calming throughout the proposed Shannonpark residential development.

• Two high voltage lines currently run through the Masterplan lands. Hundreds of international studies have proven that proximity to the electromagnetic fields from high voltage lines can interfere with sleep cycles, increase stress levels, damage your immune system and cause a range of cancers and other health problems:Children living within 650 feet of power lines had a 70% greater risk for leukemia than children living 2,000 feet away or more.  (British Medical Journal, June 2005)Several studies have identified occupational exposure to extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields as a potential risk factor for neurodegenerative disease.  (Epidemiology, July 14 (4), 2003)There is strong prospective evidence that prenatal maximum magnetic field exposure above a certain level may be associated with miscarriage risk.  (Epidemiology, Jan 13 (1), 2002)

  In a study of 850 lymphoma, leukemia and related conditions, researchers from the University of Tasmania and Britain’s Bristol University found that living for a prolonged period near high-voltage power lines increased the risk for these conditions later in life.  (Internal Medicine Journal, 2007)

  Electromagnetic fields are responsible for an increase in childhood leukemia, adult brain cancer, Lou Gehrig’s disease and miscarriage.  (California Department of Health, 2002)

• Paragraph 10.2.1 of the Strategic Environmental Assessment mentions the high voltage lines that run east to west across the Masterplan lands. But the Framework Masterplan does not mention their existence even once, nor the need to move them if the lands at Shannonpark are to be developed for residential purposes. This is despite the fact that Paragraph 1.4.11 of the Framework Masterplan specifically states that the “results from the SEA process were fully considered and integrated into the preparation of the Masterplan”. Concerns about the high voltage lines were NOT included in the Framework Masterplan. The need to move these high voltage lines is absolutely essential for protection of human health and needs to be thus stated in the Framework Masterplan.

• At the Astra Construction public information evening, the proposed site layout drawings showed the lower of the two high voltage lines running roughly along the east-west link road, with the larger high voltage line relocated to run in the rough ground between the Masterplan lands and the M28. Yet at several points that larger high voltage line, even though relocated, runs along the back garden of houses in the north west corner of Phase 1 of the Masterplan. This is unacceptably close to these houses. Minimum distances for human health between the high voltage lines and residential homes need to be specified in the Framework Masterplan.

• House at the northern end of the Masterplan site would be those closest to the new M28. These will be susceptible to heavy traffic both visually and audially. It is essential that the Framework Masterplan would incorporate an aim towards mitigating against overlooking and traffic noise for people living in these houses.

Yours faithfully,

Marcia D’Alton
Independent Member, Cork County Council

 

My submission to the draft Waste Management Plan for the Southern Region

Regional Waste Co-ordinator,
Southern Region Waste Management Office,
Limerick City & County Council,
Lissanalta House,
Dooradoyle,
Co. Limerick.

29^th January, 2015.

 

RE:  Draft Waste Management Plan for the Southern Region

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

Although I am a public representative, I am also an environmental engineer.  I assessed my first waste management plan in the early 1990s.  I completed my Master’s thesis on the potential for centralised biogas in Ireland in 1996.  My subsequent professional career majored in the sustainable management of wastes of all types and in particular the management of sludges and slurries.

I read the draft Waste Management Plan for the Southern Region with anticipation that it would pave the way for the concepts we espoused twenty years ago but which, largely because of organisational deficiencies, undeveloped markets and government indifference, had never taken off the ground.  I am, however, bitterly disappointed.

In those twenty years, kerbside collection has been privatised and enhanced, recycling rates have risen significantly and waste to landfill has reduced.  Those advances are to be welcomed but they were solely in response to European requirements for Ireland’s handling of society’s by-products which was dramatically behind the curve.

None of the principles introduced in the draft Waste Management Plan for the Southern Region is new.  The concept of waste being a resource is age-old.  The circular economy is a long-held dream, one unlikely to see reality in a capitalist society set up for short-term financial reward.  In this Plan, I see primarily a governmental drive towards the introduction of domestic privately-run incineration as a fail-safe measure at all costs, whilst dismissing the vast millions invested by the State into the development of engineered landfill sites which will now never be operated.

I want to see Irish waste management move on.  I want to see a radical shift in our patterns of resource consumption.  I want to see commitment to a zero waste society and clearly defined targets as to how resource consumption will be decoupled from economic growth.  Prevention of waste is at the top of the waste hierarchy.  One of the principal policies in the Plan relates to prevention.  But yet the Plan has a general acceptance that waste per capita will increase significantly to 2030.  What sort of commitment to waste prevention is this?  Would the Plan’s policy towards domestic incineration be achieved if the consented capacity in engineered landfill sites were all made available without imposition of a landfill levy?  Of course it would not!  And similarly, no real policies towards decoupling waste generation from economic growth will be successful if there is tacit assumption that waste generation rates will continue to increase in an environment with generous domestic incinerator capacity.

The circular economy concept will never become a reality in isolation from the zero waste concept.  This is singularly absent from the draft Waste Management Plan for the Southern Region.  This is, of course, because it is absent from government policy.  Eliminating waste calls for intimate involvement with industry and government.  Industry has control over product and packaging design, manufacturing and materials.  Government has the ability to assist industry to make those necessary changes, either with legislation or with grant support.  Government can make real changes in the way we handle waste which will genuinely see materials return to the source from whence they came.  But both industry and government are singularly absent from the draft Waste Management Plan for the Southern Region.

 

Prevention

• The draft Waste Management Plan has a stated acceptance that economic recovery will lead to an increase in waste generation.  This is not acceptable, nor does it have to be the case.  This is planning to fail.  Other countries have planned to succeed by committing to a zero waste approach.  I ask that a zero waste approach be committed to within the Waste Management Plan for the Southern Region.

• It is essential that future strategic targets are measurable and I welcome this comment in the Plan.  However, I do not agree that the strategic targets should focus on broader waste streams.  For a comprehensive understanding of waste generation and destination, we need to analyse the waste stream in the greatest detail possible.

• There is an inherent contradiction in that whilst the Plan commits to having targets measurable, it also has a stated intention to measure the municipal stream rather than the household waste stream.  Yet one of the principal waste reduction targets of the draft Plan relates to household waste which the Plan intends not to measure.  I ask that all targets towards waste reduction are measurable and therefore that the household and commercial waste streams will be analysed separately, rather than as a commingled municipal stream.

• The focus on resource consumption is good but it is not followed through in the Plan with an adequate focus on a shift in attitude or practice.

• It is good that any sort of a target towards waste prevention is being proffered, but the target of 1% reduction per annum in household waste generated is too low.  Over 30% of household waste is biodegradable.  The EPA advises us that at least 60% of this is avoidable.  Were we to eliminate even 30% of biodegradable household waste, we would be achieving a reduction target greater than that espoused in the Plan.  I ask for the adoption of a target of 10% reduction in household waste generated over the lifetime of the Plan.

• With respect, Policy B1 is a nonsense.  Local authorities cannot provide resources that they do not have.  Even if they wanted to take additional staff on board to assist communities in prevention activities, they cannot.  The government embargo on public service appointments means that they would struggle to replace an Environment Education Officer, let alone employ additional staff.  Only central government can ensure that Policy B1 happens.  To pretend otherwise is simply to set the local authorities up to fail.  It is of course appropriate that they would give whatever they can to waste prevention, but real and effective waste prevention measures can only come with both policy and financial commitment from central government.

• The discussion on stakeholders does not mention reducing waste at source by changing industrial practices.  Why are consumers always asked to buy products with less packaging when often they have no choice?  Options for consumers need to be tackled through the producer.  I ask that the Regional Waste Management Plan would demonstrate a real commitment to waste prevention by introducing real and targeted measures towards working with the EPA and industry to, at a minimum, change product presentation at source.

• I ask that the Regional Waste Management Plan would, as a policy target, work with government to introduce a tax on disposable products such as polystyrene and plastic drinks cups, paper and plastic plates, plastic cutlery, etc.  Products such as these have reusable alternatives.  In this regard, it would be an appropriate juncture for all ten local authorities contributing to the Southern Region’s Plan to commit to eliminating the use of such disposable commodities within local authority buildings.

 

Reuse 

• Other countries have established what they describe as “goods rehoming facilities” at civic amenity sites.  These remove goods from the recycling and residual waste streams that are of reasonable quality and may be desired for reuse by others.  They are cleaned and are displayed in a covered area.  In some cases, a small charge is placed on recovered goods.  In others, the goods are available free of charge.  Some civic amenity sites add value to the recovered goods so that they are of higher worth.  I ask that the Regional Waste Management Plan would commit to piloting goods rehoming facilities at a number of the busier civic amenity sites.  It is essential that the goods are available for perusal whenever the civic amenity site is open so that it can essentially become viewed as the equivalent of a second-hand shop.  Such an initiative would help to achieve the Plan’s stated aim of adding value to the waste stream and, if successful, could contribute in a small way towards the operational cost of the civic amenity sites.

 

Recycling

• The Plan is very clear that the residual waste exported for treatment is a wasted resource.  But it does not mention at all the recyclable waste exported for reprocessing because of the complete lack of facilities to deal with it in Ireland.  This is a far greater loss of resource which is not even quantified in the Plan.  I ask that the Regional Waste Management Plan would identify and quantify the individual recyclable streams that are going abroad for reprocessing, that it would identify the countries these recyclable streams are destined for and that it would quantify the lost resources that these material streams represent.

• We know how successful our kerbside collection of recyclables is because the volume of material collected is measurable.  However, we have no idea how the kerbside collection is performing in terms of material quality.  Are the correct materials being put into the recycling bin?  Is there contamination of materials?  Are there materials being separated for recycling for which there is currently no market?  I would like to see quality of collected recyclables being discussed in the Plan.  It may be that it is necessary to introduce a system of source separation to improve the quality of material collected.  I ask that the Waste Management Plan for the Southern Region would discuss the quality of recyclable material gathered by kerbside collection and that it would identify the volume of recyclable material collected but lost to residual waste because of contamination.  If this information is not available, it should be and its collation should therefore be a policy target of the Regional Waste Management Plan.

• Home composting is not mentioned in the Plan.  In the past, home composting was a recommendation of many waste management plans and there are still a considerable number of households in the Region operating their own composting unit.  I ask that the Regional Waste Management Plan would commit to supporting home composting and that it would discuss how those who are currently practising this sustainable system of domestic waste management will continue to be supported in the context of widespread introduction of SI No. 71 of 2013 affecting food waste collection.

• I ask that the Regional Waste Management Plans would commit to the introduction of deposit-refund schemes for, in particular, aluminium cans and plastic drinks bottles.  This is packaging which regularly litters our streets because the products it contains are generally bought in one-off purchases.  Reducing litter cleans up our environment and frees up local authority resources towards other prevention targets.  In addition, a deposit-refund scheme for targeted materials such as aluminium and PET has been proven in other countries to massively increase their recapture for recycling.

• Targets towards anaerobic digestion are welcomed but there is no real sense of enthusiasm in the Plan for biological waste treatment equivalent to that for incineration with energy recovery.  Biological waste treatment in the form of centralised biogas and in-vessel composting is well advanced in other countries.  Despite many on-the-ground attempts by private operators and enthusiasts, it has never taken off in Ireland.  The Plan gives a strong acknowledgement of the need for energy support pricing to make incineration viable and profitable.  Why does it not give the same support to the pricing of energy from centralised biogas?  In the case of centralised biogas, it may be more efficient to use gas directly rather than to use it for electricity generation.  But this would also be a renewable product, equally deserving of support and as yet unacknowledged in Ireland.  I ask that the Regional Waste Management Plan would have a stated policy of working with government towards obtaining realistic financial supports for the energy products of anaerobic digestion/centralised biogas and that these financial supports would be commensurate with the elevated position of biological treatment on the waste hierarchy.

• The Plan makes no mention of the on-the-ground problems which have continually stymied large scale biological waste treatment in this country.  In particular, it does not address the issue of markets for compost or digestate.  Without addressing such issues as these, biological treatment of either biowaste or agriwaste will struggle to advance.  It is imperative that the Plan would identify and address all the issues which to date have impeded the successful take-off of large scale biological waste treatment in Ireland.

• I ask that the Plan would prioritise the implementation of SI 71 of 2013 on household food waste and biowaste and that it would include stated policy to investigate the use of surplus edible foods currently discarded as waste.

 

Recovery 

• The clear ethos of national policy for waste management – as reflected in this draft Waste Management Plan for the Southern Region – is to provide adequate domestic capacity for incineration to replace landfill.  The implementation section of the Plan places more strategic focus on this than on any other aspect of our future intentions for waste management.  Moreover, the implementation section of the draft Plan addresses incineration with energy recovery as a policy measure even before it states policies for recycling, biological treatment and other aspects of waste management far further up the waste hierarchy.  To prioritise the development of incineration recovery infrastructure before the development of infrastructure to facilitate actions further up the waste hierarchy lays out a retrograde and unsustainable future for waste management in Ireland.

• The draft Plan spends considerable energy in describing potential future uncertainty in incineration capacity in the EU markets.  This may indeed be the case for the future, although it is currently not.  It may equally be the case with future foreign capacity to accept Ireland’s sorted recyclable materials also, but the draft Plan does not develop this potential issue.  The waste projections and subsequent argument contained in the draft Plan for an additional national capacity of 300,000 tonnes in incineration with energy recovery is not convincing.  The waste projections are made in the absence of a genuine all-society change of mindset towards a circular economy.  There will be no real achievements in waste reduction should the draft Plan’s stated targets towards incineration be achieved.

• If Ireland is to reach its EU obligations to recycling 50% of municipal waste by 2020 and 70% by 2030, it will be relying on an increase in waste generation to ensure it can maintain a residual waste stream to ensure a continued supply of feedstock to fill domestic incineration capacity.  Ireland will therefore be relying on continued generation of residual waste; this is a position utterly at odds with the circular economy, commitments towards waste prevention and the EU’s waste hierarchy.

• Incineration with energy recovery can operate efficiently only when the feedstock has a relatively high calorific value.  This can be achieved only with a relatively high proportion of plastics and other potentially recyclable materials in the waste stream.  There is little incentive for the public to commit to sustainable waste management if they learn that their carefully sorted dry recyclables are being burned rather than replacing a global demand for virgin materials.  I ask that the Regional Waste Management Plan would commit to ensuring that all separated recyclables would be sent for recycling rather than for incineration either with or without energy recovery.

• Adequate capacity for recovery through incineration with energy recovery already exists in the Meath and Dublin plants.  I ask that the Regional Waste Management Plan would commit to the provision of no further capacity for incineration with energy recovery until firstly, real waste prevention targets are achieved and, secondly, infrastructure to facilitate management of waste further up the waste hierarchy is already in place.

• I ask that the Regional Waste Management Plan would commit to a tax on incineration, with or without energy recovery.  This tax would reflect the position of incineration with or without energy recovery at the lower echelons of the waste hierarchy.  The amount of the tax can be reduced to reflect the energy recovery efficiency of the plant to which the waste is sent.  All waste destined for incineration should be taxed, regardless of whether the incineration plant is in Ireland or abroad.

• Policies E15 and E16 are clearly lifted out of the Connaught-Ulster Regional Waste Management Plan; the consultants forgot to change the reference to the CUR.  It is clear that it is a national plan to introduce incineration to Ireland and that these two policies have been inserted into all of the Regional Waste Management Plans.  This is an uninspired and unsustainable approach to replacing Ireland’s traditional reliance on landfill.

 

Local authority as stakeholders

• Clearly the ten local authorities are expected to drive this Waste Management Plan for the Southern Region forward on the ground.  Equally clearly, responsibility for any failure in this regard will be assigned to them.

• This is largely unjust.  Local authorities are hamstrung without increased resources.  As an example, Cork County Council has constructed 11 state of the art civic amenity sites around the county.  Several years ago, the County Council could not sustain their running and introduced increased gate fees including the imposition of a charge on recycling.  This correlated with an increase in dumping.   It is now so expensive to dump a mattress at a civic amenity site in County Cork that it is little wonder so many are found in ditches and inside farm gates.  Consequently a significant percentage of Cork County Council’s annual environmental is spent on street cleaning.  This year, despite the gate fees, Cork County Council finds it still cannot sustain the cost of running the civic amenity sites and is now reducing opening hours for those in more rural areas.  These are the very areas which are frequently not served by kerbside collectors.  This reduction in availability of civic amenity sites will of course further increase the dumping problem.  Again, the amount of clean-up the County Council can do is limited.  South Cork, with a population of over 211,000, has but one litter warden.  Courtesy of the government’s ongoing recruitment embargo, no further appointments can be made.  The government must commit to delivering policy, practicality and finance in supporting the waste management activities of local authorities.  In this regard, the government is as large a stakeholder in this Waste Management Plan as are the local authorities.

• The Plan’s aim towards improved communication between the local authorities is welcome, particularly with regard to co-ordinating resources, information and the establishment of facilities.

• The Plan’s aim for local authorities to provide improved guidance on siting waste management facilities is also welcome.  This is ideally achieved through the County Development Plan.  Cork County Council most recently attempted to do this in the drafting of its County Development Plan 2014 when it directed large waste management facilities to Strategic Employment Areas.  The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government took exception to this, saying that Cork County Council was creating an unfair bias against incineration.  He issued a Section 31 Direction to revoke the relevant section of the County Development Plan and to replace it with his own wording which singled out incineration for favour.  The Minister clearly failed to understand the intent of the objectives of the County Development Plan and attempted to undermine Cork County Council’s attempt to provide improved guidance on siting.  Education of the Minister is imperative if this aim of the Regional Waste Management Plan is to be achieved.

• The Plan suggests that local authorities should address the growing trend to export residual waste?  Permitted or registered waste facilities are obliged to identify the destination of wastes they handle but it is not within the power of the local authority to instruct where those residual wastes should go.  The transfrontier shipment office ensures that the export of waste is responsible and documented.  Deciding whether waste should or should not go abroad is a commercial decision that could potentially affect the viability of the operator and is well outside the remit of local authorities.

 

The Southern Region’s solid waste stream arises largely from household, commercial, industrial and agricultural sources.  Yet this draft Plan sets targets only for household and municipal waste.  Where are the quantifications and targets for wastes from other sources?  I asked Ms Phillipa King in the Council Chamber whether wastes from industrial sources were addressed in the draft Plan.  I was advised that they were not, because industrial wastes were largely looked after by the EPA.

If there is no co-ordination between the SRWMO and the EPA on industrial waste arisings, their trends and management then the SRWMO and the EPA are replicating the type of individualistic behavior exhibited by local authorities with regard to waste planning over the past decades.  Industrial waste is a significant proportion of the Region’s overall waste stream and it is imperative that it would be addressed in this Waste Management Plan.

Of course solid wastes are only a diminutive percentage of overall waste arisings in the Region.  Sludge waste arisings from wastewater treatment and agricultural slurries are mentioned in the Plan but are clearly not its focus.  But this document describes itself as being a Waste Management Plan.  It is not a Solid Waste Management Plan, nor a Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan.  If it is what its title claims, then it must address all waste arisings in the Region with equal intent: their quantification, current management methodologies and it must develop policies for their responsible handling and, where necessary, treatment.

As this Plan is clearly driven from central government and its higher echelon appointees, I do not expect my comments to be given more than cursory attention.  However, I should be grateful if even some were taken on board.

Yours faithfully,
Marcia D’Alton. 

 

My submission to the Section 31 Draft Direction on the Cork County Development Plan 2014

The Senior Planner,
Planning Policy Unit,
Cork County Council,
Floor 13,
County Hall,
Cork.

27^th January, 2014.

RE:  Cork County Development Plan 2014, Section 31 Draft Direction

Dear Sir/Madam,

The Minister for Housing, Planning and Co-Ordination of Construction 2020 has issued notice of his intent to instruct Cork County Council to amend Objective ZU 3-7 of the County Development Plan 2014.  He has outlined the text of the Objective which is to be deleted and dictated the alternative text which is to be inserted in its stead.

I am dismayed by the Minister’s proposed action.  The content of his communication of 22^nd December 2014 to Cork County Council is indicative to me of an undermining of the local Development Plan process, a deliberate attempt to impede local democracy and a failure to understand both European and national waste policy.

 

Section 31 Draft Direction is in contravention of:

• Article 11(2) and Article 12 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000
• Article 7 of the Aarhus Convention

Chapter I of the Planning and Development Act 2000 sets out the requirement of every local authority to make a Development Plan.  The legislative requirements were further clarified by guidelines published by the then Department of the Environment, Heritage & Local Government under Section 28 of the Act.

These guidelines emphasise how the Development Plan is intended to provide the strategic framework and policy context for the sustainable development of land in the interests of the common good.

Public consultation and local involvement is a critical element in deciding how this strategic framework can reflect those interests.  Article 7 of the Aarhus Convention provides for public participation in plan and policy making.  Ireland is a signatory to the Aarhus Convention since 2012.  The requirement of the Aarhus Convention in this regard is reflected in Article 11(2) of the Planning and Development Act 2000.

This statutory requirement has been responded to fully in the making of the Cork County Development Plan 2014.  In its draft form, the Plan went through three rounds of public consultation over a period of two years.  All views of interested parties were analysed, evaluated, balanced and, where possible, taken on board.

The Section 28 guidelines are utterly clear in clarifying the role of elected members in the making of a County Development Plan:

“Members must have an active and driving role in the entire process, from its inception to its finalisation. They must listen to and take account of the views and wishes of the communities they represent.”

They further emphasise that this involvement of the public and the elected members is critical for the Plan’s effective implementation.  The UN’s Implementation Guide on the Aarhus Convention similarly acknowledges that public involvement in the making of any plan is key to that plan’s success:

“All good public authorities take advantage of the interest and the energy of the public. As decisions become increasingly complex, this factor becomes less a matter of good practice and more a matter of urgency.”

Any decision relating to the siting of a large waste management facility is a complex one.  Cork County Council has, in consultation with the public and elected members and as expressed in its County Development Plan, given guidance on where such large waste management facilities should and should not be sited.  The Minister’s Draft Direction proposes to dismiss the two years of public involvement which has culminated in that guidance.  Therefore the Draft Direction is entirely in contravention of both Article 7 of the Aarhus Convention and Articles 11 and 12 of the Planning and Development Act 2000.

 

Section 31 Draft Direction is unnecessary:  County Development Plan 2014 is not in contravention of national waste policy

The Minister claims that the Draft Direction is necessary because Objective ZU 3-7 of the County Development Plan 2014 by prohibiting incineration through energy recovery is in contravention of national waste policy.  I believe the Minister to be entirely incorrect.

The purpose of Objective ZU 3-7 is not to restrict any kind of waste management type but to advise on where it should be sited.  Objective ZU 3-7 (b) advises that industrial areas zoned for small to medium sized industry, warehousing or distribution can generally be considered for the siting of waste management facilities.  But it qualifies that these areas are not considered suitable for either contract incineration or landfill.  On the other hand, Objective ZU 3-7 (c) clarifies that all large scale waste management facilities may be considered for siting in Strategic Employment Areas.  Note that there are five such areas in Cork.

That this is not any attempt to slight incineration whether with or without energy recovery is clear from many other references within the County Development Plan.  Firstly, Objective ZU 3-7 (c) is consistent with Paragraph 6.4.11 which states that:

“the provision of strategic large scale waste treatment facilities will be considered in ‘Industrial Areas’ designated as Strategic Employment Areas in the local area plans …”

and with Paragraph 11.7.4 which again repeats:

“It should be noted that the provision of strategic large scale waste treatment facilities will be considered in ‘Industrial Areas’ designated as Strategic Employment Areas.”

Secondly, Paragraph 6.4.12 identifies the Bottlehill Landfill Facility as offering particular potential for a “specialised role in the area of integrated waste management and waste to energy”.  In other words, waste to energy is identified and welcomed to a site that may be considered suitable.

Thirdly, Objective ED 4-3 provides explicit support for the development of bioenergy within County Cork during the lifetime of the Plan.  The term bioenergy embraces waste to energy within the R1 category.

National waste policy is as outlined in the government’s 2012 policy document, A Resource Opportunity.  Quite contrary to the Minister’s claim, the County Development Plan 2014 in fact provides clear support for this policy.  Paragraph 11.7.1 specifically identifies the policy, clarifies its intent and observing that the policy will be delivered through “mandatory regional waste management plans”.

Then Objective WS 7-1 has as an explicit aim to:

“Support the policy measures and actions outlined in ‘A Resource Opportunity’ 2012 – National Waste Policy”.

It is difficult to see how such stated support could be regarded as a contravention.

The draft Regional Waste Management Plan for the Southern Region also recognises that the siting of waste facilities is critical to ensuring that their impact can be minimised, managed and mitigated.  It includes broad siting criteria but advises that they provide only minimum guidance.  This is a clear suggestion that greater guidance may be provided at local level if it is regarded as appropriate.

The Section 28 Development Plan Guidelines advise that while development plans should take relevant national and regional policies on board, this should also work in reverse: good development plans should inform policies at regional and national level.  In my opinion, that qualifies the Cork County Development Plan 2014 as being a good development plan.  It has taken national and regional waste policy on board, acknowledged its support for both and identified broad county-level policies for guidance on siting waste management facilities.  Even whilst identifying these county-level policies on siting, Objective ZU 3-7 (c)  defers to the requirements of national policy and future Regional Waste Management Plans.

Frankly, for the Minister to claim that ZU 3-7 as drafted runs counter to government policy is quite extraordinary in the context of the above.  His suggestion that it prohibits energy recovery through incineration is totally misplaced and indicates that he has not read the many other constructive references to waste to energy within the Plan.  Furthermore, it intimates that the Minister is not clear in his understanding of the function of a development plan, i.e. the adoption of national and regional policy into county policy and its adaptation into a strategic framework for sustainable land use within the county as desired and agreed by the people of the county.

 

Section 31 Draft Direction is itself in contravention of national waste policy

National waste policy as outlined in A Resource Opportunity is clear: recovery is fourth in priority in the waste hierarchy.  A Resource Opportunity helpfully defines recovery as being:

“any operation the principal result of which is waste serving a useful purpose by replacing other materials which would otherwise have been used to fulfil a particular function …”.

The key phrase here is any operation.

There are many, many technologies capable of being considered as “large scale waste treatment facilities”.  Centralised biogas is a direct aim of the draft Regional Waste Management Plan for the Southern Region.  In-vessel composting is used successfully all over the world.  Both are classified within the recycling category in the waste hierarchy and are therefore regarded more favourably than recovery.  What about pyrolysis which produces oil, gas and carbon?

ZU 3-7 (c) as currently drafted indicates that all large-scale waste management facilities, regardless of type, may be considered within Strategic Employment Areas.  It therefore accurately reflects the gamut of waste treatment types referred to in A Resource Opportunity, whether from the recovery category or any category further up the waste hierarchy.

It is extraordinary that the Minister, whilst advising against “determination in favour of or against any particular process or technology”, proposes to instruct that ZU 3-7 (c) must be amended to specifically mention waste to energy recovery facilities.  This directly contravenes his own instruction in relation to “infrastructural diversification” deploying a “variety of technologies” across a “network of facilities”.

Furthermore, whilst he chides Cork County Council for what he perceives to be its failure to comply with the waste hierarchy by restricting incineration, he then proposes to instruct that ZU 3-7 should be amended such that it would favourably single out incineration with energy recovery over so many other technologies further up the waste hierarchy.

Whilst I can see no evidence whatsoever that the County Development Plan 2014 is in contravention of the waste hierarchy as adopted by national waste policy, I can see clearly that the Minister’s Draft Direction is anti-competitive and unsustainable in its content and not reflective of either EU or national waste policy.

 

Public consultation procedure associated with the Section 31 Draft Direction is in contravention of Aarhus Convention

Why did the Minister invite public comment on this Draft Direction?

Was it simply to comply with the requirements of Section 31 (6)?

The measures proposed under the Draft Direction as outlined by the Minister in his communication of 22^nd December 2014 clearly state that the County Development Plan is to be amended as set out in the Draft Direction.  If the Minister is intent on amending the Cork County Development Plan 2014, what possibly can be the purpose of this public consultation other than to give lip service to a legislative requirement?

The UN’s Implementation Guide on the Aarhus Convention advises that, at a minimum, public participation requires effective notice, adequate information, proper procedures and appropriate taking account of the outcome of public participation.  The public consultation on this Draft Direction fails in all these respects.  It allows a woefully inadequate response time of two weeks.  It has been published in language which is well beyond the understanding of the public generally.  One frustrated comment on a local publication’s Facebook page read: “Can anyone explain this in further detail and in plain English”.  And at the outset, before the public consultation is even open, the Minister has made it quite clear that the opinion of the public is irrelevant anyway; the provisions of the Draft Direction will come into effect when the Section 31 procedure has been completed.

This is not public participation.  Again, UN guidance on the Aarhus Convention explains that public participation requires more than simply following a set of procedures.  It involves “public authorities genuinely listening to the public and being open to the possibility of being influenced by it … the public input should be capable of having a tangible influence on the actual content of the decision”.

This Section 31 procedure is in clear contravention of the requirements of Aarhus and derogatory of the opinions of the public.

 

Conclusion

I respectfully request that the Chief Executive would reflect my abject rejection of the Minister’s proposed Draft Direction to the Cork County Development Plan 2014 and my genuine horror at his failure to understand the purpose of the specific objectives of the County Development Plan, his evidenced failure to read the County Development Plan in entirety, his consequent proposal to force the introduction of text which would introduce inconsistencies in the Plan, his instruction to favour a recovery technology over a technology further up the waste hierarchy, his consequent proposed direction to contravene national waste policy, his utter disregard for public consultation as required by the Aarhus Convention, his clear demonstration of lack of faith in both the executive and elected members of Cork County Council and his consequent attempted undermining of the development plan process through which the executive, elected members and public have collaborated and co-operated over the past two years.

Local government, local strategic planning and waste management in Ireland deserve better than this.

 

Yours faithfully,

Marcia D’Alton.

 

My submission to the proposed change to Objective TM5-2 of the Draft County Development Plan

Mr. Andrew Hind,
Senior Planner,
Planning Policy Unit,
Cork County Council,
County Hall,
Cork.

24^th October, 2014.

RE: Proposed Change No. 10.17 Objective TM5-2: Cork and Other Ports

Dear Andrew,

You will be aware from our discussions in the Council Chamber that I do not support the approach Cork County Council has taken in the Draft County Development Plan 2013 in specifying the locations which it regards as most favourable for the Port of Cork’s proposed relocation to the Lower Harbour.

I have particular reservations about the Draft County Development Plan’s recommending the type of Port activity which should take place at these locations.  In this regard, I refer particularly to Paragraph 6.6.4 of the Draft Plan.

Cork County Council has never undertaken any work of its own to confirm that these activities in these locations are the most sustainable from a Cork Harbour perspective.  It has merely relied on the Port of Cork’s own Strategic Development Plans 2002 and 2010.  The conclusion of the Port’s Strategic Development Plan 2002 was that Ringaskiddy was preferred for relocation and expansion of the Port’s container business.  This conclusion was resoundingly disagreed with by An Bord Pleanala in its refusal of planning application PL04.PA0003.  The Board’s reason was clear:

“…It is considered that the proposed development would:

(a) result in much of the port related traffic traversing the city road network which would adversely impact on the carrying capacity of the strategic road network in and around Cork city and in particular the carrying capacity of the strategic interchanges at Bloomfield, Dunkettle and Kinsale Road and the Jack Lynch Tunnel which it is necessary to preserve; the proposed development would exacerbate serious traffic congestion at these strategic interchanges; and

(b) be unable to make use of rail freight carrying facilities in the future and would, therefore, represent a retrograde step in terms of sustainable transport planning.”

Although this is the first County Development Plan to be redrafted since that An Bord Pleanala decision, neither the Port of Cork nor Cork County Council has undertaken any holistic climate change assessment to ascertain whether relocation of the existing container terminal at Tivoli to Ringaskiddy and its consequent expansion in the coming years is actually sustainable in the context of an increasingly carbon-conscious world.

By omitting to undertake this assessment, Cork County Council is culpable in two ways.  Firstly, it is removing the need for the Port to undertake that crucial step in the Environmental Impact process: the assessment of alternatives.  The Environmental Protection Agency’s regard for the importance of this step is clear:

“The consideration of alternative routes, sites, alignments, layouts, processes, designs or strategies is the single most effective means of avoiding environmental impacts”.
[Guidelines on the Information to be contained in EnvironmentalImpact Statements, EPA, 2002]

Secondly, Ireland is expected to bring about a 20% reduction on 2005 greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.  Our country is unlikely to achieve this target.  There is a risk that significant fines may result.  Perhaps the even greater risk is the global damage to Ireland’s clean environmental image.  Even in the Environmental Impact Statement accompanying its most recent planning application for relocation of its container activity to Ringaskiddy (PL04.PA0035), the Port of Cork had undertaken no climate change assessment.  So in supporting the concept of a container terminal at Ringaskiddy and thereby indefinite relegation of all container traffic to road transport, Cork County Council is tacitly approving of what is described as national strategic development with a potentially massive, and as yet unassessed, carbon footprint.

This aspect of the Draft County Development Plan 2013 had already been drafted and assessed by the time I was elected to the Council Chamber.  I am fully aware that the statutory time has passed for any of my comments here to make changes to this substance of the Draft Plan.  I do not dispute that it may be necessary for the Port of Cork to move its City-based operations downstream.  However, I wish to have my opinion on record that it is unsustainable for a County Development Plan to be as specific as the Draft Cork County Development Plan 2013 is with regard to the relocation of those Port activities without independent and comprehensive assessment.

The legislative process does, however, permit me to comment on my serious concerns with regard to proposed amendment 10.17 to Objective TM5-2: Cork and Other Ports.

Objective TM5-2 indicates that relocation of Port activities to the Lower Harbour should have regard for “residential amenity, tourism and recreation” around Marino Point.  It indicates no regard for residential amenity, tourism and recreation considerations arising from potential Port relocation to Ringskiddy.

Yet Port development at Ringaskiddy would be overlooked by the hills of Monkstown and Cobh, would be directly across from Blackpoint and would be in the midst of the Ringaskiddy community.  It would directly affect the well-developed tourism industry in Cobh, be directly in the line of vision of the cruise liner terminal at Cobh and would be in real proximity to the promising world-class tourism attractions of Spike Island.  It takes little familiarity with the Harbour to recognise that the Lower Harbour from Monkstown downstream is that area of the Harbour most widely used for recreation.

It is totally unacceptable that while Objective TM5-2 as proposed expresses direct consideration of the residential amenity, tourism and recreation around Marino Point, it makes no mention of residential amenity, tourism and recreation around Ringaskiddy.

The proposed text of TM5-2 confers considerations relating to an adequate road network serving Port activities to Ringaskiddy only.  It is of course vital that the N28 should be upgraded; it is already severely congested at peak times.  But it is equally vital that the R624 serving the Great Island should be upgraded.

The R624 is already severely over capacity.  It is dark and unlit as it passes through Foaty Island.  It exhibits dangerous bends all along its length to Cobh.  It has but a single, 200-year old bridge on and off the Great Island.  It is totally inappropriate to suggest that further development of any kind on the Great Island would be supported by the existing road network.  Plans to upgrade the R624 have been in place for several years.  Their implementation is hampered only by restrictions in funding.

Whilst it is clear that the Port is promoting Marino Point as an appropriate location for Port activity because of its rail link, it is equally clear that rail cargoes would be specialised and limited, at least in the shorter to medium term.  Any cargo not being transported up the country by rail would be transported by road.  The existing road network cannot support Port relocation of any kind to Marino Point.

So the proposed text of Objective TM5-2 is inappropriate and unsustainable on two counts:

1. Upgrading of the road network to both Ringaskiddy and Marino Point is essential.
2. Potential impact on residental amenity, tourism and recreation arising from Port relocation is a concern at both Ringaskiddy and Marino Point.

It is incumbent on Cork County Council as the planning authority to change the proposed text of TM5-2 to reflect these concerns in accordance with the “proper planning and sustainable development” requirements of existing planning legislation.

I suggest wording such as the following might suffice:

“Support Ringaskiddy as the preferred location for the relocation of the majority of port related activities.  Also recognising the key role that Marino Point can play in providing an alternative relocation option for some of the port related uses that could best be served by rail transport.  It is acknowledged that there is need for significant improvement to the road network serving both Ringaskiddy and Marino Point and that account must be taken of residential amenity, tourism and recreation.  The Council is committed to engage with the Port of Cork and other relevant stakeholders in achieving this objective.   See also Objective EE 6-2 Cork Harbour.”

I acknowledge that general reference to residential, amenity, tourism and recreation is given in Objective EE6-2 (Proposed Change No. 6.10).  This is welcome but not sufficient.  I anticipate Cork County Council’s giving the same regard to sustainability concerns in Objective TM5-2 as it does in Objective EE6-2.

All the best,

_______________________________________
Marcia D’Alton,
Member, Cork County Council.

 

Submission to consultation on Local Property Tax adjustment, 26th August 2014

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission addressing the potential effects of varying the basic rate of the Local Property Tax.

I have spoken to many people in the Carrigaline – Ballincollig constituency both when canvassing before the local elections in May and since.  Many have expressed strong opinions on Local Property Tax.

The general feedback I have received from so many of the residents of the Carrigaline – Ballincollig constituency that people are happy to fund local authority services.  They like Cork County Council, their own local authority, to deliver the essential services they rely on.  They regard these services as primarily including water provision, wastewater treatment, roads provision and maintenance, waste collection and treatment, grasscutting and general landscape maintenance.

However, now so many of these services are now being delivered by private contractors.  The local authority refuse collection service has been sold off.  Although civic amenity sites are still run by Cork County Council, high gate fees are charged, even for recycling.  The government has amended legislation such that each household must pay directly for water and wastewater services.

People understand that they pay for roads maintenance through motor tax.  The County Council no longer carries out grasscutting and maintenance in estates – residents pay for this themselves.  The County Council maintains road verges but requires landowners to maintain hedgerows.

Former Minister Phil Hogan explained that the purpose of the Local Property Tax is to provide “sounder financial footing for the provision of local services”.  But people express extreme frustration that they cannot see any return from the Local Property Tax for what have traditionally been regarded as the primary local authority services.

So many people have illustrated the difficulty they have in making ends meet.  The cost of living increases, they are increasingly charged for services and utilities whilst wages have not increased commensurately.  Eurostat measures statistics across Europe.  Its quality of life analysis tells us that the percentage of Irish people in arrears from 2003 is 23.6%, i.e. 12% higher than the average across the 28 Member States.  This indicates that people are genuinely financially struggling.  Financial difficulties are further illustrated in that Eurostat measures 56.4% of Ireland’s population as being unable to face unexpected financial expenses.  This is more than half the people of Ireland.  By comparison, the average figure in the original 15 EU Member States is 36.3%, while the average across all 28 EU Member States is 40.3%.

What is perhaps most telling about these figures is that they are regarded as quality of life measures.  The financial worries experienced by more than 50% of Irish people are such that their quality of life is affected.

Local Property Tax is a charge on the market value of residential properties.  These are homes, many of which are mortgaged from a bank or similar lending institution.  Many people are paying a monthly contribution to a mortgage which is based on a historical value far in excess of the value of the property.  They pay interest to the lending institution at a rate which, over the lifetime of the mortgage, can double the cost of the property.  Local Property Tax is yet another penalty for the price of wanting a home.  The money the householder uses to pay the Local Property Tax is take-home pay, already taxed by government.  In other words, it is earned income which is doubly charged.

Former Minister Phil Hogan was again quoted as saying that Local Property Tax is a “more sustainable and resilient form of funding for local authorities”.  The final affront was surely experienced last year when those who paid Local Property Tax on the promise of its being delivered to their local authorities found that it was retained by government for the establishment of Irish Water.  This was one blow too many, particularly when most people are conscious that they already pay for water and wastewater services through income tax.  So the Local Property Tax, already regarded as unjust by many householders and paid in the assumption that it would deliver better local services, was retained to set up a company the primary function of which is to charge for yet another service that people are already paying for.

I sincerely ask Cork County Council to reduce the Local Property Tax by 15% in this year’s budget.  This reduction would:

 

• free up additional money in the community, thereby stimulating local economies and helping local business
• acknowledge that people of County Cork already pay directly for so many of the services previously delivered by Cork County Council
• acknowledge that the money paid by the people of County Cork in Local Property Tax last year was diverted to facilitate a system of direct payment for water and wastewater services when people understand that they already pay for water and wastewater services through income tax
• reduce stress and improve quality of life for so many living in County Cork.

Yours faithfully,
____________________________________
Marcia D’Alton
Member, Cork County Council

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

 

Submission to the CER consultation on the Water Charges Plan

Commission for Energy Regulation,
The Exchange,
Belgard Square,
North Tallaght,
Dublin 24.

23rd August, 2014.

RE:  CER/14/363 – Water Charges Plan Consultation

Dear Sir/Madam,

Government policy on the establishment of direct charging mechanisms for water means that all water related assets have been transferred into the control of one entity – Irish Water.  The people of this country have paid for the establishment and maintenance of these water-related assets.  They have paid for the establishment of Irish Water.  They are now expected to pay further for their water use. There will be no alternative supplier of water.

Despite this, the consultation now open applies only until the end of 2016. There will be no agreement on water charges after 2016 arising from this consultation.  The Minister’s direction of 2nd July 2014 is clear that the Water Charges Plan applies for the interim regulatory cycle (1st October 2014 to 31st December 2016). The Minister is equally clear that the direct cost of water and wastewater services to each household as billed by Irish Water is to be maintained for the average household at €238.  Because the cost of providing water services to each household is more than twice this, the government has committed to providing funding to Irish Water until 2016.  At this time, government subsidies for the provision of water are proposed to cease.  The Irish public will have no means of obtaining water other than through Irish Water, regardless of the price per litre imposed.

I wish to highlight at the outset that I am horrified and deeply disturbed at the government’s proposals for provision of water to the Irish people.  Water is essential for life.  I have no difficulty with paying for the cost of providing water services.  Indeed, I already do so through taxation.  I laud the concept of water conservation.  But the actions of this government with regard to the provision of water services are not the actions of a government responding fairly and responsibly to the needs of the people.  These are a knee-jerk reaction to years of bad management resulting in a premature and ill-thought out policy which will impact physically and financially on the Irish people for many years to come.

I have specific comments to make on the CER’s proposals outlined in the Water Charges Plan Consultation for Domestic Customers.  These are outlined under the various headings as provided by the CER as follows:

1. Introduction of Charges – all domestic customers will be charged for their water from 1 October 2014

Domestic customers are already being charged for their water.  Water services cost over €1.23bn to run annually.  Some 75% of commercial water charges are collected.  They bring in about €220 million.  The balance of €1 billion is funded largely by our taxes through Exchequer grants and local authority resources.  With a workforce of 1.8 million (CSO, 2011), this loose calculation suggests that each taxed individual is already paying €556 per annum towards water services.

This is merely a very rough calculation, but no more definitive analysis of the contribution the taxpayer already makes to water services has ever been published or circulated by the government.  It is unjust that further charges for either direct or indirect consumption should be applied in the absence of taking account of what the taxpayer already pays.

3. Capped Charges – all customers will be capped at an assessed charge for 6 months

Irish Water and the CER are proposing that customers’ charges will be capped at an assessed charge for 6 months. During that time, customers will have the opportunity to review their water usage and reduce it where possible.

This proposed 6 month period begins in October 2014.  So households will be reviewing their water consumption between October 2014 and March 2015. There is no way people will be able to get any accurate indication of their household’s typical water usage during this time.  Water use is far higher in the summer than in the winter.  In particular, children use water for recreational purposes during the summer.  Showering and horticultural requirements are also higher during the summer. In fact, Irish Water itself has admitted that there may be “some seasonality to water consumption due to human behaviour” (see Paragraph 4.14.1.).  It is quite unjust to expect people, particularly those with young families, to make any reasonable assessment of their household’s water needs during the winter and early spring period.

5. Metered Charges – €4.88 per thousand litres for both services

The Minister has directed that there is to be no standing, or fixed, daily charge for water, just a unit rate for the litres you use.

But the CER itself has acknowledged (see Paragraph 4.15.2) that water service costs “are primarily fixed regardless of how much water is consumed”.

So why is the Irish householder, who is already paying a fixed price for water through taxation, carrying yet further burden for water service delivery through direct charging based on consumption?

Furthermore, householders cannot be expected to pay a per thousand litres charge when that charge may unpredictably increase in January 2017.  Irish Water itself has admitted that if billing does not result in the forecasted revenue, Irish Water will not cover its costs and the “unit rate [will] be increased for all customers in the next CER price review” (see Paragraph 4.15.2).  Many householders are already struggling to make ends meet.  How can it be ethical to force these same householders into a contract with a single water supplier who can potentially price as high as is necessary to make its business viable?  Water is essential to life, not an optional commodity.  Ireland is a first world country; this is a third world proposal.

It would be far more just and equitable to have that which is already paid towards water services by Irish householders through taxation removed from the annual tax burden and transferred to a direct standing charge.  Then a reasonable water allowance per household based on published and unbiased assessment should be calculated.  At that stage, any household exceeding the nationally agreed household allowance may be charged at a reasonable and predictable rate per 1,000 litres used.  This way, even should that single supplier of water increase the price per thousand litres increase beyond that which is comfortably affordable for some households, at least all households will have a reasonable and agreed volume of water supplied for a comfortable standard of living.

6. Rebates – all customers will be entitled to a rebate if the meter shows that they use less than the assessed charge

Irish Water proposes that customers must be paying an unmetered charge for at least 6 months to qualify for a rebate. That is an unreasonably long length of time.

Irish Water further proposes that a rebate will not be credited until 12 months after the installation of a meter.  Why should one have to wait for 12 months to get one’s money back?  Again, this is an unreasonably long length of time.

I note that Irish Water claims it is essential to wait the full 12 months before rebate so that water usage at similar times of the year can be compared, i.e. to compare “like for like consumption”.  Yet, Irish Water expects the household to gauge its potential annual water use during the 6 months from October 2014?  This is not a level playing field.

Irish Water is further proposing that customers that fail to validate their occupancy details by 31st October 2014 will not be eligible for a rebate.  Who can agree to validate their occupancy details when they do not know what details will be requested?  If, as is claimed by the Minister, the aim of direct charging it to reflect genuine consumption with an ultimate view to water conservation, then ALL households who make an effort to reduce water use should be rewarded, regardless of when and whether they validate their occupancy details.

In addition, Irish Water proposes not to give a rebate to households who change their occupancy status.  Again, this is totally unjust.  So if the mother of a household has a new baby, does this apply?  If a young adult child gets a job and moves out, is that household rendered ineligible for a rebate?  If an elderly parent comes to live with the family of his/her daughter or son, will the welcoming household no longer be eligible for a rebate?

Irish Water’s suggestion is ill-described, ill-defined, uncharitable, impractical and will lead to an atmosphere of deceit as households will inevitably try to make day-to-day living more affordable by shielding change in their occupancy status from a company which clearly regards them as a cash cow rather than as humans.

8. Children are free – all households with children in receipt of child benefit will receive annual allowances to cover the normal consumption of each child.

Irish Water has submitted analysis from its household research on metered consumption to support its Water Charges Plan. Household consumption will be calculated as 66,000 litres per annum for a single occupancy household, with an additional 21,000 litres per annum for each additional adult. Irish Water is proposing to apply the same increment for adults and children.

But the Minister’s policy direction is that each household is to receive 38,000 litres of free water per child, subject to verification through metered consumption data.

The government’s figure of 38,000 litres as being an estimated normal annual consumption of water for a child was derived from the National Water Study and was based on UK data.  The CER advises us that Irish Water considers this report to not be a true representation of consumption of the average Irish child.

Of course they do not!  The more water each Irish person has to pay for, the better it is for Irish Water.  And Irish Water says its claims in this regard are backed up by recent meter readings.  At what houses? How many?  Where?  Over what duration?  With what number and what kind of occupants?  Where was this research work published such that Irish people might assess it for themselves?  Irish people have a right to public display of such research carried out, supposedly, on their behalf.

I am dismayed that the CER, whose stated function is to ensure on behalf of the Irish people that the “prices that Irish Water charges to customers are fair and reasonable” should take the advice of Irish Water over that of the Irish government.  The CER’s consultation paper admits that the ESRI is not happy with Irish Water’s assessment of the consumption of adult and child being equal (see Paragraph 4.5.1).

So why does the CER not take the assessed consumption of a child as advised by the Irish government until further definitive research has been undertaken?  Or at least indicate some measure of support to the Irish people whose interest it is duty-bound to protect by assuming the annual water consumption of a child to be mid-way between the Irish Water proposal and the government proposal?

It is rare that adults take two and three showers each day, as many teenagers do.  It is equally rare that they will play water fights on a hot summers day.  And I cannot last remember when I saw adults playing in a paddling pool in their back garden. Common sense dictates that a child’s consumption of water is greater than that of an adult.  The CER needs to show some defence of the Irish family here.

8. Medical Conditions – customers with medical conditions which require increased water consumption will be capped at the assessed charge for that household even if they have a meter.

It is virtually impossible for people to agree to this proposal without knowing is considered to be a “medical condition requiring increased water consumption”.

I note the CER’s understanding that the “DECLG will work with the Department of Health and Health Service Executive (HSE) to develop a list of medical conditions that should receive a capped bill” (see Paragraph 4.13.2).

Financial constraints on the use of water is terrifying for many with medical needs for above-average water consumption.  Consultation on this proposal is massively premature without definition of what might be considered to be a “medical condition requiring increased water consumption”.

9. Water Quality – where water is unfit for human consumption, affected customers will receive a 50% discount on the costs of their water supply for the duration of the restriction.

What defines unfit in this instance?

Surely, under a scenario such as the government is proposing where water is considered a commodity, it is the consumer who defines what he/she considers “unfit” for consumption?  In this scenario, the definitions of unfit given by either the EPA or the HSE are inadequate.

Certainly, there is little doubt but that water infected by Cryptosporidium or a similar disease-causing micro-organism is unfit for consumption.  But equally, if my family is to purchase water as a commodity, we do not consider water with added fluoride to be of adequate quality for sale. Nor do we wish to be party to prolonging the release of fluoridated wastewater into the natural environment. Why should we pay for a practice we do not wish for?

A similar concern arises in the case of hard water.  Hard water is provided to many thousands of homes throughout the country.  It is true that we are as yet unaware as to whether it has health impacts.  But we are totally aware of the difficulties it causes to those using it, often with significant financial implications.  The water being provided is therefore, whilst perhaps fit for consumption, not fit for the purposes intended, i.e. domestic use. Therefore those to whom hard water is being delivered also deserve a discount on the cost of their water supply.

Please might the CER also address where and how Irish Water will display the analysis of the water it proposes to deliver to each household?  Will such analysis be displayed in real time such that households will have a genuine understanding of the product for which they are to pay?

10. Non-Primary Residences – a minimum charge will apply to non-primary residences

Irish Water is proposing to apply a minimum charge of €160 per year for water and wastewater services to metered and unmetered premises that are not permanently occupied (i.e. €160/year).

Firstly, how does this apply to houses which have been purchased as buy-to-lets?  During the years of the Celtic Tiger, many families upgraded their family homes, keeping their first home as a rental property.  Others put their savings into purchasing a second property, in the belief that it would bring in supplementary income whilst providing a pension for their advancing years.  They were encouraged in this approach by every banking institution in the country at the time.  These are ordinary, middle-class families who have in recent years been penalised in a multitude of respects for what was, several years ago, deemed to be their prudence.  Most cannot sell these second properties now, even though they long to do so.  Will families such as this, who have a second buy-to-let unmetered property, be obliged to pay a standing minimum charge of €160?  Simply because it is a second property?

There may be periods during the year when that buy-to-let property is untenanted and the family who owns the property is trying to cover the cost of its mortgage.  Will they be obliged to pay either additionally or alternatively for water which they are not using?  This would be totally unjust.

Practical questions like these simply have to be answered.

Secondly, this provision will have significant impact on holidaying in Ireland.  Holiday homes in remote places are those least likely to be metered.  The cost of holiday house rental in this country is already high and many families struggle to get any holiday away at all. Most landlords will put the cost of water charges, property tax and other fixed house-related expenses onto the weekly rent of the house.   Landlords will most likely have to budget for recouping Irish Water’s proposed dual service charge of €160 through the 3 summer months, as these are the only guaranteed for letting.  If the landlord carries this cost, his/her income is reduced; if the landlord passes on the cost in weekly rent, holidays will become even less affordable for families.

11. Validation Campaign – all customers are required to complete a validation form to establish your household details

The Guide to the CER’s Water Charges Plan Consultation for Domestic Customers simply states that “Irish Water will be contacting customers over the coming months to gather information on the household type and number of occupants so that they can correctly apply your household allowances. It is important that customers validate their details in time to ensure that they receive their full allowances”.

On the other hand, the full Water Charges Plan document clearly states that “the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2014 has been amended to give Irish Water the power to collect Personal Public Service Numbers from its customers … Irish Water proposes to request the Personal Public Service Numbers of each child in a household to avail of child allowances and of the registered occupant to avail of the household allowance”.

To not present this information in the shorter, easier-to-read Guide to the Water Charges Plan Consultation is misleading at best.

All households in Ireland deal with utility providers regularly. All householders are used to providing some degree of personal detail for billing purposes.  So most householders would have little difficulty with the description of the validation process described in the Guide.

But never before has a householder had to provide its PPSN numbers to a utility for billing purposes.  This is entirely inappropriate, unacceptable and a breach of the confidentiality and trust that is supposed to exist between the government and its citizens.

It is no excuse to say that allowances are linked to child benefit. If allowances per child are to be granted, then let each household include a copy of the birth certificate of that child in responding to Irish Water’s validation process.  There should be neither requirement nor need to give PPSN numbers to any utility and for any government to amend Irish law to faciliate such disclosure of personal information is for that government to support complete breach of confidentiality.

Additional services

Additional services are described by the CER as being services which “may be carried out at the request of an Irish Water customer that are outside of Irish Water’s obligation to provide water and wastewater services and connections to the public water and wastewater systems”.

Water meters are regarded as compulsory by the government and provided and installed by Irish Water.  I am dismayed to see that if a household believes a meter to be faulty, Irish Water proposes that this household must pay €220 to have that meter checked.  This is simply preposterous and entirely unacceptable.

I am equally dismayed to see the exorbitant rates proposed for Irish Water for site visits.  Many households, often with young families, live in housing estates which were constructed during the Celtic Tiger era.  These estates were often built hurriedly with few spot checks during construction by local authorities.  Water pipes to these houses were often laid poorly, sometimes not far enough underground.  As a result, many families experience freezing and consequent disruption to supply during cold weather.  In my own estate, this problem is extensive and without a pattern. In other words, some households within the same road suffer repetitively from freezing whilst others do not. The extent of the problem has been such that we have done a door-to-door survey, returning the results of the survey to Cork County Council to look for support and a possible solution. The County Council responded, saying that it needed to seek legal advice.  We have had no further response but the problem continues during cold months.  It is particularly difficult to cope with when it happens at Christmas time.

Households such as those in my estate already pay for water services through their taxes, are now required to pay further for direct use of water and relied on government services to ensure the houses they continue to pay dearly for were constructed properly in the first place. To be fair, when pipes freeze in our estate, a representative from the County Council will always call to the door of the affected households to see can he resolve the problem.  But this support will no longer be available now that control of the water infrastructure has passed to Irish Water. Instead, what Irish Water is essentially proposing is that each household affected by freezing will have to pay a minimum of €188 to request assistance.  If the freezing occurs during the Christmas holidays, the household will have to pay a minimum of €282 if it needs help.  The alternative to seeking help is to go without water entirely.

This is simply not right.

I note that the CER states that it has not had opportunity to examine the Irish Water publication A Multi-Supplier Framework for the Provision of Minor Civil Engineering Works to Irish Water.

It is totally inappropriate that Irish Water proposals should be put out for consultation when the CER has not analysed those proposals in advance.  This is the function of the CER – to analyse the Irish Water proposals and to adjust them with a view to protecting the Irish people by ensuring prices are “fair and reasonable”.

My family’s letter to Irish Water

On 1st August last I wrote a letter to Irish Water, simultaneously copying it to the CER.  Irish Water did not respond nor acknowledge receipt of the letter. The CER did respond, inviting me to make a submission to this consultation.  I am therefore including the text of my letter to Irish Water as part of my official response to this consultation:

“Neither I nor my family wishes to have a water meter installed at our house, the address of which is detailed in the contact form. We have never requested a meter, nor have we been asked whether we want one. If Irish Water or its contractors installs a meter at our house without our consent, we will remove it. I am notifying you in advance so that taxpayer’s money will not be yet further wasted in the capital and operational cost of providing and installing the meter.

We choose not to have a meter installed because the government has not laid out charges for water after 2016. If the price of any commodity rises beyond that which we cannot afford, we no longer purchase it. I choose an alternative. But water is essential for life. We will not have a choice in whether we use it or not. If our best conservation measures cause its price per litre to rise, we have no alternative provider from which to choose.

When one pays for a commodity for consumption, one has the opportunity to review the contents of that commodity on its packaging. In 2009, the Department of the Environment instructed water providers to publish up-to-date data on the quality of the water they are providing to consumers. We have never been provided with this data. I, as the mother of my five children, will not pay for a commodity for consumption when I do not know the contents of that commodity.

We will not pay for water which has been fluoridated. We understand that fluoride is of benefit to oral health. But the European Community Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risk stated in 2011 that the “effect of continued systemic exposure of fluoride from whatever source is questionable once the permanent teeth have erupted”, while concluding that topical application of fluoride is safer and more efficient in maintaining oral health than the fluoridation of water supplies. We will not pay for a medicated product when we do not desire that medication.

Both my husband and I have paid tax since we started working. We have been paying for water and wastewater services through that taxation. We continue to pay indirectly for water services. The government has clearly stated that Ireland is now moving to a system of charging for water based on usage. We will not pay for water by a system of direct usage until the burden of paying for it indirectly is removed from our tax bill. We therefore suggest that in its proposals to the Commission for Energy Regulation, Irish Water might suggest either a rebate on our tax bill for any monies we might pay to Irish Water or a reduction in our annual level of taxation which can be clearly identified with Ireland’s proposed shift from indirect to direct charging for water.

We presume that Irish Water will respect these requests from us, the potential consumer, both in relation to fluoridation and negotiating removal of indirect water charges from our tax bill. We will then agree to pay a flat rate for water directly to Irish Water. However, I must point out that my family paid €315 in local property tax last year. This was paid on the promise by government that it would fund services provided to us by Cork County Council. That money was not invested in Cork County Council as promised but was used to set up Irish Water. We have therefore forwarded Irish Water a loan of €315. We expect Irish Water to deduct this €315 from our first flat-rate bill and to include acknowledgement that this loan was provided from us entirely without interest.”

Yours faithfully,

____________________________________
Marcia D’Alton
Member, Cork County Council

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