Proposed Traveller Accommodation at Ardla (Skerries)

The Hill Billy

To whom it may concern:

There is a meeting in The Hills Cricket Club at 9 this evening regarding a proposed halting at Ardla near Skerries.

I've no idea who is calling this meeting - an unsigned flyer was dropped in my letterbox.

blastman

A halting site in Skerries? Oh dearie me, no!

It'll be a cold day in hell, etc.

The Hill Billy

Thanks for that valuable contribution.

blastman

I presume the local residents voted to welcome their new neighbours, then?

The Hill Billy

If you're interested in what's happening I'd suggest attending the next meeting. I'll post the date/time/venue when as soon as I find out.

It is not my intention to start yet another anti-/pro-Traveller thread. There are enough of them around already.

blastman

I was actually having a go at Skerries people, in a light-hearted manner.

Unshelved

I was actually having a go at Skerries people, in a light-hearted manner.

And very amusing it was too. Oh my sides :rolleyes:

Back on topic - I seem to remember this being proposed some time ago - around 2000 or so. Seeing as they're building a large golf club and hotel complex on Wentges' land beside Ardla, I'd be surprised if the developers there didn't put in some kind of an objection.

Keep us posted if you hear any updates (or if you see any more porpoises!).

The Hill Billy

Unshelved wrote:

And very amusing it was too. Oh my sides :rolleyes:

Back on topic - I seem to remember this being proposed some time ago - around 2000 or so. Seeing as they're building a large golf club and hotel complex on Wentges' land beside Ardla, I'd be surprised if the developers there didn't put in some kind of an objection.

Keep us posted if you hear any updates (or if you see any more porpoises!).

Yes, there was a similar development proposed in 1999/2000. That came to nothing.

As for the Treasury Holdings development in Milverton, there are a few planning matters still outstanding with FCC - therefore they may not wish to lodge an objection as it may come back to bite them if they pìss FCC off.

As for updates - I will post details of further meetings. I posted the original notice for information only & I don't want this thread to descend into a debate/rant/whatever. As for the outcome of the meetings - I feel that if someone local has an interest or wants to know more about what is going on then they should attend the meetings themselves.

Chinafoot

Hill Billy wrote:

As for the outcome of the meetings - I feel that if someone local has an interest or wants to know more about what is going on then they should attend the meetings themselves.

Well what about those who can't make it to the meetings? No harm in those that could make it posting about what went on.

The Hill Billy

Chinafoot - That's a fair point. I'll see...

blastman

Unshelved wrote:

And very amusing it was too. Oh my sides :rolleyes:

Aww, diddums!

Dev Man

Such a lovely graveyard.
People need to start contacting local councillors, local newspapers and tellng friends about what Final County Council are trying to sneak through here while everyone is on holidays.
Flouting everything they've said in the past about planning applications.
There's another meeting next Tuesday but make some calls please.
I believe Trevor Sargent's response has been non-existent which is amusing given the time he spends outside Skerries station.

The Hill Billy

Dev Man wrote:

There's another meeting next Tuesday but make some calls please.

Dev Man:
I presume that the meeting is in The Hills Cricket Club. By "next Tuesday" do you mean 31st July or 7th August? Do you have a time for when the meeting starts?

Dev Man wrote:

Such a lovely graveyard.
People need to start contacting local councillors, local newspapers and tellng friends about what Final County Council are trying to sneak through here while everyone is on holidays.

My understanding of what Dev Man is referring to here is that FCC intend to build 10 houses for permanent traveller accomodation (not a halting site as originally suggested) on Ardla Burial Grounds. Note: Not adjacent to, but ON the burial grounds. This is the primary local burial ground for the Skerries area.

A secondary issue is that people native (going back several generations) to The Blackhills are being refused planning permission to build on their own land in the area. FCC refusals to these planning requests can in some cases be as ridiculous as a single house being refused planning because of (& I'm ad-libbing here) "unacceptable levels of additional road traffic". For 1 house?

FCC now want to develop 10 houses in Ardla & they are prepared to disregard their own zoning (the land is zoned "burial ground", not "residential") plus go against their own reasons for restricting development in the area just because it suits them.

Bluetonic

Just as a matter of interest was there the same number of objectors/were the same people objecting to the Milverton Demesne And Home Farm development?


Aside from my question, here's some bits and bobs on it from the year 2000.

MILVERTON / THE HILLS RESIDENTS, ARDLA

NO.


ISSUE


RESPONSE OF LOCAL AUTHORITY

1.


Residents had not been contacted or informed about the proposed halting site.


As required by the Housing (Traveller Accommodation) Act 1998 the Council published a notice in the Irish Times on 3rd November, 1999 and in the Fingal Independent on 5th November, 1999 inviting written submissions on the Draft Traveller Accommodation Programme, which was available from Council Offices, Public Libraries and Community Centres throughout the County.


2.


Location of a Halting Site next to a Burial Ground is ‘inappropriate’.


The location of a ten bay halting site adjacent to the existing Ardla Burial Grounds is not considered inappropriate.


3.


Objection to proposed number of travellers based on ten bays in Skerries Region.


Based on existing traveller family size it is estimated that the number of individuals to be accommodated on the proposed site would be in the region of seventy.


MR. RICHARD MURTAGH – ARDLA

The submissions received from Dermot F. McNamara & Co. on behalf of Mr. Richard Murtagh while objecting in priciple to the proposal to locate the proposed 10 bay site at Ardla, Skerries did not make any specific objections.



DAC ARCHITECTS & DESIGN CONSULTANTS – ARDLA

NO.


ISSUE


RESPONSE OF LOCAL AUTHORITY

1.


A locations adjacent to a graveyard is an unsuitable location for a travellers halting site.


The proposed location of a halting site on lands adjacent to Ardla cemetery is not considered unsuitable.

2.


The proposed location was specifically purchased by Dublin County Council with a view to providing a graveyard not a halting site.


The lands at Ardla, Skerries were acquired for the purpose of complying with the Council’s statutory requirements.

3.


The provision of a 10 bay halting site will lead to significantly increased vehicular traffic on a road that is already inadequate to cater for current traffic.


It is the experience of the County Council that a traveller halting site does not lead to a significant increase in vehicular traffic Any necessary infrastructural improvements will be catered for at design stage.

4.


The landscape surrounding the site is of high visual amenity, a fact acknowledged in the County Council’s Development Plan. The proposed development would be injurious to these amenities and accordingly should be located in a less visually sensitive area.


It is not considered that a properly designed and constructed site will have any greater impact on the landscape than the numerous dwelling houses constructed on similarly zoned land in the vicinity.

5.


There will be a threat to the health of livestock and safety of crops.


It is not considered that a properly managed Traveller Accommodation development will cause any problems for adjoining communities.

The Hill Billy

Bluetonic wrote:

Just as a matter of interest was there the same number of objectors/were the same people objecting to the Milverton Demesne And Home Farm development?

Quite how you'd expect me to know the numbers & names of people objecting to both developments is beyond me. I understand what you're getting at though & I'd imagine that there are more people opposing the development in Ardla.

Bluetonic

There were no objection to the Milverton Demesne And Home Farm development, as per FCC planning.

The Hill Billy

Bluetonic wrote:

There were no objection to the Milverton Demesne And Home Farm development, as per FCC planning.

As you know this to be the case, your previous question was posted in an underhanded way.

If you're planning on trying a game of "let's see if I can trip the fcuker up coz he's obviously a rabid not-in-my-back-yard-mate-anti-traveller" you've got it wrong.

Bluetonic

Hill Billy wrote:

As you know this to be the case, your previous question was posted in an underhanded way.

Behave yourself. I researched it after I had posted my original question. It was not underhanded in any way. Kindly refrain from jumping to unfounded conclusions.

Hill Billy wrote:

If you're planning on trying a game of "let's see if I can trip the fcuker up coz he's obviously a rabid not-in-my-back-yard-mate-anti-traveller" you've got it wrong.

I'm not, I'm just trying to asses what are people major objections to this development. The original ones from 2000 as per above don't appear to have any credence to them. Has something new been brought to the table?

The Hill Billy

Bluetonic wrote:

Behave yourself. I researched it after I had posted my original question. It was not underhanded in any way. Kindly refrain from jumping to unfounded conclusions.

Apologies for jumping the gun.

Bluetonic wrote:

I'm not, I'm just trying to asses what are people major objections to this development. The original ones from 2000 as per above don't appear to have any credence to them. Has something new been brought to the table?

The only difference that I can see between '00 & '07 is that the planning is now for housing as opposed to a halting site. I do not know if any objections have been made.

Dev Man

Hill Billy wrote:

Dev Man:
I presume that the meeting is in The Hills Cricket Club. By "next Tuesday" do you mean 31st July or 7th August? Do you have a time for when the meeting starts?

As my message was posted on 11:56pm on Tuesday July 31'st, (unless you're a time traveller) the meeting referred to must be taking place on 7'th August .

It's 9pm.

Bluetonic

Hill Billy wrote:

The only difference that I can see between '00 & '07 is that the planning is now for housing as opposed to a halting site. I do not know if any objections have been made.

I presume FCC don't have to apply for planning in the normal way and as such it'll probably be hard to find the documentation online?

The Hill Billy

Dev Man wrote:

As my message was posted on 11:56pm on Tuesday July 31'st, (unless you're a time traveller) the meeting referred to must be taking place on 7'th August .

Your message was posted on Monday.

Bluetonic - I think that you're are right about FCC not being required to go through the standard planning process.

The Hill Billy

There will be another meeting held in The Hills Cricket Club on Monday 27th August at 9pm.

Current actions being taken are:
Residents' Association taking legal advice potential contraventions in planning/zoning for proposed site.
Individual submissions on proposed development being submitted by interested locals (from The Hills & Skerries town).

Closing date for submissions is 28th August.

lucernarian

There's a very small halting site which was put 100 metres from our home, without planning permission I believe (it was already a storage yard for ashphalt and bitumen). The first group were bad but the second and current group are quiet and keep the place very tidy, better than some houses even. So I'm willing to ignore the initial sneakiness of the conversion.

But having a halting site beside a graveyard is not on. I wouldn't trust a county council to manage it properly. And 70 people living beside it, is simply too much. How can they justify it as being appropriate?

The Hill Billy

To_be_confirmed wrote:

But having a halting site beside a graveyard is not on. I wouldn't trust a county council to manage it properly. And 70 people living beside it, is simply too much. How can they justify it as being appropriate?

It's permanent housing as opposed to a halting site. (Thread title entered based on wrong info received.)

I have no idea how FCC can justify it. FCC have said that the development is going ahead as yhey are obliged by legislation in the Housing (Traveller Accommodation) Act 1998 to provide group housing, approved halting sites, etc. for the traveller community.

What FCC have obviously failed to notice is that the exact same piece of legislation also states that (& I'm ad-libbing here) "when selecting a site cognisance should be made of travellers' traditional fears and superstitions e.g. not house them next to graveyards."

My own feelings are that they should also not be housed 2km away from the nearest shopping, educational, recreational & medical facilities. Not to mention that there's hardly a streetlight & no paths in between.

FCC are playing silly-buggers with everyone involved:

• They are marginalising & isolating an already marginalised community of travellers.
• They are pi$$ing off locals who've been subject to one set of stringent planning laws that FCC then totally disregard when it comes to one of their own developments.
• They are pi$$ing off locals & Skerries folk alike by proposing a housing development in a graveyard that contains our nearest & dearest.
• And I'd just love to know if Treasury Holdings think FCC's development is compatible with theirs (a Fingal version of the K Club).

Maybe FCC want TH to stump up the cash for developing the traveller accommodation elsewhere?

But maybe that's just me being bad-minded.

The Hill Billy

An update on this if anyone is interested...

A full session of the council discussed this issue on Monday last.

Cllr Byrne (Lab) requested that the vote to be taken on this matter be deferred for one month to allow further investigation into a proposed change to the development put forward by Treasury Holdings. TH are proposing moving the site to land they own at an area known as Carney's Tree on the western boundary of their 5* hotel, golf, residential development. An TH-developed 'enterprise centre' has also been offered as part of the package.

Strangely enough...

Hill Billy wrote: »

Maybe FCC want TH to stump up the cash for developing the traveller accommodation elsewhere?

The upshot is that the councillors voted to defer the decision on the Ardla development by 13 to 7 (1 abstention).

bcmf

Just got a text.Its going in at Ardla rather than Carneys Tree area.:mad::(:mad::(:mad:

Unshelved

Very strange decision - if true. I didn't think that Fingal Co Co could afford to p*ss off all those objectors.

On another note - has anyone heard the strong possiblity of Treasury Holdings buying up Skerries Golf Club? The plan seems to be that every member would receive a lump sum and membership to the new club currently under construction in Milverton - similar to what happened in Dun Laoghaire.

Presumably Treasury would then use the land for yet more houses? Still, with the predicted economic downturn, and the static housing market in Skerries at the moment it seems like risky deal.

The Hill Billy

Unshelved wrote: »

Very strange decision - if true. I didn't think that Fingal Co Co could afford to p*ss off all those objectors.

It is true. It didn't even go to a vote. The motion was nominated by Cllr Joe Corr & seconded by Cllr May McKeon. No objections.

It is a disgrace that they are taking land zoned as "Burial Ground" & putting a residential development in it.

Also, it is totally inequitable that FCC can do this when you can be damn sure that if a local landowner applied for permission for an identical private development they would be refused.

Unshelved

It's Fingal County Council - why on earth should we be surprised?

They won't be happy until the entire North Co. Dublin area is entirely covered in concrete.

(Not that they're making any money out of it. Oh no. I want to make that perfectly clear.)

cathy01

sorry Hill Billy, what was the motion again??
cathy