Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

WCC Refuse to take charge of Charlesland Dual Carriageway

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,065 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    tennisplayer wrote: »
    Remarks like that are not nice regardless of what you think of the person.

    In future please report posts if you feel you don't like them

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #63
    matt-dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭matt-dublin


    Back on track here, I don't think jones was offering an alternative here.

    He proposed that charlesland should pay for the maintanance, it wasn't a proposal to ask us. And it was passed by vote.

    From the minutes it sounded like they've made an assumption that we would be willing to take it in charge.

    They'll get a right shock in the coming weeks!!


  • Options
    #64
    matt-dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭matt-dublin


    The September Council Minutes relating to the Dual Carriageway
    Wicklow County Council Minutes wrote:
    ITEM NO.10:
    To consider the taking in charge of Charlesland Dual Carriage way and spine Road, Charlesland (deferred from meeting of 1st July, 2013).

    Mr. D. O’Brien, DOS, explained that this item was deferred from the last meeting in order to provide clarification on the maintenance of the road presently and that there was a misconception that the management companies were maintaining it when it was Ballymore Homes that were providing the maintenance. He confirmed that the public lighting has been taken in charge by the Council and all of the works with regard to the road have been carried out to the satisfaction of development compliance department of the Council and he recommended the taking in charge by the members.

    A general discussion ensued wherein the following points were made:
    Cllr. D. Mitchell advised that Charlesland is a very big estate with some 5,000 people living there, that the Council is carrying out no maintenance to the spine road in the estate and it will cost quite a bit to maintain the road and the dual carriageway. He considered that a management plan is required from the Council as to how they are going to tackle the maintenance of the road and that the area engineer advises that there are no funds to carry out this work. He proposed that the Council take in charge the spine road of the Charlesland Estate only and not the dual carriageway until a proposal is developed for maintaining the road.

    Cllr. G. Jones advised that this is the largest residential housing estate in the County and the residents are liable to substantial charges by a management company and property tax. He understood that the funds for maintenance of the dual carriageway were coming from the joint company of Zappi and Ballymore. He also advised that the Area Engineer had indicated that there are no resources available and he agreed with Cllr. Mitchell that the Council take over the spine road and that the Council adjourn the taking in charge of the dual carriageway.
    Cllr. G. McLoughlin supported Cllr. Mitchell’s proposal advising that what was required was a budget for the upkeep of the road.

    Des O Brien, DOS advised that the developer had carried out all of the work and has no longer any reason to maintain the road and the Council cannot justify holding back the developers bond any further. He also advised that the Council had two choices either to have the road maintained by no-one or take the road in charge.
    It was proposed by Cllr. D. Mitchell, seconded by Cllr. G. McLoughlin that the spine road of the Charlesland estate be taken in charge and that the taking in charge of the dual carriage way be deferred until discussions are complete with the six management companies.
    12

    It was proposed by Cllr. P. Vance, seconded by Cllr. J. Byrne that the Charlesland Dual Carriage way and spine Road, Charlesland be taken in charge.

    Following a roll call it was agreed that the spine road of the Charlesland estate be taken in charge and that the taking in charge of the dual carriageway be deferred for a period until discussions are complete with the six management companies, by margin of 11 votes for, 10 against, 1 abstaining and 2 not present, viz:

    FOR: CLLRS. V. BLAKE, S. BOURKE, T. FORTUNE, M. GLYNN, G. JONES, G. MCLOUGHLIN, D. MITCHELL, J. O SHAUGHNESSY, J, RYAN, E. TIMMINS AND I. WINTERS
    AGAINST: CLLRS J. BRADY, J. BYRNE, P. CASEY, P. DORAN, P. FITZGERALD, C. FOX, C. KAVANAGH, N. KELLY, J. SNELL AND P. VANCE
    NOT PRESENT: CLLRS T. CULLEN AND J. RUTTLE
    ABSTAINING: CLLR. B. NEVIN.


  • Options
    #65
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    It looks like those who voted against the proposal wanted the second proposal adopted instead ie that both roads be taken in charge?


  • Options
    #66
    matt-dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭matt-dublin


    recedite wrote: »
    It looks like those who voted against the proposal wanted the second proposal adopted instead ie that both roads be taken in charge?
    I don't think so recedite, I think they want to wait until next year. Using the meeting with charlesland as a deferral to buy some time until new budgets are drawn up


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Two of them anyway (Vance and Byrne) seemed to be proposing that WCC take charge of the link road immediately. Then subsequently they voted against the Mitchell/Jones proposal.


  • Options
    #68
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,065 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    recedite wrote: »
    It looks like those who voted against the proposal wanted the second proposal adopted instead ie that both roads be taken in charge?

    Yes that seems correct.

    The no vote seems that it was in fact agreeing with the council managements proposal to take the road in charge.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



Advertisement