New housing developments in Maynooth

Patser

L1011 wrote: »

I do not remember that being in the planning documents at all - I'm trying to dig up a copy now

Cairn do not like permeability in their developments for whatever reason and have since tried to get the link to the town centre over the river dropped (didn't happen).

]
We spoke with Cairns representative while planning was happening, who also said they has no interest in it, or care about it (also didn't care for townhouses or apartments. -just wanted to build houses) but that they would have to follow ABP decision which was dictated by current planning ideologies (so higher density housing if within 2km of train station, hence apartments near entry to Mariavilla as they were, then lower density townhouses next and finally single homes further)

Permiability was one of these criteria, and they were told road access - hence to road being built to boundary

L1011

Patser wrote: »

]
We spoke with Cairns representative while planning was happening, who also said they has no interest in it, or care about it (also didn't care for townhouses or apartments. -just wanted to build houses) but that they would have to follow ABP decision which was dictated by current planning ideologies (so higher density housing if within 2km of train station, hence apartments near entry to Mariavilla as they were, then lower density townhouses next and finally single homes further)

Permiability was one of these criteria, and they were told road access - hence to road being built to boundary

But all remaining online planning docs suggest that nothing except pedestrian and cycle access was proposed at any stage by anyone.

Is it possible that you are either misremembering this entirely verbal exchange; or there was a minor slip by the Cairn rep?

Because as far as I can see, vehicular was never on the cards at any stage. And you've been blaming the wrong organisation (KCC) again for there being any proposal at all - when, again, its central government rules.

The entire KCC submission is summarised in the inspectors report, which never mentions it; only cycle and pedestrian (again).

Patser

L1011 wrote: »

But all remaining online planning docs suggest that nothing except pedestrian and cycle access was proposed at any stage by anyone.

Is it possible that you are either misremembering this entirely verbal exchange; or there was a minor slip by the Cairn rep?

Because as far as I can see, vehicular was never on the cards at any stage. And you've been blaming the wrong organisation (KCC) again for there being any proposal at all - when, again, its central government rules.

The entire KCC submission is summarised in the inspectors report, which never mentions it; only cycle and pedestrian (again).

Not likely, as we raised these concerns with Emmett Stagg, Tim Durkan and a planning advisor we met with, who all said that it was to be vehicular- I only have the inspectors report into the decision at home, who simply concedes that the link road is not possible due to farmers access lane but doesn't mention type of access.

L1011

The full inspectors report I linked to references the link repeatedly, stating pedestrian and cycle only. It summarises peoples submissions, including KCCs and those politicians) and all reference it being pedestrian and cycle only.

Cairn have done a damn good job getting the planning docs offline, but I am 99% certain it was pedestrian and cycle only in that also as I looked through them in detail at the time.

Regardless, it isn't there, doesn't have permission and will likely never happen. And it will never happen as vehicular - even if it was at some stage proposed as such, albeit the discoverable evidence base is basically nil for that so far. There is also no evidence that KCC had any desire for it to be a vehicular link, as you claimed.

Are you absolutely sure you aren't conflating this with the second entrance to the estate?

Patser

Also found a document called response from Cairns to ABP decision, which I somehow downloaded from boards so might be earlier in this thread, which shows the link road categorized as local street grades, right up.to boundary while noting that connection cannot be made at this moment due to lane.

That grade of road in the estate is suitable for cars, so again suggests vehicle access and Moyglare Hall becoming a cross roads

L1011

Patser wrote: »

Also found a document called response from Cairns to ABP decision, which I somehow downloaded from boards so might be earlier in this thread, which shows the link road categorized as local street grades, right up.to boundary while noting that connection cannot be made at this moment due to lane.

That grade of road in the estate is suitable for cars, so again suggests vehicle access and Moyglare Hall becoming a cross roads

You are adding 2+2 and getting 100 here; or clutching at straws. I'm not sure which

A residential street in an estate having the required grade of road to be a residential street is normal. If anything it shows it was not going to be a through road at all! The connection was, on the basis of absolutely all actual evidence, only ever going to be pedestrian and cycle.

I can't find that doc in the thread. I did however find your post from when the plans went up commenting on the link, and my reply which solely mentions cycling and walking. Again.

I really believe you are misremembering something here and, even worse, amplifying it as a scare story.


Until there is evidence that there was a real proposal - from KCC, preferably, as you blamed them - for it to be vehicular there is zero reason for me to believe it. There's plenty of evidence that it was proposed as cycle and pedestrian.

SolarisLem

I live in Moyglare Hall and I welcome permeability. I don't understand why there even a discussion on the topic of a need for multiple exit points, walk ways and cycle lanes in Irish estates. In the current state of affairs we are all stuck in cars spewing exhaust fumes for all to breathe and choke on. It's irresponsible and brain dead to advocate for anything less but permeability.

L1011

As an aside to Moyglare Hall - someone asked me if I'd heard anything about Mullen Park being bought en masse by KCC or a housing agency. I hadn't. No sale through on the PPR either.

However, it is slightly odd there is no website or estate agent for a heavily completed estate. C19 could have totally delayed a launch though.

Patser

Quickly checking stuff and I do have an email from Emmet Stagg to ABP that he forwarded on to me, stating his opposition to the link road due to its unsuitability for vehicular access.

Also almost impossible to get written proof of KCC involvement, as the current fast track planning permission process which Mariavilla was allowed under, is done by ABP meeting with key stakeholders (council and developers) to address their concerns, before the application is made public for others to raise concerns to. So unless there's a way of requesting minutes from these meetings, I have to go on what we were told by councillors.

L1011

Patser wrote: »

Quickly checking stuff and I do have an email from Emmet Stagg to ABP that he forwarded on to me, stating his opposition to the link road due to its unsuitability for vehicular access.

Also almost impossible to get written proof of KCC involvement, as the current fast track planning permission process which Mariavilla was allowed under, is done by ABP meeting with key stakeholders (council and developers) to address their concerns, before the application is made public for others to raise concerns to. So unless there's a way of requesting minutes from these meetings, I have to go on what we were told by councillors.

The inspectors report has a summary of KCCs submission which never mentions vehicular access. The submission has to be formally submitted and that was it.

Basically - I don't think there was ever a proposal for vehicular access. Someone got convinced there was (from nothing) and started raising objections to something that never existed in the first place; creating a wider perception that there was.

I have asked a data-hoarder did they download the planning docs. Suspect not as they had left the county before then!

Patser

Well here's an image of the letter Emmet Stagg sent in in support of our case, and after he confirmed it was vehicular - why else would he mention his opposition to it. Also had Tim Durkan do the same after asking his opinion, and an independent planning law advisor

https://ibb.co/D15Tyw0

L1011

Because people, like you presumably, asked him to do so? Also quite easy to make the same misinterpretation of what a 'connection' is.

It does not, in any way, confirm it was vehicular. Only the actual planning docs would do so - and those that are available (decision, inspectors report) repeatedly state cycle and pedestrian)

Seriously, if you can find actual evidence of a proposal, not random straws, I'll accept it. But this isn't evidence of anything other than people complaining about a belief it was a vehicular connection.

And very early on, you'll note that I warned of the echo chamber effect of residents associations...

Also, nothing you've given so far gives any credence to the suggestion that it was KCCs idea (if it ever existed); despite that being a core tenet of your reason to not "trust" them.

I'm done with this until actual evidence turns up (so don't bother scanning in other objections - they are not evidence) as we're just going in circles here. If I get the docs and I'm wrong, I'll admit it.

tnegun

L1011 wrote: »

Nobody is going to use a longer slower route as a rat run. Scare tactics. It doesn't bypass any potential congestion on the Moyglare Road.

KCCs input to Mariavilla had as much basis as any random punters did. It was an ABP decision

Certain councillors did/do tell people what they want to hear, nothing more

If that is the breadth of imagination of what to do with a vacant space that could have multiple amenity uses, I despair.

You are rattling off residents association echo chamber fears here and nothing else. People get whipped up in to nonsense fears, usually about pesky youths, none of which are real and willingly seek to give up actual safety and practicality due to the fearmongers



The only valid bit of your argument is the lower entrance to Moyglare Hall being opened to cars at all; which realistically has had virtually no impact on anything; as the other parts of the scare story are nonsensical.

You can't have much experience of the Moyglare road it's a regular occurrence for traffic to back up to the original entrance to Moyglare Hall and further meaning anyone who gets to the lights at Moyglare hall can skip significant traffic using the estate as a rat run, also when dropping off to the school and driving past that backed up traffic from Maynooth its quite easy to see how this traffic will exit through the estate back to the Moyglare road. Add in the shop that has been built and creche thats on the plans and suddenly you've lots of reasons to cut through the estate.

This is a quote from the council on it "The internal estate road has been designed in compliance with DMURS standards, and will allow for full permeability for all traffic and vulnerable road users to access the new school. " Funny that they mention it being designed to DMURS despite that being published after a substantial part of the road had been completed, having no provision for cycle lanes, public transport and even dished kerbing to allow crossing from one side to the other but lets not let details get in the way of providing alternate access to the largest school in the state via a housing estate.

FWIW I support as many non car connections as possible as and was quite disappointed that the third one in Moyglare Hall was blocked but given the what happened with the second one I can see why the residents in that part of the estate would be against it.

L1011

There is actually a copy of all the planning docs on the KCC website; with the caveat that it was never engineered for the higher resolution and file sizes so some stuff is veeeryy sloooow. File number is 18301230

In the document you found and tried to use as "proof" that the road was a link road, it is explicitly not a link road (these are different colour on the map), but is of the same standard as all the circulatory roads (the majority of the roads) within the development.

Excluding for anything I somehow have not come across:

The connection is depicted as a pedestrian/cycle connection (identical to all others) on all maps throughout, and only referred to as such in all documentation throughout

The only time KCC requested a vehicular connection to be added anywhere was in to Lyreen Lodge. Not Moyglare Hall. (Roads Department submission to the original application). Same document explicitly calls the Moyglare Hall one cycle/pedestrian.

I have found zero evidence that anyone - Cairn, KCC, ABP, NTA - ever proposed vehicular access. That it only turns up in submissions suggests Chinese Whispers went on and got it wrong, possibly based on the Lyreen Lodge request.

Patser

It is what we were being told by the representatives we met. They were councillors with experience in this, why should we doubt them?

The plans do call for a road to be built right to the boundary at the development to facilitate possible future connection, as you said at circulatory road grade which would allow for vehicles. Why build a road to boundary, when a turning circle with a future pathway would suffice?

A previous pedestrian/cycle entrance to the estate had just been converted to vehicle entrance in the estate - which you claimed is just due to a technicality - but which ignored again objections from residents and councillors.

So there is a blatant example of permeability becoming vehicular, and a rat run being introduced despite objections - but you still maintain we're all fearmongering, chinese whisperers despite the example being built in front of you.

All the planning maps available do not show what type of connection it was because they could not plan for it due to farmers access lane - the are listed as future connection. In the response document they do say they do mention the aspiration for cycle/pedestrian but the original planning documents (they were all on a website called Mariavillaplanning.com, now taken down) did not say what type of connection but propose a road linkage.

Patser

Looking at the map you linked - thank you, I did have it on phone but couldn't access on pc - and I cannot see how you draw from that map any other conclusion that road access was planned - I mean it shows a road right up to the Rise with future connection clearly drawn in, with absolutely no mention of Cycle/pedestrian only - its a road linking a road.

Eidt: Here's the map pic:

https://ibb.co/1QDk5Zb

wider image

https://ibb.co/KyyJ5nj

L1011

There is no road drawn across the connection.

You are clutching at straws.

You went off on a misinformed rant about KCC, blaming them for DMURS and someone's misinterpretation of a map that got Chinese Whispered in to a road

As I said - residents association echo chamber fearmongering.

I have given you the entire block of planning documents that call it a pedestrian/cycle link and you're still trying to claim otherwise based on you misinterpreting a drawing when it appears the entire idea of it being vehicular was based on the same thing!

Those ARE the original planning docs. A road was never proposed.

Patser

There is no road across the connection due to issues with the land in between, but the road is to be built right to that boundary with future connection clearly stamped on it.

Are you sayig, that to a layman that does not look like a proposed road - and that that is what we were told by councillors and a planning advisor too. Also with a prime example within the estate of a proposed access changing to vehicular access 10 years later, that there is no grunds for concern.

marieholmfan

Was one of them Neasa O'Cearruil?

Patser wrote: »

It is what we were being told by the representatives we met. They were councillors with experience in this, why should we doubt them?

The plans do call for a road to be built right to the boundary at the development to facilitate possible future connection, as you said at circulatory road grade which would allow for vehicles. Why build a road to boundary, when a turning circle with a future pathway would suffice?

A previous pedestrian/cycle entrance to the estate had just been converted to vehicle entrance in the estate - which you claimed is just due to a technicality - but which ignored again objections from residents and councillors.

So there is a blatant example of permeability becoming vehicular, and a rat run being introduced despite objections - but you still maintain we're all fearmongering, chinese whisperers despite the example being built in front of you.

All the planning maps available do not show what type of connection it was because they could not plan for it due to farmers access lane - the are listed as future connection. In the response document they do say they do mention the aspiration for cycle/pedestrian but the original planning documents (they were all on a website called Mariavillaplanning.com, now taken down) did not say what type of connection but propose a road linkage.

marieholmfan

Was one of them Neasa O'Cearruil?

Patser wrote: »

It is what we were being told by the representatives we met. They were councillors with experience in this, why should we doubt them?

The plans do call for a road to be built right to the boundary at the development to facilitate possible future connection, as you said at circulatory road grade which would allow for vehicles. Why build a road to boundary, when a turning circle with a future pathway would suffice?

A previous pedestrian/cycle entrance to the estate had just been converted to vehicle entrance in the estate - which you claimed is just due to a technicality - but which ignored again objections from residents and councillors.

So there is a blatant example of permeability becoming vehicular, and a rat run being introduced despite objections - but you still maintain we're all fearmongering, chinese whisperers despite the example being built in front of you.

All the planning maps available do not show what type of connection it was because they could not plan for it due to farmers access lane - the are listed as future connection. In the response document they do say they do mention the aspiration for cycle/pedestrian but the original planning documents (they were all on a website called Mariavillaplanning.com, now taken down) did not say what type of connection but propose a road linkage.

L1011

I'm saying that there was never a road proposed across that connection. There is zero evidence of it, anywhere, at all. All the evidence is of a cycle/pedestrian link only

You going around in (ever reducing) circles does not generate evidence.

The second entrance happened because the developers took too long in building the estate - the original permission is from 2002 - and standards had changed in the interim. No matter what else you try to claim or say; that's what happened.

There is really no point furthering this with you as you are never going to change your mistaken belief, despite further and further evidence being dropped in front of you.

We have a clear example of someone whipping up concern here due to not understanding a proposal. All the submissions - councillors and planning consultant alike - come from someone telling them a road was proposed when it is clear as day from the actual planning submission that there isn't one.

Anyway - I'm out. Worry yourself senseless over a non-existent road if you wish.

Patser

marieholmfan wrote: »

Was one of them Neasa O'Cearruil?

Think so - googling stuff yesterday Lawless did put in a submission to ABP on our behalf naming Neasa, but I've a gut feeling that he made apologies on the day.

Emmet Stagg came out o a house one evening with plans for site and spent evening explaining things to us.

Tim Durkan and a female councillor (not Riada it think) also spent time with us one afternoon also looking at plans.

All put in objections to the link, but also pointing out that it was unlikely to be allowed anyway due to farmers access blocking through road any way, which is what happens anyway. In the ABP permission it simply mentions that they 'concede the point' when it comes to that link not happening.

L1011

Cairn have applied for the option of garden offices in all houses at Mariavilla.

Mullen Park behind Lidl has apparently been sold to Tuath Housing entirely, hence why there's finished units and nothing on sale.

Rulmeq

L1011 wrote: »

Cairn have applied for the option of garden offices in all houses at Mariavilla.

Do you have any details on that? Was looking there before the lock down.

Lastblackdog

L1011 wrote: »

Mullen Park behind Lidl has apparently been sold to Tuath Housing entirely, hence why there's finished units and nothing on sale.

I have always believed, possibly incorrectly, that in order to get planning permission on developments above a certain size the developer needed to include a specific percentage of social housing.

If so, how would selling the whole lot to a single investment company?

FitzElla

Lastblackdog wrote: »

I have always believed, possibly incorrectly, that in order to get planning permission on developments above a certain size the developer needed to include a specific percentage of social housing.

If so, how would selling the whole lot to a single investment company?

Tuath Housing are an approved housing body. They provide social and affordable houses on non profit basis so none of the houses will be on the private market.

L1011

Rulmeq wrote: »

Do you have any details on that? Was looking there before the lock down.

Its not scanned yet - suspect it'll be a fairly standard Shomera or Barna unit.

wheresthebeef

L1011 wrote: »

Its not scanned yet - suspect it'll be a fairly standard Shomera or Barna unit.

Yeah that’s exactly what it is. There’s pictures on their website and they mention that they have installed electrical and data connections to the back of the garden as standard to facilitate the optional garden room. Price is something like 20k and I believe you can’t wrap it up in your mortgage.

smelly sock

FitzElla wrote: »

Tuath Housing are an approved housing body. They provide social and affordable houses on non profit basis so none of the houses will be on the private market.

How does one go about becoming a tenant of tuath? Is it through the council?

Are they houses for low income familes who work but dont have a hope of getting on the property ladder or is it for people given free money every week?

L1011

smelly sock wrote: »

How does one go about becoming a tenant of tuath? Is it through the council?

Are they houses for low income familes who work but dont have a hope of getting on the property ladder or is it for people given free money every week?

Via the housing list. Which contains working, non working, disabled, retired etc etc applicants.