Cork council merger plans to be axed but extension of city boundary recommended

Reputable Rog

kub wrote: »

The way that post is coming across it seems like MacKinnon has a vested interest in the City Council.

They have it's called Coveney-Martin. MacKinnon group came over collected their fee and went home and after signing a preordained report.

This is going to run on for a while.

kub

Reputable Rog wrote:

They have it's called Coveney-Martin. MacKinnon group came over collected their fee and went home and after signing a preordained report.

Reputable Rog wrote:

This is going to run on for a while.

How do you mean it will run on a while? Do you mean that the County Council will now hire some legal eagles to take a case against the Government?
While the Government then has to get its own legal eagles?

All at the tax payers expense.

So McKinnon did a foxer for 2 South Central TD's, he was told what to say and he did just that, then took his cash and headed for the hills?

I don't know, I assumed McKinnon was a professional employed as a consultant, perhaps you know better.

AugustusMinimus

A unified metropolitan district with a single planning authority.

I cannot fathom why people are against this. The status quo is a mess.

Each council should have a budget sufficient to service their area. The councils are acting as if they are private persons generating wealth for themselves.

The county council especially have come across as petty and obnoxious.

kub

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

A unified metropolitan district with a single planning authority.

I cannot fathom why people are against this. The status quo is a mess.

Each council should have a budget sufficient to service their area. The councils are acting as if they are private persons generating wealth for themselves.

The county council especially have come across as petty and obnoxious.

I agree with you and especially with regard to the county council.

But if the unified district idea was a runner, then surely it would be in operation in the Dublin area where they used to have 2 councils and now have 4 or 5?
I wonder is there some expert recommendation here with regard to ideal populations to have in an area etc?

D'Agger

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Include LI as part of the boundary? Ok. I've no issues with that. Can you point out the plans that the City Council have to improve/better the area than what the County Council have? No one actually posts those direct implementations that are waiting in the wings, which should be part of MacKinnon to backup the City's request.

That's a fair point, I'm not providing concrete evidence that the County Council won't develop Little Island, but I have a strong feeling that the City Council would look to improve the infrastructure around Little Island, in light of it being very, very close to the city and their Dunkettle upgrade. There's no incentive there for the County Council to do anything for Little Island. The City council will upgrade the Dunkettle which will be great, whilst the County collects the rates from Businesses.

It's an opinion, I don't have it firmly grounded in solid evidence, but I think it's a misstep not to give Little Island to the City given the developments already in the works from the City Council to service that general area.

namloc1980

D'Agger wrote: »

That's a fair point, I'm not providing concrete evidence that the County Council won't develop Little Island, but I have a strong feeling that the City Council would look to improve the infrastructure around Little Island, in light of it being very, very close to the city and their Dunkettle upgrade. There's no incentive there for the County Council to do anything for Little Island. The City council will upgrade the Dunkettle which will be great, whilst the County collects the rates from Businesses.

It's an opinion, I don't have it firmly grounded in solid evidence, but I think it's a misstep not to give Little Island to the City given the developments already in the works from the City Council to service that general area.

As the Dunkettle interchange is a national primary route/motorway the upgrade works are the responsibility of Transport Infrastructure Ireland and not the council.

AugustusMinimus

namloc1980 wrote: »

D'Agger wrote: »

That's a fair point, I'm not providing concrete evidence that the County Council won't develop Little Island, but I have a strong feeling that the City Council would look to improve the infrastructure around Little Island, in light of it being very, very close to the city and their Dunkettle upgrade. There's no incentive there for the County Council to do anything for Little Island. The City council will upgrade the Dunkettle which will be great, whilst the County collects the rates from Businesses.

It's an opinion, I don't have it firmly grounded in solid evidence, but I think it's a misstep not to give Little Island to the City given the developments already in the works from the City Council to service that general area.

As the Dunkettle interchange is a national primary route/motorway the upgrade works are the responsibility of Transport Infrastructure Ireland and not the council.

All access to Little Island is the responsibility of TII as the area is surrounded on all available sides bt the N25.

Dunkettle upgrade is providing a 3rd access point. A 4th access point should be provided at the most eastern point onto the N25. Further, one more access point between Glounthaune and Little Island should be build with no N25 access.

D'Agger

Apologies - I'm okay with being ignorant and open to correction on all of this so cheers for correcting.

I just don't see public transport improving to Little Island and I hate that. I can't cycle through the tunnel to work, the bus & rail systems servicing the area are fairly flawed and need review/upgrade. I don't see the County Council improving services into the City from LI - I could see the City Council prioritizing this given it's proximity to the city.

^ It's just the opinion I hold, it's not necessarily correct, we'll have to wait to see if I'm right or wrong on it, hopefully I'm wrong tbh but, being human, I have to assume I'm always correct

Outkast_IRE

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

All access to Little Island is the responsibility of TII as the area is surrounded on all available sides bt the N25.

Dunkettle upgrade is providing a 3rd access point. A 4th access point should be provided at the most eastern point onto the N25. Further, one more access point between Glounthaune and Little Island should be build with no N25 access.

Where is the third access point to little island ?

All i see on the plans are a rehash of the road entering near dunkettle which is the 2nd access point currently ?

Reputable Rog

D'Agger wrote: »

Apologies - I'm okay with being ignorant and open to correction on all of this so cheers for correcting.

I just don't see public transport improving to Little Island and I hate that. I can't cycle through the tunnel to work, the bus & rail systems servicing the area are fairly flawed and need review/upgrade. I don't see the County Council improving services into the City from LI - I could see the City Council prioritizing this given it's proximity to the city.

^ It's just the opinion I hold, it's not necessarily correct, we'll have to wait to see if I'm right or wrong on it, hopefully I'm wrong tbh but, being human, I have to assume I'm always correct

You are aware of CASP aren't you ?

namloc1980

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Where is the third access point to little island ?

All i see on the plans are a rehash of the road entering near dunkettle which is the 2nd access point currently ?

The overpass in the centre left is a brand new junction and alignment. The 2nd access you mention will also continue to exist and is to be upgraded.

Cuttlefish

Basic question on public transport...


With inclusion of Glanmire Ballincollig into city boundaries will that mean bus fares with be in line with current city fares..as in €2.30 single adult fare.

Reputable Rog

Cuttlefish wrote: »

Basic question on public transport...


With inclusion of Glanmire Ballincollig into city boundaries will that mean bus fares with be in line with current city fares..as in €2.30 single adult fare.

Nothing to with local authorities, NTA set the fare.

Cuttlefish

Reputable Rog wrote: »

Nothing to with local authorities, NTA set the fare.

Take that as a no so unless there is public outcry

mire

Cuttlefish wrote: »

Basic question on public transport...


With inclusion of Glanmire Ballincollig into city boundaries will that mean bus fares with be in line with current city fares..as in €2.30 single adult fare.

they are already city fare structures afaik

namloc1980

Cuttlefish wrote: »

Take that as a no so unless there is public outcry

Already in place.

j8wk2feszrnpao

D'Agger wrote: »

Apologies - I'm okay with being ignorant and open to correction on all of this so cheers for correcting.

No prob on that. I'm open to learning within here as well. I've stated it earlier in the thread that I'm no expert in this field in terms of judging what the boundary should be, but the politics between the City/County is something I've come across numerous times.

You mentioned the issues for those travelling to/from LI, well I'd like to see what the City have planned as part of their takeover to justify their case (cause it's mainly just been dirt-slinging in here without much constructive to actually backup the City's request).

Maybe the City Council will prioritize it; or maybe they won't and the rates will be used for projects closer to the city center. Who knows? There's nothing that I've seen that says they will do a better job.

I worked in Apple (someone mentioned it already) a few back and getting there on public transport was really poor. Memories like that come to mind when people suggest the City Council are the shining light to direct improvements.

flaneur

I think the best examples are in Douglas.

City side of flyover - lovely manicured flower beds.
County side - badly mowed grass that looks like it was run over with a tractor mower once a month at most

Also loads of county council controlled suburban / hinterland areas have no footpaths - you’ve also got endless cul de sac developments without any interconnection.

That whole mount oval development for example is crazy. There’s little or no road infrastructure and all the traffic is being fed down a country lane - Clarke’s Hill.

It’s obvious they think like a rural authority not an urban one. Each development is being considered outside the grander scheme of a city

I don’t really understand why those areas would want to stay as county council controlled without any focus on morphing them into proper urban planning.

Patrick 1959

just an observation,Little island,Douglas Cork airport Forge Hill,all these county areas on the boundary with huge under investment and major traffic problems have no cork county thread.

flaneur

Forge Hill is basically a load of commercial development on a country boreen.

j8wk2feszrnpao

flaneur wrote: »

I think the best examples are in Douglas.

City side of flyover - lovely manicured flower beds.
County side - badly mowed grass that looks like it was run over with a tractor mower once a month at most

Also loads of county council controlled suburban / hinterland areas have no footpaths - you’ve also got endless cul de sac developments without any interconnection.

That whole mount oval development for example is crazy. There’s little or no road infrastructure and all the traffic is being fed down a country lane - Clarke’s Hill.

It’s obvious they think like a rural authority not an urban one. Each development is being considered outside the grander scheme of a city

I don’t really understand why those areas would want to stay as county council controlled without any focus on morphing them into proper urban planning.

Well, I'm now convinced. Manicured flower beds (which don't exist on the County side) and badly mowed grass (which doesn't exist on the City side).

Patrick 1959

The main common denominators for all these areas is how little investment inn road widening new entrances or future planning cork county council have for them. A huge amount of cash was generated in these areas and other areas on the boundary for the county councils . So Little was invested back into these areas.

Patrick 1959

Forge Hill is the term I’m using for that area covering Forge and Matthew hill and the slip roads leading up to the motorway . Car showrooms, building and timber yards , silos . There’s a lot going on there and growing . The County commuter traffic is horrendous coming into the city at peak times.

hufpc8w3adnk65

thread locked until further notice

hufpc8w3adnk65

Thread re-opened. Few posts deleted. Keep on topic. Play nice or cards will be handed out

Patrick 1959

Passed by Inchagaggan Bridge ( old tennis village model farm road) today, it’s right on the city boundary , city council seems to be widening the city side leading to the bridge. Anyone know what’s happening?

Roger Hassenforder

Patrick 1959 wrote: »

Passed by Inchagaggan Bridge ( old tennis village model farm road) today, it’s right on the city boundary , city council seems to be widening the city side leading to the bridge. Anyone know what’s happening?

Thats a housing development widening sight lines

Patrick 1959

Pity , it’s a dangerous stretch of road , especially exiting Inchaggan road onto the Model Farm road.

Reputable Rog

Patrick 1959 wrote: »

Pity , it’s a dangerous stretch of road , especially exiting Inchaggan road onto the Model Farm road.

Extremely dangerous,I think there are problems around land acquisition to improve the junction.
The CPO system is very complicated in relation to farm land.

FMG

I see the County Council are setting up panels for General Operatives, I wonder will the city council need more tradespeople to maintain the increased housing stock it inherits ?