Tudor & Rath Lodge

Hi everyone,

Most of you will have received notification that An Bord Planala issued a formal decision today. They approved the application with some concessions. The main concession is that the developer can only build 55 apartments and not 74. There were other minor concessions.

A few of us are reviewing the decision and will get back to you with the options that are available to us.

We will be in touch to set up a meeting to go through those options with you.

Stay tuned!

NOTE:
Closing DATE for submissions/observations in to MCC is FRIDAY JAN 14th

Hi All,

Just letting you know if you haven't already seen the notices, that Meath CC has received the Further Information (FI) they requested from the developer in relation to the proposed development between Rath Lodge and Tudor Close areas.

If you had already made an individual submission or observation, you can respond to the FI at no extra cost; if you want to make a submission or observation for the first time, it will cost you €20.
It is important that as many people as possible send in submissions.

You need to let the council know how this impacts you i.e. people parking anywhere they can find parking on your street, huge increase in people using the Green you maintain and that your children play on, increased litter, potential of increased anti-social behaviour, cyclists cycling down narrow roads cutting through the estate causing a traffic hazard etc.

If these 5 storey apartment blocks are given approval, there is nothing to stop the developer from selling it to vulture funds where it could be Build To Rent only or social housing etc.

Message me if you want a copy of the Further Information document.

If you want any tips on how to put a submission together, go to the link below and View Scanned Files, there's a list of over 50 separate submissions to help guide you.

A group of us have already met with a Planning Advocate to discuss how best to respond, so we will be making our submissions similar to last year.


http://www.eplanning.ie/MeathCC/AppFileRefDetails/AA202062/0

ePlan - Online Planning Details Covid 19 - Following the signing of Ministerial Order under Section 251A of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, on 29 March 2020 which result in an extension of time for a range of specified/appropriate periods and timelines it should be noted that these timelines are not reflected in...

Please get your submissions in as soon as possible.

Please act now to support the cause of the 80-acre Community Park – the closing date for submissions is Tuesday 29 June at 4pm.

On January 21 last 32 Meath County Councillors unanimously voted to zone 80 acres of Killegland Farm as Open Space for the provision of a Community Park for Ashbourne. It is clear from MCC Chief Executive’s response in her report of 19 April that some MCC Execs consider this excessive (15-20 acres has been mentioned in various public forums). They seek to postpone the decision on park size until later (the LAP stage), when the Councillors’ influence may be less final. This can only give comfort to opponents of the Community Park and signs are that it already has.
To safeguard the project, the County Development Plan 2021-2027 must incorporate a 100% commitment to a Community Park of at least 80 acres. In support of this Greenspaces contend that:

• On 21 Jan, 80 acres minimum was the outcome of the democratic process.

• Based on Ashbourne’s population alone, all the research on Health and Wellness benefits supports an 80-acre minimum. Some examples:

o The Future Analytics report, commissioned by Playspaces Network, recommends 33.4 ha (80 acres).

o The World Health organization parameters give a recommendation of 160 acres.

o The formula in Dublin City Council’s Parks Strategy would recommend between 90 and 130 acres.

o The Fields in Trust (UK – used by >75% of Local Authorities) standard (6 acres per 1000 pop. comes out at 90 acres plus.

o All of the above assume the Park serves a population of 15,000.

• In reality, the Park will be serving a far wider catchment area than just Ashbourne (South-east Meath and indeed North-west Fingal), perhaps as many as 50k citizens all told.

• On the question of cost constraints, multiple alternative funding models are available but do not appear to have been considered. In any case, the timescale for the delivery of the Park can be ‘flexed’ to suit resource availability (People, Funds, Benevolent suppliers, etc).

• The Ashbourne Community has an excellent track record for delivering large projects.

Please act now to support the cause of the 80-acre Community Park. Send a submission to MCC making your views known. Ashbourne Greenspaces have drafted a template which you may use, which can be downloaded from our website at http://www.ashgreenspaces.com/save-the-80-acre-community-park/ Print it off, complete it and either post it to Navan or drop it off at any of the following collection points: Credit Union, Topline Murtaghs, Corks, Community Centre, GAA. Time is critical – the closing date for submissions is Tuesday 29 June at 4pm.

Alternatively, you can make a submission online which is quite simple and saves time. Mention Material Amendment No 7, and feel free to use the text of our template if you find that useful.

Submissions or observations should be in ONE medium only i.e. online or hard copy and made as follows:-

Online: at https://consult.meath.ie/ using the ‘Make a Submission’ link

Or

In writing to: Senior Executive Officer, Planning Department, Meath County Council, Buvinda House, Dublin Road, Navan, Co. Meath, C15 Y291

Please note submissions or observations that are emailed cannot be considered and will be returned.

Please see the response below from MCC. Based on the information requested it looks like it will be a complete redesign. That's good news. We'll be watching closely for the response to the Additional Information (AI) requested by MCC.

Apartment Guidelines 2020


(i) SPPR 4 – Dual Aspect: As outlined in SPPR 4 north facing single aspect apartments may be considered, where overlooking a significant amenity such as a public park, garden or formal space. It is noted that there are a number of units within the scheme that are single aspect north facing apartments that overlook hard surface car parking areas and other areas that are not considered significant amenity spaces. These Applicant is requested to revise the plans to take account of SPPR 4.


(ii) Private Amenity Space: In accordance with the guidelines terraces/gardens should be provided at ground floor level. It is noted that balconies are provided throughout ground floor units. The Applicant is requested to provide a proposal for gardens/terraces at ground floor level and a mix of balconies, recessed balconies/winter gardens throughout the remainder of the proposed development.


(iii) Bin storage: It is considered that the proposed location of the bin store to the north of the site along the boundary wall, which is closer to the neighbouring properties of Rath Lodge than Block 1 and Block 2 is unacceptable. The proposed bin store should be relocated to an area on the site that is central to Block 1 and Block 2 to ensure ease of access for all residents. Additionally, the Applicant is requested to clarify that the bin stores provided have adequate capacity to cater for the proposed development and to submit full plans, elevations and design details of same.


(iv) Childrens Play Area: It is noted that there is a play area proposed to the eastern side of Block 3. The Applicant is requested to clarify how the proposed play area accords with Section 4.13 and Section 4.14 of the Apartment Guidelines 2020.


(v) Bicycle Storage: It is noted that 152 no. bicycle parking spaces are proposed within two separate areas within the scheme to serve the development. The Guidelines require that bicycle parking areas shall be designed so that cyclists feel personally safe – secure cage/compound facilities, with electronic access for cyclists and CCTV affording an increased level of security for residents. Effective security for cycle storage is also maximised by the provision of individual cycle lockers and it is best practice that planning authorities ensure that either secure cycle cage/compound or preferably locker facilities are provided. The Applicant is requested to submit full drawings and plans regarding the proposed bicycle storage areas that accord with the Apartment Guidelines 2020 and to provide an assessible bicycle storage unit for the occupants of Block 3.


2. Building Height

It is considered that an apartment scheme comprising of 4 and 5 story apartment blocks is out of context with the character and existing pattern of development of the area, which is a peripheral urban edge site, 500m from Ashbourne Town Centre. The Applicant is therefore requested to submit a revised design proposal that is a maximum of 3 storeys in height with a 4th floor recess in place of the proposed 4 and 5 storey blocks and to provide a full and detailed justification for the proposed building height in accordance with recommendations contained in the DoHPLG Urban Development and Building Heights Guidelines (2018).

3. Apartment Design

(i) It is noted that adequate separation distances between opposing windows in Block 2 and Block 3 have not been achieved. A minimum distance of 22m should be provided between opposing windows.
(ii) The siting of the balcony of Apartment no. 23 on the second floor which overlooks the private amenity space of no. 2 and no. 3 Rath Lodge should be redesigned to an alternative location.
(iii) The positioning of the windows of apartment no. 6 and no. 18 in Block 3 overlook the private amenity space of no. 25 – no. 28 Tudor Close which is unacceptable. This should be addressed by submission of a revised design.
(iv) The applicant is requested to provide detailed contiguous elevations for the proposed development, 4 no. in total. These shall clearly indicate the relationship between the proposed development and all relevant surrounding residential development. The proposed Contiguous Elevations shall be drawn to a scale of 1:200.


4. Shadow Impact Assessment

The submitted Shadow Impact Assessment is not considered sufficient. The applicant is requested to present a full and detailed appraisal of the proposed development, in accordance with recommendations/ methodologies set out in the Building Research Establishment’s ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight’ (2nd edition) or BS 8206-2: 2008 – ‘Lighting for Buildings – Part 2: Code of Practice for Daylighting’.

The shadow impact assessment should include a shadow impact diagram and assessment for morning sun at 7am and evening sun at 7pm and should include a diagram and assessment of the existing sunlight and shadow impact for these neighbouring dwellings.

The applicant is requested to ensure that the impact of the proposed development, in terms of overshadowing of the adjacent residential properties is appropriately appraised and evaluated as part of the overall appraisal. Full written technical commentary/ justification should accompany this element of the Response.



5. Density

The proposed site is located in an area that is viewed as a peripheral and/or less accessible urban location. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed density of 92 units/ha is excessive. The Apartment Guidelines 2020 state that these types of locations are suitable for densities no greater than 45 units/ha. The Applicant is therefore requested to revise the proposed density, taking account of the existing pattern of development and character of the area.



6. Water, Wastewater and Surface Water Disposal

(i) The applicant is requested to provide details for the flow control devise and associated chamber. All flow control devices should be fitted to a minimum 225mm outlet pipe and shall be fitted with a pull cord bypass. In order to isolate and carry out maintenance of the flow control device a penstock valve (or similar approved) shall be installed within the flow control chamber, on the upstream end of the manhole.
(ii) The allowable greenfield discharge rate shall be achieved using a flow control device with a minimum or***ce of 100mm. The applicant is requested to supply a specification for the proposed flow control device which clearly demonstrates the or***ce size and discharge rate.
(iii) The applicant is requested to provide BRE 365 result for the site of the proposed attenuation system, details of the winter ground water level shall also be provided. The applicant shall maximise the opportunity for onsite infiltration where possible. Where infiltration systems are to be used they shall be a minimum depth of 1 metre above the winter water table level. The applicant shall design the attenuation system suitable for the ground conditions and acceptable to MCC Water Services Engineer.
(iv) The applicant is requested to clearly demonstrate that the finished floor levels are at least 500mm above the top water level in the onsite drainage system.
(v) The applicant has proposed to discharge surface water to existing surface water drain. The applicant shall engage with and secure the written permission of the Municipal District Engineer for access to any surface water drain. The applicant shall undertake any remedial works to the existing surface water drainage network which the Municipal District Engineer considers necessary to facilitate the discharge from the proposed development.

Please contact Paul Aspell Executive Engineer Water Services Section, Meath County Council for queries in relation to this request.


Car parking & Access


(i) It is considered that due to the absence of a high frequency public transport network in Ashbourne the site is classified as a peripheral and/or less accessible urban area, whereby the benchmark guideline for apartments is one space per unit, together with an element of visitor parking, such as one space for every 3-4 apartments should generally be required.

Where it is sought to reduce car parking provision, it is considered necessary to ensure, where possible, an appropriate number of drop-off, service, visitor parking spaces and disabled spaces are provided. In this regard the Applicant is requested to submit an alternative car parking proposal for the site that accords with the Apartment Guidelines and takes account of the site location as a peripheral and/or less accessible urban area.

(ii) The quantity of proposed surface car parking within the scheme is considered excessive. The Applicant is therefore requested to submit a revised proposal that incorporates undercroft car parking into the overall scheme design.

(iii) The Applicant is requested to make provision for electrical charge points within the proposed car park area.

(iv) It is considered that the proposed boundary treatment along the public road, i.e. 1.8m high parallel boundary wall and railing, does not provide adequate permeability or create the active street frontage in line with the principals of DMURS. The applicant should amend the layout to provide greater permeability and better integration of this open space area between the public road and the building into the surrounding environs.

(v) The proposed bicycle parking should be amended to comply with the Bicycle Parking and Storage Requirements in the Design Standards for New Apartments 2020.

(vi) The applicant should is requested to agree the boundary treatment of the site, including the access junction, with the R135 with the Transportation Section of Meath County Council. This should include, but not limited to, the following: boundary wall/railing, footpath, cycleway, bus stop and shelter, signalised junction, drainage and street lighting.

(vii) The proposed signalised junction on the R135 will have to be redesigned and constructed to accommodate the proposed development. The Applicant is therefore requested to demonstrate their agreement to pay a special levy of €65,000 as a contribution towards the costs of same, which will be conditioned in the event of a grant of permission.

The Applicant is invited to contact SEE Joe McGarvey in relation to this further information request.



8. Public Lighting

It is noted that a public lighting design has not been submitted on the application. The Applicant is therefore requested to submit a public lighting design that accords with ‘Meath County Councils; Public Lighting Technical Specification & Requirements. The proposed landscaping design should take into consideration the public lighting design and should be amended accordingly.



9. Third Party Submissions

The Applicant is requested to respond to the issues raised in the third party submissions received on the application.



Landscaping

The Applicant is requested to submit an aborist report detailing the existing trees on site and those to be removed to facilitate development. In the event that there are trees of significant value on site the Applicant should propose to retain these trees as part of the development proposal and should submit a revised landscaping plan in this regard.

Broadband

The applicant is requested to confirm details of all ducting and access chambers for the development from existing telecoms networks to the proposed apartment blocks. A map of where each service provider has their networks outside the development and the duct routes to each block should be identified.

The development is requested to ensure that provision of open access Broadband ducting is available to each unit in the development in compliance with EU Directive 2014/61/EU and PAS 2016: 2010 Next Generation Access for new build homes Guide.

It is essential that telecommunications ducting for each of the service providers can come into a common ETU within each apartment block from which (micro) ducting to each unit is installed and clearly identified. This should be made available to each of the providers on an equal basis.

The applicant is requested to present detailed revised proposals to address the above concerns.



Significant Further Information/ Revised Plans

If any submission resulting from the above requires the submission of additional data which alters your original proposal and the Planning Authority on receipt of the submission consider it to be significant, you may be required to publish a notice in an approved newspaper in accordance with S.34(8) of the Planning and Development Act 2000-2020. You should not publish any notices unless and until such time as the Planning Authority issues you with a notification to do so.

NOTE: Please submit 6 copies of the Further Information Response (3 Hard Copies & 3 Soft Copies on CD will be acceptable) (USB keys not acceptable) (Personal Data should not be recorded on the soft copies).