Signatures supporting the submission to MCC were gathered on Saturday with a draft of the letter available and shown. There have since been been a few tweaks to the letter in order to incorporate some comments and suggestions made. If anyone who signed on Saturday would like to see the final letter before it is sent to MCC Planning, please contact me asap.
1 Seagrvae Hall
Many thanks for everyone’s comments, and the huge support received today in terms of signatures. I have now prepared a draft submission and comments letter, and will be tweaking it over the next few days. I intended to send it to the MCC Planning Department on Friday 4 August, or Tuesday 8 August at the very latest.
- If you have any final thoughts or suggestions, please post them here or email them to me as soon a possible
- If you got missed today and still want to be added as a supporting signatory, please send a text to Terri on 087 2219595 and she or one of our kids will drop over with the form
- As a result of the discussions on the Green today, I don’t intend to put the letter on this web site until after MCC Planning have made their decision in September
- But if you would like a copy of the letter before then, please drop me an email (firstname.lastname@example.org), ideally with the reason
Remember that you can still send your own observations on the planning application directly to MCC.
Regards, Richard (1 Seagrave)
I have received several suggestions that a professional architect or planner should be used to prepare an objection letter for Meath County Council. Clearly this has a lot of merit, but the obvious stumbling block is the payment of any fee. I suspect that it will be very difficult to reach agreement on how this should be apportioned. Ideas welcome!
The site notice was nailed to a wall of No 1 Seagrave Hall without asking for our permission – presumably damaging the brickwork. I decided to leave the notice in place but added another notice referring to the potential problems of the development. On 25 July someone removed my notice and a second copy of it. Rather annoying!
The 2007 proposal had 12 car parking spaces for 12 bedrooms, i.e one space per bedroom. The current proposal has just 8 spaces for 16 bedrooms – i.e the ratio has been halved. It thus seems reasonable to expect that about eight cars will be parking on the road… plus the cars of visitors. The entrance to Seagrave Hall is totally unsuitable for this, indeed it would be very dangerous as the blind corner beside No.1 is already the source of many near accidents.
It’s also interesting to compare this photo with one in the proposal:
We intend to submit a comments letter to Meath County Council in regards to this planning application. The likely substance of the content can be gained from the Initial Thoughts post, but additional suggestions are very welcome. If you would to be included as a signatory, please add a comment with your name(s) and address, or alternatively email us, or simply put a note through our letter box.
Richard & Terri Beedall, 1 Seagrave Hall
The following images are of the decision letter refusing planning application DA/70314 in 2007. This was for a smaller building than is now proposed:
From an initial review of the planning application:
- The application is effectively an enlarged version of a planning application (DA70314) that was refused by Meath County Council in 2007. It is not clear that any of the reasons for the refusal of this application have been addressed – indeed the problems seem to have grown.
- The new proposal is for a three storey building rather than two, 16 bedrooms rather than 12, but has just eight car spots rather than 12.
- Meath County Council apparently advised (Sub section 4.1 of the proposal) Thornton O’Connor not call the new proposal an apartment block!
- With four 4-bedroom dwellings, the building seems to be optimized for rentals and sub-lets – presumably with 32 plus tenants.
- The very high density of the development is justified (#6.4) on the basis that there is very “low density development elsewhere in Ratoath”. This seems a deliberate attempt to distract from the context of the form and pattern of development in the immediate vicinity of the proposed building.
- The minimum possible number of car parking spaces provided (#6.6) – two per dwelling, i.e. just eight in total. This is far too low for the number of bedrooms, extensive street/pavement parking by both residents and visitors is inevitable.
- Whilst the height of the proposed apartment building (#3.3) may not exceed a previous approved application to build two detached houses on the site, that is third-story to chimney pot! The building will dominate the view of neighboring dwellings.
- The proposed development fails (#6.5) to provide adequate provision of open space and gardens for residents, and as such is a sub-standard development. Whilst “a study” is offered, in practice it seems to be assumed that resident’s children will play on either the road or utilise the common areas of the Seagrave Hall estate.
- The proposal incorrectly claims (#2.1) that a bus stop 270m away provides “access to Dublin via bus routes 103 and 105”. The 105 bus doesn’t go in to Dublin, it terminates at Connelly Hospital, Blanchardstown. The 103 bus doesn’t even run down Fairyhouse Road! There are no direct bus services to Dublin excepting a very small number (3) of eXpress services between 8 and 9 am. The poor public transport infrastructure will potentially result in higher car ownership by residents of the bulding.
- The goggle maps view (figure 2.2) appears to date from about 2007, and fails to show the now mature trees which will apparently be cut down – a considerable loss both aesthetically and to local wild life.
- The proposed apartment building will connect to existing public water and sewage facilities, it is not clear that these have the capacity to cope with an addition of this scale.
- Overall, the proposed apartment building will dominate the entrance to Seagrave Hall and overlook neighboring properties. Its form, density, size and scale is wholly inappropriate for the area, and if it proceeds it will seriously degrade the amenities for existing residents, e.g. in regards to privacy and daylight/sunlight. [Thus failing to meet the requirements of the Meath County Development Plan 2013-19]