Shocking revelations have emerged from research being carried out by People Before Profit Dundalk in partnership with the Louth Environmental Group. Whilst researching waste, corruption and complacency in local planning matters it has been discovered that officials in the town council refused an offer of E3.5 million Euro's to purchase wastelands behind St Nicholas's Avenue in Dundalk. The offer was made by a Dublin based business firm a number of years ago for a site just over three acres in size. This equates to over one million Euro's per acre, a generous offer by any standard. The site in question was zoned for recreation and amenities and the offering firm was planning to develope a super environmentally friendly community in the heart of Dundalk, taking it's energy needs from the Castletown river and providing start up businesses with free energy as well as many other benefits. It was intended that the offering firm would spend E200,000 to fill, lanscape and provide flood protection specifically for this site to leave it available as recreational and amenity, particulalry for children in the local area.
Nugent Estate agents wrote to Frank Pentony, the town clerk, in 2005/2006 highlighting the firms interest in buying the land and their willingness to pay a very good price. There was no response for a number of months. Nugents estate agents again wrote to Mr Pentony's office and eventually received a reply essentially telling them that there was no land for sale in Dundalk at the time. Similarly, in later negotiations regarding the overall environmentally positive community development, worth over E100,000,000, officials again broke off talks without good reason or cause. To this very day the Dublin business firm and Nugents estate agents cannot understand why they were firstly ignored and then rejected without explanation or reason.
It is important to note that the land in question is still lying idle and in fact is being used as an illegal dumping ground, with council officials refusing to take responsibility for the disgraceful build up of rubbish. The questions must be asked, did Frank Pentony even consult anyone on the offer of E3.5 million? Did he inform councillors of the offer (as far as we are aware he did not). Why did The town clerk's office firstly refuse to respond to the offer and then refuse the offer out point blank without discussions? Like so many other areas of planning and procedure, it appears that the unelected officials in Dundalk see themselves as a law unto themselves, able to reject offers beneficial to the townspeople without explanation or reason, and indeed without consultation with the council itself.
On a final point,it is also important to note that only recently the council approved the development of a super casino and ski slope north of Dundalk. This development is on a flood plain and in present economic circumstances may eventually wind up as a dead duck or white elephant. However, a development offering high tech, affordable and environmentally sustainable living for many people in Dundalk has been rejected without good cause, reason or explanation. People Before Profit Dundalk will continue with our inquiries into this matter but will also soon publish a detailed article exploring the possibilities of the proposed environmentally sustainable community planned by the Dublin based firm. When contacted by people Before profit Dundalk a director of the firm confirmed that they are still willing, even in the light of how they have been mistreated by the management in our local authorities, to proceed with the much needed development.
Hi People before Profit Dundalk
ReplyDeleteWith reference to your piece about Urban Green's proposed sustainable living development for the Dundalk Waterfront which is located on the Southern Castletown riverside between the Newry Road bridge and the Castletown river/railway bridge, we would comment that it is remarkably accurate in content, considering that you did not contact us, before publication, for a briefing.
However, to allege that the 3.5 acre parcel of waste ground which is being used by the Council as a dump would have remained "undeveloped" if the Town Clerk had accepted our offer of €3,500,000 is inaccurate because it was our clearly declared intention to fill the land, reduce its risk of flooding, landscape it to a first class standard and donate it to the Castletown Road/Boyle O'Reilly Terrace/St. Nicholas Avenue community as fully developed recreational amenity/flood prevention public open space.
We are convinced that this would have been much more beneficial than its present use as a dump for excavation spoil and household refuse.
There are many elements of our wonderful scheme upon which you have not touched.
Some of these are alluded to, in the attached letter from SolEarth Sustainable Living Architects.
If you require further insight into this strange situation, please do not hesitate to contact us and we will endeavor to clarify matters for your organisation.
This Area has a resident association and i suggest that you speak to them in realtion to this land. This is a designated green area and should remain so, it is also a natural flood plain.
ReplyDeleteAs i understand it it is at a higher point than most of the town, secondly, the space is unpleasant at the moment and the intention is to create the majority of the space as open park available to the public. At the moment it is tolerated trespass and illegal for people to walk on it. As for the residents association, of course they would be consulted but views that don't exist cannot be used as an excuse. This land is onto most people back yards, blocked by ugly walls so their views will not be taken away. At the moment the area is an eyesore.
ReplyDeleteCONTACT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION as I feel that you do not have all the facts in relation to this land. And as it being an eye sore that is untrue at the moment it is covered with wild poppies and a beautiful lavender flower which is really pleasing to the eye
ReplyDeleteOn reading the comment from People Before Profit I am interested in the choice of words used,
ReplyDeleteFirstly: you mention that it is intended to create the majority of the land as Open Park available to the public, who is going to create this park?? Will this be on the developer’s land or the councils land?
Secondly: Your reply says that the residents association would be consulted however I would like to ask why did you not consult them prior to printing the main article. Surely these homes are the ones that are directly affected by this land, have you spoken to anyone living in the area? and by this I mean a resident who has been living there a number of years.
Thirdly you mention “ Views that don’t exist cannot be used as an excuse” nowhere in the comment above the reply do I see anything mentioned about the view ?? And for describing people's boundary walls as ugly? The slogan “People Before Profit” implies that you as an organization who represent s the ordinary person. On reading your reply it leaves me to wonder is this the case?
It's great to see the comments guys :O)
ReplyDeleteIn relation to the residents association, we are not creating the plan so I am not sure our place is to make such contacts. In terms of writing the story without consulting the residents, the Urban Green Project was an aside to the main article as you may note, in that aside we spoke of the positives of the project laid out to us and were not conducting a critical analysis of the planning process itself.
From the information we have from the planners (and it is all hypothetical at present) and a councillor in the area, the plan has many appealing aspects for everyone in the town and indeed country.
Your inference, correct me if i am wrong, is that there are objections from locals and if so I suspect they have already been consulted in some fashion, otherwise what are they objecting to?. Indeed on a recent tour of the area in which a number of us were being shown the location we were accosted by an irate lady shouting that it was their views, I was told this lady was a local pro-active resident. She made clear her interest was the view and it's loss and yet when asked to describe how the view would be lost she could not, but preferred to argue the NIMBY card (Not In My Back Yard). The truth is that we do not have a natural right to prevent progress. If this lady represents the residents in the area (i'm not saying she does), then she wants no development from her Dundalk home right out to the mountains. The plan that I described, as has been described to us, does not plan a massive building development as the article has stated and may in fact be an addition to many views. In reference to the local fauna, it must be noted that I have inspected that land and am very aware of the waste such as plastics etc. that are mixed throughout the clay and in other seasons are quite visible. The solution to preserving such species (and i am a great lover of nature - the smaller the flower the prettier for me) might lie in the answer to another question within the comments of the last day, 'Who will own and be responsible for the upkeep of the landscaped area?'. Well this is where negotiation and common sense can come in, why not have the majority of the area like a meadow with all of those species as part of the lanscaping. Oh and the land would be fully paid for by the developer, everything paid for and the residents and small business (free electricity for start ups) would finance what could be a low maintenance area. This is not to mention the fact that it is planned to be accessible by everyone in the town, children's play areas and sports fields included. And imagine our waste not going into the sea anymore, cheap electricity from the river etc.
Finally, in relation to the comment questioning our support for working class interest because i described the walls of some back yards as an eyesore. Well the fact is they are, and they are illegal, a patch work of walls and entries for which people don't have licences, but they should have licences and they should have nice walls, but between the machinations of local representatives and the local civil service they don't have decent back walls or a right of entry. Just because you are working class doesn't mean you should put up such conditions on entry to your own back yard.
To sum up, this article regarded primarily the rejection of an offer for a piece of land in the aforementioned area. As an aside we discussed the merits, both local, national and global, of a development we had been made aware of through our research. We are not the developers and have no place involving ourselves in such a planning process. We have since the article met with one objector who did not convince our members present the 'tour' that a change of view would was enough reason to prevent such an important and environmentally considerate project.
Wow someone rattled your cage
ReplyDeleteSorry for the typos at the end, my cage isn't rattled but I wanted to address the comments comprehensively.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to the refusal of 3.5 million we have recently discovered that the council commissioned a report a number of years ago from the best known town planners in the country Colin Buchanan and Co at a cost of tens of thousands of Euro, the aim of the report was to plan the development of the riverside in the town. The Colin Buchanan report identified the Urban Green site as the most appropriate and outlined a development that the Urban Green surpasses in so many respects. As far as we have been able to ascertain that report was shelved by certain council officials on receipt. It cost tens of thousands, certain officials knew that financiers existed to create the project in co-operation with the council (no funding needed) and the report has never seen the light of day. What's been going on there then?
ReplyDeleteThere are many questions to be asked regarding how this has been dealt with, and without stressing the issue to much, I do agree with readers comments that residents must be consulted, indeed more than consulted, involved. There can be no doubt of the benefits of the Urban Green project, and my concern would be (based on previous comments)that resident may have expectations based on their past experiences of non sustainable, sprawling developments, which this project certainly does not intend.
Main article mainly dealt with the offer of a substantial amount of money being offered for the land being rejected. Thank God for the forward looking planners in the town hall, their foresight has resulted in one less ghost estate in Co Louth. And as you say in your response this is all hypothetical.
ReplyDeleteCan I ask who were you responding to when you say and I quote “ Your Interference correct me if I am wrong” this leaves me to believe that if a person places a comment you don’t agree with it they are toId they are interfering.
I placed a comment on this site, am I being told that in leaving a comment I have been interfering. If so, Interfering in what???
If I was in any way a paranoid person I would think this was a personal response to me only and not a response in an open forum. Public forum equals public opinion
It is interesting that a tour of the area was conducted which brings another question to my mind.
Was the person giving the tour involved with said development ?? And if so would that person be biased in their opinion as to the development plans to which you have been given a detailed description of and I quote from response in this forum as an “ Important and environmentally considerate project “.
Thank you for bringing to my attention the legality of having to obtain a license in order to have a wall on the boundary on any property that I may own or own in the future. I actually didn’t realize it was illegal. I quote “ a patch work of walls and entries which people don’t have licenses for. So I ask Where do I go to get this license ??? I do not want to be breaking the law.
Finally I was glad to see in your final response that you do agree and think the that the residents in the area should not only be consulted but involved in any plans for any potential development within the area. Well I am sure that passionate lady who spoke to you whilst you were having your tour of the land thought the same thing.
In relation to the report which was compiled a number of years ago maybe it is one of the bank vaults belonging to one of the banks which the tax payers are bailing out at present, which leaves me to wonder where our energies would be better used.
Hi again, i haven't been blogging in a while. Firstly i did not say interference, i wrote inference, a big, big difference, in other words what you may have been meaning. Regarding the tour leader, he is a local environmentalist and is trying to drive the project forward. We have sought out information on the science and the public sustainable benefits of the project. We are also aware of one residents objections based on her fear of losing her view. I have not changed my mind on the benefits to the area, country and indeed world as this plan is so advanced in terms of sustainable community living. It is unfortunate that you and some other commentators have steadfastly refused to discuss firstly the benefits i have spoken about or outlined wether you believe people have the right to point blank refuse to allow low ratio building and the landscaping of a mass area of land that resembles in-fill in terms of the level of plastics in the ground. What about the fact that the plan offers public access and parkland where now only tolerated trespass exists. Provides free energy to start up businesses and local communities cheap energy from the river, so many positives and no-one apart from myself on this page has had the balance to look at these issues too, i have been respectful enough to agree with your points and discuss them.
ReplyDeleteOh regarding the Licence for your entry, go to the council about it, your local councillor Eamonn O'Boyle had negotiated free licences from the landowner on one section of the street but i am led to believe certain representatives of another party told the residents that there may be problems with the offer in the future. I'm not sure what was going on there. But you can go to the council to get confirmation that about your own case. Regards, Fin.
ReplyDelete