(Lack of) Crap Planning in Kildare

The Leinster Leader ran a story last week about plans for a badly needed new primary school in Kill being knocked on the head. The management of the school have been fighting for years for permission to build on a new site. The Council had objections to each proposal. Either too close to a road, too far from the town, no where was just right … a Goldilocks scenario.

A developer recently made an offer - “I will give you a suitable site for a new school if you give me permission to build 117 new houses”. Call it bribery, call it good business, call it what you want. It was a win-win situation. Another developer has been refused permission for 143 houses and the 117-plus-school will be refused for the same reason. The problem now is that the sewerage facility is at capacity. It will be 2011 before it’s upgraded. Any building before then will push it to breaking point and the proverbial will hit the fan. Jokes abound in the town about the 9″ shites of the newcomers (from Dublin) not fitting down 6″ pipes.

Why is it the Council are in this situation? Back in 2002 they published the development plan for the area. They predicted the 2001 population of 1,870 would grow to 3,320 by 2006. The census showed it to be 3,738 last year. The council underestimated by 400, but it was still a very good attempt. Fair play to them. So they knew what was coming.

The development plan stated “the future population of the town will be dictated by the availability of housing which, in turn will be dictated by the availability of serviced, zoned land”. See that? Serviced. Yes, serviced land. Doesn’t serviced mean the provision of facilities for sewerage treatment, schools, transport, water, lighting etc.?

Surely the idea is to provide this infrastructure prior to building houses, or at least concurrently. I’ve gotten this far without mention of brown envelopes but I can’t hold off any longer. Today’s brown envelopes are called development levies. Monies collected from builders to pay for infrastructure, but in fact diverted wherever there is a shortfall, like building pretty new Council offices.

But then, much of the development plan was bollocks anyway.

“It is the policy of the Council that names of residential developments should reflect local and Irish place names”. So the town got estates called Earls Court and Rochford. Very Irish. Very local.

“The Planning Authority will require the provision of a minimum level of cycle parking facilities in association with new development and a change of use”. At the last count there were, eh, let me see, eh, none. Not one solitary cycle stand.

“It is an objective of the Council to co-operate with the Department of Education and Science and the local school management board in the provision of an adequate number of school places to serve the needs of the town’s population”. Ah here, I give up.

2 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

“It is the policy of the Council that names of residential developments should reflect local and Irish place names”.

Is there a council in the country that actually follows this? Or even one in the Great Leinster Conurbation?

And whose fault is that they don’t? The council’s? The developer’s? Ours? Well yours because I don’t live there.

And is it because of corruption, ignorance or marketing?

That concludes today’s questions.

1. Eolaí gan Fhéile on February 14th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Here are today’s answers:

No council in the country follows this. Although they pay lip service to it.

For some reason, buyers place greater value on west-Brit names. A development with “Earl”, “Wyndham”, “Court” etc. in the name will sell better than “Cois Abhainn”, “Church Field”, “Gleann na Rí” etc.

The developers know this and are at fault for propagating the trend. Marketing: 90%

Should the council object they are offered perks such as a larger development levy. Corruption: 5%

Both estates mentioned in my post were built at about the same time. When I queried the choice of names with the council I was told that the lands had at one time been owned by Rochford the Earl of Kildare.

When I pointed out that the Earls of Kildare were FitzMaurice, FitzGerald and FitzThomas, and that while there had been a Viscount Rochford there was never an Earl Rochford, the story changed: It seems artifacts (items of horse tack) had been found during site clearance stamped with the name Rochford. I replied again saying that much of the tack used in Ireland in the 17 and 18 hundreds would have been made in Rochford, Essex.

I suggested names could have been contrived from the fact both developments were overlooked by Kill Hill; there were bronze age ring barrows nearby; the area was once the seat of the Uí Fáeláin kings; and more. Silence. Ignorance: 5%

2. Primal Sneeze on February 14th, 2007 at 10:01 am