Proposed Eastern Bridge at the Riverside (mod warning, #137)

redarmyblues

Don 't know anything about people news, the issue is on the back burner for the moment. the county manager and his staff are too busy throwing their toys out of the pram because councilors refuse to pay f public money into private hands.

dardevle

application for planning in todays champion for the hazelwood house demense,this coupled with another previous application is seeking approval for upwards of "1,000"units,just to give you an idea of the scale involved
here,if this development was to go ahead it would dwarf the largest housing development previously built in sligo-that being cranmore at 511 units!

both of these applications are for 10 year duration-maybe someone could explain why it would be necessary to look for 10 year approval

EuskalHerria

dardevle wrote: »

application for planning in todays champion for the hazelwood house demense,this coupled with another previous application is seeking approval for upwards of "1,000"units,just to give you an idea of the scale involved
here,if this development was to go ahead it would dwarf the largest housing development previously built in sligo-that being cranmore at 511 units!

both of these applications are for 10 year duration-maybe someone could explain why it would be necessary to look for 10 year approval

Would be suprised to see something this large approved for hazelwood?

GG66

dardevle wrote: »

both of these applications are for 10 year duration-maybe someone could explain why it would be necessary to look for 10 year approval

Hard to see how any housing should be approved there at all but nothing would surpirse me. Perhaps applying for 1000 houses gives them scope to be reduced down to a lower number due to objections. Aim high and appear to conceded ground....

10 year approval? Didn't know you could do such a thing, i thought it ran out after 5 years and then had to be renewed. Perhaps they have no intention of building until 10 years.

How is that area zoned?

redarmyblues

dardevle wrote: »

in my view its too simplistic to say that councillors of the bourough,
who were elected to represent the people,have no say in the matter.
if the full weight(not lip service) of the elected representatives were to fall in behind the campaign, it may make these planners sit up and take notice of what the people want -- not what they want to impose on the people.

The councillors have had their say, according to story in the Sligo Post, "Eastern Bridge to Tumble" the Borough Council have voted 9-2 to remove the bridge and approach roads from the Sligo and Environs Development plan. (I cannot find a link to the story on their site)
Whether this has any effect on the final decision remains to be seen.

However is seems grotesque that a project with no support from local elected representatives should be so advanced in the planning process.

GG66

redarmyblues wrote: »

The councillors have had their say, according to story in the Sligo Post, "Eastern Bridge to Tumble" the Borough Council have voted 9-2 to remove the bridge and approach roads from the Sligo and Environs Development plan. (I cannot find a link to the story on their site)
Whether this has any effect on the final decision remains to be seen.

However is seems grotesque that a project with no support from local elected representatives should be so advanced in the planning process.

Hadn't heard that. What a sweet victory for those campaigning against it.. It does seems shocking the power planners and other unelected officials have at times. Seems the council want to reopen O'Connell st. too but the County Manager has the final say in it..

Also, the dept of environment have objected to the development on Cairns Hill... Since I've taken an interest in this I've learned some really interesting stories about connections between planners and FF builders .. nothing I'm prepared to post on here though

dardevle

redarmyblues wrote: »

However is seems grotesque that a project with no support from local elected representatives should be so advanced in the planning process.

how a project that supposedly had no support from elected officials
actually got so far without them taking a vote on the issue is
quite the conundrum..however i do believe that the "fence" as regards planning is broad enough to allow elected officials to sit on it until popular opinion or the looming prospect of local elections deem it appropriate for them to take a stance,whatever the reasoning behind it, it is still most welcome, why it was'nt unanimous one can only wonder:rolleyes:

Big_Mac

GG66 wrote: »

Seems the council want to reopen O'Connell st. too but the County Manager has the final say in it..

As far as I can recall, they were trying to give an ultimatum of resurface the street properly for a padestrianised zone, or reopen it to traffic. Its badly needed, but then agian as per the usual with this town and country, lets spend the cash on a bridge that noone wants or to store public toilets that no one can agree on a place for.

I would say that possibly resurfacing the street would leave the perfect spot for the toilets, but then agan silly me for making a logical and sensible suggestion.

EuskalHerria

Can't believe there is even discussion still over this. It was ridiculous to try and say that it was the responsibility of the council and effectively the public to fund a bridge that not only would never be used as human traffic around that area of the town is small.

The only reason there was still discussion and not outright condemnation from the councillors was because FF had a tantrum, made risiculous accusations against Declan Bree and hoped that they could avert the attention from the real issue, god love them did they pick the wrong character in the council to try and attack.

The idea is a disgrace, the onus to build the bridge is clearly on the building firm and to try and get the tax payers to pay for it is ridiculous.

GG66

Big_Mac wrote: »

I would say that possibly resurfacing the street would leave the perfect spot for the toilets, but then agan silly me for making a logical and sensible suggestion.

Sensible suggestion. The issue seems to be the availability of funds. The figures being touted around are huge at a time of recession. I still think it should remain pedestranised but I've no idea why it should costs so much..

EuskalHerria wrote: »

Can't believe there is even discussion still over this. It was ridiculous to try and say that it was the responsibility of the council and effectively the public to fund a bridge that not only would never be used as human traffic around that area of the town is small.

The only reason there was still discussion and not outright condemnation from the councillors was because FF had a tantrum, made risiculous accusations against Declan Bree and hoped that they could avert the attention from the real issue, god love them did they pick the wrong character in the council to try and attack.

The idea is a disgrace, the onus to build the bridge is clearly on the building firm and to try and get the tax payers to pay for it is ridiculous.

Bit of confusion here ... the original thread related to the eastern bypass bridge near Doorly park.

However, The footbridge at the Glasshouse is probably the most outrageous example of unscrupulous intervention by elected officials in favour of developers. The sheer cheek :eek: of anyone even proposing this. Even if it was up to the council to build it why would they bother.. it's not needed.

dardevle

The Sligo County Manager has been accused of deliberately ignoring a lawful decision of the Borough Council in relation to the County development plan.
At last nights meeting the Council adopted an emergency motion to call on the County Manager to replace the draft development plan which is currently on public display with the plan agreed by Cllrs at a meeting on the 22nd of December.
The controversy arose as at the December meeting it was ageed to remove all references to the propossed route from Cemetery road through the race course through Martin Savage and Doorley park across the river to Ballinode.
However this route was not removed .
Cllr Bree said it is totally unacceptable for the County Manager to ignore a lawful decision by the Council..


.

looks like the county manager is determined to bulldoze this plan
even without the backing of the elected representatives:(



.

GG66

dardevle wrote: »

.
looks like the county manager is determined to bulldoze this plan
even without the backing of the elected representatives:(

.

Shocking stuff. Although the Council has to vote on the draft development plan for it to go through... don't they?

Although when I see something as blatantly controversial as this I can't help wonder what other developments it is drawing attention away from (intentionally or otherwise)

Gillie

GG66 wrote: »

Bit of confusion here ... the original thread related to the eastern bypass bridge near Doorly park.

However, The footbridge at the Glasshouse is probably the most outrageous example of unscrupulous intervention by elected officials in favour of developers. The sheer cheek :eek: of anyone even proposing this. Even if it was up to the council to build it why would they bother.. it's not needed.

Now i'm even more confused!
I thought ye were talking about the footbridge proposed to run along side bridge street!

While O'Connell street is in $hite (and no I don't think it should be re-opened) they managed to get money for "Phase I" of the W2 and work has commenced!
They are digging up Mitchell Curley park as I type this for the new road that will run from Strandhill rd to the caltragh interchange.
This road is needed at some point but not before:
-Resurfacing O'Connell street properly
-Sorting out the Eastern bypass. It is needed in some shape or form.

redarmyblues

Gillie wrote: »

Now i'm even more confused!
I thought ye were talking about the footbridge proposed to run along side bridge street!

While O'Connell street is in $hite (and no I don't think it should be re-opened) they managed to get money for "Phase I" of the W2 and work has commenced!
They are digging up Mitchell Curley park as I type this for the new road that will run from Strandhill rd to the caltragh interchange.
This road is needed at some point but not before:
-Resurfacing O'Connell street properly
-Sorting out the Eastern bypass. It is needed in some shape or form.

There is presently no planning for an Eastern Bypass of Sligo. The Eastern Bridge is part of a proposed Eastern distributor route. If you want stop work on the Western Distributor road which is currently been built adjacent to Michael Curley Park (it was planned before the park was developed, space was left for it) you will have to wait until after the Western Bypass is built and is full to capacity, given that peak oil is impending, it is pretty much a given that an Eastern Bypass of Sligo will be not be built in the next 50 years if ever.

dardevle

redarmyblues wrote: »

There is presently no planning for an Eastern Bypass of Sligo. .

10.2.5 Strategic Road Objective T1.5
– City Bypass
It is proposed to make provision for a future City Bypass. It is envisaged that the bypass will link the N4 at Carrowroe with the realigned N15 and N16 north of the city.

this would seem to suggest that the eastern bridge/distributor road
is part of a bigger plan....easier to try and put a "distributor" road
through a residential area than a bypass:rolleyes:





.

Gillie

redarmyblues wrote: »

If you want stop work on the Western Distributor road which is currently been built adjacent to Michael Curley Park (it was planned before the park was developed, space was left for it) you will have to wait until after the Western Bypass is built and is full to capacity, given that peak oil is impending, it is pretty much a given that an Eastern Bypass of Sligo will be not be built in the next 50 years if ever.

Adjacent? It's running through it. If space was left for it why build two kids playgrounds in it's path!

redarmyblues

The Eastern bypass is merely aspirational at the moement. No concrete plans have been published however County Engineer Tom Brennan the man who brought you The Mid Block Route/Inner relief road intends the Eastern Garavouge route to perform the function of one. An Bord Pleanala wrote to him and Sligo Corpo and Sligo Co council and suggested that any Eastern Bridge be built further east of the current planned location so that it could be incorporated into any future Eastern Bypass. He in his wisdom and perhaps out of deference to wishes of others ignored this advice. Tom Brennans solution is not a bypass since it does not bypass the urban area but passes through it so it may properly be called a Through Pass. He is the only Planner in Irealnd and perhaps the world who prefers these "solutions" to traffic.

Check out the Michael Curley Park Kevinsfort Area on Google maps and you can see the finger of undeveloped land that has been set aside for WDR. It is another stroke of genius if they have built a playground on the area they set aside for the road.

Gillie

redarmyblues wrote: »

Check out the Michael Curley Park Kevinsfort Area on Google maps and you can see the finger of undeveloped land that has been set aside for WDR. It is another stroke of genius if they have built a playground on the area they set aside for the road.

For your viewing pleasure!
The close up shows the route being taken by the road enclosed in red box.
The houses to the right are Kevinsfort.

redarmyblues

As many people will know An Bord Pleanala recently granted planning permission for this project, on the back of this the County Manager Hubert Kearns placed an item on the agenda on tonight’s meeting of the Corporation to have this project put back into the Sligo and Environs Development Plan. The project had been deleted from the plan by a vote of the last Sligo Corporation in a 9-2 vote. This initiative to have it inserted was at the behest of local business people, none of whom live in the East Ward.

The item was first on the agenda. It was clear from early in the debate that the item had no support from the representatives, Jude Devin’s who is the schemes strongest supporter on the Council was equivocal and seemed to accept the issue was lost. The result was that that there was not a proposer much less a seconder for the motion and the issue did not go to a vote.

When the debate was over a section was read from local government legislation the import of which was that councillors who voted against the reinsertion might be held liable for the 700K already expended on the project. A copy of this legislation was then distributed to Council members. This appeared to be a blatant attempt to intimidate any wavering voters to back the County Manager. When this was done the Mayor moved on to the next item on the agenda. The council official who made this submission then expressed her surprise and asked for a vote. It was then explained to her, to much laughter in the chamber that there was no motion before the Council to vote on.

The Jobs for life executives who run Sligo make no secret of the contempt in which they hold Council members and by extension the local electorate. Hubert Kearns in particular always seemed to have a need for a conversation or joke with a colleague (if he wasn’t rolling his eyes) when the public representatives present were speaking. His odious behaviour has not endeared him to many and the majority present tonight will have enjoyed his humiliation.

The Eastern Bridge and Roads in its present incarnation must be dead in the water when it is not possible to get a motion in support of it put before a Corporation meeting.

Cllr David Cawley is very impressive and looks a future TD.

GG66

redarmyblues wrote: »

The Jobs for life executives who run Sligo make no secret of the contempt in which they hold Council members and by extension the local electorate. Hubert Kearns in particular always seemed to have a need for a conversation or joke with a colleague (if he wasn’t rolling his eyes) when the public representatives present were speaking. His odious behaviour has not endeared him to many and the majority present tonight will have enjoyed his humiliation.

I attended a meeting at Sligo Co. Co. on Monday morning & witnessed the same contempt for elected reps (and by consequence those they represent). It was pleasing to see the County Manager being voted down on a number of issues.

What's of most interest in all of this is the notable shift in power in Sligo Co. Co. Fianna Fail developers no longer hold the power and several developer driven agendas were removed from the SEDP.

After years of submissions in relation to SEDP and individual planning applications, the t2.11 roadway across Cairns Hill has finally been removed from the SEDP. This road has long been backed by FF & it has absolutely no strategic purpose other than to allow 5 people to develop their land.

Good riddance

redarmyblues

GG66 wrote: »

I attended a meeting at Sligo Co. Co. on Monday morning & witnessed the same contempt for elected reps (and by consequence those they represent). It was pleasing to see the County Manager being voted down on a number of issues.

What's of most interest in all of this is the notable shift in power in Sligo Co. Co. Fianna Fail developers no longer hold the power and several developer driven agendas were removed from the SEDP.

After years of submissions in relation to SEDP and individual planning applications, the t2.11 roadway across Cairns Hill has finally been removed from the SEDP. This road has long been backed by FF & it has absolutely no strategic purpose other than to allow 5 people to develop their land.

Good riddance

Good riddance is right. The FF develop/destroy the country seem to be on the back foot, but they haven't gone away you know and Kearns is their tool.

The proposed southern approach for this bridge road does a contortion to land in a particular field on the northside, where the planners have thoughtfully included a roundabout.


What was the exact route of t2.11?

GG66

The route of any road through Sligo is largely decided by who owns the land it is to cross (unless you are unfortunate enough to be a regular home owner and not a developer). Any campaign should start with a who's who of landowners along the route...

The connections between FF & developers in Sligo are cliched because they are true. I know this from experience..

The T2.11 starts at the Carraroe Retail Park (planning disaster from so many viewpoints) & heads towards the Green Road on Cairns Hill. It then goes across Cairns Hill within about 100m of one of the Cairns and then exits at Tonaphubble..

Stated objective "to facilitate development of the land", until recently after successful objections to numerous planning developments along the proposed route. It was then to alleviate traffic congestion at the Cairns Hill, Pearse Road junction and to offer an alternative route for housing estates on that road (paraphrasing).

So the road to facilitate development (i.e. introduce additional traffic) was now as if by magic supposed to alleviate traffic congestion...

Mr. Kearns, You're clutching at straws :mad:

Anyway it should be gone for now but I expect some kind of comeback

GG66

I saw this link posted elsewhere www.sligovision.com but it is more relevant here...

I spoke to the site owner and he's very keen to have different organisations and individuals use the site to raise awareness of local campaigns, issues to do with planning and development

redarmyblues

I think there is a strategic reason for the Cairns Hill road and the Planners are trying to sneak it past you, it is the southern approach road to the Eastern Bridge. What they are currently saying is, is that the approach road will be via Pearse Road and Cemetery road and then a road through the racecourse but Cemetery road is very narrow (there is little scope to widen it without wakening the dead) also this approach is resedential and it is congested already. The ideal approach road is the just one deleted from the SEDP. That way a motorist going from Carraroe to Ballinode can drive over the new Cairns Hill Road without having to deal with Pearse and Cemetery Road and the traffic lights involved, they would then proceed to the Eastern Bridge via a new road through the racecourse and Doorly Park/Martin Savage or perhaps via the back avenue to a bridge at the Boathouse, which is the preferred location for many people for an Eastern Bridge. This mini bypass would carry up to 30,000 cars a day and be busier than the Inner Relief Road is now.

The current proposed route was probably intended to faciliate a few developers, however the desicion of council members to not approve the western bypass route and the unfeasibilty of an Eastern bypass route may encourage planners to compromise on a two lane Eastern link road with an approach via the Back Avenue, a road which can easily be widened because SBC own the lands on either side of it. This could then lead to a bridge at Buckleys Forde or at the Boathouse.

GG66

redarmyblues wrote: »

I think there is a strategic reason for the Cairns Hill road and the Planners are trying to sneak it past you, it is the southern approach road to the Eastern Bridge. What they are currently saying is, is that the approach road will be via Pearse Road and Cemetery road and then a road through the racecourse but Cemetery road is very narrow (there is little scope to widen it without wakening the dead) also this approach is resedential and it is congested already. The ideal approach road is the just one deleted from the SEDP. That way a motorist going from Carraroe to Ballinode can drive over the new Cairns Hill Road without having to deal with Pearse and Cemetery Road and the traffic lights involved, they would then proceed to the Eastern Bridge via a new road through the racecourse and Doorly Park/Martin Savage or perhaps via the back avenue to a bridge at the Boathouse, which is the preferred location for many people for an Eastern Bridge. This mini bypass would carry up to 30,000 cars a day and be busier than the Inner Relief Road is now.

The current proposed route was probably intended to faciliate a few developers, however the desicion of council members to not approve the western bypass route and the unfeasibilty of an Eastern bypass route may encourage planners to compromise on a two lane Eastern link road with an approach via the Back Avenue, a road which can easily be widened because SBC own the lands on either side of it. This could then lead to a bridge at Buckleys Forde or at the Boathouse.

I'd thought of that possibility but they've had enough time to throw that one into the mix if they wanted to retain the T2.11. It would have lent some credibility to it.

However, anything is possible with this crowd. I don't believe the T2.11 route is workable as it cuts through Cairns Hill. If you walked the route you'd see how impractical it is. I believe that an impending Dept of Environment Report into the managements and protection of the Cuil Irra peninsula (i.e. Carrowmore, Knocknarae & Cairns Hill) will kick it for touch. They have already strongly objected to any development of the most elevated part of Cairns Hill through which T2.11 was routed..

Is life so busy that we need to spend so much time planning routes that will save a little time at so much cost to the social fabric of the town. Not to mention the fact that there is simply no money available to build these roads..

redarmyblues

I know the area well and I have often walked it. A large section of the hill would have to cut away to accomodate the section between Cairns Road and Tonnaphubble. This section only makes sense as part of a eastern Distributor road. I guess the idea is to call it a local road and hopefully not attract too much attention, rather than this is for 30,000 cars. The idea is to put in the roads in piecemeal and then say Oh we must join all this up it is the only solution to traffic. In this country the rights of motorists are the most important thing apart from the rights of the Rich Friends of Fianna Fail.

GG66

redarmyblues wrote: »

The idea is to put in the roads in piecemeal and then say Oh we must join all this up it is the only solution to traffic.

Is this your own opinion or have you come across anything to support it? Not dissin you, just researching ;-)

The road did seem quite wide. It was to be paid for by developers and this is why the Coco found it so attractive...

Personally, I don't think it's justifiable even as an Eastern Bypass.. The need for an eastern bridge is to get people from doorly to hospital (roughly)

Coming from the Dublin side of things you can quite easily use the inner relief road...

I still don't think the traffic in Sligo is bad enough to warrant either a western or an eastern bypass..

redarmyblues

GG66 wrote: »

Is this your own opinion or have you come across anything to support it? Not dissin you, just researching ;-)

.

It is my opinion and the opinion of the Councillors I have spoke to on the matter. It is method local planners used with the inner relief road/mid block route. Hughes Bridge was built first and they then said this bridge is here it needs proper approach roads there will be no extra cost of a bridge to the west.

GG66

Interesting, thanks.

I don't expect this issue to go away as millions has been spent buying land along the proposed route ...

But it is enjoyable sticking a stick in their spokes..

tedshredsonfire

theres a meeting tonight in the abbeyquarter community centre regarding the bridge and cranmore regeneration at 8pm if anyones interested. Still hard to believe the muppets in power here.Its not like we dont need the development, cown said the money is there but is earmarked for cork if sligo dont go ahead.
I am seriously thinking of an armed military coup (just got my gun license back) and then having myself installed as a benvolent dictator. When the power eventually corrupts me you could have another coup (bloddless please) to remove me and carry on as you see fit.
Who is with me?