Nursing homes being developed on Coillte lands

ISOT

Hi,
Just looking for information/ opinions regarding Coillte selling off parts of state forests to develop nursing homes around the country.
This planning application (of which six have been applied for around the country) was lodged with Westport town council on 22 dec 09.
The cut off date for the tax incentive on this type of project (the last one left I think) was the last day of december 09.

This development (approx 5 acres of a 72 acre woodland) is opposed by local residents on a number of grounds, not least the use of state land and tax incentive to facilitate a private investor to build a private nursing home.

Hope this is considered to be in the correct forum as it involves what I think is the start of the destruction of a valuable local woodlands.

ConsiderThis

ISOT wrote: »

Hi,
Just looking for information/ opinions regarding Coillte selling off parts of state forests to develop nursing homes around the country.
This planning application (of which six have been applied for around the country) was lodged with Westport town council on 22 dec 09.
The cut off date for the tax incentive on this type of project (the last one left I think) was the last day of december 09.

This development (approx 5 acres of a 72 acre woodland) is opposed by local residents on a number of grounds, not least the use of state land and tax incentive to facilitate a private investor to build a private nursing home.

Hope this is considered to be in the correct forum as it involves what I think is the start of the destruction of a valuable local woodlands.

5 acres of Coillte type conifers ( assuming they are conifers) hardly qualifies as "valuable local woodlands", except if you consider the value of the trees for wood pulp to be particularly valuable.

We need nursing homes and if I were in one I'd probably prefer to have nice country views and a 5 acre garden, than many other options available. I really can't blame anyone for wanting to avail of tax incentives, and it's not those who avail of tax incentives who are to blame but those who instigate the incentive in the
first place.

Run_to_da_hills

With the hotel industry in tatters I'm surprised there aren't hotel complexes converted into nursing homes without having to build new ones.

Cookie_Monster

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

With the hotel industry in tatters I'm surprised there aren't hotel complexes converted into nursing homes without having to build new ones.

good point, i'm sure it'd be easier to convert a hotel thats gone bust rather than build new.

And selling state forest to build private nursing homes is a disgrace

ISOT

ConsiderThis wrote: »

5 acres of Coillte type conifers ( assuming they are conifers) hardly qualifies as "valuable local woodlands", except if you consider the value of the trees for wood pulp to be particularly valuable.

We need nursing homes and if I were in one I'd probably prefer to have nice country views and a 5 acre garden, than many other options available. I really can't blame anyone for wanting to avail of tax incentives, and it's not those who avail of tax incentives who are to blame but those who instigate the incentive in the
first place.

Just to clarify, when I stated that it was "valuable woodland", I meant of value to the local community( fro recreation and environmental reasons)
The forest has been neglected for 30 years and is not very valuable from a commerical forestry point of view.
Also, the 5 acres has approx 70% buildings, there is really not much space to have nice walks around.
As regards converting hotels, great idea but there is no tax incentive for this and again while I agree that we will need more nursing homes for our ageing population in the future, I don't see the need to necessarily build them on or in forests so as coillte can get out of the financial mess that it is in.
and remember, this development is about coillte making money from selling state land for development (which I don't think is really their remit) and a private investor making 2.3 times a return on his investment.

As regards blame for the tax incentives, I take your point but dont tell me that the people who "availed" of them did not spend years lobbying government for same, resulting in the mess we are currently in.

Judgement Day

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

good point, i'm sure it'd be easier to convert a hotel thats gone bust rather than build new.

And selling state forest to build private nursing homes is a disgrace

There are several fine 'Zombie' hotels in County Wexford that could be turned into nursing homes. The Bates Motel being one that comes to mind...can anybody guess which one I mean....he,he,he.....:D

ConsiderThis

ISOT wrote: »

Just to clarify, when I stated that it was "valuable woodland", I meant of value to the local community( fro recreation and environmental reasons)
The forest has been neglected for 30 years and is not very valuable from a commerical forestry point of view.
Also, the 5 acres has approx 70% buildings, there is really not much space to have nice walks around.
As regards converting hotels, great idea but there is no tax incentive for this and again while I agree that we will need more nursing homes for our ageing population in the future, I don't see the need to necessarily build them on or in forests so as coillte can get out of the financial mess that it is in.
and remember, this development is about coillte making money from selling state land for development (which I don't think is really their remit) and a private investor making 2.3 times a return on his investment.

As regards blame for the tax incentives, I take your point but dont tell me that the people who "availed" of them did not spend years lobbying government for same, resulting in the mess we are currently in.

If they are acting outside their remit, then they can be brought to book for it. it's either legal fro them to sell the land they own, or it isn't, presumably.

While I might not like the idea either, the fact is that someone else seems to think it's better to put his own money into buying it and creating/developing a nursing home, rather than conveting a hotel which seems to be thought here to be a better idea ( I'm not sure a hotel woudl ever be suitable as a nursing home without such extensive remodelling that it wouldn't be cheaper to build from new).

In any case, its a free country ans if the developer judges that its better/cheaper to build from new rather than remodel a hotel, then it's his money!

gizmo555

Report on this planning application and associated controversy in this week's Mayo News:

A ROW over the proposed development of a large nursing home at the Westport suburb of Knockranny erupted in Westport Town Council chamber last week with Town Manager Peter Hynes warning councillors they could ‘prejudice’ the application. This followed a categoric verdict of ‘No’ to the project by up to 40 local residents who had met earlier in the week to discuss the controversial proposal.

The residents, from Knockranny and Buckwaria, will now formally object to the planning application for the 86-bedroom nursing home to be situated at Colonel’s Wood, on lands owned by semi-state forestry body, Coillte.

Speaking at last week’s town council meeting, Independent Cllr Martin Keane unconditionally gave the development the thumbs-down.

“I will not support this application for an 86-bedroom nursing home or for any building going up on these lands,” Cllr Keane said.

His concerns were echoed by Fianna Fáil’s Cllr Brendan Mulroy who stressed that it was not a suitable location to build the home.

“I proposed from day one that this area be left [designated] as woodland. The residents will be submitting their objection to the town council,” Cllr Mulroy said.

Intervening, Peter Hynes warned that, given the ‘live’ status of the application, the councillors were ‘getting very close to being prejudicial’. This intervention led to a heated debate about the restrictions of Better Local Government, as cited by Cllr Tereasa McGuire.

“This is nothing to do with Better Local Government. There can be no comment on live cases. When it gets into an area where it may prejudice the decisions, it leaves the council open to a claim. I’m not trying to gag anyone,” Peter Hynes said.

Responding, Cllr Mulroy observed: “Surely it is our democratic right to express our views. I’m only expressing my opinion in supporting these people.”

Urging that councillors move on with the agenda, Cathaoirleach Myles Staunton said the issue could be discussed again at a dedicated meeting on the Draft Development Plan to be held on Thursday next, January 21, in the council chamber.

Residents’ rally

Almost 40 residents of Knockranny and Buckwaria are set to seek an urgent meeting with Westport Town Councillors to both outline their concerns and to underline the importance of maintaining Colonel’s Wood as a unique in-town woodland area which can be enjoyed by the entire community of Westport.

Their joint objection observes that ‘the road into the proposed development is completely inadequate for the volume of traffic which can be expected with a nursing home that will be three times the size of The MacBride Home. The residents also claim that the construction would put an excessive burden on already over-stretched services such as sewerage and water.

“The planning application does not deal with these basic infrastructural deficiencies in any substantive way,” said well-known resident Mary Carr, who chaired the special meeting. Mary Carr also said ‘the proposal would damage the natural environment of the town and would have an immediate negative impact on the flora and fauna, birds and wildlife of the wood’.

“Colonel’s Wood provides a backdrop to the town of Westport and adds greatly to the visual beauty of the town. Deforesting five acres at its highest point would be a visual eye-sore and would scar the town’s natural horizon,” Mary Carr also said.

“This wood is one of the natural lungs of Westport. Building on it will reduce the quality of the environment for the people of Westport and for visiting tourists. We are urging the Town Council to take over this woodland so that its unique and natural character can be maintained,” she continued.

A number of residents also commented on the fact that ‘the proposal represented very bad value for public money’.

Apparently, nursing homes are one of the very few areas where you can still claim capital allowances. An investor who puts €100,000 into a nursing home project can typically get capital allowances of around €230,000 over a seven-year period. it was also stressed at the meeting that if the plan is granted, state land will be used for purely private gain without any regard for social dividend, they pointed out.

Some Knockranny residents will also urge councillors not to continue with the Celtic Tiger model of aiding private wealth at the expense of public need.

Coillte application

During December last Coillte Teoranta applied to Westport Town Council to construct an 86-bedroom nursing home in lands it owns at Colonel’s Wood at Knockranny, in suburban Westport.

According to the application, the facility will consist of communal spaces, treatment rooms, dining rooms and a kitchen. It would also consist of sanitary accommodation, staff facilities, administration areas and ancillary services, including a service road and a yard.

It is also proposed that the nursing home development will consist of a gated vehicular and pedestrian access, a split-level car park with 76 spaces and a ten-space surface carpark.

Town Manager, Peter Hynes’s recommends in the Draft Development Plan that zoning of Colonel’s Wood be amended to ‘K Woodland’ as well as a new objective, proposed by the councillors, which stipulates that ‘any development would be subject to a design brief agreed by the elected members, following a period of public consultation’.

Recognising that the Colonel’s Wood ‘provides an attractive setting for the town’ it also ‘equally recognised that the woodlands through the woodland management and sensitive development could provide woodland amenities, and enhanced connectivity for the town as a whole’, the Manager’s Report on the draft plan states.

“It should be noted that the woodland is in fact a commercially planted area in the ownership of Coillte, a commercial semi-state body. It is not in the gift of Mayo County Council or Westport Town Council to carry out or to direct the specific development of these lands,” it continues.

http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8608:controversy-over-colonels-wood&catid=23&Itemid=46

ConsiderThis

gizmo555 wrote: »

Report on this planning application and associated controversy in this week's Mayo News:

A ROW over the proposed development of a large nursing home at the Westport suburb of Knockranny erupted in Westport Town Council chamber last week with Town Manager Peter Hynes warning councillors they could ‘prejudice’ the application. This followed a categoric verdict of ‘No’ to the project by up to 40 local residents who had met earlier in the week to discuss the controversial proposal.

The residents, from Knockranny and Buckwaria, will now formally object to the planning application for the 86-bedroom nursing home to be situated at Colonel’s Wood, on lands owned by semi-state forestry body, Coillte.
Speaking at last week’s town council meeting, Independent Cllr Martin Keane unconditionally gave the development the thumbs-down.

“I will not support this application for an 86-bedroom nursing home or for any building going up on these lands,” Cllr Keane said.

His concerns were echoed by Fianna Fáil’s Cllr Brendan Mulroy who stressed that it was not a suitable location to build the home.

“I proposed from day one that this area be left [designated] as woodland. The residents will be submitting their objection to the town council,” Cllr Mulroy said.

Intervening, Peter Hynes warned that, given the ‘live’ status of the application, the councillors were ‘getting very close to being prejudicial’. This intervention led to a heated debate about the restrictions of Better Local Government, as cited by Cllr Tereasa McGuire.

“This is nothing to do with Better Local Government. There can be no comment on live cases. When it gets into an area where it may prejudice the decisions, it leaves the council open to a claim. I’m not trying to gag anyone,” Peter Hynes said.

Responding, Cllr Mulroy observed: “Surely it is our democratic right to express our views. I’m only expressing my opinion in supporting these people.”
Urging that councillors move on with the agenda, Cathaoirleach Myles Staunton said the issue could be discussed again at a dedicated meeting on the Draft Development Plan to be held on Thursday next, January 21, in the council chamber.

Residents’ rally

Almost 40 residents of Knockranny and Buckwaria are set to seek an urgent meeting with Westport Town Councillors to both outline their concerns and to underline the importance of maintaining Colonel’s Wood as a unique in-town woodland area which can be enjoyed by the entire community of Westport.

Their joint objection observes that ‘the road into the proposed development is completely inadequate for the volume of traffic which can be expected with a nursing home that will be three times the size of The MacBride Home. The residents also claim that the construction would put an excessive burden on already over-stretched services such as sewerage and water.

“The planning application does not deal with these basic infrastructural deficiencies in any substantive way,” said well-known resident Mary Carr, who chaired the special meeting. Mary Carr also said ‘the proposal would damage the natural environment of the town and would have an immediate negative impact on the flora and fauna, birds and wildlife of the wood’.

“Colonel’s Wood provides a backdrop to the town of Westport and adds greatly to the visual beauty of the town. Deforesting five acres at its highest point would be a visual eye-sore and would scar the town’s natural horizon,” Mary Carr also said.

“This wood is one of the natural lungs of Westport. Building on it will reduce the quality of the environment for the people of Westport and for visiting tourists. We are urging the Town Council to take over this woodland so that its unique and natural character can be maintained,” she continued.

A number of residents also commented on the fact that ‘the proposal represented very bad value for public money’.

Apparently, nursing homes are one of the very few areas where you can still claim capital allowances. An investor who puts €100,000 into a nursing home project can typically get capital allowances of around €230,000 over a seven-year period. it was also stressed at the meeting that if the plan is granted, state land will be used for purely private gain without any regard for social dividend, they pointed out.

Some Knockranny residents will also urge councillors not to continue with the Celtic Tiger model of aiding private wealth at the expense of public need.

Coillte application

During December last Coillte Teoranta applied to Westport Town Council to construct an 86-bedroom nursing home in lands it owns at Colonel’s Wood at Knockranny, in suburban Westport.

According to the application, the facility will consist of communal spaces, treatment rooms, dining rooms and a kitchen. It would also consist of sanitary accommodation, staff facilities, administration areas and ancillary services, including a service road and a yard.

It is also proposed that the nursing home development will consist of a gated vehicular and pedestrian access, a split-level car park with 76 spaces and a ten-space surface carpark.

Town Manager, Peter Hynes’s recommends in the Draft Development Plan that zoning of Colonel’s Wood be amended to ‘K Woodland’ as well as a new objective, proposed by the councillors, which stipulates that ‘any development would be subject to a design brief agreed by the elected members, following a period of public consultation’.

Recognising that the Colonel’s Wood ‘provides an attractive setting for the town’ it also ‘equally recognised that the woodlands through the woodland management and sensitive development could provide woodland amenities, and enhanced connectivity for the town as a whole’, the Manager’s Report on the draft plan states.

“It should be noted that the woodland is in fact a commercially planted area in the ownership of Coillte, a commercial semi-state body. It is not in the gift of Mayo County Council or Westport Town Council to carry out or to direct the specific development of these lands,” it continues.

http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8608:controversy-over-colonels-wood&catid=23&Itemid=46

I'm not sure what your point is. Sorry. Can you elucidate ?

gizmo555

ConsiderThis wrote: »

I'm not sure what your point is. Sorry. Can you elucidate ?

I'm not making any point. I just saw the article in my local paper and thought it might be of interest to people reading the thread.

ISOT

Article on this in today's Irish Indepentent:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/coillte-branches-out-in-bid-to-build-taxbreak-care-homes-2042054.html

whatisayis

Coillte is a state entity posing as a private company. As a private company it would not have to comply with FOI act therefore it is not open to public scrutiny. In December 2009 it received state approval to increase its borrowing limit. In the actual Oireachtas debate the minister responsible (Killeen) even said that it was a a private, commercial company:

"Coillte Teoranta is the national forestry company, established as a private commercial company under the Forestry Act 1988"
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=SEN20091217.XML&Node=699#N699

What other private company needs state approval to increase its borrowing limit? In 2003 the EU ruled that Coillte was not in fact a private commercial company but a public entity:

"In 2003, the European Court of Justice ruled against Coillte’s claim to be
paid €50 million of compensation grants, to which only farmers (using part of
their land for forest cultivation) were entitled. The ruling stated that Coillte
misrepresented itself as a “private-law legal entity”, whereas they were in fact a “public entity wholly owned and controlled by the State”. The pretence by Coillte that it is a private company has been echoed by the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Mary Coughlan.

Coillte has been falsely represented as a private company by the State for
a very good reason: so as to pretend to have a legal title to lands it does not, in fact, own. The forests of Ireland belong to the people of Ireland: this position has been established in law. Coillte’s statutory role is as a caretaker of the property of the people of Ireland. It has no legal entitlement to transfer the land in its care to private ownership, nor receive money in payment for it."
http://www.tara-foundation.org/documents/tfmjan07.pdf

Hopefully these nursing home proposals will finally establish that Coillte do not hold the rights not only to the land that they propose to privately sell but to those lands they have already sold.

Cunsiderthis

whatisayis wrote: »

...
Coillte has been falsely represented as a private company by the State for
a very good reason: so as to pretend to have a legal title to lands it does not, in fact, own. The forests of Ireland belong to the people of Ireland: this position has been established in law. Coillte’s statutory role is as a caretaker of the property of the people of Ireland. It has no legal entitlement to transfer the land in its care to private ownership, nor receive money in payment for it."

Hmmm. The forests of Ireland? I'm not sure if conifers, planted by Coillte to be largely used for the production od paper pulp, can really be considered the "forests of ireland" or that these trees, planted by coillte, can be considered the property of the people of ireland.

If you are thinking of taking a court case against Coillte, to either get an injunction to stop them selling this land, or stop them using the "forests of ireland (which they planted) for the purpose for which they were planted, or to stop them by other legal means, then I wish you luck.

I do not, however, hold out much hope for your chances of success, even though you seem convinced you are right and seem convinced that the position is established in law to back you up.

whatisayis

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Hmmm. The forests of Ireland? I'm not sure if conifers, planted by Coillte to be largely used for the production od paper pulp, can really be considered the "forests of ireland" or that these trees, planted by coillte, can be considered the property of the people of ireland.

If you are thinking of taking a court case against Coillte, to either get an injunction to stop them selling this land, or stop them using the "forests of ireland (which they planted) for the purpose for which they were planted, or to stop them by other legal means, then I wish you luck.

I do not, however, hold out much hope for your chances of success, even though you seem convinced you are right and seem convinced that the position is established in law to back you up.

It is not so much the forests, it is the land. I am not about to take a court case against coillte, the quote was from the save Tara website!

The point they are making is that the land Coillte are selling to private investors is not theirs to sell. It would be similar to you asking me to look after your house while you were on holiday and coming back to find I had sold it without your permission.

Cunsiderthis

whatisayis wrote: »

It is not so much the forests, it is the land. I am not about to take a court case against coillte, the quote was from the save Tara website!

The point they are making is that the land Coillte are selling to private investors is not theirs to sell. It would be similar to you asking me to look after your house while you were on holiday and coming back to find I had sold it without your permission.

It's not the same thing at all. If you sold my house, i would, presumably, be able to seek a remedy from the courts to force you to be accountable for your thievery, and seek restitution.

I assume you are not going to take a case against Coillte for selling what you say is/are not their asset(s), mainly because you are unsure of the outcome.

Sounds sensible to me that you should not do so, too.

whatisayis

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

It's not the same thing at all. If you sold my house, i would, presumably, be able to seek a remedy from the courts to force you to be accountable for your thievery, and seek restitution.

I assume you are not going to take a case against Coillte for selling what you say is/are not their asset(s), mainly because you are unsure of the outcome.

Sounds sensible to me that you should not do so, too.

But in the case of Coillte they are a state body who have been given custodianship, not ownership, of state land. The forestry Act entitles them to maintain and develop the land for community use. But they are claiming to be a private company who have legal right to sell that land for private use.

What makes you think I am going to take a case against Coillte? I am simply stating that those residents who are opposing the private sale of state land in Westport have a perfectly valid reason to object.

Cunsiderthis

whatisayis wrote: »

But in the case of Coillte they are a state body who have been given custodianship, not ownership, of state land. The forestry Act entitles them to maintain and develop the land for community use. But they are claiming to be a private company who have legal right to sell that land for private use.

What makes you think I am going to take a case against Coillte? I am simply stating that those residents who are opposing the private sale of state land in Westport have a perfectly valid reason to object.

Of course they have a perfect right to object. If Coillte has no title to the land that they wish to sell, (which is the definition of ownership) then it isn't clear how they are going to effect a sale of the land in question.

ISOT

The Coillte application for the Westport nursing home has been withdrawn "for a year" before the town council could make a decision on it.
As far as I am aware the four other applications have been withdrawn likewise.
If it is presented to Westport town council in a year's time it will involve a material contravention of the town plan this time as the woods has reverted to "woodland" in the new town development plan (which is now in force).
"woodland" in the new matrix does not allow for the development of a nursing home so I would imagine that is the last we will hear about this particular project.
Expensive adventure - 26k euro to Westport town council for the application and the architect fees as well.