Archive for the 'AONB’s' Category

Annual report to voters and constituents in every house in every village in Lecale

Dear Constituent,
I would like to wish you and your families a Happy New Year.

I am delivering my 8th annual report to every house in every village in Lecale this week to explain to you on how I have been representing your views on Down District Council and other agencies. I am the only local councillor to deliver an annual report to every house in Downpatrick.

Here is the electronic version Cadogan Enright Lecale Report January 2014

This newsletter can only be a summary my work for you over the last year. My website provides much more detail – see
 www.enright.ie  or search for ‘Cadogan Enright’ on Facebook where I post or log my activities as a councillor on a weekly basis.

Cllr Cadogan Enright

COMMUNITY SPACE AT QUAY IN STRANGFORD UNDER THREAT FROM DRD

Since sending in the press statement below, new Information has been obtained as to why DRD are attempting to cut the people of Strangford off from the only access they have to deep water on the Quay  click here to see all background information on this application 

PRESS STATEMENT.

L to R Brendan Kerr (Festival Committee), Cllr Cadogan Enright,   Dairmuid Riordan (Chair of Strangford Community Association), Frank Sadler and Brian Riordan , AT THE QUAY WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED

L to R Brendan Kerr (Festival Committee), Cllr Cadogan Enright, Dairmuid Riordan (Chair of Strangford Community Association), Frank Sadler and Brian Riordan , AT THE QUAY WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED

Cllr Cadogan Enright has hit out at DRD’s attempt to fence off New Quay in Strangford, following a meeting with members of the Villages community association.

Cllr Enright said “There appears to be a presumption in the application that DRD can ride roughshod over the long-standing use of the Quay by the community in Strangford with no explanation as to the purpose of preventing the community accessing the facilities at New Quay as they have done since time immemorial.”

Strangford Community Association Chair Diarmuid Riordan said “Planning applications require details of the proposed development, including purpose for which the land/buildings are to be used. The form states that ‘It is vital that a full and accurate description of the proposal is provided. Give as much detail as possible’. But no details are given other than a description of the ugly black fence. I.E. ‘New 1.8m high Ibex fence with new pedestrian on slipbolt gate and new pedestrian keypad gate.2no 3m wide vehicular access gates‘.”

Strangford Festival committee member Brenda Kerr said “This application is located at New Quay which is part of a designated Conservation Area. New Quay is shown in the Strangford Conservation Area Booklet published by the Department of the Environment in September 1985. It is manifestly obvious that this proposed development meets none of the mandatory criteria for developing in a conservation area. We are calling for local people to make themselves aware of what is proposed and consider objecting.”

Councillor Cadogan Enright agreed and said “Houses along Quay Road would be ‘hemmed in’ by such a development. This proposal is alien to residents in the village, and a damaging attack on the local Tourist industry. This proposed division of The Quay represents a loss to the community of Strangford and its visitors and tourists, a loss of which would be detrimental to the life and prosperity of the village.”

“Over the course of any weekend local people and tourists can be observed on New Quay fishing, picnicking, walking, sitting and viewing, photographing, painting, and accessing their boats. The current proposal is a heavy handed solution to an unknown problem, and is probably aimed at setting aside this part of the Quay as a secure compound for other uses than exist at present. Strong suspicions exist in Strangford that DRD is cooperating with interests that see benefit in a long-standing valuable community asset being converted to a private asset by stealth.” Concluded Cllr Enright.

Notes to Editor

Attached is a photograph of from the left Brendan Kerr (Strangford Festival Committee), Cllr Cadogan Enright,    Dairmuid Riordan (Chair of Strangford Community Association), Frank Sadler and Brian Riordan

For more information contact Cllr Enright on 07590462329

Contact chair of Strangford Community Association; Diarmuid Riordan 07816868019

Festival Committee Brendan Kerr 07863900138

Department policy on new development in a Conservation Area states ‘The Department will normally only permit development proposals for new buildings , alterations, extensions and changes of use in , or which impact on the setting of, a conservation area where ALL the following criteria are met:

(a) the development preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the area;

(b) the development is in sympathy with the characteristic built form of the area;

(c) the scale , form , materials and detailing of the development respects the characteristics of adjoining buildings in the area;

(d) the development does not result in environmental problems such as noise , nuisance or disturbance which would be detrimental to the particular character of the area;

(e) important views within , into and out of the area are protected;

(f) landscape features contributing to the character or appearance of the area are protected and conforms with the guidance set out in conservation area documents.

BACKGROUND INFO ON planning application R/2013/0252/F Fence at “The Quay”,Strangford.

FURTHER NOTES FROM 6th July 2013

click here to see why planning application is invalid and will have to be resubmitted  HOWEVER SINCE IT IS NOW CLEAR THAT THESE REGULATIONS DO NOT APPLY TO STRANGFORD QUAY AT ALL ANYWAY, IT WOULD SEEM LITTLE POINT IN RESUBMITTING IT.  SEE INFO FROM 27th june below

FURTHER NOTES FROM 27th June 2013

The regulations on which the 2 planning applications in Strangford and Portaferry are based say

4.‹(1) These Regulations apply to‹
(a)    the following types of United Kingdom ships and non-United Kingdom ships in United Kingdom waters when engaged on international voyages, and their companies:(i) passenger ships including high speed craft which carry more than 12 passengers; (ii) cargo ships, including high speed craft, of 500 gross tonnage and upwards;
(iii) mobile offshore drilling units; ( could the turbine be included here?)(b)    Class A passenger ships operating domestic services within United Kingdom waters and their companies;(c)    the following port facilities‹
(i) port facilities serving the ships specified in paragraph (1)(a);
and
(ii) port facilities serving ships specified in paragraph (1)(b).(2) These Regulations do not apply to ‹
(a)    ships of war and troop ships;
(b)    cargo ships of less than 500 gross tonnage;
(c)    ships not propelled by mechanical means;
(d)    wooden ships of primitive build;
(e)    pleasure yachts not engaged in trade;
(f)    fishing vessels; and
(g)    vessels not engaged in commercial activities.

The only likely vessels that these regulations would have applied to in recent years are The Hebridean Princess (2100 Tons) and one last year which was smaller. Both anchored in Audleys Roads and discharged passengers via tender to Portaferry. If these passengers wanted to visit Strangford then they went by DOE ferry. At no time does any vessel tie up in Strangford. The one exception may be the the Fishery Protection /Survey vessel which tied up at the pontoon ( Presumably on Govt Business).It didn’t have more than 12 passengers  – only crew.
The other vessel is the Irish Lights vessel Granuelle which also anchors in Audleys.

The place for this Restricted Area is therefore Portaferry – not Strangford.

Murray’s boat the St. Brendan picks up passengers in Strangford at the steps. and Clear Skies picks up as well in a large rib but probably less than 12 passengers.

It seems to me that none of the designated vessel types could tie up in Strangford.

 

FROM CLLR CADOGAN ENRIGHT 25/06/2013

NOTE THAT CLIFFORD AND I WE HAVE NOW DONE RESEARCH ON THE REGULATIONS WHICH SUPPOSEDLY UNDERLY THE PLANNING APPLICATION (see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/1495/pdfs/uksi_20041495_en.pdf )

The Harbour Master tells me that there is a second application in Portaferry for the same thing. Based on the regulations which date from 2004/5. After reviewing the regulations we see that they say that the following vessels are exempt.

(2) These Regulations do not apply to —
(a)    ships of war and troop ships;
(b)    cargo ships of less than 500 gross tonnage;
(c)    ships not propelled by mechanical means; (
d)    wooden ships of primitive build; (
e)    pleasure yachts not engaged in trade;
(f)    fishing vessels; and
(g)    vessels not engaged in commercial activities.

It is clear that these regulations apply to Strangford – there is therefore no basis for the planning application in Strangford – only Portaferry could be affected.

Harbour Masters is a capable local man who cares for the community.

Following some research and have discovered that the application is alleged to have been ‘forced’ on the local harbour master  by civil servants from London on the basis that there are 6 foreign boats a year on average that would need to be checked in Portaferry/Stranford that want to come a shore and do some tourism.

Apparently they are training the Harbour Master to figure out which are the terrorists and which are not and how to search boats and interview people who show up to be vetted in these enclosures  (seriously!)

I contend that they dont need 2 fenced off areas for the passengers of 6 visiting boats per annum with one in Portaferry and one in Strangford- one would do and the regulations do not apply to boats who dock in Strangford anyway.

Both ports are operated as a single port. There is only one harbour master for Portaferry and Strangford. We don’t need two holding areas as the Harbour Master can’t be in two ports at the one time. There are only six boats in total a year.

The secure area in Portaferry leaves loads of room for locals as it is well down the quay and will not inconvenience local people, but there is no space for a second one in Strangford. The one in Strangford blocks everything from fishing to launching small boats.

This is just silly bureaucracy masquerading as anti terrorism legislation. If there were really terrorists of bad guys, they would not be advising the Harbour Master of their arrival anyway.

Cllr Cadogan Enright, 07590462329

ps I am sorely tempted to run off a leaflet with a map on the back of it and tell people how to object – there are only 300 houses in Strangford – but need guideance from residents association – please advise

Letter of objection by Strangford Residents Association to planning application no R/2013/0252/F 12 ,The Quay , Strangford. Prepared by Clifford McClenaghan of  The  Bridge Studio 6 Kildare Street Strangford

 

INTRODUCTION

THE APPLICATION is made in ignorance of the real significance of Conservation Areas and  the protection of Listed Buildings, which is of course conserving  structures and built up areas as a record of Architectural and Historic significance; of artisanal and traditional building practices, of the buildings themselves, for the enjoyment of today’s and future  generations. This ‘enjoyment’  is not just of that visual but superficial nature;  rather, it  is much more profound, extending to understanding of historic, cultural and social trends, the development of technical capabilities  and forming the cornerstone of many educational programmes , all often referred to as ‘heritage’.

It is, important to bear in mind the fundamental aims and objectives (above) of the  Building Conservation.   One hopes that in its deliberations the Department remains alert to these aspects.

 

1.00 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES

 

1.01 The location of the application is known as the New Quay, as outlined in the Strangford Conservation Area Booklet ( DOE NI September 1985).

It falls within the designated Conservation Area.

 

Article 50 (5) of the Planning (NI) Order 1991 requires that new development in a Conservation Area will ‘preserve or enhance’ the character and appearance of the area and at the very least do ‘no harm’.

 

1.02 PPS 6 Policy BH 11 – Development affecting the setting of a Listed Building states

‘The Department will not normally permit development which would adversely affect the setting of a Listed Building. Development proposals will normally only be considered appropriate where ALL the following criteria are met:

(a) the detailed design respects the listed building in terms of scale, height, massing and alignment;

(b) the works proposed make use of traditional or sympathetic building materials and techniques which respect those found on the building; and

(c) the nature of the proposed use respects the character of the setting of the building.

At 6.28 of Policy BH 11 it is noted

Where a listed building has no ancillary land , for example in a town or village street, its setting may include a number of other properties or even the whole street’

Which is the case here.

At 6.29 of Policy BH 11 it is noted

‘Development proposals some distance from the site of a listed building can sometimes have an adverse effect on its setting e.g. where it would affect views of an historic skyline…’

Which is the case here.

And it is not one listed building but a complete terrace.

This terrace is the iconic view of Strangford.

So much so that this view appears in the Strangford Conservation Area Booklet , 1985 .

1.03 PPS 6 Policy BH 12 – New Development in a Conservation Area states

‘The Department will normally only permit development proposals for new buildings , alterations, extensions and changes of use in , or which impact on the setting of, a conservation area where ALL the following criteria are met:

 

(a) the development preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the area;

(b) the development is in sympathy with the characteristic built form of the area;

(c) the scale , form , materials and detailing of the development respects the characteristics of adjoining buildings in the area;

(d) the development does not result in environmental problems such as noise , nuisance or disturbance which would be detrimental to the particular character of the area;

(e) important views within , into and out of the area are protected;

(f) trees and other landscape features contributing to the character or appearance of the area are protected; and

(g) the development conforms with the guidance set out in conservation area documents.

 

2.00 THE PROPOSAL

2.01 New 1.8m high Ibex fence with new pedestrian on slipbolt gate and new pedestrian keypad gate.2no 3m wide vehicular access gates. At no place in the application are we informed as to the purpose of this fence!

The separation of the quay by this fence into 2 distinct areas calls into question the use to which the cordoned off area will be put. This use is material to the application and in fact is so important to determining the need for (and thus the permission for) such a fence that the application should not be validated. Ques.7. on the P1 Application form,

says

“Please give details of the proposed development, including purpose for which the land/buildings are to be used. ( It is vital that a full and accurate description of the proposal is provided. Give as much detail as possible…… )” The description provided does not in any remote fashion comply with this requirement,

viz;

New 1.8m high Ibex fence with new pedestrian on slipbolt gate and new pedestrian keypad gate.2no 3m wide vehicular access gates.

The division of The New Quay represents a loss to the community of Strangford and its visitors and tourists.

Numerous activities take place on this quay, the loss of which would be  detrimental to the life and prosperity of the village.

 

Fishing

Fishing

Fishing

Picnicking

Walking

Sitting

Viewing

Photography

 

Painting

Painting

Painting

Boating

Access for sailors

Boat Trips by Murray from Portaferry

Clear skies Outdoor Pursuits

to name but a few.

 

2.02 The drawings

as submitted do not meet the requirements of The Planning Service Form P1 Checklist, in that they do not provide existing and proposed elevations, levels etc, which are critical to the context of this proposal in the village setting in relation to the listed terrace in Castle Street. The impact of this fence is deliberately obscured by the lack of such information. The small typical details of the fence do not show how impenetrable this fence will be in relation to views through it , in and out of the Conservation Area.

 

In 6.32 of Policy BH 11 it is noted

Where it is considered that a development proposal may affect the setting of a listed building the Department will normally require the submission of detailed drawings which illustrate the relationship between the proposal and the listed building.’

The current  drawings are deficient in that they show nothing of the surrounding context, and its relation to the listed buildings and show no detail whatsoever.

A new P1 form needs to be completed accurately along with realistic elevations.

 

 

2.03

This proposal affects‘the setting’ ( as outlined in PPS 6 Policy BH 11 – Development affecting the setting of a Listed Building ).

The proposal should reflect the surrounding environment and be in compliance with the Strangford Conservation Area Booklet , 1985 and with the criteria (a) to (g) listed in Policy BH12 of PPS6, as outlined in (1.02) above.

(a) the development preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the area;

The development would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the existing Conservation Area as it provides a visual barrier both from the seaward and landward sides, obscuring the views in and out of the Conservation Area.

(b) the development is in sympathy with the characteristic built form of the area;

The development is not in sympathy with the characteristic built form of the area in that it is there is no endemic example of such a modern metal fence in the Conservation Area .

(c) the scale , form , materials and detailing of the development respects the characteristics of adjoining buildings in the area;

The scale of the proposed fence would not respect the characteristics of adjoining buildings in the area. It is a visual obstruction.

 

(i) Size, height and scale

In the Strangford Conservation Area Booklet 4.4 ‘ It is the Departments’ policy that any development is in keeping with the design and scale of the area and particularly adjoining properties.’

Existing gates /fences , railings in the area are not 1.8m high.

(ii) Materials

The material which all metal work within the Conservation Area should constructed from is  Cast Iron painted black.

 

(d) the development does not result in environmental problems such as noise , nuisance or disturbance which would be detrimental to the particular character of the area;

The development will result in environmental problems such as noise nuisance – that of banging gates – present at the current pontoon.

 

(e) important views within , into and out of the area are protected;

The views into and out of the area will not be protected

The views affected by this proposal are

 

(i)   from the quay looking NW towards compass Hill (into) 

from the quay looking NW towards compass Hill

from the quay looking NW towards compass Hill

Existing  (Photo taken from the ferry)

Proposed (showing the app height of the fence and how it obscures The view)

Proposed (showing the app height of the fence and how it obscures the view)

Proposed (showing the app height of the fence and how it obscures the view)

(ii)  from The New Quay looking E to the lough (out of )

from The New Quay looking E to the lough (out of )

from The New Quay looking E to the lough (out of )

Existing   (Photo taken from The New Quay at average eye level)

 

Proposed (showing the approx height of the fence but not The mesh which will obscure the view)

 

Proposed (showing the approx height of the fence but not The mesh which will obscure the view)

Proposed (showing the approx height of the fence but not The mesh which will obscure the view)

 

(iii) from The New Quay and steps

Portaferry  to Bankmore on the eastern side of Strangford Lough (out of) .

 from The New Quay and steps Portaferry  to Bankmore on the eastern side of Strangford Lough (out of) .

from The New Quay and steps Portaferry to Bankmore on the eastern side of Strangford Lough (out of

Existing   (Photo taken from the quay)

 

Proposed (showing the approx height of the fence but not the mesh which obscures the view)

 

Proposed (showing the approx height of the fence but not the mesh which obscures the view)

Proposed (showing the approx height of the fence but not the mesh which obscures the view)

As the viewpoint changes then the visual impact on other parts of the listed Castle Street terrace is affected.

This is one of the most picturesque views that the public has from Strangford across the Narrows to Portaferry. This view which has existed in its present form since the early 1800s will be completely destroyed  if this proposal is granted.                                                                                                                                                                                          

(f) trees and other landscape features contributing to the character or appearance of the area are protected;  There are no trees.

(g) the development conforms with the guidance set out in conservation area documents.

the development does not conform with the guidance set out in conservation area document.

The design details  (i)-(ii) in (c) above comply with the guidance set out in the Strangford Conservation Area document.

 

4.00 CONCLUSION

4.01 The current proposal is a heavy handed solution to what one discerns to be a security problem or the setting aside of a secure compound for other uses than exist at present.

4.02  Adverse effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the residential amenity of neighbouring owners

The amenity of all residents should be protected from  unneighbourly developments

(i) the current proposal does not enhance the character of the area.

 

(ii) the current proposal affects‘the setting’ of the listed building terrace along Castle Street from Nos 41-49. And is detrimental to the Conservation Area.

 

4.03  Visual impact of the development

(iii) the current proposal would not preserve or enhance the character

and appearance of the Conservation Area.

4.04  Character of the neighbourhood

(iv) the current proposal is not in keeping with the design and scale of the area.

(v) the materials and detailing of the development do not respect the characteristics of adjoining buildings in the area; in as much as they do not use materials in keeping with those used in the Conservation Area.

 

4.05  Overdevelopment of the site

the current proposal results overdevelopment of the site, in that there is a loss of public open space . now to be used for other purposes.

4.06 The loss of existing views from neighbouring properties would adversely affect the residential amenity of neighbouring owners

(viii) The views into and out of the area will not be protected

4.07 Adverse effect of the development on the setting of the Listed Buildings

(ix) the development does not conform with the guidance set out in the conservation area document.

 

4.08 Dominance

Dominance is the extent to which a new development adversely impinges on the immediate aspect or outlook from an adjoining property. Neighbouring occupiers should not be adversely affected  by a sense of being ‘hemmed in’ by such a development. This proposal is the epitome of siege mentality and the imposition of an alien form on those living in the village. Even President Obama has called for the removal of fences and barriers.

 

4.09

If the principle of such a fence was to be established as being advantageous for the Conservation Area and the village and its inhabitants in general , then at the very least , it should be constructed of materials which would have minimal visual impact. i.e  GLASS.

Then there would be no greater impact on the views into and out of the Conservation Area.

Coney Island typifies lost opportunities at new Ardglass sewerage plant

Councillor Cadogan Enright has encouraged residents from Killough, Coney Island, Chapel Town and Ballyhornan areas to go to the consultation on the new Ardglass sewerage works in Ardglass Golf Club this Friday morning 12th April at 11am.

Tom Conaty, Cllr Cadogan Enright and Declan Clarke in Coney Island

Tom Conaty, Cllr Cadogan Enright and Declan Clarke in Coney Island

Cllr Enright pointed out that “Whilst welcoming the new proposed new facility in Ardglass, the comprehensive scheme recently introduced in North Down and Ards area makes the new Ardglass scheme look feeble. Sewerage no longer flows to the sea from towns in in North Down. Our area is far more dependent on the Tourism industry than North Down, but we are left with a slew of Lecale towns and villages with no proper treatment works. This scheme can only be described as the short end of the stick.”

Following representations from residents in Ballyhornan and Coney Island, I contacted NIWater last month, and project manager Ciaran Grant finally came back to me last Tuesday to confirm that the new plant at Ardtole is being built to handle Ardglass only, with its related fishing industry. There will NOT be additional capacity to handle areas around Coney Island, Killough and the Ballyhornan, Bishops Court and Chapeltown. However It is being constructed in such a way as to allow the 5 other villages be added later – but there are no plans to do this anytime soon”.

Coney Island resident Declan Clarke pointed out that “for years past now, when it rains of the Killough / Ardglass road, our sewerage system overflows onto Coney Island Road. The Coney Island system should be added to the Ardglass scheme. We have every right to expect the same treatment as North Down.”

Ballyhornan resident Barry Mervyn said, “NI Water is constructing a new wastewater ‘preliminary’  screening plant at the bottom of Killard Drive in Ballyhornan. The solid waste will then be trucked to landfill.  While this is a small improvement, it is only a ‘preliminary screening’ facility – falling below even Primary treatment. This is only masking the problem, papering over the cracks. Raw sewerage is still effectively flowing into our waters. The proposal to pump waste to the Ardglass plant appears to have slipped off NIWater’s radar. We expect the same level of environmental protection as North Down.”

Cllr Cadogan Enright said “Local people have been expecting the waste from their villages to be piped to the new sewerage facility for some years, but this will not yet be the case. We need to make our dissatisfaction clear and demand to know when the other areas are to be covered. I will be representing residents in Coney Island as well as the Ballyhornan Task Force at the meeting, and would encourage others from Killough to Killard to come along and represent their areas, or contact me or other elected representatives with their concerns in this matter” concluded Cllr Cadogan Enright

Letter to Minister Attwood June 2013

Dear Minister Attwood,

Welcome once again to Down District Council, and wishing you well with your ongoing work as Minister of the Environment.

When we met two years ago in Stormont, I raised with you to the 4 years of delays in implementing bye-laws for Tyrella Beach, Minerstown and the Newcastle Promenade and Seashore by your local Government Division.

You were surprised that this was still an issue then – hopefully you will be even more surprised now and will issue instructions for them to end their delaying tactics in these matters

I would like to alert you to three serious errors in the process that the Department takes to enabling bye-law to be implemented by Councils around NI that differs from other jurisdictions;

  1. Bye-laws are not regarded as routine – each one spawns days and months of expensive legal advice – which in our case has now reached its sixth year.
  2. In other jurisdictions standard bye-laws can be down-loaded by a local authority and amended with names and appended with maps as appropriate and sent for consultation – it is not a complicated process.
  3. In other jurisdictions bye-laws summarise what you can and cannot do (for instance) on a specific beach) and the regulations are clear to both the public and to the Council, Department and Police personnel implementing them.  In your Department the officials have wasted months and years pouring though bog-standard bye-laws and taken out any reference to any item that is covered by another law no matter how obscure – leaving the scope of enablements and prohibitions unclear. If they need to waste their time in this manner, they should simply use their time to append the appropriate laws that also support the bye-laws in dealing comprehensively with all relevant matters in a clear manner at that location.

I hope you will find that my comments are constructive and appreciate that they are aimed at better customer service by the Department, value for money from your officials, and ultimately giving councils the ability to turn around a bye-law for consultation in weeks or months rather than years.

 

Yours sincerely,

Cllr Cadogan Enright

Downpatrick

07590462329

CLEANING UP THE LECALE COAST

Cllr Cadogan Enright at the Marine Reserve in Sheeplands on the Lecale Coast

Cllr Cadogan Enright at the Marine Reserve in Sheeplands on the Lecale Coast

Councillor Cadogan Enright who represents that Lecale Coast and Downpatrick Electoral area has welcomed todays announcement that Northern Ireland Water is finally proposing to undertake a £2.5 million programme of work to upgrade Ardglass Wastewater as part of its capital projects programme.

Councillor Enright said, “the delays in this project have damaged tourism in Ardglass and left waters off Ballyhornan in a deplorable state. The non-availability of sewage systems have prevented normal development of towns and villages along the Lecale Coast.”

“The two main causes of concern are the sewage works at Ardtole on the outskirts of Ardglass on the Western end of the Sheepland Road, and the discharge at Gunns Island off Ballyhornan  at the other end of the Sheepland Area Special Scientific Interest. Both these discharge effluent, that is illegal under EU law, into our local Marine Reserve.” Pointed out Cllr Cadogan Enright.

The Ardtole Treatment Works is located off the Sheepland Road on the outskirts of Ardglass village. Following the recent successful procurement of lands and completion of  assessment, the contract for the project has now been awarded and work is due to start on site in mid-April. Ahead of project commencement, an informal presentation will be made on the project by NI Water is carrying out on Friday 22nd at 11am in Ardglass Golf Club.

“I intend to be at the presentation both to support the project as vital to the future of Ardglass. But I will also attend as a member of the Ballyhornan Task Force to ensure that the piping of waste from Ballyhornan and Chapeltown is included in this project as we have been previously promised. This is an opportunity to clean up our water from Coney Island all the way up to Killard Point” concluded Cllr Cadogan Enright

NATIONAL PARK – letter to Editor at Mourne Observer 5/9/12

Sir,

The issues raised by the opponents to a National Park at the rally in Newcastle last week are not new, and were encapsulated in my detailed submission on the National Park back in 2006. The original Park proposal ignored the lessons of miss-managed Park projects like North Wales and the danger of negative impacts on normal rural development and so forth. (see www.enright.ie/policies/attachment/download-our-submission-on-the-national-park)

While I highlighted these dangers, I also put forward solutions, many of which were adopted in the final report via my predecessor on council Bill Corry who was on the parks working group. Any remaining issues can easily be dealt with given the premise of local democratic control over the Park.

The opportunity for local democratic control was enhanced last week by the publication of the new Electoral Boundaries for the New Down and Newry and Mourne Super-Council. This announcement reflected my submission seeking the transfer of Ballyward, Leitrim and Finnis into the new council are to ensure that the entire National Park will fall within one council area, potentially bound by local planning policy set by the new council.

Having a Parks Authority under the new Super Council would avoid unelected bureaucrats over-ruling our local elected representatives on policy in the park, and would allow the new council-based planning system to set the rules for development in the parks area.

I believe that having the National Park run by a sub-committee of the new Council along with local community and farming representatives would avoid the dangers posed by external rule by a quango or by the Department of the Environment. We may also need representatives from Louth Council, as the Park should include the Cooleys.

Most of the other concerns are of a simple practical nature like insurance for visitors on the land, compensation for maintaining the environment of the park and other details all of which have had solutions identified already.

The President of the Newcastle Chamber of Commerce did not get a fair hearing at the meeting last week. Audrey Byrne speaks for all 7 Chambers of Commerce across South Down who have a joint manifesto on this issue. They represent 670 mostly indigenous small to medium sized enterprises, owned locally and with deep roots in the Mourne area. A National Park would be a local asset generating thousands of local jobs that could not me moved at the whim of a multinational company.

The Killarney National Park area on its own has more tourists than the whole of Northern Ireland put together, this is an opportunity we cannot miss.

 

Cllr Cadogan Enright, Down Council

 

John Peacock and Cllr Cadogan Enright at Tyrella

Newcastle Promendade bye-laws wreaked by Department of Environment

Cllr Enright has slammed as “insane bureaucracy” at the Department of the Environment over 5 years that has resulted in Newcastle’s Promenade Bye-laws and bye-laws at Tyrella and Murlough being incorrectly struck down, damaging Down Councils ability to manage these facilities.

Cadogan Enright said, “Council management in 2008, prepared draft bye-laws for Minerstown beach. It should have been a routine approval by the Department of the Environment by January 2009. But almost a year and a half later in August of 2009 lawyers for the Department advised the Council that they did not have the right to make bye-laws and thus bye-laws for Newcastle Promenade and even the Tyrella blue-flag beach were effectively being struck down.”

“Although we did not agree with this assessment by the Departments legal team, Down Council’s own legal officer moved rapidly to have the ‘vires’ of the council altered to allow the council to issue bye-laws. A year and a half of further delays ensued as civil servants failed to deliver the order to the Minister for his signature. Finally, local Environmentalists from Killough, Minerstown, Lecale Conservation and myself visited Minister Poots in his office in Belfast and the Minster gave an assurance that there would be no further delays, and within a few months the order was signed in January of 2010.”

“Everyone then assumed that given the importance of the Tourist Trade to Down District, the Department would not dally any further with helping the Council restore bye-laws to vital areas like Tyrella, Murlough, Newcastle as well as protect wildlife in Minerstown. But we were wrong. ” Said Cadogan.

“The Department has now exceeded its previous excess of bureaucracy with a new wave of unnecessary and sometimes down-right ridiculous queries that would prompt me to nominate those involved for the ‘bungler of the year award’ if such an award existed. Council officers have been frustrated in their efforts to restore bye-laws to Down District.”

Cllr Enright said “As this saga is now in its fifth year, so I have finally asked council staff to list the often ridiculous queries they have had to deal with from the department.”

Cllr Enright said, “I have published these on my web-site (http://enright.ie/press-releases/4077) and am meeting Minister Attwood at 4pm this Monday 26th, to show the extent of incompetence of the Department in dealing with a such a routine issue as a local Council trying to create a bye-law.”

“I have no idea if this incompetency could lose Tyrella its blue-flag status, but this incompetency is damaging the councils ability to deliver services and support Tourism across the district.” Concluded Cllr Cadogan Enright.

Via Flickr:
‘Bureaucracy gone mad’ Damages tyrella beach bye-laws says cllr enright

Economic Vandalism by Dept Environment at Newcastle Promenade

Bye-Laws debacle

Dept of Environment allow bureaucracy to damage Tourism

Cllr Enright has slammed as “insane bureaucracy” at the Department of the Environment over 5 years that has resulted in Newcastle’s Promenade Bye-laws and bye-laws at Tyrella and Murlough being incorrectly struck down, damaging Down Councils ability to manage these facilities.

Cadogan Enright said, “Council management in 2008, prepared draft bye-laws for Minerstown beach. It should have been a routine approval by the Department of the Environment by January 2009. But almost a year and a half later in August of 2009 lawyers for the Department advised the Council that they did not have the right to make bye-laws and thus bye-laws for Newcastle Promenade and even the Tyrella blue-flag beach were effectively being struck down.”

“Although we did not agree with this assessment by the Departments legal team, Down Council’s own legal officer moved rapidly to have the ‘vires’ of the council altered to allow the council to issue bye-laws. A year and a half of further delays ensued as civil servants failed to deliver the order to the Minister for his signature. Finally, local Environmentalists from Killough, Minerstown, Lecale Conservation and myself visited Minister Poots in his office in Belfast and the Minster gave an assurance that there would be no further delays, and within a few months the order was signed in January of 2010.”

“Everyone then assumed that given the importance of the Tourist Trade to Down District, the Department would not dally any further with helping the Council restore bye-laws to vital areas like Tyrella, Murlough, Newcastle as well as protect wildlife in Minerstown. But we were wrong. ” Said Cadogan.

“The Department has now exceeded its previous excess of bureaucracy with a new wave of unnecessary and sometimes down-right ridiculous queries that would prompt me to nominate those involved for the ‘bungler of the year award’ if such an award existed. Council officers have been frustrated in their efforts to restore bye-laws to Down District.”

Cllr Enright said “As this saga is now in its fifth year, so I have finally asked council staff to list the often ridiculous queries they have had to deal with from the department.”

Cllr Enright said, “I have published these on my web-site (http://enright.ie/press-releases/4077) and am meeting Minister Attwood at 4pm this Monday 26th, to show the extent of incompetence of the Department in dealing with a such a routine issue as a local Council trying to create a bye-law.”

“I have no idea if this incompetency could lose Tyrella its blue-flag status, but this incompetency is damaging the councils ability to deliver services and support Tourism across the district.” Concluded Cllr Cadogan Enright.

Dept of Environment Disgraced by Bureaucracy

 

CLLR CADOGAN ENRIGHT SLAMS ‘BUREAUCRACY GONE MAD’ AT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT

Cllr Cadogan Enright with Lecale Conservation Chair John Peacocke

Cllr Cadogan Enright with Lecale Conservation Chair John Peacocke

Cllr Enright has been campaigning since early 2008 on behalf of local people in the Minerstown area to introduce beach bye-laws to protect the seal colony and shore-nesting birds during the breeding season. His motion was supported by all other parties and he assisted Lecale Conservation and local residents make a presentation to Council Management of the severe problems being encountered due to lack of protection.

Cadogan Enright said, “Council management moved rapidly in May 2008, to prepare draft bye-laws for internal consultation, and sent an amended  draft bye-laws of the bye-laws for inspection by legal services as early as November of 2008. It should have been a routine approval by the Department of the Environment by January 2009.  But almost a year and a half later in August of 2009 lawyers for the Department advised the Council that they did not have the right to make bye-laws and thus bye-laws for Newcastle Promenade and even the Tyrella blue-flag beach were effectively being struck down.”

“Although we did not agree with this assessment by the Departments legal team, Down Council’s own legal officer moved rapidly to have the ‘vires’ of the council altered to allow the council to issue bye-laws, but a year and a half of delays ensued as civil servants failed to deliver the order to the Minister for his signature. Finally, local Environmentalists from Killough, Minerstown, Lecale Conservation and myself visited Minister Poots in his office in Belfast and the Minster gave an assurance that there would be no further delays, and within a few months the order was signed in January of 2010.”

“Everyone then assumed that given the importance of the Tourist Trade to Down District, the Department would not dally any further  with helping the Council restore bye-laws to vital areas like Tyrella, Murlough, Newcastle as well as protect wildlife in Minerstown. But we were wrong. ” Said Cadogan.

“The Department has now exceeded its previous excess of bureaucracy with a new wave of unnecessary and sometimes down-right ridiculous queries that would prompt me to nominate those involved for the ‘bungler of the year award’ if such an award existed. Council officers have been frustrated in their efforts to restore bye-laws to Down District.”

Cllr Enright said “As this saga is now four years long, and because Down District could be seriously embarrassed by the Department preventing it from bringing in bye-laws for areas we are responsible, I have finally asked council staff under FoI to list the often rediculous queries they have had to deal with from the department.”

Cllr Enright said, “I intend to publish these on my web-site and refer them to Minister Attwood, to show the extent of incompetence of the Department in dealing with a such a routine issue as a local Council trying to create a bye-law.”

“All this time the problems on the beach became worse and in 2010 50% of all seal pups that had to be rescued in Northern Ireland came from the Minerstown / Bannykinlar coastal area, primarily due to distrbance by visitors to the beach who were unaware of the impact of interfering with the seals when nursing their young. I have no idea if this incompetency could lose Tyrella its blue-flag status, but this incompetency is damaging the councils ability to deliver services and support Tourism across the district.” Concluded Cllr Cadogan Enright.

SEE BELOW FOR HISTORY OF BUREAUCRACY 

22 May 2008 Draft Bye-laws forwarded to Legal Services.
28 November 2008 Amended Draft Bye-laws returned to Council from Legal Services.
12 January 2009 Following period of internal consultation draft Bye-laws returned to Legal Services.
11 February 2009 Council’s Solicitor advised that draft Bye-laws had been forwarded to the Department for consideration.
13 August 2009 Department advised that in order to have jurisdiction to make Bye-laws for the Seashore and Newcastle Promenade an order had to be made to extend Sections 82 and 83 of the Public Health Acts (Amendment) Act 1907 to the District.This meant that the existing Bye-laws dated16 February 1998forNewcastleand Tyrella Beaches had never been valid.
8 October 2009 Following public advertisement by the Council the Council’s Solicitor was asked to apply to the Department to have the legislation extended to the District.
22 October 2009 The Council’s Solicitor confirmed that the application to the Department had been made.
25 January 2010 Following several reminders to the Council’s Solicitor regarding the application she wrote to the Department pressing for a response.
22 January 2010 The Department advised that papers seeking Ministerial consent had been drafted and would be forwarded to the Departmental Solicitor for approval.
8 March 2010 Council’s Solicitor wrote to advise she was still awaiting a response from the Department.
19 March 2010 Department advised that papers had been sent to Departmental Solicitor on 8 February 2010, were acknowledged 15 July 2010 but it would be up to 6 weeks before the matter could be dealt with.
6 May 2010 Department advised that a response had been received from the Departmental Solicitor and the Council would be advised of the comments shortly.
26 June 2010 Meeting held with Council’s Solicitor regarding outstanding queries on the Bye-law and letter confirming queries forwarded22 June 2010.
23 June 2010 Following reminders on the matter the Department advised that amendments had been made to the papers and a further draft was with senior management for approval before re-issue to the Departmental Solicitor for final clearance.  It was hoped the Order would be in place around September 2010.
9 July 2010 Letter regarding outstanding queries sent to Department from Council’s Solicitor.
9 July 2010 Letter regarding further queriesreceived from Council’s Solicitor.
5 August 2010 Response forwarded to Council’s Solicitor 5 August 2010.
6 September 2010 Response forwarded to Department from Council’s Solicitor.
7 October 2010 Letter from Edwin Poots, Minister of the Environment, advising that the final draft Order would be agreed shortly and be in place by the end of October.
13 January 2011 Order confirmed as made to come into operation4 February 2011.
8 February 2011 Letter received from Council’s Solicitor confirming enabling legislation had been made and that we were in a position to move forward with the Bye-laws.
10 February 2011 Most recent set of Bye-laws received from Council’s Solicitor with queries over the map attached to the Bye-laws.
7 March 2011 Letter received from Council’s Solicitor enclosing amended draft Bye-lawsreflecting comments made by the Department.
11 March 2011 Revised map forwarded to Council’s Solicitor.
14 March 2011 Council’s Solicitor confirmed the map to be in order.
23 March 2011 Council’s Solicitor asked to confirm that the Bye-laws could go for public consultation.
12 April 2011 Revised Bye-laws received from Council’s Solicitor.
24 May 2011 Letter forwarded to Council’s Solicitor asking that the Department be pressed that the Council could move to public consultation on the draft Bye-laws.
26 May 2011 Letter received from Council’s Solicitor outlining the process for making the Bye-laws.
29 June 2011 Letter received from Council’s Solicitor as to why Bye-laws for Minerstown andMurloughBeacheswere not included within those forNewcastleBeachand Promenade.
7 June 2011 Council’s Solicitor requested to forward Bye-laws dated16 February 1998to Department.
15 July 2011 Substantive issues responded to via letter to Council’s Solicitor.
15 July 2011 Letter issued to Council’s Solicitor expressing frustration at Department’s approach to “composite” Bye-laws and suggesting a meeting to discuss.
25 July 2011 Email received from Department as to why the Murlough andMinerstownBeachBye-laws were not covered under those relating to Newcastle Seashore and Promenade.
25 July 2011 Response issued from Council advising that each facility had its own requirements and a “generic set” of Bye-laws would make confusing reading for the public.
31 August 2011 Email forwarded to Council’s Solicitor regarding the need for individual Bye-laws to take account of the needs of individual facilities.
5 September 2011 Email forwarded to Council’s Solicitor advising that Bye-laws were to be kept “facility specific”.
7 September 2011 Copy letter received from Council’s Solicitor asking that the Department approve the draft Bye-laws forNewcastleBeachand Promenade.
5 September 2011 Council advised its Solicitor that the point regarding existing Bye-laws was reclindent  as the enabling legislation had not been in place therefore they were redundant.
12 October 2011 Email forwarded to Council’s Solicitor that in order to go to public consultation on the draft Bye-laws.
12 October 2011 Onward email confirmed from Council’s Solicitor that in order to go to public consultation.
15 October 2011 Email received from Council’s Solicitor asking Council to hold off on public consultation until a response is received from the Department.
4 November 2011 Letter from Council’s Solicitor regarding further comments from Department.
10 November 2011 Further letter sent to Council’s Solicitor on above point and requesting that the Development urgently confirm it was in order to go to public consultation.
10 November 2011 Letter sent to Council’s Solicitor regarding outstanding issues.
12 December 2011 Reminder letter to Council Solicitor regarding current position.
19 December 2011 Letter received from Council’s Solicitor copying correspondence to Department regarding why we can’t move to public consultation.
19 December 2011 Letter received from Council’s Solicitor raising further substantive comments from Department.
4 January 2012 All substantive issues responded to via letter to Council’s Solicitor.

 

27 March 2013 

 

Email from Council’s Solicitor enclosing draft letter to DOE LGPD and amended draft Byelaws for approval. 
14 April 2013

 

Email to Council’s Solicitor confirming further amendment and approval to proceed on basis of revised draft.
25 April 2013

 

 

 

Copy letter received from Council’s Solicitor to DOE LGPD forwarding amended draft Byelaws and asking for final approval.

 

17 May 2013  Email from DOE LGPD requesting copy of 1998 byelaws. 
22 May 2013  Copy of 1998 Byelaws forwarded to Council’s Solicitor. 
7 June 2013 

 

 

Letter forwarded to Minister for the Environment asking that he review the current process for making Byelaws with a view to making it more efficient and effective. 
14 June 2013  Acknowledgement letter received from DOE Private Office. 
29 June 2013 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Letter received from Minister advising that his Department intended to review and if necessary, amend the procedures for confirmation of Byelaws by 31 December 2013.   He had also asked officials in his Department to meet with Council Officers at the earliest opportunity in order to move towards a successful conclusion in moving the outstanding Byelaw applications forward.
18 July 2013 

 

 

Email received from DOE official in relation to a meeting – officer due to go on leave from beginning of August until the 20th.
30 July 2013 

 

 

 

Letter from DOE advising that the Department had instructed its legal side to give immediate priority to addressing the outstanding issues for the Byelaw applications for Newcastle, Minerstown and Murlough.
1 August 2013  Response to DOE seeking dates for meeting. 
2 August 2013 

 

Email from DOE advising of dates and confirming current position with outstanding Byelaw applications. 
12 August 2013 

 

Item on Council Agenda seeking clarification as to who should attend a meeting with DOE officials. 
14 August 2013 

 

 

 

Email from Council’s Solicitor advising that the Department had reverted with minor amendments to the Byelaws.  Council’s Solicitor had made amendments and sought clarification on extent of Byelaws. 
9 September 2013  Update report on Byelaws noted by Council Meeting. 
10 September 2013  Clarification on extent of Byelaws provided to Council’s Solicitor.
13 September 2013

 

 

Council’s Solicitor asked for confirmation from Department that approval for the Byelaws had been granted.

 

14 October 2013 

 

Council’s Solicitor asked to confirm with Department that in order to go to public consultation.