'04 FG candidate urges people not to make submission re dev

[qtman]

I picked this up from the Midlands local radio station, Shannonside FM:

Leo Cox was a FG candidate in the Local Elections in Roscommon in 2004.


Source here

Potential Objectors to Rooskey Development Urged To Talk To Developers

Roscommon's Lead Partnership is urging anybody who may have an objection to their plans for a new Business Park in Rooskey, to come forward and discuss their concerns with the company.

The call was made at this weekends' public launch of of the re- development of the former Glanbia site by the Partnership, which is part the EDA Cox group.

The 40 million euro investment includes proposals to build large industrial and smaller retail units, and also to develop a new streetscape, marinas and housing and crèche facilities at the site.

Director of the LEAD Partnership, Leo Cox, is calling for those who may have objections, to talk directly to them, rather than hold up the planning process..

[wise_old_owl]

A dangerous precdent by Leo
I AM CALLING FOR HIS RESIGNATION FROM FG

[DerekOwens]

Jeez, SF/PSF/RSF/People's front of Judea have Leopold Bloom, now we have qtman. Get a grip, or a life.

Firstly, he ran for the locals 3 years ago rather than this summer, which your headline doesn't make clear.

Secondly, it's inviting members of the public to engage with the company. He's not saying that by doing so they wave their rights to object!

If anything, it's laudable that a developer is prepared to meet people half-way (or even engage with them at all) rather than simply bulldozing their way through the inevitable objections.

[setanta]

We've had the same sort of scam tried by development companies in Dublin Mid West. They run public participation events seeking to understand the needs of the local comunity and give them a voice in the development process, etc, etc, etc. But it's all bollox, as was shown the last time it was tried in DMW.

Very vociferous input was given to the developers by the local community during a weekend 'consultation' event on the developer's plans for an area of DMW people following the planning tribunals will be familiar with. The developer's agents gave a commitment to include feedback from the event in the developer's final proposals, but were then discovered to be seperately pursuing an existing planning application for the site that had already been rejected by both the community and the local Council. A fact, of course, that they had inadvertantly neglected to inform the participants in their consulation event of.

The lesson to be learnt from this sorry tale is never, ever, ever trust a developer. The planning process for all its faults at least allows some genuine public/political input and has been used by the Labour-led South Dublin County Council to call a halt to this particular developer's trot.

[rockofcashel]

what is your problem with this qtman.. this call makes eminent sense

I've personally done this myself down here in Cashel, and have seen it successfully work on behalf on behalf of both residents and developers.

In a case a year and a half ago, a developer invited councillors and other business people to a launch of a multi-million euro retail development at a local hotel, and invited none of the local residents.

I was invited to the launch, and was already aware of many rumours about what the local thought the development entailed, so I called the developer aside, and told him to call a second meeting, with local residents, and fill them in. He seemed almost surprised by my request, but he did so.

He sat down with them, told them the plans, explained all the questions they had, and they were delighted with him. He submitted his plans a month later (with one or two very small changes as suggested by the residents), and there was not one submission lodged against the plan. Everyone was happy.

I don't think you should be knocking this, in fact you should be openly encouraging it.

Residents will always retain their statutory rights to make submissions in any case, if they are unhappy with the final submitted plans.

[setanta]

RoC - I'm amazed at your naivite. Or perhaps the developer you are talking about was a small-scale one, in which case there probably is some value to such ad hoc arrangements. However, have a chat with Shane O'Connor on the consultation scams that developers get up to in DMW and he'll fill you in on what they're all about.

[Omega3]

what is your problem with this qtman.. this call makes eminent sense

I've personally done this myself down here in Cashel, and have seen it successfully work on behalf on behalf of both residents and developers.

In a case a year and a half ago, a developer invited councillors and other business people to a launch of a multi-million euro retail development at a local hotel, and invited none of the local residents.

I was invited to the launch, and was already aware of many rumours about what the local thought the development entailed, so I called the developer aside, and told him to call a second meeting, with local residents, and fill them in. He seemed almost surprised by my request, but he did so.

He sat down with them, told them the plans, explained all the questions they had, and they were delighted with him. He submitted his plans a month later (with one or two very small changes as suggested by the residents), and there was not one submission lodged against the plan. Everyone was happy.

I don't think you should be knocking this, in fact you should be openly encouraging it.

Residents will always retain their statutory rights to make submissions in any case, if they are unhappy with the final submitted plans.

Shame about an Bord pleanala insisting on demolishing all them houses in Cashel

[rockofcashel]

not naive at all, and keep a very wary eye on developers. However, I also keep a very wary eye on planning applications, and make sure to re-check every application after it has been submitted to ensure that anything that was agreed upon between developers and local residents is actually a part of the submitted plan.

Developers have a function.. they also have their own interests. People need to accept and understand that. Local representatives also have a function... and should keep in mind the interests of those that they represent. In many cases, consultation and co-operation can alleviate a lot of distrust and bad feeling amongst both groups.

[kerrynorth]

The point here is that he wants people to take issues direct to the developer rather than through the LA. This is very dangerous as you cannot appeal the LA decision to ABP unless you had already made a submission to the LA. Not many people realise this.

[rockofcashel]

what is your problem with this qtman.. this call makes eminent sense

I've personally done this myself down here in Cashel, and have seen it successfully work on behalf on behalf of both residents and developers.

In a case a year and a half ago, a developer invited councillors and other business people to a launch of a multi-million euro retail development at a local hotel, and invited none of the local residents.

I was invited to the launch, and was already aware of many rumours about what the local thought the development entailed, so I called the developer aside, and told him to call a second meeting, with local residents, and fill them in. He seemed almost surprised by my request, but he did so.

He sat down with them, told them the plans, explained all the questions they had, and they were delighted with him. He submitted his plans a month later (with one or two very small changes as suggested by the residents), and there was not one submission lodged against the plan. Everyone was happy.

I don't think you should be knocking this, in fact you should be openly encouraging it.

Residents will always retain their statutory rights to make submissions in any case, if they are unhappy with the final submitted plans.

Shame about an Bord pleanala insisting on demolishing all them houses in Cashel

If that particular developer had discussed his plans with the local residents, and more importantly actually kept to the plan he originally submitted rather than feel he could simply build what he liked, then he wouldn't have had the problems he has.