development of downpatrick head, ballycastle

Dear sir/madam,
I recently attended an information evening on the proposed development of downpatrick head as a significant point of interest on the wild atlantic way. I'm delighted with the overall thrust of the idea.


During the meeting, a representative of the council circulated drawings of a possible concept for the development of pollaseantine, the blowhole. I understand though that this concept is not yet confirmed for the site and that you are accepting submissions still for how to develop the site.


To my mind, the wild atlantic way should try to be what it claims to be -ie, the wild atlantic. We should avoid interfering with the landscape except where there is a real benefit, and leave the landscape mostly as it is. I understand from the meeting that this was a key point in the early planning of the route, as it was understood to be what tourists want.


On the other hand, I picked up from the information evening, that market research showed that tourists also want to be able to see down into the blowhole. So some development is needed here, to allow a good view, while being as unobtrusive as possible.


Rather than building an earthen bank around the blowhole (as in the concept I saw this week), may I suggest instead that two to three balconies are created over the blowhole? The view of the blowhole is always obstructed by the need to keep back from the edge, giving limited line of sight to the viewer. Though the plans circulated at the meeting are good and well thought out, they do not radically improve the line of sight of the viewer, and I believe are more obtrusive to the wildness of the place than is strictly necessary. Indeed, in the plans, they include a diagram examining the line of sight afforded to the viewer and it Is not radically better than the present arrangement.


If instead, we had 3 simple balconies, supported by a steel frame anchored well back from the edge, then these would be minimalistic in appearance from the distance, but when the tourist arrives at the hole, they will be able to walk out over the hole and look down directly at most of the blowhole from one vantage point. Walking around to the other balconies would allow them to take in the remainder. Rather than have a glass wall shield them from the spray, they would have the wind and spray coming directly up at them from below. Some unobtrusive reading material could also be included nearby, with geological, historical information, but not on the balcony itself, as this should be reserved for looking at the blowhole. I would also keep the idea from the current concept, that a simple rest area can be provided, but this should be rotated to face east, as the sea spray from the side of the down and from the blowhole would make this generally unusable if it faced in any other direction. The reading material would ideally be fixed to this structure.


Furthermore, the watchtower at the top of the down currently lacks any explanation as to its purpose. A brief explanatory passage needs to be fitted to this to explain its presence. Perhaps the inside of the watchtower could have some aerial shots of the down, as there are many very beautiful aerial photos of the seastack, which visitors may or may not have seen previously.


Finally, above the cavemouth, on the south west side of the down, there is a grand view of crashing waves directly below the viewer and west towards ceide. Though this is presently unmarked in any way, I think a little handrail and maybe a description of the places viewed from this point, would draw people over to this spot-one of the best views in Ireland I believe.


Overall, I am pleased that something is to be done with the down. I know from my own experience of having visitors that they are always blown away by it and if tourists can be persuaded to include it on their itineraries, they will love it and it will deliver a real wild atlantic experience. If they start to arrive, we will start working on developing the local economy from this.


Sincerely

Letter to the President on State visit to the UK

I'm a bit late writing to you about this, but I think it would be a very well received gesture if the President addressed the issue of Irish neutrality during WWII while he is in the UK. I believe he will say something about WWI while there, but our stance in WWII really appalled a section of the British public and is still a very significant issue to many ordinary Britons.

 

 

I'm not saying that the President should apologise for neutrality, but to many Britons our stance was seen as equivocal if not actually sympathetic to the Nazis -perhaps it was. I think it would be very well received though if we expressed regret at not having done more to oppose fascism in Europe -by peaceful or other means.

 

 

The truth is that because of our rather fraught relations with Britain and a degree of inherited prejudice, we chose to equivocate about continental fascism, rather than help Britain in an hour of need. It is a lasting shame on Ireland that needs to be addressed some day.

 

 

Just as with 1916 in ireland, WWII has an aura of origin about it for modern day Britain and our part is seen to have been on the wrong side of it. This hardens the hearts of many Britons against Ireland even today, and I would like to see the President using this opportunity to have a go at softening them.

 

 

One meaningful sentence on this, could do a lot.

 

 

It would be especially fitting, as the Queen herself is of that generation, and of that struggle.

sincerely

Submission on the revision of wind turbine guidelines

Dear Minister,
In response to the consultation on proposed revisions to the wind energy development guidelines 2006 –I would like to submit the following:

1.      When assessing setback as a noise control method, I would discard the assessment of ground cover types. Ground cover can and probably will change many times in the lifetime of a windfarm. If a forestry exists today to shield a home from excessive noise, this could be felled within 12 months and returned to pasture. Likewise, a home sheltered by trees, could lose them all in a storm or to disease. It is not permanent enough to assess noise.

2.      The proposed minimum separation of 500m for amenity considerations is too static. Current minimum distance requirements have been left behind by the rapid inflation in the size of wind turbines over the period. Rather, the minimum separation should be a multiple of the height of the turbine. This is already the case in other jurisdictions.

Personally, I believe the minimum distance should be quite high and I would like to see a minimum separation of at least ten times the height of the wind turbine. In the recently rejected planning application for a windfarm development in Cloghan, Co. Offaly, the inspector deemed that the proposal for 170 metre tall wind turbines would excessively dominate the landscape as viewed from 34 houses in a 1200m radius. This equalled a distance ratio of 7 times the height of the wind turbines. However, it should be remembered that this development was deemed unacceptably obtrusive and I believe we should therefore implement a minimum distance that is generously in excess of this. Therefore, a distance of ten times the height of the turbine seems reasonable to me.

Furthermore, this will give more opportunities to more moderately sized developments, while keeping the really enormous projects away from habitation.

3.      I believe the definition of a noise sensitive property should include all buildings in which the same people are compelled to spend a significant amount of time. This should include fixed places of work -even without permanent structures.

4.      I note that the 40dba noise limit is considered to be at the lower end of the scale internationally. However, I believe it should be exceptionally low. Ireland has a dispersed settlement pattern and will generally have many more people effected by windfarm noise than in other countries. We should be international leaders in this regard.

5.       In assessing noise at preconstruction stage, the windspeed used to assess noise output should be at hubheight –not groundspeed.

6.      There is also an issue which I believe should also pertain to proximity and which is not listed in the consultation document. Proximity to household watersources should be a factor in assessing wind turbine developments. The deep foundations required for windturbines inevitably interferes in watersources. Where householders are depending on watersources in the vicinity, this should be a factor in granting permission for development.

7.      Finally, though not mentioned in the document, visual impact of windturbines should be considered in their own right, in accordance with the Offaly decision.

Sincerely

Letter to Minister for Transport about the outrageous cost of RSA licence testing.

Dear Minister,
I am writing to express dismay at the mounting cost of obtaining driving licences.

I have recently considered adding a c category to my licence, but have abandoned the idea purely because of the cost involved. I estimated that it would cost around 1000 euros for lessons, but also a further 700 euros in admin fees. The combined cost of tests, administration and obtaining documents is completely excessive I believe and a serious disincentive to anyone minded to do this test for employment reasons.

Can anyone justify a system where you have to pay for a theory test and once you pass it and have your permit, then have to pay for and sit another theory test (CPC test -now mandatory for all c licences). Likewise, we must now pay for and sit a practical test for CPC before paying for and sitting the actual driving test. This is pointless and expensive duplication.

Furthermore, the cost of each of these tests and admin procedures is excessive. How on earth can it cost 55 euros to add a category to an existing licence? Or 72 euros to sit a computerised multiple choice test?

I fully support efforts to have a high quality testing process, but the present system is unnecessarily complex, segmented and expensive. The RSA should be self sufficient -but not racketeering. You need to impress upon them that as a public monopoly, they must be more responsible with their demands for money.

sincerely

Letter about Irish water -sent to Minister for the Environment

Dear Minister,
I am writing to you about the establishment of Irish Water. In particular about the functions of Irish Water when it is formally established.

Apart from providing and charging for water and waste water services to domestic and commercial customers, I believe it should have a small public provision function also.

In particular:
-the provision of drinking water fonts in public places, especially tourist hotspots and bus/train stations.
-the provision of public toilets in busy public areas.

These are both activities carried out by local authorities in other countries. The absence of these services in Ireland is a poor reflection on our local authorities, but their introduction could be a major public benefit of the new national utility. Apart from providing a necessary service it will save consumers' resources from wastefully purchasing bottled water when they are out and about, thus freeing up cash to purchase more utility giving items. Furthermore, it would be a major PR coup for the new utility if it was seen to provide a visibly better service than the local authorities have. This could go some way to alleviating the disquiet of water rates payers.

Ideally, this would be a substantial network of services in every major town, but even if it was only a handful of facilities, I think it would be worth including it in the new Act.

sincerely

Response to NTA consultation on gradual opening of competition in bus markets from 2016

Sirs/madams,
I support the gradual approach to competitive tendering that the NTA is proposing. Time is needed to allow the state operators to adjust and downsize their operations as a more competitive market emerges -but of course, we must make a start somewhere and the sooner the better.

However, I think the current proposal lacks a means to continue the current advantage of allowing profitable routes subsidise PSO routes. At present, PSO routes are subsidised by subvention, but also by cross-subsidisation from profitable routes. The funding model for PSO routes at present is not replicated in these 2 proposals which simply propose to put a portion of less profitable routes out to tender, without cross-subsidisation from the profitable routes. The result could be higher subvention to make the PSO routes viable. It would also leave the state operators with a more profitable basket of routes.

Therefore, I think that we must consider levying the profitable routes in order to supplement subvention. In particular, imposing a levy from 2016 when the transition occurs. Otherwise, we will be asking bidders to provide the PSO routes with only part of the financial support the PSO routes enjoy at present. This could result in a poorly subscribed tendering process robbing the whole project of credibility.

Eventually we need to arrive at a system where profitable routes are auctioned and the proceeds used to boost subvention of unprofitable routes.

Secondly, the use of fixed assets -stops, stations and depots, needs to be guaranteed to all. There would be no advantage of having new contractors replicating existing infrastructure. A reasonable contribution towards the maintenance and use of these facilities needs to be part of the tendering process. More importantly, sharing of these services with the private operators needs to be part of the renewed contract signed by the state operators.
sincerely

Letter to the Taoiseach on Seanad reform

Dear Taoiseach,
I am writing to you about the recently defeated referendum.

Firstly, I was incredibly disappointed with the outcome of the vote, and I cannot believe the electorate has voted to keep this purposeless, undemocratic second-house. I offer my genuine sympathy, as I know that this was a difficult bill to pass through the houses and would never have gone before the people without your personal commitment, even when it was against your own personal interests.

Specifically, I am writing to you about reform of the Seanad. There will be many calls for reform of the Seanad in coming months. Doubtless something will have to be done, but I want to urge extreme caution about reforming it. No reform is better than the wrong reform. In particular, I would be highly sceptical about reforming the Seanad to any variant of a direct election model, as I believe that would give rise to conflict between the 2 chambers and could be a significant impediment to future decisionmaking. If we look at examples of parliaments with 2 directly elected chambers, there is a real danger for political deadlock between them -The United States and Italy are only 2 prime examples.

One thing that our present constitution has is a single powerful voice -that of the Dail- and giving the Seanad equal status (which would inevitably follow from direct elections) would split that voice and could only be an advantage to obstructionists to all future legislative reform measures. It would simultaneously double the obstacles to future reform measures too. Controversial bills would never pass.

I recognise that you must do something though, partly because there will be demands for it, and partly because the Seanad as it stands is so repulsive to democracy. But I urge you to be very careful not to deliver us to a situation of political gridlock between the 2 houses.

I would propose the following scheme as being moderately reformist and politically defensible, without permitting the Seanad to challenge the democratic voice of the Dail:
-introduce a rule that noone who has ever sat in the Dail can stand for election to the Seanad.
-extend the university elections to all graduates.
-introduce a gender quota for the Seanad.

This would go someway to making the Seanad less of a political parking space for TDs that have been ousted by the electorate. However, I wouldn't obstruct young aspiring politicians to have a term in the Seanad as I don't think it's entirely useless for them to learn something of parliamentary process. This would be especially the case if there was a gender quota, which could eventually lead to a more gender balanced selection of serious Dail candidates. Extending the vote to all graduates is simply reflecting popular demand, though personally, I find it repulsive that anyone should have a second vote simply because they are educated. However, it seems realistically unavoidable.

More importantly, this scheme would reduce the misuse of the seanad by political parties without creating a schizophrenic parliament with 2 authorative voices (like Italy's). That must be prevented at all costs.

sincerely