A major 159 unit housing development in Carrickphierish received conditional planning approval last week. Although the original application was for a 167 residential units, one of the 24 conditions requires 8 of the proposed units to be removed. These eight units were set to be one story, two bedroom houses along an existing boundary with Oak Drive in Hillview.
Another condition is that a 2.5 metre boundary wall be constructed along this boundary with Hillview.
As the submission documents show, the Hillview Residents Association called for the 2.5 metre wall for security reasons and to protect the value of their properties.
The residents are anxious that the anti-social behaviour which has tormented residents of Carrickphierish may spill over into Hillview as the ‘peaceful estate’ with a 50 year history becomes absorbed into the wider Gracedieu area.
The letter submitted by the resident’s association also calls for a defensive strip of thorny bushes.
As the letter states, “A 2.5 metre boundary wall of consistent construction and form is vital to provide security to all households along the boundary line of the proposed development and Hillview, to protect their privacy and the value of their property.
“…the Carrickphierish and Gracedieu areas have a well-documented history of anti-social behaviour, as recorded by both the Waterford City & Council and An Garda Síochána.
“The absence of a formidable boundary wall between the development site and the rear gardens of Oak Drive and Pinewood Drive creates an immediate security risk for trespass and illicit gatherings unless the boundary is robustly fortified.
The submission goes on to request ‘defensive landscaping’ arguing their must be a defensive buffer strip of “high density, thorny native flora (such as brambles and blackthorn) to actively deter gatherings and prevent loiterers from standing against the resident boundary walls.”
The Gracedieu Residents Group also made an objection, within which they claim that the population of Hillview should never have been included the area plan, as this provides an artificial impression of a District Centre, and results in the type of high-density housing that a district centre could justify.
The Gracedieu Residents Group claim that the original area plan, which they contributed to, envisioned an area of country parks and plentiful facilities, avoiding past planning mistakes as they were then perceived such as the ‘traffic chaos of the Dunmore Road’ and the ‘problems of social segregation in the Ballybeg area.’
The Gracedieu Residents Group only objected to the apartment blocks in the new development, not the houses.
“To date the residents group have been unsuccessful in influencing in any meaningful manner the development of the area. We are not expecting any different outcome from this submission either but will persist in trying to have our viewpoint considered.”
AARON KENT Funded by the Local Democracy Reporting Scheme
