To whom it concerns, I am glad to have an opportunity to write some personal thoughts regarding the proposed rezoning of lands at Lee Road that should facilitate some much needed housing close to the city.
I hope these points are sufficient to clarify matters that I suggest speak to the aesthetic, ecological and environmental values that have been properly addressed by the land owner in proposing this excellent rezoning package. The officials and councillors are to be commended for bringing us this opportunity to be consulted.
While respecting people's right to pass negative comment on any proposed housing development, I do think it would better serve the interests of public consultation if objections were based on accurate information. From reading the public consultation submissions made to date, some apparently cogent arguments are less than compelling when exposed to some simple fact checking, which my submission sets out to accomplish.
1. One person has referred to the Lee Road as a road that floods. Any person with local knowledge will know that the flooding in no way affects the proposed development site. Not only is the site's lowest point dozens of metres above the road, but the sections of the Lee Road that do flood are all on the Blarney side of the proposed entrance. The city centre is in the opposite direction.
2. Several members of the public have based their objections on the visual impact of the development as seen from the Lee Road itself and from across the river on Carrigrohane Straight Road and the Lee Fields. Rather than taking a photo with my own camera, I am attaching a Google Street View screenshot that anybody can check. It is taken from Carrigrohane Straight Road. For perspective it includes the western end of the former Our Lady's Hospital, proving that the view shows what is visible of the site today, which is heavily treed and completely obscured from view. Even the most cursory examination of the proposed development shows that this concentration of mature mostly evergreen trees will remain untouched. Though well-intentioned, none of the arguments about impairing the visual amenity value of the area are valid.
3. The submissions that object to the rezoning include several mentions of the impact on the different wildlife habitats that enrich the lives of us all, not to mention the creatures themselves. Emotive language is employed, conjuring images of habitat destruction, affecting the lives of foxes, pheasants, herons, bats etc. From the very detailed rezoning submission, it is again obvious that the supposed disruption to wildlife is simply not an arguable point. Yes it seems likely that some bushes and a very small number of trees will be removed to create the entrance, but even the most basic knowledge of habitat protection tells us that this has zero impact on the wildlife population in an area, where 99% of their contiguous habitat remains untouched.