Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Council Chamber, County Hall, Dún Laoghaire, Co. Dublin. View directions

Items
No. Item

1.

Submissions received during public consultation

All submissions from interested parties received during the public consultation period were set  out  in  two lever arch files in the  Chamber for the information of the Members.

 

 

 

2.

Purpose of Meeting

Mr. G. Hayden, Director, Planning & Enterprise Department states that the purpose of the meeting was to consider the Chief Executive’s Report on the issues raised during the Pre-Draft Consultation Process.

 

Following a discussion on various issues, Councillor D. O’Callaghan raised a query in relation to “conflict of interest”.  The Chief Executive stated this matter was dealt with in Section 176 and 177 of the Local Government Act.    She also stated that it was a matter for each councillor to decide if they had a conflict of interest and to declare it.  It was agreed that a copy of “Ethical Framework Legal Advice be circulated to the members.

 

 

 

3.

Consideration of the Chief Executives Report

Mr. Dave Irvine, Senior Planner presented the Chief Executives Report highlighting the main issues in each Chapter in a powerpoint presentation as follows:-

 

 

 

4.

Power point Presentation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                               

 

5.

A REVIEW OF DÚN LAOGHAIRE-RATHDOWN COUNTY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2010- 2016 AND PREPARATION OF A NEW COUNTY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2016-2022

“PRE - DRAFT CONSULTATION PROCESS

 

REPORT TO COUNCIL UNDER SECTION 11 (4) OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000, AS AMENDED.

 

9th July 2014.”

 

 

 

6.

Part 1 - Introduction

7.

Pre-Draft Consultation Process

 

Part 1: Introduction                                                                         Page No

 

1.1     Purpose & Contents of Report                                                         5

1.2     Legislative Background for the Chief Executive’s Report                       6

1.3     Pre-Draft Consultation Process                                                        7

1.4     Overview of Issues & Topics Raised                                                  8

1.5     Approach to Consideration of Written Submissions                     9

1.6     Information Vacuum                                                                      9

1.7     Where to Next?                                                                            10

 

Part 2: Summary of Main Issues Raised by Dublin Regional Authority & National Transport

Authority and Chief Executive’s Opinion & Recommendations

 

2.1      Dublin Regional Authority                                                              12

2.2      National Transport Authority                                                                     17

 

Part 3: Summary of Main Issues & Chief Executive’s Opinion & Recommendations

 

1:         Sustainable Communities Strategy                                                         25

1.1     Population and Housing                                                                  26

1.2     Sustainable Transportation and Travel                                              35

 

2:         Enterprise and Employment Strategy                                                     63

2.1     Enterprise and Employment                                                            65

2.2     Retailing                                                                                     69

2.3     Major Town Centres                                                                      74

 

3:         Green Infrastructure Strategy                                                                  77

3.1     Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage                                        79

3.2     Open Space, Recreation & Sports Development                                  88

 

4:         Physical Infrastructure Strategy                                                  95

4.1     Environmental Infrastructure & Management                                       97

4.2     Climate Change Adaptation & Energy Efficiency                                  104

4.3     Flood Risk                                                                                                        106

 

5:         Built Heritage Strategy                                                                              111

5.1     Archaeological Heritage                                                                 113

5.2     Architectural Heritage                                                                   115

 

6:         Community Strategy                                                                                  121

6.1     Social & Community Development                                                    123

6.2     Cultural & Arts Development                                                            133

 

7:         Principles of Development                                                             135

7.1     Urban Design, Building Height & Place Making                                     137

 

8:         Non-Specific / Generic Zoning Objectives                                              139

8.1       Rathmichael Area/Greenbelt/Density                                       141

8.2       Land Use Zoning Objectives                                                            142

8.3     Miscellaneous                                                                              145

 

9:         Development Management Issues                                                          147

9.1       General                                                                                        149

9.2     Land Use Zoning Objectives                                                            150

9.3     Education                                                                                    151

9.4     Childcare Facilities                                                                        151

 

10:      Strategic Environmental Assessment & Appropriate

            Assessment                                                                                                  153

10.1     Strategic Environmental Assessment                                                155

10.2    Appropriate Assessment                                                                                155

 

11:      Miscellaneous                                                                                               157

11.1    Dún Laoghaire Harbour                                                                  159

11.2    Rights-of-Way                                                                                       164

11.3    Part V and Development Levies / Contributions                                  167

11.4    Cherrywood SDZ Planning Scheme                                                   168

11.5    Sandyford Urban Framework Plan                                                    169

11.6    Other                                                                                         171

 

Appendices A-E                                                                                                        175

A        Persons/Bodies Directly Informed                                                     177

B        Submissions Received                                                                   181

C        Principal National, Regional And Local Policy Documents, Guidelines

          And Plans That Will Help Inform And Guide The Preparation Of The

          New Development Plan                                                                   199

D        Mandatory Requirements for Development Plan                                  205

E        Development Plan Timetable                                                  209

 

 

 

Acronyms:

 

AA:             Appropriate Assessment

ACA:            Architectural Conservation Area

(c)ACA:        (candidate) Architectural Conservation Area

CDP:            County Development Plan 2010-2016

CFRAM:        Catchment Flood Risk Assessment and Management

CSO:            Central Statistics Office

DAHG:Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht

DART:           Dublin Area Rapid Transit

DCC:               Dublin City Council

DECLG:         Department of the Environment, Community and Local                                  Government

DES:                Department of Education and Skills

DLR:             Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council

EIA:             Environmental Impact Assessment

EIS:             Environmental Impact Statement

EPA:             Environmental Protection Agency

EU:              European Union

GDA:            Greater Dublin Area

GDSDS:         Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study

HLA:                Housing Land Availability

IADT:           Institute of Art, Design and Technology

ICW:               Integrated Constructed Wetlands

LAP:             Local Area Plan

(p)NHA:       (proposed) Natural Heritage Area

NPWS:          National Parks and Wildlife Service

NSS:             National Spatial Strategy 2002 - 2020

NTA:             National Transport Authority

PS:               Protected Structure

QBC:            Quality Bus Corridor

RMP:            Record of Monuments and Places

ROW:              Right of Way

RPG:             Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area 2010 -             2022

RPS:             Record of Protected Structures

SAC:           Special Area of Conservation

SDCS:             Supplementary Development Contribution Scheme

SDZ:                Strategic Development Zone

SEA:             Strategic Environmental Assessment

SFRA:           Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

SLO:             Specific Local Objective

SPA:             Special Protection Area

S2S:             Sutton to Sandycove cycleway

SUDS:           Sustainable Urban Drainage Solutions

SUFP:              Sandyford Urban Framework Plan

VDS:            Village Design Statements

UCD:            University College Dublin

UPH:               Units per hectare

 

 

 

 

8.

INTRODUCTION (Page Nos 5 - 11)

1. Introduction

 

1.1 Purpose and Contents of Report

The purpose of this document is to report on the outcome of the consultation process carried out prior to the imminent preparation of the new Draft County Development Plan for DúnLaoghaire–Rathdown.

 

The report forms part of the statutory procedure towards the making of a new County Development Plan in Spring 2016.  The report is not intended to be exhaustive and gives details on all the topics and matters that will be addressed in the forthcoming Plan but, rather, will make recommendations on the issues to be included and the overall approach to be adopted, on foot of the recent public consultation exercise.

 

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government issued Guidelines to Planning Authorities on the preparation of Development Plans in June 2007.  The Guidelines state that high quality Development Plans lie at the heart of a high quality planning system.  The Guidelines set out a framework within which Development Plans will achieve high standards in relation to:

·      How they set out their aims and objectives

·      How they are produced

·      How they are presented

·      How they are implemented and monitored

 

The Guidelines promote a number of key messages including:

·      Development Plans should be strategic

·      Development Plans should be a catalyst for positive change and progress

·      Development Plans should anticipate future needs on an objective basis

·      They have a key role in protecting the environment and heritage

·      That there is clear consistency between plans and strategies at different levels

·      There should be broad community ownership of the Development Plan

·      Diverse community needs should be addressed

·      Codes of Conduct must be observed in the making of Development Plans.

 

In the process of preparing a Draft Development Plan it is strongly recommended that Local Authorities have regard to the 2007 Government Guidelines.

 

In addition Local Authorities should also have regard to Circular Letter PPL 1/2010 issued by the Minister in relation to the implementation of the Planning and Development Act 2010, and in particular core strategies.  Guidance notes on core strategies were published in November 2010.

 

PART 1of this report consists of an introduction, followed by an explanation of the legislative background and requirements for the Chief Executive’s Report under the Planning and Development Act, 2000 (as amended) and a description of the consultation process.  The process which resulted in 119 formal written submissions in addition to a wide variety of views, comments and ideas recorded at various stakeholder meetings held both prior to, and during, the 8 week consultation period which ran from 19th March to 14th May 2014.  PART 1 concludes with a description of the next steps in the process towards the making of the new County Development Plan.

 

PART 2 consists of an analysis and summary of the issues raised in the written submissions received by the Council from the Dublin Regional Authority and the National Transport Authority.  This ‘separation’ of the submissions by these two prescribed bodies is simply to accord with the legislative requirements.

 

PART 3 consists of an analysis and summary of the issues raised in the written submissions received by the Council.  The issues are analysed and summarised under the ‘umbrella’ headings which are listed in Part 3 of the table of contents above.

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinions on the issues raised are then given.  PART 2 and PART 3 also contain any recommendation by the Chief Executive on any policies to be contained in the Draft County Plan.

 

Members of the Council were provided with a hyperlink to the Planning Zylab system that allows Members to view each submission from their laptop and/or PC. The Zylab link contains all the written submissions / observations (including any maps) received during the Pre-Draft public consultation stage.  This hyperlink is also provided on the Council’s Planning Website so enabling members of the general public to access the same data electronically.  Hard copies of the submissions/observations can also be accessed at the public counter of the Planning and Enterprise Department in County Hall.

 

Five appendices to the Main Report are included as follows:

 

Appendix A consists of a list of persons /bodies who were directly informed of the Pre-Draft ‘Have Your Say, Issues and Options’ phase of the overall Development Plan process including the prescribed bodies, post primary school principals, 100 top businesses in the County and circa 600 community groups.

 

Appendix B lists those persons /bodies that made written submissions.

 

Appendix C lists the principal National, Regional and Local policy documents and guidelines that will help inform and guide the preparation of the new Development Plan.

 

Appendix D sets out the matters that must be included in a Development Plan, as well as those matters that may be included.

 

Appendix E sets out the statutory time frame henceforth for the preparation of the new County Development Plan to be made in Spring 2016.

 

This report is submitted to the Elected Members for their consideration.

 

1.2 Legislative Background for the Chief Executive’s Report

Section 11 (4)(a) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 (as amended), sets out the requirements in relation to the preparation of a Chief Executive’s Report.  The Chief Executive’s Report is required to deal with any submissions or observations received on foot of the notifications and consultations (carried out under Section 11 (2) and (3) of the Act), with, inter alia, the public, prescribed bodies, service providers and the Board.

 

In accordance with Section 11 (4)(b) the Chief Executive’s Report must:

 

·      List the persons or bodies who made submissions or observations, as well as any persons or bodies consulted.

·      Summarisethe issues raised in the submissions and during the consultations, where appropriate, but shall not refer to a submission relating to a request or proposal for zoning of particular land for any purpose.

·      Give the Opinion of the Chief Executive on the issues raised.  In this regard the Chief Executive’s opinion must take into account (a) the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, (b) the statutory obligations of any Local Authority in the area, and (c) any relevant policies or objectives of the Government or any Minister of the Government.

·      Finally, the Report shall state the Chief Executive’s Recommendations on the Policies to be included in the Draft Development Plan.

 

The Chief Executive’s Report must then be submitted to the Members of the Planning Authority or a committee of the Planning Authority for their consideration.

Members may then issue Directions to the Chief Executive regarding the preparation of the Draft Development Plan (Section 11(4)(d)).  These Directions shall be strategic in nature and shall take account of the statutory obligations of any Local Authority in the area and any relevant policies or objectives of the Government or of any Minister of the Government.  In issuing Directions, Section 11(4)(f) of the Act states that the Members shall be restricted to considering the proper planning and sustainable development of the area to which the Development Plan relates.  Directions must be issued not later than 10 weeks after the submission of the Chief Executive’s Report, which in this case is by the 17thSeptember 2014.

 

1.3 Pre-Draft Consultation Process

1.3.1 Background

The Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, revised all previous planning legislation and introduced some far-reaching changes in the Development Plan process.  These changes include the provisions whereby members of the public, service providers and other organisations and bodies can now make submissions prior to the preparation of Draft Development Plans.  This allows public involvement at a much earlier stage in the plan preparation process and is intended to enable everyone to have a sense of ownership of Development Plans.  The Act also makes provision for the preparation of this Chief Executive’s Report.

 

1.3.2 Description of Notification Procedures/Consultation Process

The Pre-Draft (‘Have Your Say’) consultation stage ran from 19thMarch until 14thMay 2014.  To stimulate general debate and public interest in the process, and to ensure adequate information was available to interested parties, groups and organisations, a free ‘Have Your Say’ document was published and made available through the Planning and Enterprise Department, public libraries and the Council’s website.  This formed the primary focus and basis for the public consultation process.

 

The process itself comprised a series of elements including:

(i) Two non-statutory Briefing Sessions for all Councillors on the 25th and 27th February 2014.

(ii) Publication of newspaper advertisements inviting written submissions. Adverts appeared in both national press and local newspapers.

(iii) Targeted ‘press release’ for local Variable Frequency Drive press and radio.

(iv) Distribution of ‘Have Your Say’ booklet to more than 800 individual residents associations, community groups, business interests and other stakeholder organisations.

(v) Six Public Open Days in each Electoral Area - attended by Council Planning Officials – to disseminate information, clarify queries and note any comments or observations made.

(vi) Details of the Plan Review and ‘Have Your Say’ booklet placed on the Council’s website.

 

1.3.3 Written Submissions

Some 119 written submissions (hard copy and e-mail) were received on or before 14thMay 2014.  All written submissions received on or before the due date are considered in this report.  Late submissions will be retained on file for reference.  There will be a further opportunity to make written submissions when the Draft Plan goes on public display in March 2015.

 

1.3.4 Website

There were 1199 hits on this section of the Council’s website between the 19th March and 14th May 2014.

 

1.3.5 Briefing Sessions

Two non-statutory Briefing Sessions for all Councillors were held on the 25th and 27th February 2014.  In addition, for those Councillors who could not attend the sessions held in February, three additional dates were made available, 4th March 2014, 10th March 2014 and the 25th March 2014.

 

1.3.6 Open Days

Six public open days were organised at which Planning Officials were present to disseminate relevant information, clarify queries from the general public and other organisations and to note any comments and observations made by attendees.  These were held in each electoral area as follows,

 

·      Blackrock, Tuesday 1st April, 2014, 2.00pm – 8.00pm

·      Dún Laoghaire, Thursday 3rd April, 2014, 10.00am – 1.00pm & 5.00pm – 8.00pm

·      Dundrum, Tuesday 8th April, 2014, 10.00am – 1.00pm & 5.00pm – 8.00pm

·      Loughlinstown, Thursday 10th April, 2014, 10.00am – 1.00pm & 5.00pm – 8.00pm

·      Stillorgan, Tuesday 29th April, 2014, 2.00pm – 8.00pm

·      Sandyford, Thursday 1st May, 2014, 2.00pm – 8.00pm

 

1.3.7 Public Access To Submissions

All written submissions (including maps) have been scanned onto the Planning Department’s Zylab system.  A hyperlink to this system is provided on the Council’s website under ‘Review of the County Development Plan (2010-2016) and preparation of a new County Development Plan (2016-2022)’ that enables members of the general public, and others, to view each submission electronically via their laptop or PC. The original hard copies of the written submissions can also be examined at the Planning and Enterprise Department public counter.

 

1.4 Overview of Issues and Topics Raised

Many of the submissions refer to multiple topics, while others refer only to single, specific issues. While some submission may only relate to one topic they make multiple points under the same topic.  Appendix B provides a list of all persons/ bodies that made written submissions.  A breakdown of the broad headings under which issues were raised in the submissions received is set out in the table below.

 

Topic of Interest

Number of Mentions

Percentage

Sustainable Transportation and Travel

55

17%

Open Space, Recreation Sport

31

10%

Social and Community Development

29

9%

Population and Housing

27

8%

Non-Specific / Generic Zoning Objectives

27

8%

Environmental Infrastructure and Management

18

6%

Development Management Issues

14

4%

Enterprise and Employment

13

4%

Architectural Heritage

12

4%

Natural Heritage

11

3%

Retailing

10

3%

Landscape and Biodiversity

9

3%

Flood Risk

9

3%

SEA and Appropriate Assessment

9

3%

Urban Design, Building Height and Place Making

8

3%

Dún Laoghaire Harbour

7

2%

Climate Change Adaptation and Energy Efficiency

6

2%

Rights of Way

5

2%

Other

5

2%

Major Town Centres

3

1%

Archaeological Heritage

3

1%

Cultural and Arts Development

3

1%

Sandyford UFP

3

1%

Part V and Development Levies / Contributions

2

1%

Cherrywood SDZ Planning Scheme

1

0%

 

Issues relating to sustainable transport and travel received the highest number of mentions in submissions made followed by open space recreation and sport.  Despite the fact that the Act now precludes any submission relating to the zoning of land at this pre draft consultation stage a number of submissions still related to specific or non specific zoning of land for different uses.

 

1.5 Approach to Consideration of Written Submissions

An analysis of the submissions and the results of the public consultation meetings have been carried out and the topics and issues raised have been extracted and categorised.  This is dealt with in greater detail in Parts 2 and 3 of this report. It is possible to identify overall themes reflecting the concerns of the public emerging in this process.  This report analyses these themes and, having regard to National, Regional and Local policies and guidelines, suggests how policies that would respond to these concerns might be incorporated into the new Draft Plan.

 

Section 11(4)(b)(ii) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, states that this report shall not refer to a submission relating to a request or proposal for zoning of particular land for any purpose.

 

1.6      Information Vacuum

The new Draft County Development Plan is being prepared at a time when there are a number of major information/guidance vacuums at National and Regional level which will undoubtedly impact on the structure and content of the Plan.  The most fundamental ‘gaps’ – that will almost certainly not be addressed prior to the Draft Plan going out to public consultation in March 2015 – are as follows:

 

·  The current National Spatial Strategy 2002-2022 – which was prepared through 2000/2001 – is now acknowledged as being well out-of-date and the thrust of the Strategy now has little currency or relevance to the current economic and spatial dynamics of the State.  The Department of Environment, Community and Local Government has flagged that a replacement document is pending, but work has yet to commence on same and the indications are that it is unlikely to be completed before late 2015 / early 2016 at best.

 

·  Likewise, the currency of the 2010-2022 Greater Dublin Area Regional Planning Guidelines (RPGs) – which were crafted using 2006 Census data – is also questionable and becoming more so as time passes.  In the normal course of events preparation on the required six year review of the RPGs would already have commenced.  This, however, has been delayed firstly as a consequence of the need to have a new National Framework in place to guide the Regional Strategy and, secondly the replacement of the former Regional Authorities by new Regional Assemblies as from 1st June 2014.  Indications are that the new Regional Spatial and Economic Strategies (RSES) which will replace the RPGs are unlikely to be completed before end 2016.  In the interim the primary legislation requires County Development Plans ‘to be consistent with’ any RPGs in force at the time until the RPGs are replaced. 

 

·  A new mandatory component of Development Plans post-2010 is the requirement to prepare a Flood Risk Assessment for the County.  The OPW are currently preparing – on a prioritised basis – Flood Risk Assessment Mapping (CFRAM) for the entire Country which is intended to very much inform and guide Development Plan Flood Risk Assessments.  Unfortunately, latest indications suggest the CFRAM mapping for Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown is unlikely to be available before early 2015.  Preparing a mandatory Strategic Flood Risk Assessment in the absence of the relevant CFRAM mapping will prove difficult.

 

These, and other National/Regional level information gaps – an updated GDA Retail Strategy for example – will prove challenging in the preparation of a Draft Plan that has validity and addresses the current dynamics and metrics of the County.  As these National and Regional ‘gaps’ are addressed over time – and revised data sets, objectives and targets emerge – Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown will almost certainly be required to advance Variations to the new County Development Plan post its adoption.

 

1.7 Where to Next?

Members will require to complete the consideration of this Chief Executive’s Report by 17thSeptember 2014.  As intimated previously, Members may issue Directions to the Chief Executive with a view to influencing the preparation of the Draft Plan.

 

The timetable for the preparation of the 2016 County Development Plan is outlined in Appendix E.  The period from 17th Septemberto 10thDecember 2014 is available for the preparation of the Draft Plan.

 

Information, data and other elements that will feed into the preparation of the Draft Plan will include:

·      Any Directions made by Elected Members.

·      The outcome of the public consultation exercise into the ‘Have Your Say’ booklet.

·      Background studies and analysis which are currently ongoing including:

- Housing Land Availability assessment

- Revision of the Housing Strategy

- Strategic Environmental Assessment

- Appropriate Assessment

·      A whole raft of National, Regional and Local plan, policies and guidelines which are listed in Appendix C.

 

The Elected Members will then have an 8 week period from 10th December 2014 to 16th February 2015, within which to consider the proposed Draft Plan.  The Finalised Draft Plan will be published at the beginning of March 2015 for public comment and inputs.

 

 

 

PART 2 - SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES RAISED BY DUBLIN REGIONAL AUTHORITY & NATIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE'S OPINION & RECOMMENDATIONS

9.

Page 12 2.1. Dublin Regional Authority 2.1.1 General i) ii) iii)

 

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission provides a detailed background to the purpose of the Regional       Planning Guidelines. Details of the new proposed Regional Assembly Structure and outline the purpose of the proposed new Regional and Economic Strategies.

 

      ii)      The objective of the new Regional Spatial and Economic Strategies will be to support the implementation of the National Spatial Strategy and the economic policies and objectives of the government by providing a long-term strategic planning and economic framework for the development of the Region.

 

     iii)      Status of the current RPGs 2010 – 2022 is enshrined in the Local Government Reform Act 2014.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

10.

Pages 12 & 13 2.1. Dublin Regional Authority 2.1.1 General iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission acknowledges that the time frame for the commencement of the Regional Spatial Economic Strategies (RSES) may not coincide with the Development Plan Review process for Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The acknowledgment of this mis-match of time frame between the pending review of the NSS, the subsequent preparation of RSES and the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan in process is welcomed.  The information vacuum in relation to up-to-date National and Regional planning guidance and frameworks is creating difficulties for the current County Development Plan process and may possibly result in a number of Variations soon after the adoption of the next Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

11.

Page 13 2.1 Dublin Regional Authority 2.1.1 Sustainable Communities Strategy i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission recommends that the growth and settlement strategy for DLR  support the key elements of the RPGs including population and housing targets.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

12.

Page 13 2.1 Dublin Regional Authority 2.1.1 Sustainable Communities Strategy ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission states that the challenge of the new County Development Plan will be to meet the current demand for housing supply.  An evidence-based Core Strategy should address this challenge.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“It is agreed that an up-to–date evidence based Core Strategy will address the challenges facing the County.  It is important that medium-to-longer-term sustainable planning remains objective and evidence based and not influenced by short-term, market-led fluctuations and trends.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

13.

Page 13 2.1 Dublin Regional Authority 2.1.3 Sustainable Transport i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Policies aimed at promoting higher employment and residential densities around public transport corridors and nodes should continue to inform the County Development Plan.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“It is recognised that there is a need to continue to promote higher densities for employment and residential uses around public transport provision.  Current media and developer-driven demands for lower density own-door units close to public transport nodes and corridors is not a tenable proposition in terms of the promotion of sustainable planning.  The Draft Plan will continue to promote higher densities at suitable locations.  The support of the Dublin Regional Authority in regard to such policies is welcomed.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

14.

Page 14 2.1 Dublin Regional Authority 2.1.4 Enterprise and Employment i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission recognises that employment land is limited in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown although it is noted that significant employment occurs in areas not specifically zoned for employment.  Core Strategy should address the location of current employment; assess employment trends, typology and demands across the County in order to determine optimum land use requirements.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Core Strategy of the Draft Plan will include a detailed analysis of the existing employment/enterprise landbank and future requirements having regard to population growth forecasts and other considerations such as job ratio, labour force participation rates and likely ‘employment density’ in new development areas.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

15.

Page 14 2.1 Dublin Regional Authority 2.1.5 Retailing and Major Town Centres i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

 

        i)      “Submission requests that retail policies and retail development within the County should support the policies and recommendations of the Retail Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area (GDA) contained in the Regional Planning Guidelines.  The Retail Strategy for the County is aligned with the hierarchy for the GDA, with the exception ofCarrickmines, which is not a District Centre in the GDA Strategy.

 

Submission also recommends that other retail nodes in the County but not yet included in the RPG retail hierarchy should also be addressed.”

 

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Examine the possible reclassification within the retail hierarchy of Carrickmines and other relevant retail nodes during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

16.

Page 15 2.1. Dublin Regional Authority 2.1.6 Green Infrastructure i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission welcomes the development of a Green Infrastructure Strategy for the County.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

17.

Page 15 2.1. Dublin Regional Authority 2.1.7 Physical Infrastructure Strategy i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission supports the areas currently zoned for development, which will require the provision of water and wastewater infrastructure being delivered by Irish Water.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Council no longer has any direct control in relation to the provision of water and wastewater services.  The delivery, integration and implementation of strategic water and wastewater projects and infrastructural improvements are now the responsibility of Irish Water.  The Council will, however, continue to develop a close working relationship with Irish Water to achieve common objectives such as alignment with the RPGs settlement strategy and ensuring that the provision of water/wastewater services will not be a limiting factor in terms of delivering forecasted growth.  This will be reflected within the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

18.

Page 15 2.1. Dublin Regional Authority 2.1.8 Built Heritage Strategy i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “The RPGs recognise the range of built heritage in DLR.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

19.

Pages 15 & 16 2.1. Dublin Regional Authority 2.1.9 Community Strategy i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission recommends that population growth, the delivery of new housing and the needs of existing communities should be supported by appropriate levels of necessary social infrastructure and recreational facilities to serve these communities.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

20.

Page 16 2.1.Dublin Regional Authority 2.1.10 Environmental Considerations i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission requests that Development Plan policies should be informed and shaped by Environmental Directives.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Development Plan policies will be informed and shaped by Environmental Directives.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

21.

Page 16 2.1.Dublin Regional Authority 2.1.10 Environmental Considerations ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission requests that all relevant plans and infrastructure projects which have the potential to impact on Natura 2000 sites, either individually or in combination with other plans and projects, be assessed under the provisions of the Habitats Assessment Directive.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Draft Plan will be subject to AA screening.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

22.

Page 16 2.1.Dublin Regional Authority 2.1.10 Environmental Considerations iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission stresses the importance of the SEA process.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Council is aware of the importance of the SEA process and the need for this process to be ongoing and iterative in order to feed into the Development Plan process at every stage.  The Council has already consulted with the EPA and NPWS prior to embarking on the process.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

23.

Page 17 2.2 National Transport Authority (NTA) 2.2.1 General i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)       “Submission details the NTA functions within the preparation of a Development Plan as including:

·      transport investment priorities

·      maximizing the performance of the transport system by effective land-use planning

 

        ·      recommendations regarding the optimal use, location, pattern and density       of development taking account of its Transport Strategy.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

24.

Page 17 2.2 National Transport Authority (NTA) 2.2.2 Transport Investment Priorities i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission requests that the Draft Plan facilitates the priorities and objectives set out in the NTA’s Integrated Implementation Plan.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was

CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

25.

Page 17 2.2 National Transport Authority (NTA) 2.2.3 GYDA Cycle Network i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission requests that the GDA Cycle Network is reflected in the Draft Plan.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The GDA Cycle Network Plan will inform the development of new cycle routes within the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously

 

 

 

26.

Page 18 2.2 National Transport Authority (NTA) 2.2.4 Bus Rapid Transport (BRT) i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission requests that the BRT route between N11 (UCD) and Blanchardstown, as detailed within the NTA’s Integrated Implementation Plan, is reflected within the Draft Plan.”

 

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“As part of the NTA’s Integrated Implementation Plan 2013 to 2018, a BRT route has been identified that links the City Centre to UCD (as part of Blanchardstown to UCD route) and a commitment is made to move the scheme to planning approval and construction over the 5-year period subject, however, to resources being available.  No other routes have been identified as part of this Five Year Implementation Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously

 

 

 

27.

Page 18 2.2 National Transport Authority (NTA) 2.2.5 Bus Priority Measures i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)       “Submission recommends that any proposals for bus priority take account of:

       

  • changes to the bus network since the plan was adapted and
  • any longer term changes to the network.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The current County Development Plan Policy T5 and Table 12.2 relating to the Quality Bus Network will be reviewed and updated as appropriate.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

28.

Page 18 2.2 National Transport Authority (NTA) 2.2.6 Bus Depot Locations i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission requests that the need for new bus depots be addressed in the Plan.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission are noted but the Council would welcome further engagement with the NTA on this issue in early course.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

29.

Pages 18, 19 & 20 2.2 National Transport Authority (NTA) 2.2.7 Integration of Land Use and Transportation i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission requests that the key trip destination-

focused principles related to optimising the integration of land use and transport are included as follows:

·         High volume, trip intensive developments, such as offices and retail, should primarily be focused into Dublin City Centre and the larger Regional Planning Guidelines (RPG) higher order centres within the GDA

·         The role and function of District Centres and Neighbourhood Centres should be supported and promoted in order to exploit the levels of accessibility offered by public transport, walking and cycling at these locations

·         Except in limited circumstances, such as where specific physical requirements exist for the siting and operation of a particular land use, trip intensive developments or significant levels of development should not occur in locations not well served by existing or committed high quality public transport

·         The strategic transport function of national roads, including motorways, should be maintained by limiting the extent of development that would give rise to the generation of local car-based traffic on the national road network

·         All non-residential development proposals in the GDA should be subject to maximum parking standards and should vary spatially on the basis of centrality and the level of public transport provision

·         In locations where the highest intensity of development occurs, an approach that caps car parking on an area-wide basis should be applied

·         For all major employment developments and all schools, travel plans should be conditioned as part of planning permissions and be carried out in a manner consistent with existing guidance.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of the submission are noted.  The preparation of the Draft Plan and its content will be informed by the land-use and transportation policies contained within both the NTA’s GDA Transport Strategy and the NTA’s Integrated Implementation Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

30.

Page 20 2.2 National Transport Authority (NTA) 2.2.7 Integration of Land Use and Transportation ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

 

ii)      “Submission requests that the key origin-focused principles related to   optimising the integration of land use and transport are included as follows:

·      Residential development located proximate to high capacity public transport should be prioritised over development in less accessible locations in the GDA

·      To the extent practicable, residential development should be carried out sequentially, whereby lands which are, or will be, most accessible by walking, cycling and public transport – including infill and brownfield sites - are prioritised.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of the submission are noted.  The preparation of the Draft Plan and its content will be informed by the land-use and transportation policies contained within both the NTA’s GDA Transport Strategy and the NTA’s Integrated Implementation Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

31.

Pages 20 & 21 2.2 National Transport Authority (NTA) 2.2.7 Integration of Land Use and Transportation iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

iii)    “Submission recommends that in relation to the development of individual sites, the following key principles are included:

·      Planning at local level should promote walking, cycling and public transport by maximising the number of people living within walking/cycling distance of their district centres, public transport and other services

·      New development area should be fully permeable for walking and cycling and the retrospective implementation of walking and cycling facilities should be undertaken where practicable, in existing neighbourhoods

·      Development proposals should exploit opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of transport investment

·      The density and location of employment development should maximise the potential for the use of walking, cycling and public transport

·      Where possible, developments should provide for filtered permeability

·      To the extent practicable, proposals for right-of-way extinguishments should only be considered where it does not result in a more circuitous trip for local residents.”

 

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Many of the issues raised have merit and should be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan. Existing County Development Plan Policies relating to Cycling, Walking, Public Transport and Rights-of-Way will be reviewed and updated and carried forward into the new Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

32.

Pages 21& 22 2.2 National Transport Authority (NTA) 2.2.8 Core Strategy i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission recommends that a sequential approach is provided for in the Core Strategy and that zoned lands that are substantially outside of the catchment of the Luas Green Line and Dart station be subjected to an order of priority for their release for development and related to the delivery of future public transport infrastructure.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was

CONSIDERED:

 

“The Core Strategy in the existing County Development Plan elaborates on phasing, prioritisation and infrastructure delivery and identifies the primary growth nodes which will provide a significant portion of the supply of residential units up to 2022.

 

These primary growth nodes are examined in detail in Appendix B of the existing Core Strategy and their public transport infrastructural deficiencies are highlighted as are the other infrastructure requirements such as water, drainage, roads and social and community.

The Core Strategy will be reviewed during the preparation of the Draft Plan and, to the extent practicable, will include an evidence based examination of the primary nodes to assess the priority and phasing attributed to them.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

Part 3 - Summary of Main Issues & Chief Executive's Opinion & Recommendations

Section 1 - Sustainable Communities Strategy

33.

Pages 26 & 27 1.1 Population and Housing 1.1.1 Residential Land Supply i)

 

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)       “Submission states that the Council should carry out an audit of unused/underused urban land.

 

Identify ‘Action Areas’ where NTA/Irish Water should focus investment – e.g. Old Conna.

 

An analysis of projected housing need/land supply is offered. Submission states that 42,000 residential units will be required. Reference is made to recent CSO projections and it is stated that the CSO project a population level of 253,000 persons for DLR in 2022.

 

Council should zone additional land around Old Conna to ensure servicing of lands is economically attractive to Irish Water.

 

Submission concludes with essentially a rezoning request for greenbelt lands west of the M11.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“As part of the background research for the County Development Plan, the Planning Department undertakes an annual ‘Housing Land Availability Study’ which identifies available residential zoned lands.  As part of this study, unused infill sites with development potential are identified.  This study is a key input into the County Development Plan process.

 

The Council will continue to work closely with Irish Water to ensure the servicing requirements of the LAP lands in the southern part of the County are addressed. Irish Water’s recently published “Proposed Capital Investment Plan 2014-2016 includes a commitment to ‘Continue the Planning and Business Case Review’ of the Old Connaught/Woodbrook Water (& Sewerage) Scheme.

 

The submission proposes zoning additional lands in the area to “ensure the servicing of lands is economically attractive to Irish Water”.  The Planning Authority must adhere to the legislation in relation to formulating an evidence-based ‘Core Strategy’ when considering any additional zonings.  The equilibrium between existing zoned residential land and future land requirements (as measured by population forecasts carried out at a Regional level) is the key consideration – rather than the practice of excessive zoning as a means of offsetting servicing costs.

 

The submission offers an analysis of projected housing need in the County, stating that 1200 hectares of zoned residential land will be required to meet housing need as determined by the current Regional Planning Guidelines – effectively a doubling of the existing quantum of zoned land. This analysis doesn’t stand up to scrutiny in a number of respects.  It is based on a baseline level of 75,000 households in the County.  There are actually c.85,000 residential units in the County and housing estimates are derived from this baseline.

 

Reference is made to recent CSO Regional Population Projections (2013). It is stated that the CSO project a population level of 253,000 for DLR in 2022.  In fact, the CSO projections suggest a population level closer to 226,000 by 2022 (assuming that Dún Laoghaire retains its existing 16% share of Dublin’s overall population).  This projected growth suggests a housing need of c.20,000 new units, not 42,000 as referred to in the submission. Regardless, the Planning Authority is required to be consistent with the housing and population targets set by the Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area (2010).  These targets differ from ‘raw’ CSO population projections in that they seek to effectively shape regional policy, rather than simply express likely demographic trendlines.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

34.

Page 27 1.1 Population and Housing 1.1.1 Residential Land Supply ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

                  ii)      “Submission requests that residential development be permitted in Sandyford on lands other than just residential.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The submission is effectively a site specific rezoning request.  A specific site is identified with a proposal to amend the zoning provisions at that site to allow for residential development.  In recognition of recent amendments to primary planning legislation, on foot of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2010, the Council cannot consider at this Pre-Draft stage of the County Development Plan process submissions or observations relating to the zoning and/or re-zoning of specific or particular parcels of land.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously

 

 

 

35.

Pages 27 & 28 1.1 Population and Housing 1.1.1 Residential Land Supply iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission offers an analysis of residential land supply issues in the County. States that the recent low rate of house building limiting housing options for young people.

 

In examining the amount of zoned residential land, the submission states that there is a significant extent of ‘institutional’ use in existing zoned residential land.

 

In assessing the capacity of existing zoned lands to meet demand for housing, the submission concludes that an additional 200 hectares should be identified for rezoning.

 

Submission notes recent (May 2014) Housing Agency Report forecasts are based on 2013 CSO Regional population projections and not on the Regional Planning Guidelines.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The submission offers a critique of the existing Core Strategy and presents a case for additional residential rezoning.  The Planning Authority have concerns in relation to the arguments put forward in the submission in relation to the land supply issue.  The submission states that a significant extent of zoned residential land in the County is in other active use such as school/institutional uses.  This therefore leads to an overstatement of realistically ‘available’ residential land.  To clarify, the Housing Land Availability (HLA) Study does not include school or institutional lands (which may be zoned residential for long established ‘legacy’ reasons).  Only residential zoned lands that have a planning permission or are subject to planning activity (pre-plannings/Local Area Plans etc.) are included in the HLA assessment.

 

Furthermore, in arriving at the conclusion that significant additional zoned lands are required, the submission states that a density of 34uph will apply on residential lands. A significant proportion of the lands in the HLA Study comprise infill sites, with potential for significantly higher residential density than suggested.  The juxtaposition of major tranches of urban land in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown with public transport corridors (DART, Luas, QBC) means that residential densities in excess of 50uph will often be promoted.

 

The submission concludes with reference to the recently published Housing Agency report – “Housing Supply Requirements in Ireland’s Urban Settlements 2014 – 2018”, which presents housing forecasts for Dublin based on the most recent CSO Regional Population Projections from December 2013.  It is telling that the submission fails to note the projections suggest a much lower rate of growth for Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown in the short-medium term.  This lower rate is predominantly related to the substantial change in migration patterns in recent year. As this forecast clearly runs counter to the theme of the submission i.e. a call for additional residential rezoning – the submitter declines to examine its’ implications in any depth.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

36.

Pages 28 & 29 1.1 Population and Housing 1.1.1 Residential Land Supply iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission focuses on the Old Conna LAP lands.  States that demand for housing is strong in Dublin – no downzoning of land should be considered.  Old Conna lands are capable of being delivered in the short term on a phased basis using interim service proposals.  Existing policies in relation to residential density are appropriate.  No additional lands should be rezoned until currently zoned lands are made available for development through LAP process.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“A key component of the County Development Plan will be the Core Strategy, which will, as stated above, examine the equilibrium between existing zoned residential land (as measured by the Housing Land Availability Study) and future land requirements (as measured by population forecasts carried out at a Regional level).  These two datasets will determine the Chief Executive’s recommendation in relation the zoning of residential land in the next County Development Plan.

 

The Planning Authority is required, by law, to maintain consistency with the Regional Planning Guidelines population targets when drafting the County Development Plan.  The current County Development Plan (and the residential land use zonings) is based on the Regional Planning Guidelines 2010-2016, which remain in place during the drafting of the new Plan.  The new RSES (Regional Spatial and Economic Strategies, which will succeed the RPGs) is unlikely to be published prior to the adoption of the new County Development Plan.

 

In relation to the HLA Study, this Study is undertaken on an annual basis. As a result of minimal changes in development/zoning patterns in recent years, the most recent assessment of the amount of residential zoned land remains almost unchanged from the Core Strategy upon which the present County Development Plan is based.

 

The fact that the two key datasets which will shape the new Core Strategy are virtually unchanged from the previous Core Strategy, suggests that the ‘room for manoeuvre’ in relation to any significant zoning/downzoning will be limited.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

37.

Pages 29 & 30 1.1 Population and Housing 1.1.2 Housing for the Elderly i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)       “A range of submissions addressed the issue of housing for the elderly, sheltered housing and Assisted Living accommodation.

 

Development of retirement villages encouraged. The County has an ageing population. Council should identify sites for sheltered housing, consider joint development schemes and give loan guarantees to charitable bodies wishing to build.

 

Submission on behalf of Irish Association Of Older People – Undertake a needs assessment of housing/community needs of older people. A site in Dún Laoghaire Town should be identified possibly using a public/private partnership.

 

Submission addresses the ‘Assisted living’ concept.  Provision of high quality accommodation which allows people to live as independently as possible in a home designed for their needs – shared areas/domiciliary care services/housekeeping etc.  Policies in Plan should be updated to include a new use-class specifically referring to Assisted Living. Derogations from Part V should be expanded to include Assisted Living developments.

 

The County has an older population. A range of accommodation options will be required. Include provision in Plan for niche housing/retirement villages. Submission states that no specific land use fully provides for ‘retirement village’ developments i.e. Zone A Residential would ‘not allow’ for ancillary shop/medical facilities. Current policy context indicates preference for locations proximate to urban centres. Submission claims this is contrary to ‘desires of patrons’ who require quiet, secure environments.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Submissions on the topic of specialised housing for the elderly/sheltered accommodation/Assisted Living touched on a range of issues which will be relevant to the preparation of the new County Development Plan.

 

The Chief Executive recognises the nuanced distinctions between the various typologies of specialised accommodation for the elderly and County Development Plan policy will be responsive to Housing Associations and other groups who wish to provide housing solutions in this regard.  In relation to the Council’s own building stock, it is noted that a sizeable number of specialised senior citizens accommodation developments have been designated.

 

The issue of location of specialised housing for the elderly/nursing homes was addressed in one of the submissions, which stated on the one hand many older people are living longer more active lives and that multi stage accommodation should reflect this, but on the other hand the Planning Authority’s preference for locations proximate to urban/suburban centres conflicted with the ‘desires of patrons’ who ‘require quiet, secure environments’.  The Planning Authority’s position has been consistent that such facilities are best located within existing settlements where public services are available and where the occupants have some degree of access to shops and other social infrastructure and can more readily interface with their local community.

 

In relation to the submission that states that no specific land use fully provides for ‘retirement village’, it is noted that – Zone ‘A’ Residential – does in fact, allow for a very broad range of ancillary support services and uses (e.g. medical/retail/services) complementary to a residential use.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

38.

Page 31 1.1 Population and Housing 1.1.3 Residential Density i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “New development should be compatible with residential amenity.  Housing schemes should be mixed developments of 2/3/4 bed homes. A mix of Council schemes should be provided – social housing/rental/hostel.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The forthcoming County Development Plan will include policy on housing mix.  The ‘Lifecycle approach’  - encouraging good housing mix which allows people the choice and potential opportunity to remain in a given area while availing of accommodation that caters to their changing needs at a particular stage of their life - is a core objective underpinning the guidelines ‘Delivering Homes, Sustaining Communities’ (DoeHLG, 2007) and will inform policy in the new Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

39.

Page 31 1.1 Population and Housing 1.1.3 Residential Density ii)

 

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission states that the County Plan should reflect Government policy on appropriate densities proximate to public transport.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted.  County Development Plan policy in relation to residential density will be guided by the “Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas- Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009)” which notes that “minimum net densities of 50 dwellings per hectare, subject to appropriate design and amenity standards, should be applied within public transport corridors, with the highest densities being located at rail stations / bus stops, and decreasing with distance away from such nodes”.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously

 

 

 

40.

Page 31 1.1 Population and Housing 1.1.3 Residential Density iii)

 

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission suggests that densities should be relaxed on smaller ‘sub-optimal’ sites even those juxtaposed to public transport corridors, as a means of meeting market demand. NTA’sKickstart’ approach applicable only to larger sites.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The assessment of appropriate residential density on smaller infill sites involves achieving a balance between the reasonable protection of the amenities and privacy of adjoining dwellings, the protection of established character and the overall prerogative to densify and provide residential infill.  The Planning Authority must also have regard to the scarce nature of urban land and the potential cumulative negative effect of relaxing density standards at the whim of short-term market demands.  As noted above, County Development Plan policy in relation to residential density will be guided by the “Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas- Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009)”.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

41.

Pages 31& 32 1.1 Population and Housing 1.1.3 Residential Density iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission notes that in some contexts, own-door housing at medium densities (35uph) can be ‘more’ sustainable, is cheaper to build, less capital intensive than rail-based development. 

 

Other matrices of residential density should be used – bedspaces per hectare/units per hectare discriminates against ‘family units’.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Clearly, not all zoned residential areas are appropriate for higher density development and areas located within rail and QBC walking catchments may be more appropriately developed at medium densities, as suggested in the “Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas- Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009)”. It is anticipated that the forthcoming Development Plan will provide guidance on residential density bands in different parts of the County.

 

The issue of how residential density is measured will also be given consideration in the new Plan.  It is acknowledged that occupancy rates, such as persons or bed spaces per hectare, can be of use when an assessment of the numbers likely to live within a given area is important, e.g. in calculating open space requirements, or where special dwelling sizes – such as housing for the elderly – are likely to be involved.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

42.

Page 32 1.1 Population and Housing 1.1.3 Residential Density v)

 

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     v)      “Submission on behalf of the Dún Laoghaire BID Committee states that the residential population and density and building height should increase in the town.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted.  The relationship between population levels and the retail and commercial vibrancy of a town is well established. Demographic analysis presented in the ‘Have Your Say’ document highlighted the substantial population decline in the environs of Dún Laoghaire over the past 20 years.  The County Development Plan will provide density and building height guidance for Major Town Centre areas with this consideration in mind.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

43.

Page 32 1.1 Population and Housing 1.1.3 Residential Density vi)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    vi)      “Housing densities could be increased, particularly near public transport corridors.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted – see response 1.1.3 ii) above.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

44.

Page 32 1.1 Population and Housing 1.1.3 Residential Density vii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

  vii)      “Focus on medium/high density housing based around convenient transport.  A limited amount of rezoning should be carried out if necessary. Majority of housing should be for families (2,3 bed) with lesser focus on 1,4 bed.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted – see response 1.1.3 ii) above.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

45.

Pages 32 & 33 1.1 Population and Housing 1.1.3 Residential Density viii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

 viii)      “Market demand for apartments is limited. Council may be forced to loosen density requirements to accommodate housing construction.  A ‘pragmatic’ approach to density should prevail – within 500m of transport corridor, not where ground conditions are unsuitable for carpark building.

Requirements for higher density will have to be completely reviewed in light of big ticket transport schemes being shelved.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The forthcoming County Development Plan must have regard to national policy guidance on residential density as set out in “Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas- Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009).  The case advanced in the submission – “loosening density policy” or “completely reviewing density requirements”would represent, in the opinion of the Chief Executive, an abandonment of the principles of sustainable development in favour of short term market demands.

 

The Planning Authority has shown pragmatism and flexibility, in collaborating with the NTA and other Dublin Local Authorities in the formulation of the ‘Kickstart’ Incremental Development Approach.  This approach, set out in the recently published “Planning and Development Of Large-Scale, Rail Focussed Residential Areas In Dublin” (2013), proposes that lower density development can be permitted initially as part of a planned approach to deliver to the overall planned densities over a longer term.  In particular the report proposes possible solutions to enable the viable and sustainable development of these areas over the longer term.  A key aim of this approach is to “retain key high density locations for later development phases”.  The Chief Executive is satisfied that the targeted, planned approach to managing density is essential in ensuring an outcome that adheres to the principles of sustainable development.

 

The longer-than-expected lead in time for the delivery of the Luas Line B2 to Fassaroe will certainly have implications for the timing of development of Local Area Plan lands to be served by the rail corridor.  The Chief Executive is firmly of the opinion that the wholesale reduction in residential density in these areas is not a sustainable or reasonable response to this delay.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

46.

Pages 33 & 34 1.1 Population and Housing 1.1.4 Miscellaneous i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “A ‘more nuanced’ zoning scheme is required – too broad at present.

A menu of housing schemes should be pursued – traditional build/co-op scheme/ rent to let etc”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The review of the County Development Plan offers an opportunity to refine and improve the land use zoning objectives and the myriad land uses that are permitted in principle/open for consideration therein.  It is intended that the land use zoning matrix will be reviewed and consideration given to additions and deletions where improvements can be made.

 

The Housing Strategy review will provide an opportunity to incorporate all of the mechanisms currently available for social/affordable housing provisions, where resources allow.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

47.

Page 34 1.1 Population and Housing 1.1.4 Miscellaneous ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      Crosscare homeless provision services at Carlisle Terrace, Dún Laoghaire are having a negative impact on residential amenity and should be ‘spread around’ the County more evenly.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The forthcoming County Development Plan and Housing Strategy must seek to strike a balance between providing for the needs of all citizens requiring social housing supports, including those who are homeless, rough sleeping or at risk of homelessness and ensuring protection of amenities in residential areas.  The contents of this submission are noted and will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

48.

Page 34 1.1 Population and Housing 1.1.4 Miscellaneous iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission suggests the possibility of a community ‘self build’ as a means of allowing young people to live in the area they grew up in – competition for sites/houses on the open market being unaffordable for most younger people.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The submission proposes a community ‘self build’ initiative. It is not stated explicitly in the submission, but the implication is that the Council would somehow subsidise or provide gratis the land for such a project.

 

In principle, the Housing Department will support any proposal and will consider any application from a group/co-operative/approved housing body for a site for the construction of housing for qualified housing applicants.  In this respect Applicants being considered for housing accommodation must satisfy the Council that they are eligible for Social Housing Support and have a housing need.  In practical terms, it would be necessary for the interested qualified housing applicants to form a co-operative or housing body before the Council will consider disposal of a site or lands.  It would be the responsibility of the co-operative to source and obtain the necessary funding/financing, and also to obtain the required planning permission and building control/fire safety certificates.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

49.

Pages 34 & 35 1.1 Population and Housing 1.1.4 Miscellaneous iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission states that the Housing Strategy should note the need to supply long term supported housing for chronically homeless – currently facilities available in Dublin City only.  If the Council could facilitate long-term supported housing, Bentley House could focus on emergency temporary accommodation.  Plan should also fully implement national policy aimed at alleviating homelessness and also address the particular needs of the county’s homeless, the majority of whom consist of 1 person households.  The one-bedroom sector should be a focus for the Plan.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission are noted and will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan and the Housing Strategy.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

50.

Pages 35 & 36 1.2 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.1 Sutton to Sandycove (S2S) Cycle Route i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

              i)“Various submissions stating support for the S2S proposed cycle/pedestrian route and / or a cycleway along the coast.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The proposed S2S Promenade and Cycleway forms part of the East Coast Trail within the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan. The full route of S2S straddles the administrative areas of Fingal, Dublin City and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown.

 

It should be noted that this coastal route will be subject to a feasibility study including an assessment of route options. Any development proposals shall be subject to Appropriate Assessment Screening in accordance with the requirements of the EU Habitats Directive to ensure the protection and preservation of all designated Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), and (proposed) Natural Heritage Areas (pNHAs) of Dublin Bay and surrounding areas.

 

The National Transport Authority (NTA) has confirmed its intention to procure a specialist consultant to evaluate all options for the section of the route between Sandymount Strand and Booterstown Marsh. The study will be undertaken by the NTA with the active involvement of DúnLaoghaire-Rathdown and Dublin City.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

51.

Page 36 1.2 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.1 Sutton to Sandycove (S2S) Cycle Route ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission requests that a cycle/walk way from Howth to Bray should be constructed a few metres above sea-level but well below the height of the cliffs to act as a barrier to the sea.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted – see response 1.2.1 i) above.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

52.

Page 36 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.1 Sutton to Sandycove (S2S) Cycle Route iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission notes the scope for accommodating the S2S cycle route through the Harbour Masterplan Area.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

53.

Pages 36 & 37 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.2 Cycling and Walking i)

 

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Various submissions were received expressing support for cycling and walking.  The contents of these suggestions/recommendations are listed below.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“General Response:

Many of the issues raised in the submissions below under this topic heading have merit and will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.  Policy T2 and Policy T12 of the current County Development Plan relating to the Development of Sustainable Travel and to Cycling and Walking should be updated and carried forward into the preparation of the Draft Plan.

 

The Council’s Cycle Network and the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan will help inform the development of new cycle routes in the County and subsequent links to help create more permeable walking and cycling routes.

 

In accordance with the ‘Urban Design Manual – a Best Practice Guide’, (DEHLG 2008) and ‘Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets’ (DECLG and DTTaS 2013) new development is required to maximise permeability and connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists, in order to create direct attractive links to adjacent roads, public transport and existing nearby development.  The Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets’ aims to end the practice of designing streets as traffic corridors, and instead focus on the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

54.

Page 37 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.2 Cycling and Walking ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission requests that the Development Plan place an emphasis on slow modes of transport and cater for pedestrians and cyclists through a range of measures. Focus on prioritising pedestrians in residential areas.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted – see response to 1.2.2 i) above.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

55.

Page 37 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.2 Cycling and Walking iii)

 

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission seeks to encourage the Council to develop dedicated cycle lane infrastructure where feasible.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted – see response to 1.2.2 i) above.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

56.

Page 37 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.2 Cycling and Walking iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission asks for support for cycling/walking to UCD, welcomes improvements to the cycle network and potential for extension of a cycle sharing scheme to the County.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission are noted and a policy in relation to Public Bike Facilities shall be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously

 

 

 

57.

Page 37 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.2 Cycling and Walking v)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     v)      “Submission seeks support for expansion of existing cycle routes.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Council’s Cycle Network and the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan will help inform the development of new cycle routes in the County and subsequent links to help create more permeable walking and cycling routes.  This will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

58.

Pages 37 & 38 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.2 Cycling and Walking vi)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    vi)      “Submission requests the designation of Quinn’s Road East as a pedestrian priority zone and the development of a cycle path alongside the pedestrian walk between Killiney beach and Seafield.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Council’s Cycle Network and the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan will help inform the development of new cycle routes in the County and subsequent links to help create more permeable walking and cycling routes.  This will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

59.

Page 38 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.2 Cycling and Walking vii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

  vii)      “Submission seeks support for the widening of access times for bicycles on the Dart.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“This issue in not within the remit of the Local Authority. It is an operational issue for the NTA and Iarnród Eireann.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

60.

Page 38 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.2 Cycling and Walking viii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

“Submission expresses concern that the cycle track at St. Columbanus is poorly planned and is putting school children at risk.  General condition of roads/pathways in the estate deemed to have deteriorated immensely since the opening of the Luas.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of the submission are noted, however this is not considered a strategic County Development Plan issue but a roads maintenance issue.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

61.

Page 38 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.2 Cycling and Walking ix)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    ix)      “Submission requests that consideration should be given to providing a cycle racing facility in the new Jamestown Regional Park to be developed on the site of the remedial Ballyogan landfill.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission are noted and will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

62.

Page 38 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.2 Cycling and Walking x)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      x)      “Submission requests that priority be given to pedestrians using paths throughout the County and ensuring that they are fit and safe to walk on.

 

Submission also expresses concern over the dangerous condition of footpaths in Stillorgan Road area.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of the submission are noted, however this is not considered a strategic County Development Plan issue but a roads maintenance issue.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

63.

Page 38 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.2 Cycling and Walking xi)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    xi)      “Submission expresses support for cycling and walking and also enhanced pedestrian access to the Harbour Area of Dún Laoghaire.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

64.

Page 39 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.2 Cycling and Walking xii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

   xii)      “Submission requests that two-way streets with low traffic volumes be reduced to one-lane with dedicated cycling lane.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

65.

Page 39 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.2 Cycling and Walking xiii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

 xiii)      “Submission requests:

·         Protect and promote greenways and consider designating them public rights-of-way

·         Support traffic free cycleways

·         Appoint a Cycling Officer and for the Plan content to include NCPF and Fáilte Ireland strategies among other strategies mentioned

·         Include content promoting the economic advantages of walking

·         Protect the access routes to existing rights-of-way/upland walks.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Many of the issues raised in the submissions below under this topic heading have merit and will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.  Policy T2 and Policy T12 of the current County Development Plan relating to the Development of Sustainable Travel and to Cycling and Walking should be updated and carried forward into the preparation of the Draft Plan.

 

The Council’s Cycle Network and the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan will help inform the development of new cycle routes in the County and subsequent links to help create more permeable walking and cycling routes.

 

In accordance with in the ‘Urban Design Manual – a Best Practice Guide’, (DEHLG 2008) and ‘Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets’ (DECLG and DTTaS 2013) new development is required to maximise permeability and connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists, in order to create direct attractive links to adjacent roads, public transport and existing nearby development.  The Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets’ aims to end the practice of designing streets as traffic corridors, and instead focus on the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

66.

Page 39 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.2 Cycling and Walking xiv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

xiv)      “Submission requests that the GDA cycle network is reflected in the new Development Plan.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The GDA Cycle Network Plan will inform the development of new cycle routes within the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

67.

Page 39 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.2 Cycling and Walking xv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

  xv)      “Submission requests signposting and wayfinding on rights-of-way to notify walkers that a right-of-way exists and protection/promotion of public rights-of-way.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Policy T23 of the current County Development Plan sets out Council policy in relation to Waymarking Signage.  It is envisaged that this will be carried forward into the consideration of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

68.

Page 40 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.2 Cycling and Walking xvi)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

            xvi)      “Submission advocates:

 

·         The integration of attractive and safe walking and cycling routes connecting the future terminus of Luas Line B2 to employment/residential centres.

·         The need to avoid segregation of pedestrians/cyclists from Luas lines in future street networks.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission are noted and will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

69.

Page 40 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.3 Integration of Land Use and Transportation i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission requests that the new Plan continues to support sustainable transportation policies with appropriate objectives such as higher densities near public transport corridors and nodes.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Existing County Development Plan Policy T1 relating to ‘Integration of Land Use and Transportation Policies’ will be updated and carried forward into the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

70.

Page 40 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.3 Integration of Land Use and Transportation ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission requests that District Centres should be easily accessible by walking, cycling and public transport.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted and agreed.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

71.

Page 40 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.3 Integration of Land Use and Transportation iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission requests that the NTA’s Draft Transport Strategy must be followed.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Draft Plan will be consistent with the NTA’s Draft GDA Transport Strategy.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

72.

Page 41 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.3 Integration of Land Use and Transportation iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission requests that a Local Transport Plan be prepared alongside the Development Plan setting out how the objectives of the National Smarter Travel Policy will be achieved.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The specific thrust of this submission and the ability / resources to deliver same will be examined during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

73.

Page 41 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.3 Integration of Land Use and Transportation v)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     v)      “Submission indicates that Mobility Management Plans must be mandatory for all applications – including one-off houses- and demonstrate how the objectives of Smarter Travel can be achieved.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“All developments above a certain size threshold and all schools are required to develop a Workplace Travel Plan as per Smarter Travel, the National Transport Policy, and in accordance with National Transport Authority Guidelines.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

74.

Page 41 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.3 Integration of Land Use and Transportation vi)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    vi)      “Submission recommends that the Plan reflects Government policy on land use near public transport corridors and explore other options for public transport if major projects do not go ahead.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted and agreed.  The Draft Plan will be consistent with the guidance set out in the ‘Sustainable Residential Developments for Urban Areas (2009)’ and the NTA’s Draft GDA Transport Strategy.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

75.

Page 41 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.3 Integration of Land Use and Transportation vii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

  vii)      “Submission requests that the Plan maintain objectives for high density developments on lands to be served directly by public transport connections in the long term (Old Conna).”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted and agreed. Existing County Development Plan Policy T1 relating to ‘Integration of Land Use and Transportation Policies’ should be updated and carried forward into the new Development Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously

 

 

 

76.

Pages 41 42 & 43 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.3 Integration of Land Use and Transportation viii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

 viii)      “Submission requests that the key trip destination-focused principles related to optimising the integration of land use and transport are included as follows:

 

  • High volume, trip intensive developments, such as offices and retail, should primarily be focussed into Dublin City Centre and the larger Regional Planning Guidelines (RPG) higher order centres within the GDA.

 

·         The role and function of district centres and neighbourhood centres should be supported and promoted in order to exploit the levels of accessibility offered by public transport, walking and cycling at these locations.

 

·         Except in limited circumstances such as where specific physical requirements exist for the siting and operation of a particular land use, trip intensive developments or significant levels of development should not occur in locations not well served by existing or committed high quality public transport.

 

·         The strategic transport function of national roads, including motorways, should be maintained by limiting the extent of development that would give rise to the generation of local car-based traffic on the national road network.

 

·         All non-residential development proposals in the GDA should be subject to maximum parking standards and should vary spatially on the basis of centrality and the level of public transport provision.

 

·         In locations where the highest intensity of development occurs, an approach that caps car parking on an area-wide basis should be applied

 

·         For all major employment developments and all schools, travel plans should be conditioned as part of planning permissions and be carried out in a manner consistent with existing guidance.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of the submission are noted.  The preparation of the Draft Plan will be informed by the land-use and transportation policies contained within both the NTA’s GDA Transport Strategy and the NTA’s Integrated Implementation Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

77.

Page 43 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.3 Integration of Land Use and Transportation ix)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    ix)      “Submission requests that the key origin focussed principles related to optimising the integration of land use and transport are included as follows:

 

·         Residential development located proximate to high capacity public transport should be prioritised over development in less accessible locations in the GDA.

 

  • To the extent practicable, residential development should be carried out sequentially, whereby lands which are, or will be, most accessible by walking, cycling and public transport – including infill and brownfield sites - are prioritised.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of the submission are noted.  The preparation of the Draft Plan will be informed by the land-use and transportation policies contained within both the NTA’s GDA Transport Strategy and the NTA’s Integrated Implementation Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

78.

Pages 43 & 44 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.3 Integration of Land Use and Transportation x)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      x)      “Submission recommends that in relation to the development of individual sites, the following key principles are included:

 

·         Planning at local level should promote walking, cycling and public transport by maximising the number of people living within walking/cycling distance of their district centres, public transport and other services.

 

·         New development areas should be fully permeable for walking and cycling and the retrospective implementation of walking and cycling facilities should be undertaken where practicable, in existing neighborhoods.

 

·         Development proposals should exploit opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of transport investment.

 

·         The density and location of employment development should maximise the potential for the use of walking, cycling and public transport.

 

·         Where possible, developments should provide for filtered permeability.

 

  • To the extent practicable, proposals for right of way extinguishments should only be considered where it does not result in a more circuitous trip for local residents.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Many of the issues raised have merit and should be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan. Existing County Development Plan Policies relating to Cycling, Walking, Public Transport and Rights-of-Way will be reviewed and updated and carried forward into the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

79.

Page 45 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.4 Permeability i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission expresses opposition to permeability and requests that there be no intrusion (either vehicular or pedestrian) into Corke Abbey Estate.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The specific access arrangements at Corke Abbey are not considered a Strategic Development Plan issue.

 

However, in accordance with in the ‘Urban Design Manual – a best practice guide’, (DEHLG 2008) and ‘Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets’ (DECLG and DTTaS 2013) new development is required to maximise permeability and connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists, to create direct attractive links to adjacent roads, public transport and existing nearby development.  The Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets’ aims to end the practice of designing streets as traffic corridors, and instead focus on the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users.

 

The Council Cycle Network and the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan will help inform the development of new cycle routes in the County and subsequent cycle links to help create more permeable walking and cycling routes.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

80.

Page 46 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.4 Permeability ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

                  ii)      “Submissions emphasises support for permeability to facilitate/promote cycling and walking.

                 iii)      However, one submission advocates that each case must be decided on its own merits to ensure that resident’s health and safety/security concerns are taken into account.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Many of the issues raised in the submissions have merit and should be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.  Existing County Development Plan Policy T12 relating to Cycling and Walking should be updated and carried forward into the new Plan.

 

In accordance with in the ‘Urban Design Manual – a best practice guide’, (DEHLG 2008) and ‘Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets’ (DECLG and DTTaS 2013) new development is required to maximise permeability and connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists, to create direct attractive links to adjacent roads, public transport and existing nearby development.  The Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets’ aims to end the practice of designing streets as traffic corridors, and instead focus on the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users.

 

The Council Cycle Network and the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan will help inform the development of new cycle routes in the County and subsequent cycle links to help create more permeable walking and cycling routes.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

81.

Page 46 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.4 Permeability iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission requests that the Development Plan contain the overall objective of significantly reducing travel demand by creating compact walkable settlements and include detailed policies on walking and cycling (including permeability and way-finding studies to identify a safe network of existing/future walking and cycling routes which should be used as the primary criteria in relation to the selection of Lands appropriate for development.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted – see response to 1.2.4 ii) above.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

82.

Page 47 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.4 Permeability iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission requests that the Development Plan ensures a high standard of permeability throughout the Harbour Area and for appropriate provision of pedestrian connectivity to the Town Centre.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted – see response to 1.2.4 ii) above.  In addition, the contents of this submission should be examined more closely in the context of any future process for considering and formulating an overall strategy and vision for the Dún Laoghaire Town Centre and Environs area.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

83.

Page 47 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.4 Permeability v)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     v)      “Submission requests that permeability and connectivity issues to and from proposed Luas termini (at Fassaroe and Bray town) are addressed in the Development Plan.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted – see response to 1.2.4 ii) above.

 

In addition, the Council will strive to work alongside both the NTA and the Luas operators to ensure the issues highlighted are addressed.” 

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

84.

Page 47 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.5 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)       “Submissions requested that BRT should be extended to Brewery Road and Bray and from Sandyford Business District to UCD.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The delivery, integration and implementation of public transport infrastructural projects is no longer within the remit of the Local Authority but fall under the auspices of the NTA. Any decisions on additional BRT routes will be decided by the NTA.  The Council will however engage with the NTA in relation to the issue raised.

 

It should be noted that the ‘Blue Line BRT’ - from Sandyford to the Dart line at Sydney Parade – is included under Policy T9 of the existing County Development Plan. In addition, the ‘Blue Line’ is also included within the NTA’s Draft GDA Transport Strategy, subject to assessment by the NTA.  The ‘Blue Line’ is, however, not included within the NTA’s Integrated Implementation Plan 2013-2018 list of projects to be delivered over the next five years.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

85.

Pages 47 & 48 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.5 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submissions advocate that BRT - and /or bus based options - should be provided in lieu of the proposed Luas lines and/or other public transport options should be explored if major projects do not go ahead.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“As stated above, the delivery, integration and implementation of public transport infrastructural projects is no longer within the remit of the Local Authority but fall under the auspices of the NTA.  The Council will however continue to develop a close working relationship with the NTA to achieve common objectives such as alignment with the RPGs settlement strategy and to ensure that the provision of high quality public transport infrastructure will not be a limiting factor in terms of delivering forecasted growth in the County.

 

Any decisions on BRT or bus-based services replacing long-term light rail projects will be decided on by the NTA.  The Council will engage with the NTA in relation to the issues raised.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

86.

Page 48 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.5 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission requests that the BRT route between N11 (UCD) and Blanchardstown, as detailed within the NTA’s Integrated Implementation Plan is reflected within the Draft Plan.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“As part of the National Transport Authority Integrated Implementation Plan 2013 to 2018, a BRT route has been identified that links City Centre to UCD (as part of Blanchardstown to UCD route) and a commitment is made to move the scheme to planning approval and construction over the 5-year period subject, however, to resources being available. No other routes have been identified as part of this five year Implementation Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

87.

Page 48 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.6 Bus i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission states that many bus lanes throughout the County and specifically on Glenageary Road are used very infrequently.  These bus lanes should be decommissioned.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The licensing of bus routes is a matter for the National Transport Authority.  However the Council will engage with the NTA in relation to the issues raised.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

88.

Page 48 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.6 Bus ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission recommends that any proposals for bus priority take account of:

 

·         changes to the bus network since the plan was adopted and

·         also any longer term changes to the network.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Current County Development Plan Policy T5 and Table 12.2 relating to the Quality Bus Network should be revisited and updated in the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

89.

Page 49 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.6 Bus iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission requests that the need for new bus depots to be addressed in the plan.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of the submission are noted and DLR welcomes further engagement from the NTA on this issue.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

90.

Page 49 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.6 Bus iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission supports further improvements to bus services.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Current County Development Plan Policy T5 and Table 12.2 relating to the Quality Bus Network should be revisited and updated in the new Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

91.

Page 49 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.6 Bus v)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     v)      “Submission voices concerns in relation to:

 

·         the reduction in bus services (and public transport services generally) at weekends and

·         the high costs associated with same.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The licensing of bus routes is a matter for the National Transport Authority.  However the Council will engage with the NTA in relation to the issues raised.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

92.

Page 49 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.7 Taxi i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission requests the provision of a dedicated Taxi Rank in Cornelscourt Village (and near Dunne’s Stores).”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The current County Development Plan Policy T8 relating to Taxi/Minibus/Hackney Transport should be re-examined and revised as appropriate and incorporated in the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

93.

Page 49 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.8 Luas i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission recommends the proposed extension of the Green Luas Line Luas to Bray be replaced by BRT.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The delivery, integration and implementation of public transport infrastructural projects is no longer within the remit of the Local Authority but fall under the auspices of the NTA. Any decisions on BRT or bus-based services replacing long-term light rail projects will be decided on by the NTA.  The Council will however engage with the NTA in relation to the issue raised.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

94.

Page 50 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.8 Luas ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submissions expressed the view that Shankill/Bray is already well served by public transport.  Submissions also recommend the Luas Green Line to be extended from Brides Glen to serve Loughlinstown Hospital and / or North Shankill.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“As stated above, the delivery, integration and implementation of public transport infrastructural projects is no longer within the remit of the Local Authority but fall under the auspices of the NTA.  The Council will however continue to develop a close working relationship with the NTA to achieve common objectives such as alignment with the RPGs settlement strategy and to ensure that the provision of high quality public transport infrastructure will not be a limiting factor in terms of delivering forecasted growth in the County.

 

Any decisions on amendments to long-term light rail projects will be decided on by the NTA.  The Council will engage with the NTA in relation to the issues raised.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

95.

Page 50 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.8 Luas iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission details concerns regarding the safety of schoolchildren on Stonebridge Road if Luas Green Line extended beyond Brides Glen.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission are noted and will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

96.

Page 50 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.8 Luas iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission details concern that the location of the Luas Green Line between the South County Business Park and Central Park effectively creates a significant barrier between the two areas.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The extension of the Luas Green Line to Brides Glen and the creation of a Luas stop in Central Park has undoubtedly improved access to the overall Sandyford Business District with good access routes to all nearby offices and commercial complexes – including South County Business Park.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

97.

Pages 50 & 51 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.8 Luas v)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     v)      “Submission opposed moving forward with alternatives to Luas Line B2.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The delivery, integration and implementation of public transport infrastructural projects is no longer within the remit of the Local Authority but fall under the auspices of the NTA.   The Council will however continue to develop a close working relationship with the NTA to achieve common objectives such as alignment with the RPGs settlement strategy and to ensure that the provision of high quality public transport infrastructure will not be a limiting factor in terms of delivering forecasted growth in the County.

 

Any decisions on BRT or bus-based services replacing long-term light rail projects will be decided on by the NTA.  The Council will engage with the NTA in relation to the issues raised.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

98.

Page 51 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.8 Luas vi)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    vi)      “The RPA request that the corridor for Luas Line B2 continue to be preserved and identified on County Development Plan maps.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The specific contents of this submission will be examined during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

99.

Page 51 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.9 Public Transport General i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission requests Local Authorities form a coherent lobby group to press for the introduction of a fairer public transport charging scheme.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Public transport price fixing is not within the remit of the Local Authority but falls under the auspices of the NTA.  The Council will however, continue to develop a close working relationship with the NTA to achieve common objectives such as more equitable public transport price structure within a high quality public transport network.  In this regard the ‘Leap’ card has been introduced alongside well-established tax-breaks for regular public transport users.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

100.

Page 51 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.9 Public Transport General ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission supports improved access by public transport to retail developments.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission are noted and will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.

 

The development of Public Transport Corridors will be in accordance with the requirements set out in the NTA’s Integrated Implementation Plan 2013 to 2018 and the NTA’s overall Draft GDA Transport Strategy.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

101.

Page 52 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.9 Public Transport General iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission expresses strong concerns relating to the lack of public transport within Foxrock

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The delivery, integration and implementation of public transport infrastructural projects is no longer within the remit of the Local Authority but fall under the auspices of the NTA.

 

However it should be noted that Foxrock is, in relative terms, well served by public transport.  The N11, which is in close proximity, is a high frequency, high capacity priority bus corridor with the 46A operating at nine minute intervals during the peak hours.

 

In addition, Foxrock is located in close proximity to both Carrickmines Luas stop Brennanstown Luas stop, with the Luas Green line operating at 4-10 minute intervals during the peak hours.” 

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

102.

Page 52 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.9 Public Transport General iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission raises concerns in relation to public transport waiting times plus journey time to services.  Inadequate coverage of resting places and / or shelters.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The delivery, integration and implementation of public transport infrastructureis not within the remit of the Local Authority but falls under the auspices of the NTA.  The Council will however, continue to develop a close working relationship with the NTA to achieve common objectives such as improving journey times and improving inadequate resting places / shelters.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

103.

Page 52 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.9 Public Transport General v)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     v)      “Submission requests that policy must focus on facilitating and promoting Dún Laoghaire Town Centre by all modes of transport – including public transport, walking and cycling.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The issue raised in the submission has merit and will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

104.

Page 52 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.9 Public Transport General vi)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    vi)      “Submission requests that the Draft Plan facilitates the priorities and objectives set out in the NTA’s Integrated Implementation Plan.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

105.

Page 53 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.10 Traffic Calming and Management i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission indicates that the road network around Dún Laoghaire Harbour is not capable of accommodating passengers from cruise liners.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“This is a Development Management issue.  It is considered, nevertheless, that with considered and properly implemented Traffic Management Plan the road network around Dún Laoghaire Harbour has sufficient capacity to facilitate the envisaged traffic movement associated with cruise liner activity.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

106.

Page 53 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.10 Traffic Calming and Management ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission urges the Council to engage with residents on traffic management issues.

 

One submission recommends the implementation of traffic management measures to benefit walking and cycling.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Individual Traffic Management Schemes are generally subject to comprehensive public consultation and dialogue.  However further improvements in relation to public consultation protocols and engagement with affected communities will be considered further.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

107.

Pages 53 & 54 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.10 Traffic Calming and Management iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submissions requests roads/areas where traffic calming and traffic management are sought including:

 

·         Tivoli Road

·         Foxrock

·         Priorsland Link Road

·         Dundrum

·         Rathmichael

·         Glenageary

·         Kill Avenue

·         Baker’s Corner

·         Sallyglen Road

·         Rochestown Avenue

·         Killiney Hill Road

·         Haigh Terrace

  • Countywide”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Council’s “Traffic Calming Prioritisation Programme” sets out the criteria for the provision of traffic calming on roads within the County.  The priorities identified in the programme will be reflected in the new County Development Plan.  This document was produced following detailed technical analysis of various criteria (road collision assessment, speed analysis, traffic volumes etc) and a period of comprehensive public consultation.

 

Many of the issues raised in the submissions have merit and should be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.  Existing County Development Plan Policy T12 relating to Cycling and Walking should be updated and carried forward into the new Plan.

 

In accordance with in the ‘Urban Design Manual – a best practice guide’, (DEHLG 2008) and ‘Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets’ (DECLG and DTTaS 2013) new development is required to maximise permeability and connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists, to create direct attractive links to adjacent roads, public transport and existing nearby development.  The Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets’ aims to end the practice of designing streets as traffic corridors, and instead focus on the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

108.

Page 54 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.10 Traffic Calming and Management iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission outlines residents’ perception that traffic management measures are punitive and anti-car.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The purpose of traffic management measures are to improve the safety and accessibility of an area for all modes and are not intended to be ‘anti-car’.  In addition, individual Traffic Management Schemes are generally subject to comprehensive public consultation.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

109.

Page 54 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.11 Park and ride i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submissions advocate providing car parking facilities and feeder buses to encourage use of public transport. Submissions focused primarily at Brides Glen and Cherrywood Luas Stations.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“A Park and Ride has been permitted adjacent to Brides Glen Luas stop.  On-road car parking and facilities for feeder buses have been provided.  Policy T7 ‘Park and Ride’ of the existing Plan will be reviewed and updated during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

110.

Page 54 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.11 Park and ride ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission reiterates the potential for two public transport interchange (with feeder buses to the Luas Green line and proposed BRT) in the Sandyford Business District area.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“It should be noted that SLO 114 of the current County Development Plan makes provision ‘To Provide a Public Transport Interchange along Blackthorn Avenue’.  This will be reviewed and updated as appropriate.

 

The delivery, integration and implementation of public transport infrastructure –including feeder buses - is not within the remit of the Local Authority but falls under the auspices of the NTA.  The Council will however, continue to develop a close working relationship with the NTA to achieve common objectives such as improving public transport connections.” 

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

111.

Page 55 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.12 Parking Standards i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission advocates that car parking charges be made mandatory in out of town retail and commercial developments to ‘level the playing field’ and end unfair competitive advantage accruing to out-of-town retailers.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The issue of the setting of parking charges is clearly an operational matter and not considered appropriate in the context of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

112.

Page 55 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.12 Parking Standards ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission issues support for the continued consolidation and rationalisation of parking on the UCD campus through a range of measures.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

113.

Page 55 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.12 Parking Standards iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission seeks setting of minimum levels of parking provision for Electric Vehicles.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Development Management guidelines in Section 16.10.12 of the current County Development Plan regarding facilities for electric vehicles will reviewed and updated as appropriate and carried forward into the new Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

114.

Page 55 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.12 Parking Standards iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission requests the revision of development standards to include a specific car parking standard of 1:14 for ‘retail-food’ along public transport corridors, and an acknowledgement that car parking requirements for ‘drive through’ restaurants are different from other forms of retail activity.  This should be reflected in planning policy.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The current County Development Plan maximum car parking standards for non-residential developments contained in Table 16.4 will be reviewed and updated as appropriate.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

115.

Pages 55 & 56 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.12 Parking Standards v)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     v)      “Submission advocates the provision of a Harbour related car park within the re-development of St. Michael’s to offset the removal of on-street parking within the Harbour area.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“This is not a strategic County Development Plan issue but a Development Management issue.  To be addressed by the Council in conjunction with the Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

116.

Page 56 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.12 Parking Standards vi)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    vi)      “Submission recommends that all non-residential development proposals in the Greater Dublin Area (GDA) should be subject to maximum parking standards and should vary spatially on the basis of (i) centrality and (ii) the level of public transport provision.  The Submission also recommends that, in locations where the highest intensity of development occurs, a considered approach that caps car parking on a more comprehensive area-wide basis should be considered.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission are noted and will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.

 

The current County Development Plan maximum car parking standards for non-residential developments contained in Table 16.4 will be reviewed and updated as appropriate.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

117.

Page 56 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.13 Parking General i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)       “Submissions recommend that:

  • the Council engage with residential communities regarding pay parking and
  • promote a zonal approach to pay parking.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Council will engage with local communities regarding pay parking in accordance with the Parking Control Bye-laws and the Guidelines for the Implementation of Pay and Display Parking Control Schemes.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

118.

Pages 56 & 57 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.13 Parking General ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “A number of submissions were received relating to parking in general, or in specific areas.

 

Requests were received: for the provision of additional parking/set down areas and / or changes to pay parking pricing structure in

  • Foxrock area
  • Dún Laoghaire
  • Windy Arbour Luas Station
  • Hollypark / Foxrock Avenue
  • Cornelscourt Village.

 

Submissions also detail concerns relating to  commuter parking in residential areas including

  • St. Columbanus Estate/Road Dundrum,
  • Dún Laoghaire
  • Quinn’s Road East.

 

One submission advocates the establishment of IT systems to improve the parking situation (Dún Laoghaire).”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Current County Development Plan Policy T7 relating to Park and Ride and Policy T17 relating to Control of On-Street Parking and will be reviewed and updated as appropriate and carried forward into the Draft Plan.

 

Regarding Foxrock Village, a Part 8 was approved in 2013 for the provision of a car park totaling 51 spaces. This development will address car parking difficulties in the village.

Requests for paid parking schemes on individual roads or specific estates are clearly operational matters and are not considered appropriate in the context of a strategic County Development Plan.  Provision for paid parking schemes in residential areas is governed by the Parking Control Bye-laws and the Guidelines for the Implementation of Pay and Display Parking Control Schemes. 

 

Similar to above, the establishment of an IT based car parking system is clearly an operational matter and is not considered appropriate in the context of the County Development Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

119.

Page 57 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.13 Parking General iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission states that car parking fees at Shankill DART station are perceived as being too expensive.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Parking fees are an operational issue to be decided by the Council. This issue is not considered appropriate in the context of a strategic County Development Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

120.

Page 57 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.13 Parking General iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submissions perceive parking fees as expensive, punitive, anti-car, primarily revenue generating in purpose, inflexible and a deterrent to visitors/shoppers both in Dún Laoghaire and the wider County as a whole.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Parking fees are an operational issue to be decided by the Council.  This issue is not considered appropriate in the context of a strategic County Development Plan.  Nevertheless, it should be noted that car parking charges in Dún Laoghaire and the wider environs were reduced in March 2014 and other initiatives not based on cost are also being considered.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

121.

Page 57 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.13 Parking General v)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     v)      “Submission requested car parking at all public transport termini (with covered walkways).”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission are noted and will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

122.

Page 57 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.13 Parking General vi)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    vi)      “Submission supports the provision of a multi-story car park at St. Michael’s Hospital.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“This is not a strategic County Development Plan matter but a Development Management issue. To be pursued with the Hospital authorities.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

123.

Page 58 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.13 Parking General vii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

  vii)      “Submission requests the Council to be pro-active in the provision of car parks that are open 7 days per week for non-commuter/ recreational users.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission are noted and will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

124.

Page 58 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.14 Road Objectives i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)       “Submission requests various roads projects within and in close proximity to the Cherrywood SDZ Scheme lands namely:

·         the inclusion of the Kiltiernan Link Road and M50 Overbridge

·         Grand Parade Vehicular Road

·         Junction 16 underpass

 

be incorporated into the new Development Plan.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission are noted and will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.

 

It should be noted that the large scale infrastructural projects such as Long-Term and 6-Year Road Schemes as adopted within the Cherrywood SDZ Planning Scheme will be incorporated within both the narrative and the mapping for the County Development Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

125.

Page 58 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.14 Road Objectives ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission requests the inclusion of an objective to provide for and safeguard lands for the proposed link road across the N11, as provided for in the NRA M50/M11/N11 Corridor Study.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission are noted and will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

126.

Page 58 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.14 Road Objectives iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission recommends that all new roads objectives must be discontinued.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission are noted and will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

127.

Pages 58 & 59 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.14 Road Objectives iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submissions expressed concern over the urban appearance of new roundabouts and roads in the Rathmichael area.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The detailed specification of the surfacing of roundabouts in the Rathmichael area is an operational / maintenance issue not a strategic matter for consideration in a County Development Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

128.

Page 59 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.14 Road Objectives v)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     v)      “Submissions relating to the M50 including support for widening the M50.  Attenuation of surface water run-off from the M50 to prevent downstream flooding at Shanganagh and Bayview.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“In the longer term, sections of the M50/M11 may be widened by the addition of a third lane with an additional auxiliary lane where required.  Attenuation of surface water runoff is now standard on motorway schemes.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

129.

Page 59 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.14 Road Objectives vi)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    vi)      “Submissions expressed support for the Eastern Bypass.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Dublin Eastern By-pass is not recommended for development during the period of the NTA Draft Transport Strategy for The Greater Dublin Area 2011-2030.  However it is recommended that the Eastern By-pass route corridor be protected for a possible future transport scheme that may be implemented after 2030.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

130.

Page 59 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.14 Road Objectives vii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

  vii)      “Submission requests various road projects / improvement works are incorporated in the new Plan, namely:

 

·         Widening of the lanes on the Wilford Roundabout

·         Widening and improvement of Dundrum Road towards Milltown and junction improvements at Dundrum Cross

·         Provision of a south bound slip road from the Sandyford Business District to the M50

·         Tivoli Road

·         Re-instatement of the roundabout at junction of Glenageary Road and Mounttown Road.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission are noted and will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

131.

Page 60 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.14 Road Objectives viii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

 viii)      “Submission requests the removal of the a section of the Eastern Bypass – Goatstown Interchange)”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Dublin Eastern By-pass is not recommended for development during the period of the NTA Draft Transport Strategy for The Greater Dublin Area 2011-2030.  However it is recommended that the Eastern Bypass route corridor be protected for a possible future transport scheme that may be implemented after 2030.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

132.

Page 60 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.15 Section 48 and 49 Levies i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission requests that the Section 49 levy scheme be reviewed for the Glenamuck Distributor Roads.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of the submission are noted. It is the intention of the Council to review the Section 49 Supplementary Development Contribution Scheme for Kiltiernan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

133.

Page 60 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.15 Section 48 and 49 Levies ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission recommends that Section 48 levies should not be requested in lieu of off-street car parking in town centres to counteract vacancy and revitalise town centres.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Under Section 48, of the Planning and Development Acts planning authorities must draw up a development contribution scheme in respect of public infrastructure and facilities provided by, or on behalf of the local authority that benefit development in the area.

 

A comprehensive consultation process for the adoption of a development contribution scheme is provided for in section 48 (4)-(9) the Act.  The making of such a development contribution scheme is a reserved function of the Elected Members and therefore is not considered appropriate in the context of a County Development Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

134.

Pages 60 & 61 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.15 Section 48 and 49 Levies iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission requests that provision of infrastructure beyond the limits of an SDZ boundary (Cherrywood) should be identified in the plan and provision made to fund these projects via section 48 and section 49 levies”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Section 49 of the Planning and Development Acts, enables a Planning Authority when granting planning permission pursuant to Section 34 of the Act to attach a condition to a planning permission requiring payment of a financial contribution in respect of any public infrastructure service or project.

 

Subsection 1 of Section 49 specifies that the project or service shall be specified in a Supplementary Development Contribution Scheme (SDCS) made by the Planning Authority.

The making of such a SDCS is a reserved function of the Elected Members and therefore it is not considered appropriate in the context of a County Development Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

135.

Page 61 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.16 Electric Vehicles i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submissions supportive of Electric Vehicles.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Current County Development Plan policy T10 and the Development Management requirements of Section 16.10.12 in relation to electric vehicles to be updated as appropriate and carried forward into the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

136.

Page 61 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.16 Electric Vehicles ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission raised concerns in relation to the lack of recognition in relation to electric cars within the ‘Have Your Say’ document.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The ‘Have Your Say’ document was never intended to be an all encompassing publication. Its intention was to stimulate debate on current strategic planning and development matters.  All inputs related to the development of Electric Vehicles is however warmly welcomed and would be wholly consistent with the philosophy underpinning ‘Sustainable Travel and Transportation’.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

137.

Page 61 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.16 Electric Vehicles iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission recommends that transportation policy objectives should reflect overarching EU and National policy objectives that place Electric Vehicles central to plans for zero carbon emissions systems.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“All EU and National policy objectives will be taken into consideration during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

138.

Page 61 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.16 Electric Vehicles iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission recommends that planning should take account of future provision of appropriate facilities for electric vehicles.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Current County Development Plan policy T10 and the Development Management requirements of Section 16.10.12 in relation to electric vehicles to be updated as appropriate and carried forward into the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

139.

Page 62 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.16 Electric Vehicles v)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     v)      “Submission seeks the promotion of electric/hybrid vehicles and change current bus fleet to greener forms of transport.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Current County Development Plan policy T10 and the Development Management requirements of Section 16.10.12 in relation to electric vehicles to be updated as appropriate and carried forward into the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

140.

Page 62 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.17 Miscellaneous i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission requests aMobility Management Plan be implemented in relation to the bowling and tennis club on Quinn’s Road East.  Maintain / repair all roads in Shankill.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“These issues relate to operational / maintenance matters and are not considered appropriate in the context of a strategic County Development Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

141.

Page 62 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.17 Miscellaneous ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission suggests connecting tourist sites to the main street in Dún Laoghaire via covered walkways/San Francisco style cable cars/moving walkways.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“It is considered that this proposal is not strategic but is local and should be examined properly in the context of any future process for considering and formulating an overall strategy and vision for the Dún Laoghaire Town Centre and Environs area.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

142.

Page 62 Sustainable Transportation and Travel 1.2.17 Miscellaneous iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission details the NTA functions within the preparation of a Development Plan as including:

 

·         transport investment priorities

·         maximizing the performance of the transport system by effective land-use planning

  • Recommendations regarding the optimal use, location, pattern and density of development taking account of its Transport Strategy.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

Section 2 - Enterprise and Employment Strategy

143.

Page 65 2.1 Enterprise and Employment 2.1.1 Shankill i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)       “This submission from Corbawn Residents Association, Shankill, refers to the redevelopment of Shankill Shopping Centre being an economic catalyst for the area.

 

Small incubation units should be set up in Shankill with no rates.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“It is acknowledged that the successful redevelopment of the Shopping Centre in Shankill will both provide a much needed retail offer in the Village and provide local employment and this is welcomed.

 

In relation to incubator units, Policy E9: Enterprise Incubator Units included in the existing County Development Plan states that “It is Council policy to assist in the provision of Enterprise Centres in association with other agencies and in the context of local need” and that “The availability of adequate incubator space for enterprises in the early stages of development should be part of the enterprise infrastructure in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown”.

 

Support systems for small enterprise are provided by a range of State agencies and the policy indicates that the Council will liaise with the public sector enterprise support agencies, with voluntary community development groups and with business organisations in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown to facilitate the provision of suitable premises for such enterprises.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

144.

Pages 65 & 66 2.1 Enterprise and Employment 2.1.2 Sandyford i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission from Sandyford Business District Association requests that Sandyford should be designated to reflect its primary role as a key business district in the County. The growth & development of Sandyford should be nurtured and promoted.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted.  The Sandyford Business District represents the single largest concentration of employment in the County, with over 15,000 persons employed in the area.  As such, it is a critically important area of focus for the Council and is reflected in the policy of the Sandyford Urban Framework Plan which seeks to “promote and facilitate employment growth in Sandyford Business District recognising its status as a primary growth centre in the Economic Development Strategy of the Regional Planning Guidelines 2010-2022”.

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

145.

Page 66 2.1 Enterprise and Employment 2.1.2 Sandyford ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission calls for the redevelopment of existing ‘tired’ areas rather than rezone new employment lands.  County Development Plan policy should reward entrepreneurs/startups.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Given the sizeable quantum of undeveloped zoned employment lands and the range of existing, unimplemented planning permissions for redevelopment of brownfield employment lands in areas like Sandyford, it is difficult to see, at this juncture a strong evidence-based case emerging to support the rezoning of additional employment lands.  This issue will be explored in depth in the Core Strategy of the Draft County Development Plan.

 

The recent establishment of the ‘Local Enterprise Office’ as part of the Local Authority, will bring a coordinated approach to the delivery of services to start-up companies - including Business Advice Clinics, Business Mentoring, Small Business Training Courses, Management Development Programmes, Financial Supports and Enterprise Education Initiatives”.

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously

 

 

 

146.

Page 66 2.1 Enterprise and Employment 2.1.3 Employment Zoned Lands i)

 

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission from Regional Planning Guidelines Office recognises that employment zoned lands are limited and much employment takes place in lands not zoned ‘E’. Core strategy should assess location of current employment, employment trends typology and demands in assessing land use requirements.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted.  As stated above, the Core Strategy of the Draft Plan will include a detailed analysis of the existing employment/enterprise landbank and future requirements having regard to population growth forecasts and other considerations such as job ratio, labour force participation rates and likely ‘employment density’ in new development areas”.

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

147.

Pages 66 & 67 2.1 Enterprise and Employment 2.1.4 Miscellaneous i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Employment spin-offs from harbour /sailing activities – Council should develop a ‘Local Economic & Community Plan’ for the Harbour itself.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“It is considered that such a proposal can be further explored during any future process for considering and formulating an overall strategy and vision for the Dún Laoghaire Town Centre and Environs area and also examined during the preparation of the Draft Plan.  A ‘standalone’ Local Economic and Community Plan (LECP) for the entire County is to commence preparation in the very near future”.

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

148.

Page 67 2.1 Enterprise and Employment 2.1.4 Miscellaneous ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

ii)Wide ranging submission from An Taisce

·         Prudent to plan for different scenarios – low growth/no growth/ contraction

·         Locality is important – local markets for local produce

·         Promote local farmers markets

·         County Development Plan should include an Employment Land Survey to inform quantum and location of any additional zoned lands

·         Small scale local commercial zones should be promoted rather than large scale industrial/warehouse parks.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“As stated above, the Draft County Development Plan Core Strategy will include a detailed analysis of existing employment/enterprise lands and will make recommendations regarding future requirements.  In relation to planning for different growth scenarios, the County Development Plan population growth forecasts are part of a wider regional scenario – the assumptions that inform population forecasting and targeting involve not just demographic factors but issues such as economic growth and migration trends.

 

It is considered that the ‘CoCo Markets’ Council-run farmers markets programme is a successful and popular feature of the public park programme of events and positively discriminates in favour of locally sourced and produced goods.

 

In relation to the proposal that small-scale local commercial zones should be promoted rather than large scale industrial/warehouse parks.  The Planning Authority see significant benefit in facilitating through land use zoning the clustering of high-intensity employment land uses proximate to high quality public transport corridors.  In any event, the commercial zones in the County vary quite significantly in scale, with a significant amount of employment being located outside of the large commercial cores such as Sandyford.

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

149.

Page 67 2.1 Enterprise and Employment 2.1.4 Miscellaneous iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

iii)                 Submission from UCD states that the University is a major economic contributor to the County, with a current population c.26k.

 

UCD plans to review its Masterplan - to be published 2015 and looks forward to working with the Council through the County Development Plan process.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted.  The Planning Authority will continue to work closely with UCD as part of the County Development Plan process reflecting not only the importance of the University both as the largest single employer in the County, but also as the largest third level institution in the State.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

150.

Page 68 2.1 Enterprise and Employment 2.1.4 Miscellaneous iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

iv)                Submission from Dún Laoghaire Business Improvement District ‘BID’ committee states that larger retail and office units are required in Dún Laoghaire.  Also, that a link should be created between IADT and Dún Laoghaire.

 

It is also stated that the role of Dún Laoghaire as an educational centre should be expanded (at all levels).

 

It is stated that there is ‘real tourist potential’ in the Town and some enhancements are suggested – a walkway travelator to improve access from the coast to Georges St./new tourist accommodation/upgrading of Haigh Terrace.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“It is considered that these proposals have merit and can be examined during any future process for considering and formulating an overall strategy and vision for the Dún Laoghaire Town Centre and Environs area and also examined during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

151.

Page 68 2.1 Enterprise and Employment 2.1.4 Miscellaneous v)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

v)                 Submission refers to the Dún Laoghaire Community Enterprise Centre located at the Old Fire Station. There are 16 business incubation units operated on a self financing/nom-profit basis.

 

Maintenance is expensive/difficult and new premises required.  The County Development Plan should support this initiative.  Should have facilities for craft food producers (high growth area).  Foster close links with IADT.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The County Development Plan Review process offers the opportunity to review policy on a County-wide basis in relation to business incubation units.  The current Development Plan states that “The availability of adequate incubator space for enterprises in the early stages of development should be part of the enterprise infrastructure in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown”.  It is anticipated that the new Plan will expand upon this initiative in conjunction with the Local Enterprise Office.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

152.

Page 69 2.2 Retailing 2.2.1 Retail Hierarchy i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

 i)          “Submission requests that retail policies and retail development within the County should support the policies and recommendations of the Retail Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area (GDA) contained in the Regional Planning Guidelines.  The Retail Strategy for the County is aligned with the hierarchy for the GDA, with the exception of Carrickmines, which is not a District Centre in the GDA Strategy.

 

Submission also recommends that other retail nodes in the County, but not yet included in the RPG retail hierarchy, should also be addressed.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Examine the possible reclassification within the retail hierarchy of Carrickmines and other relevant retail nodes during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

153.

Page 69 2.2 Retailing 2.2.1 Retail Hierarchy ii)

 

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

ii)    “Submission indicates that the Development Plan can, and should, provide flexibility in zoning sites for retail development.  It also needs to provide options for retailers in centres whose retail format cannot be accommodated within a tight urban grain.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“It is considered that the current Retail Hierarchy in the existing County Development Plan is well established and provides sufficient flexibility in sites zoned for retail development.  It is envisaged that this approach will be continued in the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

154.

Pages 69 & 70 2.2 Retailing 2.2.1 Retail Hierarchy iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

iii)  “Submission requests that any proposals for comparison retailing provision in Cornelscourt should meet the needs of the local community and be consistent with the Neighbourhood Centre status of the village.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Policy RET7 of the existing County Development Plan already advocates this approach to the development of Neighbourhood Centres and it is envisaged that this approach will be continued into the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

155.

Page 70 2.2 Retailing 2.2.1 Retail Hierarchy iv)

 

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

iv)          “This submission seeks to promote the benefits of community-based retail policy.  Its recommends that the following issues be considered for the Town, District and Neighbourhood Centres across the County:

·         Improved public realm at the centres

·         Reduced vacancy levels

·         Continue to endorse the sequential approach and adhere to the retail hierarchy

·         Continued accessibility to retail centres

·         Support local facilities in existing neighbourhood centres

·         Incorporate the objectives of the Retail Planning Guidelines 2012 as specific retail policies in the County Development Plan

·         The Council should assist in resolving impediments to town centre redevelopment opportunities”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“It is considered that the existing County Development Plan already currently promotes and advocates such a package of objectives but this can be further examined during the preparation of the Draft Plan.  The objectives of the Retail Planning Guidelines for Planning Authorities 2012 are already considered an integral component of the preparation of the Retail Section of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

156.

Pages 70 & 71 2.2 Retailing 2.2.2 Carrickmines District Centre i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)       “Submission indicates that the designation of Carrickmines as a District Centre is not inconsistent with the Greater Dublin Area Retail Strategy 2008, as Carrickmines could not have been listed in the aforementioned strategy as it was adopted in 2008 and the Carrickmines designation was adopted in 2010.

The designation of Carrickmines as a District Centre is fully consistent with the policy recommendations of the GDA Retail Strategy 2008 and the Regional Planning Guidelines 2010-2022 and it accords with the principles of sustainable development.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“During the preparation of the Draft Plan the Council will examine the existing retail hierarchy for the County to assess its alignment with the Retail Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2008-2016 and the Regional Planning Guidelines 2010-2022.

 

AnBord Pleanala refused planning permission for the development of the District Centre at Carrickmines, under planning application D12A/0163.  The reasons for refusal indicated that the proposed development would conflict with the Retail Hierarchy for the Greater Dublin Area as set out in the Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area 2010-2022 and the Retail Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2008-2016, neither of which identifies Carrickmines as a Level 3 District Centre.  The proposed development would also undermine the Retail Hierarchy for the Greater Dublin Area and the designated role of Dún Laoghaire and Dundrum as Level 2 Town Centres to serve the needs of the County.  The Bord also considered that the proposed development would generate a high level of car dependency and this outcome would be contrary to national and local transportation policy, as set out in, ‘Smarter Travel – A Sustainable Transport Future 2009-2020’ and Policy T2 of the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown Development Plan 2010-2016.

 

It should be noted that the preparation of the Draft Plan is taking place in a vacuum of up-to-date information in terms of guidance from the new Eastern and Midlands Regional Assembly, formerly the Regional Planning Authority.  The Greater Dublin Area Retail Strategy dates back to 2008 and was formulated using 2006 Census data at a time when a very different economic environment prevailed.  Despite recommendations that the GDA Retail Strategy would be reviewed and undated regularly every two years to respond to changing economic circumstances, the strategy has not been revised or updated since its publication in 2008.  The prospect of receiving any new guidance in relation to a new Retail Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area before the new Development Plan is adopted appears very unlikely.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

157.

Pages 71 & 72 2.2 Retailing 2.2.3 Cherrywood SDZ i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)       “Submission requests that the County Development Review will now need to include Cherrywood Town Centre within the retail hierarchy for the entire County.  The designation of Carrickmines as a District Centre is flawed and needs to be addressed.  The prohibition of Retail Warehousing in Cherrywood needs to be addressed.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The retail hierarchy for the County will be reviewed during the preparation of the Draft Plan.

 

The issue of the District Centre at Carrickmines has been addressed at 2.2.2 above.

 

The current County Development Plan and the Retail Planning Guidelines 2012 both adopt a cautionary approach to retail warehousing.  With regard to Cherrywood this issue was already comprehensively examined during the statutory SDZ process.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

158.

Page 72 2.2 Retailing 2.2.4 Sandyford Urban Framework Plan i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)       Submission expresses concern that its current designation as a "Neighbourhood Centre" is restrictive and inappropriate.  Would support the redesignation of the area to a "District Centre" zoning designation so as to avail of opportunities that may arise in the coming years.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Examine the possible reclassification within the retail hierarchy of the Sandyford Business Estate during the preparation of the Draft Plan.

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

159.

Page 72 2.2 Retailing 2.2.5 Stillorgan District Centre i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)       “Submission supports the policies relating to the District Centre in Stillorgan and requests that these be retained in the 2016-2022 County Development Plan.

 

The Retail Planning Guidelines for Local Authorities do not advocate a floorspace cap for District Centres

 

The new County Development Plan should incorporate an objective to review the existing Stillorgan Local Area Plan in the short term to take account of the significant change in circumstances.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The floorspace cap for the Stillorgan District Centre is consistent with the guidance provided by the Retail Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2008-2016.

 

The Retail Planning Guidelines for Planning Authorities are National guidelines but are silent on the issue of floorspace limitations for District Centres The Guidelines do state that District Centres should not serve as a retail destination in their own right sufficient to adversely impact on the Town Centre to which they are subservient and in this regard the existing floorspace cap in place at Stillorgan is considered appropriate.

 

The lifetime of the Stillorgan Local Area Plan was extended in 2012 for an additional five-year period up to 2017. The existing plan may need to be reconsidered at some future date.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

160.

Page 73 2.2 Retailing 2.2.6 Nutgrove District Centre i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

 i)       “Submission supports the policies relating to the District Centre in Nutgrove and requests that these be retained in the 2016-2022 County Development Plan. The imposition of a floorspace cap at Nutgrove and other District Centre’ in the County is not consistent with the Retail Planning Guidelines for Local Authorities and should be reconsidered.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The floorspace cap for the Nutgrove District Centre is consistent with the guidance provided by the Retail Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2008-2016.

 

The Retail Planning Guidelines for Planning Authorities are national guidelines but are remarkably silent on the issue of floorspace limitations for District Centres. The Guidelines do state that District Centres should not serve as a retail destination in their own right sufficient to adversely impact on the Town Centre to which they are subservient and in this regard the existing floorspace cap in place at Nutgrove is considered appropriate.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

161.

Page 73 2.2 Retailing 2.2.7 Blackrock District Centre i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

 i)       “Submission refers to the current proposals to increase the size of Frascati Shopping Centre and indicates that there is plenty of shopping in Blackrock – it is a village not a town or city. Also indicates that the Frascati Shopping Centre should not develop up to the busy Frascati Road.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Any proposals to increase the size and scale of the Frascati Shopping Centre shall be considered having regard to the policies and objectives of the current County Development and the Draft Blackrock Local Area Plan 2014, once prepared.  The scale of retailing in Blackrock District Centre is currently capped in the County Development Plan at 25,000sqm net retail floor space. Any proposals for additional retail floor space in any redevelopment of the Frascati Shopping Centre will require to be considered having regard to its proportionate share of the remaining available retail floor space for the entire District Centre.

 

Any redevelopment of the Frascati Shopping Centre shall, in the interests of good urban design, provide an active and interesting street frontage, whilst respecting the nature and function of the road along its frontage and pedestrian safety.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

162.

Page 74 2.3 Major Town Centres 2.3.1 Dún Laoghaire i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission proposes that Dún Laoghaire should market its Irishness like Dingle.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“This proposal is not considered a strategic County Development Plan issue but could be explored further during any future process for considering and formulating an overall strategy and vision for the Dún Laoghaire Town Centre and Environs area.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

163.

Page 74 2.3 Major Town Centres 2.3.1 Dún Laoghaire ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission requests that the cost of car parking in Dún Laoghaire be reduced to encourage shoppers to use the local shops and to stop the commercial decline in the Town Centre.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The issue of parking fees is an operational matter and not one for consideration as part of the strategic County Development Plan process. Nevertheless it should be noted car parking charges in Dún Laoghaire were reduced in March 2014 and other initiatives not based on cost are also being considered.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

164.

Page 74 2.3 Major Town Centres 2.3.1 Dún Laoghaire iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission requests that a specialist retail role for Dún Laoghaire be pursued within the Local Area Plan process.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“This issue is considered to have merit and will be considered during any future process for considering and formulating an overall strategy and vision for the Dún Laoghaire Town Centre and Environs area.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

165.

Page 74 2.3 Major Town Centres 2.3.1 Dún Laoghaire iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission requests that the lands adjoining Haigh Terrace at the Royal Marine Hotel in Dún Laoghaire should be designated to provide a more animated frontage and an appropriate mix of commercial uses to encourage tourism.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“It is considered the current zoning of the site to allow for “Major Town Centre uses” is sufficient to enable these proposals to be achieved.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

166.

Pages 74 & 75 2.3 Major Town Centres 2.3.1 Dún Laoghaire v)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     v)      “Submission indicates that Dún Laoghaire can be reinvented by:

·         the provision of a new town square

·         providing larger retail and office units

·         becoming an age friendly town

·         improved IT systems

·         increasing the number of parking spaces

·         creating a link between the IADT campus and Dún Laoghaire town and expanding Dún Laoghaire’s role as an educational centre.

 

This submission also indicates that instead of downsizing the Major Town Centre zoning in Dún Laoghaire, this zoning should be expanded and the strategy should be to double the resident population in the BID area of the town.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“It is considered that many of these proposals have merit and can be explored further during any future process for considering and formulating an overall strategy and vision for the Dún Laoghaire Town Centre and Environs area and during the preparation of the Draft Plan.

 

The proposal to provide a larger Major Town Centre zoning in Dún Laoghaire cannot be considered at this stage of the Development Plan process. In any event it is not considered a tenable proposition. The size and scale of the current Major Town Centre zoning is sprawling. It extends from the Peoples Park westwards to the Dún Laoghaire Further Education Institute on Cumberland Street and from Crofton Road southwards to the top of Patrick Street.

 

This issue will be explored further during any future process for considering and formulating an overall strategy and vision for the Dún Laoghaire Town Centre and Environs area and during the preparation of the Draft Plan. The Major Town Centre zoning may benefit from a more refined commercial/retail zoning or alternative zoning objectives such as primary and secondary cores in the town, given that the Major Town Centre zoning performs other functions in addition to retailing.

 

The Council fully supports any proposals aimed at increasing the resident population in the Town Centre. There has been recent residential development activity in the Town Centre with the provision of 25 apartments at Georges Court in Georges Place.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

167.

Page 75 2.3 Major Town Centres 2.3.1 Dún Laoghaire vi)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    vi)      “Submission requests that the Draft Plan specifically promotes the development of multiple units for specialist goods for the tourist market in the Harbour area.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission are noted and will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

168.

Pages 75 & 76 2.3 Major Town Centres 2.3.1 Dún Laoghaire vii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

  vii)      “Submission states that urgent action is needed to halt the decline of Dún Laoghaire with over 100 empty shops in the town.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The decline of the town centre is not unique to Dún Laoghaire and has occurred throughout the Country during the recession.

 

The loss of retailing can be attributed primarily to the downturn in the economy but also to a range of other factors - some demographic, such as the pronounced population decline in the immediate catchment of the Town Centre over the last 20 years, and some physical, such as the fragmented and often unclear land ownership patterns and the unwieldy, elongated nature of George’s Street itself.

 

Other issues include the relative scarcity of large-floorplate retail outlets in the town and the lack of availability of many of the top performing clothing brands, which can act as a significant 'pull factor' in attracting footfall.

These issues will be examined during the preparation of any future process for considering and formulating an overall strategy and vision for the Dún Laoghaire Town Centre and Environs area and the Draft Plan process.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

169.

Page 76 2.3 Major Town Centres 2.3.2 Dundrum i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)       “Submission seeks,

·         The reaffirmation of Dundrum as a ‘Major Town Centre’

·         support in policy terms of proper use of scarce land and higher density development

·         recognition of the scale and significance for the planning and development of ‘Major Town Centres

·         recognition in the Development Plan of the role of Dundrum as a retail centre of national and international significance and provide support for the ongoing development of the Town Centre

·         revisions to the Dundrum Urban Structure Plan

 

This submission also requests the extension of the ‘Major Town Centre’ zoning.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission are noted and will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.

 

The proposal seeking an extension to the ‘Major Town Centre’ zoning cannot be considered at this stage of the Development Plan process.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

Section 3 - Green Infrastructure Strategy

170.

Page 79 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage 3.1.1 General i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission requests Development Plan policies should be informed and shaped by environmental directives.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was

CONSIDERED:

 

“Development Plan policies will be informed and shaped by Environmental Directives.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

171.

Page 79 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.1 General ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

ii)                  “Consider promoting local heritage sites such as Puck’s Castle, Lead Mines and Shanganagh Castle.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was

CONSIDERED:

 

“The key messages of the second Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown Heritage Plan “DLR heritage Plan 2013 – 2019” are to communicate the story of the County’s heritage, to care for the environment and to increase levels of community involvement in heritage.  Work on implementing the plan will include promotion of heritage sites in the County.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

172.

Page 79 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.1 General iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission suggests that Heritage and Biodiversity should have a Chapter of their own (separate from landscape).”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“This will be examined further during the preparation of the Draft Plan but it is considered that landscape is integral to both heritage and biodiversity.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

173.

Page 79 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.1 General iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission suggests that in the existing Chapter 6 relating to the coast and the mountains should be subdivided.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“This proposal will be examined during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

174.

Page 79 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.1 General v)

 

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     v)      “Submission contains various policy suggestions based on other County Development Plans.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Policies will be examined during the preparation of the Draft Plan.  However, background work to date has already involved examination of other County Development Plans for best practice examples.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

175.

Page 79 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.1 General vi)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

vi)                “Submission contains various suggestions relating to wording in the Draft Plan.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted. These will be examined when drafting the Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

176.

Pages 79 & 80 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage 3.1.1 General - vii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

vii)              “Submission suggests inclusion of a policy relating to fencing in upland areas based on policy in the plans of Mayo, Sligo and Galway County Council.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The relevance of the policy to the upland areas of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown will be critically examined during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

177.

Page 80 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.2 Designated sites i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)                    “Consider designating the area around Shanganagh Castle as a Special Area of Conservation.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Special Areas of Conservation are not related to Built Heritage but are a natural heritage designation under EU Habitats Directive.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

178.

Page 80 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.2 Designated sites ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

ii)                  “Submission requests that the ‘proposed Natural Heritage Area’ status at Killiney Hill be changed to ‘Natural Heritage Area’.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“In relation to the changing of Killiney Hill, Roches Hill from a proposed Natural Heritage Area to Natural Heritage Area the area in question is one of 650 no. proposed NHAs in the Country.  The Council does not have a role in the designation of pNHAs or NHAs. This National Parks and Wildlife Service are statutorily charged with responsibility in relation to identifying and designating Natural Heritage Areas.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

179.

Page 80 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.2 Designated sites iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

iii)                 “Submission requests that the agricultural and high amenity zoning currently shown in the Ballycorus Valley be retained and that the importance of farming be recognised.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Ballycorus area is identified as a specific Landscape Character Area in the Landscape Character Assessment of the County.  This assessment recognises the sensitive landscape of the area and the need to maintain field patterns and boundaries along with the important role of mining in the area in the past.  The north-western portion of this area as identified in the Landscape Character Assessment has however been adulterated as development in accordance with the Kiltiernan Glenamuck Local Area Plan has advanced.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

180.

Page 80 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.2 Designated sites iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission suggests the inclusion of a policy in relation to World Heritage Sites.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“No potential World Heritage Site has been identified in DLR nor are there any sites on any tentative list.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

181.

Pages 80 & 81 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.2 Designated sites v)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     v)      “Submission seeks designation of a SAAO for Killiney Hill.  Seeks a feasibility study to report within one year of the adoption of the Plan on other areas worthy of designation.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“A very large proportion of the area of Killiney Hill, Dalkey Hill and Roches and Mullins Hill is actually in the ownership of, and maintained by, the County Council.  The Parks Department published a draft Roches Hill Management Plan 2013 - 2017 in October 2012.


The Draft Management Plan sets out a series of specific management proposals for Roches Hill that would not be dissimilar to the type of objectives that would be included in a SAAO.

Kiliney Hill / Dalkey Quarry is managed similarly and the Parks Department aspires to developing a similar Draft Management Plan for this site. However, due to limitations on resources, this is unlikely to be published in 2014.

 

Given that the lands in question are effectively in Council control and that Management Plans and proposals for the sites are being introduced the preparation of an SAAO would represent unnecessary duplication.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

182.

Page 81 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.2 Designated sites vi)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    vi)      “Submission suggests that the Plan should include a policy relating to Dalkey Island.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Any policy impacting on Dalkey Island should be based on the recently published Dalkey Islands Conservation Plan 2014-2024.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

183.

Page 81 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.3 Biodiversity i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Plan should encourage the growth of salt marshes and sand dunes along the fragile lengths of the County’s coastline.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Much of the coastal area in the County adjoins the built-up area. However the County does contain one significant and important marsh at Booterstown.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

184.

Page 81 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.3 Biodiversity ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Large areas of forestry over the mountains are destroying the bogs.  The bog could be artificially reconstituted by filling in the forestry drainage ditches.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Large areas of coniferous forestry in the County fall within the ownership, and are the responsibility of Coillte, not the County Council.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

185.

Page 81 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.3 Biodiversity iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

iii)                 “Large areas of forestry over the mountains are destroying the bogs.  The bog could be artificially reconstituted by filling in the forestry drainage ditches.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Large areas of coniferous forestry in the County fall within the ownership, and are the responsibility of Coillte, not the County Council.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

186.

Pages 81& 82 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.3 Biodiversity iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission recommends that the Plan should recognise undesignated sites and stepping-stones.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Draft Plan will deal specifically with undesignated sites.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

187.

Page 82 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.3 Biodiversity v)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     v)      “Submission recommends that the Plan should contain policies on invasive species, protection of hedgerows, waterways.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Draft Plan will deal specifically with invasive species, protection of hedgerows and waterways.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

188.

Page 82 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.3 Biodiversity vi)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    vi)      “Submission recommends that the Plan should incorporate the policy recommendations of the National Biodiversity Plan 2010 – 2015.  A local Biodiversity Action Plan should be prepared.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“DLR has prepared a County Biodiversity Plan 2009 – 2013 which aims to translate international, European and Irish policies and obligations into effective local action on the ground.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

189.

Page 82 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.3 Biodiversity vii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

  vii)      “Submission recommends that the Council should develop biodiversity corridors to facilitate movement of species and connect up green belts and parks.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Green Infrastructure Strategy to be incorporated as a component part of the overall Development Plan will address biodiversity corridors.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

190.

Page 82 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.3 Biodiversity viii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

iii)                 “Submission recommends that the Plan should encourage the further planting of trees, including neighbourhood forests to offset CO2 emissions.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The DLR Tree Strategy supports the further planting of trees.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

191.

Page 82 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.3 Biodiversity ix)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    ix)      “Submission suggests that small streams in Rathmichael could be enhanced to restore the natural flood plain and promote biodiversity by suitable planting.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

192.

Page 82 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.3 Biodiversity x)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      x)      “Submission suggests that the Council should use art and nature exhibitions to teach people about the environment.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Environmental Awareness Office of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown is highly engaged in giving talks and providing information to schools on environmental issues. “ 

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

193.

Page 82 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.3 Biodiversity xi)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    xi)      “Submission suggests that the Indicative Forestry Strategy be relocated into a new Chapter.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“This can be investigated when drafting the new Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

194.

Page 83 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.4 Coastal Erosion i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission states that access to the beach at Corbawn Lane is dangerous.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“This is an operational/maintenance issue and not a strategic Development Plan issue. 

 

Council engineers have recently met with local residents on site.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

195.

Page 83 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.4 Coastal Erosion ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission states that the cliffs between Shanganagh and Quinn’s Road   have deteriorated dramatically and rapidly since 2010.

 

Submission states that there has been a loss of cliff in front of Seafield.  No    work has been done to deal with this issue.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Coastal Defence Strategy Study examined Seafield, but as the houses, public road, and services would not be at risk in the next 50 years, this area was not included on the priority list.

 

As this area will be at risk in less than 70 years (current erosion rate of 0.23m/year), consultants have been requested to ascertain if there are any low cost remedial measures than can be taken to slow the rate of erosion along this section of cliff. As access to the beach in this area is extremely limited, there may be a cost benefit in undertaking some works in this area at the same time as the works to the adjacent access off Corbawn Lane.

 

Council engineers have recently met with local residents on site to discuss matters further.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

196.

Page 83 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.4 Coastal Erosion iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

iii)                 “Submission argues that a new coastal cycle route below the cliffs at Shanganagh could act as a barrier to the sea.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

197.

Page 84 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.5 Green Belt i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)       “Submission suggests that the Area West of the M11 south of Cherrywood should be protected as green belt thus avoiding the gradual amalgamation of Bray and Shankill.

 

Submission suggests the maintenance of the green belt at Shankill between Quinn’s Road and Shanganagh Park.

 

Submission requests the protection of the green belt around Rathmichael”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was

CONSIDERED

 

“In the current County Development Plan there are areas which are zoned objective GB – To protect and enhance the open nature of lands between urban areas.  These GB areas include large swathes of land to the west of the M11 at Rathmichael and Old Conna, areas to the east of the M11, south of Shanganagh Park and a small area to the north of Shanganagh Park.  Policy LHB14 of the current plan is to retain this green belt area over the lifetime of the existing plan.  In looking at this policy and the way forward over the life of the next plan a balance needs to be struck between the fact that land in the County is a finite resource, that there is considerable pressure to meet development needs and the need to protect the green belt.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

198.

Pages 84 & 85 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.6 300 Foot Contour i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission requests that the prohibition of building above the 300 foot contour should be reinstated thus ensuring protection of upland areas.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The County Development Plan 2010 – 2016 contains SLO No. 71 pertaining to Maps 10 and 14 which states that;

 

No insensitive or large scale development shall take place above the 90 metre contour line at Rathmichael, from old Connaught Golf Course to Pucks Castle Lane – maps 10 and 14.  Any proposal for development, other than development directly related to agriculture, forestry recreation or the promotion of other bona fida rural enterprise or employment activity, shall be domestic in scale appearance and function.”

 

The wording of the SLO was changed from the 2004 – 2010 plan which stated "no development" and this change reflected that fact that there are certain sites zoned A (residential) above the 300 foot contour where infill development might be considered appropriate subject to the normal planning consideration. It does not make sense and is not practical to place a total prohibition on development above the 90 metre/300 foot contour.

 

It is considered that other upland areas are afforded adequate protection through the stringent zoning provisions of the County Development Plan and also by way of the policies in relation to development in upland areas.  In accordance with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government 2005 “Sustainable Rural Housing, Guidelines for Planning Authorities” the Development Plan has a key role in providing policies in relation to rural housing.  It is not considered necessary to have a blanket prohibition on building above the 90 metre contour insofar as the existing Development Plan policies ensure that any rural housing development in the high amenity zoning will not have negative effects on the area including visual prominence or impacts on views and prospects, or the natural and built heritage.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

199.

Page 85 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.7 Village Design Statement i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission requests that the Plan should include a policy on Village Design Statements.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Village Design Statements’ (VDS) are an initiative of The Heritage Council. The VDS Programme seeks to provide “an opportunity for meaningful public participation in the Irish planning system” for local communities, with a particular emphasis placed on the conservation and management of local heritage. The inclusion of policies in relation to VDS and to the County Villages will be examined during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

200.

Page 85 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.8 Geological Heritage i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission provides information with regard to the geological heritage of the county.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“This information is welcome and will be used in the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

201.

Page 85 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.8 Geological Heritage ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission suggests a series of policies regarding geological sites.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“A survey of the County's geological heritage is being carried out by the Heritage Office which will highlight important sites and make recommendations.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

202.

Page 86 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.9 S2S i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submissions request that the Plan should include S2S Sutton to Sandycove cycleway proposal.

 

Submission requests that the S2S proposal should not be removed.

General support for S2S project.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The proposed S2S Promenade and Cycleway forms part of the East Coast Trail within the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan. The full route of S2S straddles the administrative areas of Fingal, Dublin City and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown.

 

It should be noted that this coastal route will be subject to a feasibility study including an assessment of route options. Any development proposals shall be subject to Appropriate Assessment Screening in accordance with the requirements of the EU Habitats Directive to ensure the protection and preservation of all designated Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), and (proposed) Natural Heritage Areas (pNHAs) of Dublin Bay and surrounding areas.

 

The National Transport Authority (NTA) has confirmed its intention to procure a specialist consultant to evaluate all options for the section of the route between Sandymount Strand and Booterstown Marsh. The study will be undertaken by the NTA with the active involvement of DúnLaoghaire-Rathdown and Dublin City.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

203.

Page 86 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.10 Landscape i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission considers broad-brush Landscape Character Area inappropriate. Each area should be capable of sustaining an appropriately situated quarry.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“It is considered that the Landscape Character Areas identified are not broad brush but relate to specific character areas in the rural portion of the County.  Any proposal for quarries in these areas would be subject to the Development Management process and the relevant policies and objectives of the County Development Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

204.

Page 86 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.10 Landscape ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission suggests review of Landscape Character Assessments.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Landscape Character areas will be reviewed and updated as part of the Development Plan process.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

205.

Pages 86 & 87 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.10 Landscape iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

iii)                 “Submission suggests complete review of Historic Landscape Character Assessments.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Historic Landscape Character Assessments have been carried out in this County to support, and in conjunction with, Local Area Plans as they provide focused information for use in forward planning.  Historic Assessments of all the character areas is a good idea in principle but the policy of prioritizing areas will continue.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

206.

Page 87 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.10 Landscape iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission requests that the Plan address the identification of Archaeological Landscapes and Identification of Landscape Conservation Areas”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“No change.  Archaeological sites are already adequately dealt with under current designations.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

207.

Page 87 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.11 Heritage i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission suggests including the main objectives of Heritage Plan in the County Development Plan.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The main objectives of the Heritage Plan will be included in the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

208.

Page 87 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.12 Dublin Mountain Partnership i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission requests the promotion of Shankill as the beginning of the Dublin Mountain Way in order to provide spin-off economic benefits.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“In 2006 Dublin Mountains Partnership (DMP) was formed, comprising representatives from Coillte, South Dublin County Council, DLR, National Parks and Wildlife (NPWS) and the Dublin Mountains Initiative (DMI). The Dublin Mountains Partnership was established to oversee the preparation of a 10 year Strategic Plan for Development of Outdoor Recreation in the Dublin Mountains area. An examination of the map of the Dublin Mountains Way available on their website www.Dublinmountains.ie indicates that the Dublin Mountain Way already commences (and finishes) in Shankill.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

209.

Page 87 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.1.12 Dublin Mountain Partnership ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission requests that the Council should advertise and provide easy access and information on the available routes.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Dublin Mountains Partnership (DMP) already fulfils this role and DLR is involved in this initiative.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

210.

Page 88 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.2 Open Space, Recreation & Sports Development 3.2.1 General i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)       “Submission requests that:

·         Underused land be developed as additional playground and recreational facilities

·         Improvement and maintenance of parks and playgrounds is vital

·         Sports facilities must be supported”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Parks and Landscape Section of the Council have been very successful over recent years in developing and improving the existing parks and open spaces and will continue to do so subject to resources/funding.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

211.

Page 88 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.2 Open Space, Recreation & Sports Development 3.2.1 General ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission seeks the continued support for recreational amenities, provide vandal proof bins and clean undergrowth of parks regularly.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The forthcoming County Development Plan will continue to support recreational amenities. The other issues raised in this submission are operational matters.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

212.

Pages 88 & 89 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.2 Open Space, Recreation & Sports Development 3.2.1 General iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)       “Submission requests the following:

·         Continue to invest in additional infrastructure and facilities

·         Amendments to the extension of the tennis club at Quinn’s Road, Shankill

·         Amendments to the new small park at the front of the Dart station in Shankill

·         An audit of trees on Corbawn Lane and the Old Bray Road

·         Shanganagh Castle should be developed for community use and youth training; facilities within the castle such as the gym should be made available and an enhanced library facility could be provided

  • All social groups within the Shankill area should be facilitated by the provision of social centre (perhaps within the Castle).”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Parks and Landscape Section of the Council have been very successful over recent years in developing and improving recreational facilities and will continue to do as resources/funding permit.

 

The requested amendments to the Tennis Club and the small park at the DART station in Shankill are outside the remit of the County Development Plan process as these schemes have already been approved by the Part 8 process.

 

Trees at Corbawn Lane are protected by a Tree Preservation Order, one of only nine such designations in the County. In addition, groups of trees in this area are identified for protection on the existing County Development Plan maps.

 

An audit of existing community facilities in the County will be undertaken during the preparation of the Draft Plan. The results of this audit will identify deficits. These will be prioritised in the provision of facilities.

 

A new community centre has been constructed and recently opened in Shankill at the Stonebridge Estate at a cost of 1.1 million Euro. The new facility features meeting rooms, a purpose-built childcare facility with a secure playground, a fully fitted computer room and office space.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

213.

Page 89 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.2 Open Space, Recreation & Sports Development 3.2.1 General iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission requests an objective for large-scale tree planting programme focused on key centres.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The existing County Development Plan in Section 10.2.6 states that the Council will plan for new planting to add to the urban forest. In addition the Council’s has prepared a Tree Strategy for the County, DLR Trees 2011-2015. One of the objectives of the strategy is to plant more trees and Policy D2 is to promote urban tree planting. This strategy will be integrated into the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

214.

Page 89 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.2 Open Space, Recreation & Sports Development 3.2.1 General v)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     v)      “Submission requests that the Council considers landscaping and semi mature planting in Cornelscourt.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“It is considered that these are operational matters and not strategic County Development Plan issues.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

215.

Page 89 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.2 Open Space, Recreation & Sports Development 3.2.1 General vi)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    vi)      “Submission indicates that there is a need for community facilities within the St. Columbanus Estate. In recent years the sense of community has been lost in the area and youth facilities/clubs and green spaces within the estate have been lost resulting in limited play opportunities for local children. There were plans for a playground but this has not been progressed.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The provision of a playground within the estate is an operational matter for the Parks and Landscape Services Section of the Council.

 

An audit of existing community facilities in the County will be undertaken during the preparation of the Draft Plan. The results of this audit will be used in addressing obvious deficits in the provision of facilities in the County.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

216.

Page 89 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.2 Open Space, Recreation & Sports Development 3.2.1 General vii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

  vii)      “Submission expresses concerns that sports/recreation facilities detailed through SLO 88 would be remote from Cherrywood and should be located on lands closest to Junction 16.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission relates to issues already dealt with through the statutory SDZ process.  The Cherrywood SDZ will be incorporated into the County Development Plan as adopted on the 29thof April 2014.  The SDZ process and subsequently adopted Plan stand-alone from the County Development Plan process and will not be altered.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

217.

Page 89 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.2 Open Space, Recreation & Sports Development 3.2.1 General viii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

             viii)      “Submission refers to the open spaces proposed in the Dún Laoghaire Harbour Masterplan.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

218.

Page 90 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.2 Open Space, Recreation & Sports Development 3.2.1 General ix)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    ix)      “Submission requests that the development of the baths in Dún Laoghaire should include a public swimming pool.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Council is well advanced in preparing a proposal for interim works at the Baths Site. These works include:

·      the renovation and re-opening of pavilion building to provide a public café/gallery, toilets, terrace area and artists studios

·      the creation of a new route with associated landscaping to connect the walkway at Newtownsmith to both the East Pier and the Peoples Park

·      enhanced facilities for swimming and improved access to the waters edge e.g. ramps, steps and renovation of the existing bandstand and

·      the creation of a small jetty in line with the existing structure and the provision of a changing area.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

219.

Pages 90 & 91 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.2 Open Space, Recreation & Sports Development 3.2.1 General x)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)       “Submission indicates the following:

·         Existing open spaces should be improved while providing new open spaces as part of any new development

·         Larger parks should be priorities for concentrating recreational facilities but not to the detriment of existing users

·         A limited amount of commercial activity should be provided within Regional Parks in order to enhance their use but not reduce their appeal

·         There should be maintenance of walking trails and provision of exclusive cycle paths within and between existing parks

·         Generally there is sufficient open space, however, in some areas there is a dearth of open space

  • There may be a need to improve private and public open space standards depending on the expected population of a new development and open space should be provided where there is insufficient provision locally.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission are noted and will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

220.

Page 91 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.2 Open Space, Recreation & Sports Development 3.2.2 Allotments and Community Gardens i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission requests that allotments and community gardens should be available across the County.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Policy OSR5 of the existing County Development Plan indicates that it is Council policy to support the development of public allotments and community gardens. There are a number of these facilities currently available in the County and the recently opened Shanganagh Community Garden is proving very successful.

 

It is considered that this request has merit and will be examined during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

221.

Page 91 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.2 Open Space, Recreation & Sports Development 3.2.2 Allotments and Community Gardens ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission requests that community allotments could be considered in public parks.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Activities associated with allotments such as parking, welfare facilities, carriage of tools, goods, plant material etc. do not generally fit well with a public park and could give rise to conflicts with other park users. Consequently the Council’s preference is to explore other suitable locations.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

222.

Page 91 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.2 Open Space, Recreation & Sports Development 3.2.2 Allotments and Community Gardens iii)

 

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

iii)                 “Submission requests that suitable locations for allotments/community gardens be designated and that each new residential/mixed-use development should have an allotment space provided.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“As discussed under submission A008 above, there are a number of these facilities currently available in the County. However it is considered that this request has some merit and the issues raised will be examined during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

223.

Page 91 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.2 Open Space, Recreation & Sports Development 3.2.3 Green Infrastructure i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission welcomes the development of a Green Infrastructure Strategy for the County.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

224.

Page 91 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.2 Open Space, Recreation & Sports Development 3.2.3 Green Infrastructure ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission requests that the County Development Plan should adopt a Green Infrastructure approach.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“It is expected that the forthcoming County Development Plan will adopt a Green Infrastructure approach.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

225.

Page 92 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.2 Open Space, Recreation & Sports Development 3.2.3 Green Infrastructure iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission makes reference to green infrastructure and discusses the merits of the Dún Laoghaire Harbour Masterplan.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission are noted and will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

226.

Page 92 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.2 Open Space, Recreation & Sports Development 3.2.3 Green Infrastructure iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission indicates the importance in land use planning and environmental protection of Green Infrastructure.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Council has recently appointed consultants to prepare a Green Infrastructure Strategy for the County and it is envisaged that the outcomes of the strategy will inform the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

227.

Page 92 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.2 Open Space, Recreation & Sports Development 3.2.4 Sports Development i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission requests that sailing training should be encouraged in schools and that the harbour is the ideal place to teach students how to sail and survive at sea.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“This is noted. The issue of sailing training is not, however, a strategic County Development Plan issue.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

228.

Page 92 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.2 Open Space, Recreation & Sports Development 3.2.4 Sports Development ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission requests that an objective be attached to the St. Thomas Estate for the promotion of athletics for children and adults.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“It is considered that this request has merit and will be examined during the preparation of the Draft Plan.

 

Any objective for this site would need to have regard to the site topography, natural and built heritage while also ensuring a high standard of design quality for any new works.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

229.

Pages 92 & 93 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.2 Open Space, Recreation & Sports Development 3.2.4 Sports Development iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission indicates that Dún LaoghaireHarbour offers world class leisure sailing resource and policies recognising and supporting water-based recreational uses should be provided within the County Development Plan.

 

Submission requests that the policies for the protection and enhancement of water based recreational amenity in Dún Laoghaire Harbour be included in the 2016-2022 County Development Plan.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Sports development and recreation will be encouraged through a series of objectives/policies that will be examined in the preparation of the Draft Plan. This may include the possibility of including a specific policy in relation to water-based sports.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

230.

Page 93 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.2 Open Space, Recreation & Sports Development 3.2.4 Sports Development iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission requests that a 50 metre swimming pool be built at Glenalbyn or Ballyogan.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The proposed redevelopment of Glenalbyn does not include for the development of a 50 metre pool. Phase 1 of the Samuel Beckett Civic Campus is currently under construction in Ballyogan. Phase 2 of this development will include a 6 lane 25 metre swimming pool.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

231.

Page 93 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.2 Open Space, Recreation & Sports Development 3.2.4 Sports Development v)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     v)      “Submission requests that consideration should be given to providing a cycle racing facility in the Jamestown landfill area.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

232.

Page 93 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.2 Open Space, Recreation & Sports Development 3.2.4 Sports Development vi)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    vi)      “Submission requests that the redevelopment of Glenalbyn Pool be fast tracked.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Funding has been provided in the Council’s Capital Programme for the development of a leisure facility at Glenalbyn.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

233.

Page 93 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.2 Open Space, Recreation & Sports Development 3.2.4 Sports Development vii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

  vii)      “Submission seeks supports from the Council for sport and rugby in the County. DLR should develop further open recreational space for use as grass playing pitches, should promote sporting hubs in the major parks and should partner with local sporting organisations in the development of pitches and facilities.

The submission also indicates that they would be interested in partnering with DLR to develop a pitch for rugby.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

234.

Page 93 3.1 Landscape, Biodiversity & Natural Heritage - 3.2 Open Space, Recreation & Sports Development 3.2.4 Sports Development viii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

 viii)      “Submission seeks an objective in the emerging County Plan for a high  standard running track and that Marlay Park would be an ideal venue for such a facility.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

Section 4 Physical Infrastructure Strategy

235.

Page 97 4.1 Environmental Infrastructure & Management 4.1.1 Water & Wastewater Infrastructure i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission supports the areas currently zoned for development, which will require the provision of water and wastewater infrastructure being delivered by Irish Water.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Council no longer has any direct control in relation to the provision of water and wastewater services.  The delivery, integration and implementation of strategic water and wastewater projects and infrastructural improvements are now the responsibility of Irish Water.  However the Council will continue to develop a close working relationship with Irish Water to achieve common objectives such as alignment with the RPGs settlement strategy and ensuring that the provision of water/wastewater services will not be a limiting factor in terms of forecasted growth.  This will be reflected within the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

236.

Page 97 4.1 Environmental Infrastructure & Management 4.1.1 Water & Wastewater Infrastructure ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission requests that an Infrastructure Delivery Plan is developed as part of the Draft Plan, which links the delivery of key pieces of social, physical and environmental infrastructure with the sequential and phases development of zoned land.  Submission requests that the quantum of land zoned in the Draft Plan must be carefully matched and phased with the existing and/or planned Population Equivalent (PE) capacity of the local waste-water treatment plan.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Council no longer has any direct control in relation to the provision of water and wastewater services.  The delivery, integration and implementation of strategic water and wastewater projects and infrastructural improvements are now the responsibility of Irish Water.  However the Council will continue to develop a close working relationship with Irish Water to achieve common objectives such as alignment with the RPGs settlement strategy and ensuring that the provision of water/wastewater services will not be a limiting factor in terms of forecasted growth.  This will be reflected within the Draft Plan.

 

The amount of serviced zoned land will be audited and reviewed and the findings utilised in the   preparation of the Core Strategy.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

237.

Pages 97& 98 4.1 Environmental Infrastructure & Management 4.1.1 Water & Wastewater Infrastructure iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission requests that the use of Integrated Constructed Wetlands (ICW) is explored as a low–cost and environmentally sustainable alternative to heavy engineered and energy intensive wastewater treatment facilities.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The use of Integrated Constructed Wetlands (ICW) may, in site specific circumstances, be a viable option as part of larger suite of SUDs measures.  It should be noted that the application of ICW is considered somewhat limited in an urban built environment.  In addition, as stated above, the Council no longer has any direct control in relation to the provision of water and wastewater services.  The delivery, integration and implementation of strategic water and wastewater projects and infrastructural improvements are now the responsibility of Irish Water.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

238.

Page 98 4.1 Environmental Infrastructure & Management 4.1.1 Water & Wastewater Infrastructure iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission would support a more flexible approach in situations where developers are willing to provide required infrastructure.  The Plan should have appropriate flexibility to ensure development is not unintentionally restricted.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Council no longer has any direct control in relation to the provision of water and wastewater services.  The delivery, integration and implementation of strategic water and wastewater projects and infrastructural improvements are now the responsibility of Irish Water.  However the Council will continue to develop a close working relationship with Irish Water to achieve common objectives such as alignment with the RPGs settlement strategy and ensuring that the provision of water/wastewater services will not be a limiting factor in terms of forecasted growth.  This will be reflected within the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

239.

Page 98 4.1 Environmental Infrastructure & Management 4.1.1 Water & Wastewater Infrastructure v)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     v)      “Submission requests that DLR liaise directly with Irish Water to deliver the infrastructure required.  Would welcome a combination of appropriate interim and/or phased infrastructural water and wastewater works at Woodbrook and Old Conna.

 

Submission supports the phased delivery of these schemes which could be advanced with initial developer funding in the absence of allocated public funding.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Council no longer has any direct control in relation to the provision of water and wastewater services.  The delivery, integration and implementation of strategic water and wastewater projects and infrastructural improvements are now the responsibility of Irish Water.  However the Council will continue to develop a close working relationship with Irish Water to achieve common objectives such as alignment with the RPGs settlement strategy and ensuring that the provision of water/wastewater services will not be a limiting factor in terms of forecasted growth.  This will be reflected within the Draft Plan.

 

Note: The inclusion of the Old Connaught / Woodbrook Water and Wastewater schemes within Irish Waters Proposed Capital Investment Plan 2014-2016 at the “continue planning and business case review” stage should be noted.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

240.

Page 98 4.1 Environmental Infrastructure & Management 4.1.1 Water & Wastewater Infrastructure vi)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    vi)      “Submission requests that all existing infrastructure is upgraded or expanded to include additional capacity to ensure future growth is possible.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Council no longer has any direct control in relation to the provision of water and wastewater services.  The delivery, integration and implementation of strategic water and wastewater projects and infrastructural improvements are now the responsibility of Irish Water.  However the Council will continue to develop a close working relationship with Irish Water to achieve common objectives such as alignment with the RPGs settlement strategy and ensuring that the provision of water/wastewater services will not be a limiting factor in terms of forecasted growth.  This will be reflected within the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

241.

Page 99 4.1 Environmental Infrastructure & Management 4.1.2 Water & Wastewater Infrastructure -Rathmichael i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission would welcome the introduction of a Specific Local Objective (SLO) to limit future development in the Rathmichael area, until current wastewater infrastructural deficiencies are addressed.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The current wastewater infrastructural deficiencies in the Rathmichael area are acknowledged.  Consideration will be given to the incorporation of a policy - within the Draft Plan – taking into account future development in the area until wastewater infrastructural deficiencies are addressed.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

242.

Page 99 4.1 Environmental Infrastructure & Management 4.1.2 Water & Wastewater Infrastructure - Rathmichael ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission requests that an objective to address the current infrastructural deficits within the Rathmichael area is included within the Plan.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The current wastewater infrastructural deficiencies in the Rathmichael area are acknowledged.

 

The Council no longer has any direct control in relation to the provision of water and wastewater services.  The delivery, integration and implementation of strategic water and wastewater projects and infrastructural improvements are now the responsibility of Irish Water.  However the Council will continue to develop a close working relationship with Irish Water to achieve common objectives such as alignment with the RPGs settlement strategy and ensuring that the provision of water/wastewater services will not be a limiting factor in terms of forecasted growth.  This will be reflected within the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously

 

 

 

243.

Page 99 4.1 Environmental Infrastructure & Management 4.1.2 Water & Wastewater Infrastructure - Rathmichael iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission would oppose any proposals to extend the mains drainage in the Rathmichael area.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted – see response 4.1.2 ii) above.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

244.

Pages 99 & 100 4.1 Environmental Infrastructure & Management 4.1.3 Water & Wastewater - Policies & Objectives i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission requests the inclusion of a suite of integrated policy measures to ensure that the Planning Authority’s legal obligations under the Water Framework Agreement (WFD) and the operable River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) are achieved.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Council recognises the importance and the legal obligations associated with both the WFD and the RBMP and will incorporate relevant policies when preparing the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

245.

Page 100 4.1 Environmental Infrastructure & Management 4.1.3 Water & Wastewater - Policies & Objectives ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission would welcome objectives and policies to exclude storm water from foul and combined foul and surface water drains managed by Irish Water in order to increase capacity for foul drainage in the sewer network and at treatment plants and to minimize impacts on the water environment from combined sewer overflows.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Council acknowledges the need to support and protect investments currently being made by Irish Water in terms of the management of water and wastewater.  The contents of this submission are noted and will be considered when preparing the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

246.

Page 100 4.1 Environmental Infrastructure & Management 4.1.3 Water & Wastewater - Policies & Objectives iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      Submission would welcome objectives and policies encouraging householders and businesses to conserve water.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Council acknowledges the need to support and protect investments currently being made by Irish Water in terms of the management of water and wastewater.  The contents of this submission are noted and will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

247.

Page 100 4.1 Environmental Infrastructure & Management 4.1.3 Water & Wastewater - Policies & Objectives iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission requests the inclusion of an objective stating that DLR will work with Irish Water to achieve common objectives.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Council will continue to develop a close working relationship with Irish Water to achieve common objectives such as alignment with the RPGs settlement strategy and ensuring that the provision of water/wastewater services will not be a limiting factor in terms of forecasted growth.  This will be reflected within the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

248.

Pages 100 & 101 4.1 Environmental Infrastructure & Management 4.1.4 Localised Drainage Issues i)

 

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)       “Submission raises concerns over recent man made flooding events at Corbawn Drive which was compounded by an overflow mechanism that resulted in a mix of foul and rain water being released locally. Request that this inadvertent mixing of land drainage and sewerage is investigated.

 

Submission raises concerns in relation to the outflow from ‘land water drainage’ outlets that enter the sea at the end of Corbawn Lane.

 

Submission would welcome additional drains being located on Quinn’s Road to ensure no further flooding occurs and would welcome the maintenance of all drains on roads.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“It is considered that these are operational matters and not strategic County Development Plan issues.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

249.

Page 101 4.1 Environmental Infrastructure & Management 4.1.5 Waste Management Infrastructure i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission requests the inclusion of an objective for a waste separation plant that can extract recyclable waste from mixed waste.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“In relation to the treatment of waste, DLR is committed to developing a waste management model which conforms to the European Union and National Waste Management Hierarchy.  The ‘Dublin Regional Waste Management Plan 2005-2010’ – is being comprehensively reviewed this year.  A new Regional Waste Management Plan for the Eastern and Midlands Region is to be published for the first quarter of 2015.  Any waste management policies and objectives contained within the new Regional Plan – including the provision of a waste separation plant - will be considered when preparing the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

250.

Page 101 4.1 Environmental Infrastructure & Management 4.1.6 IT & Telecommunications Infrastructure i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “The submission seeks support for the improvements to IT infrastructure within Dún Laoghaire, with a particular focus on broadband speeds for businesses.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Council does not have any direct control in relation to the provision of IT infrastructure, however, improvements policies and / or objectives which support the provision of IT infrastructure and broadband speeds will be considered when preparing the Draft Plan”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

251.

Pages 101 & 102 4.1 Environmental Infrastructure & Management 4.1.7 Energy Infrastructure i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)       “Submission recommends the Draft Plan contains reference to the “Government Policy Statement on Strategic Importance of Transmission and Other Energy Infrastructure”.

 

Submission also recommends that a section on Energy and Energy Infrastructure is included with three separate policies suggested, which relate to:

·      The Council promoting Eirgrid’s Grid 25 Strategy

·      The facilitation of energy networks in principle (subject to certain caveats)

·      The Council engaging with Eirgrid when consulted on strategic infrastructural projects relating to electricity.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The specific contents of this submission will be considered when preparing the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

252.

Page 102 4.1 Environmental Infrastructure & Management 4.1.8 Environmental Management - Development Management Issues i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission requests the Development Plan prohibits the laying of concrete and asphalt on open ground and that no new developments on or near vulnerable watercourses takes place.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The issues raised shall be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.

 

It should be noted that it will remain Council policy to ensure that all development proposals incorporate Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) that are consistent with the Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study.  Development will only be permitted where the Council is satisfied that suitable measures have been considered that balance the impact of urban drainage through the achievement of control of run-off quantity and quality, and enhances amenity and habitat.  In particular the requirements of the ‘SUDS Manual by the UK's Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA)’ shall be followed unless specifically exempted by Council.

 

In addition, the existing County Development Plan contains a robust set of policies and objectives relating to the protection of the environment, riparian corridors, biodiversity, waterways and both designated and undesignated sites.  It is intended that the new Plan will further strengthen this section having regard to changes in National and European environmental legislation.  Policies will address issues including biodiversity / riparian corridors, connection of the county’s green spaces, planting of trees and the development of wetlands and marshes.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

253.

Page 103 4.1 Environmental Infrastructure & Management 4.1.8 Environmental Management - Development Management Issues ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission seeks the prescription of mandatory Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) measures and rainwater harvesting for all new development proposals.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

SUDs measures appropriate to the scale and location of development will be conditioned for all new developments.

 

It should be noted that the Council are proactive on the issue of Green Roofs.  The existing County Development Plan contains references to the Council’s ‘Green Roofs Guidance Document’ in which mandatory thresholds and types of development for which green roofs are required are prescribed.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

254.

Page 103 4.1 Environmental Infrastructure & Management 4.1.8 Environmental Management - Development Management Issues iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission would support a flexible approach in relation to sustainability initiatives so as to allow individual projects develop solutions on a case-by-case basis. Concerns that requiring certain solutions for all developments is not appropriate i.e. the provision of a green roof on a single storey supermarket is not appropriate due to the general structure of these buildings or the placement of solar panels which could adversely affect the performance of green roof construction.  Not all SUDs measures can be accommodated within all developments.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

SUDs measures appropriate to the scale and location of development will be conditioned for all new developments.

 

There are various examples of green roofs in all development types. In this regard, structural engineers are adept at designing columns to withstand any roof weight. Where space is limited other soft measures may be acceptable.  Green walls may be considered as an alternative to green roofs.

 

It is considered achievable to accommodate both solar panels and a green roof on the same roof.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

255.

Page 104 4.2 Climate Change Adaptation & Energy Efficiency 4.2.1 General i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission suggests that there can be conflict between sustainability strategies such as green roof construction and solar panels.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted.  It is considered that good design can overcome any such conflicts.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

256.

Page 104 4.2 Climate Change Adaptation & Energy Efficiency 4.2.1 General ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission contends that climate change is a global problem.  Local efforts to reduce greenhouse gases should be made in line with European targets.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Agreed.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

257.

Page 104 4.2 Climate Change Adaptation & Energy Efficiency 4.2.1 General iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission states that the majority of carbon emissions come from vehicle usage.  Promoting electrical and hybrid vehicles as well as changing the current stock of buses etc to greener forms of transport should be considered.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“DLR have played a strong role in promoting electrical vehicles with policies relating to both contained in the existing County Development Plan. It is current policy that non-residential developments provide recharging facilities for battery-operated cars. 

DLR is not responsible for the bus stock that serves the county.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

258.

Page 104 4.2 Climate Change Adaptation & Energy Efficiency 4.2.2 Renewable Energy i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)       “Submission requests that a flexible approach be given in the planning process towards achieving sustainable objectives.”

 

The following opinion and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

259.

Pages 104 & 105 4.2 Climate Change Adaptation & Energy Efficiency 4.2.2 Renewable Energy ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission states that hydro and wind schemes can provide clean energy but can have serious environmental effects including visual intrusion.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The County Development Plan 2010 - 2016 includes a Wind Energy Strategy which analyses suitable area for wind energy based on a number of criteria that include landscape evaluation and sensitivity, natural and build heritage designations and Development Plan objectives that include views and prospects.  This strategy concluded that there were no land-based areas in the County where large-scale commercial wind energy infrastructure should be either acceptable or permitted in principle.  It is recommended that the new Plan incorporate this Wind Energy Strategy.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

260.

Page 105 4.2 Climate Change Adaptation & Energy Efficiency 4.2.3 Energy Efficiency i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission states that fossil fuel and climate change are the biggest interrelated and defining challenges of our time.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“It is agreed that fossil fuel and climate change are among the biggest challenges of our time.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

261.

Page 105 4.2 Climate Change Adaptation & Energy Efficiency 4.2.3 Energy Efficiency ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission argues that the primary objective of the County Development Plan should be to break the locality’s dependence on oil.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The County Development Plan sets out the overall strategy for the proper planning and sustainable development of an area and must include objectives which promote sustainable settlement and transportation strategies including measures to reduce energy demand, measures to reduce greenhouse gas emission and address the necessity of adaptation to climate change.  The Development Plan will contain many policies, which will in themselves impact on usage of non-renewable energy sources.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously

 

 

 

262.

Page 105 4.2 Climate Change Adaptation & Energy Efficiency 4.2.3 Energy Efficiency iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission suggests that the Council should prepare a local Climate Change Strategy.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“In December 2012 the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government (DoECLG) published the National Climate Change Adaptation Framework. 

 

The DoECLG has been identified as the lead body on National Adaptation policy.  Local Authorities have been given the role to prepare local adaptation plans through the Development Plan review process. 

 

Guidance on how to prepare these strategies is currently being prepared by the EPA and may be available by the end of 2014.  Preparing a strategy is likely to be task which will require significant resources and buy in at all levels and from all Council departments.  Due to the time frames involved in terms of preparation of the Draft Plan it is likely that work on the strategy will commence post adoption of the Plan and will be incorporated into the Plan by way of a statutory Variation.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

263.

Page 106 4.2 Climate Change Adaptation & Energy Efficiency 4.2.3 Energy Efficiency iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission request that minimum BER ratings should be imposed on new builds.  Grants should be available for existing home owners to improve energy efficiency.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Currently all new buildings constructed in the County must accord with part L of the Building regulations which ensures that the resultant buildings have a high BER rating.  Grants are currently available for various works from www.seai.ie.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

264.

Page 106 4.2 Climate Change Adaptation & Energy Efficiency 4.2.3 Energy Efficiency v)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     v)      “Submission agrees that the submission of energy statements as part of planning applications is an excellent idea.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“This is agreed in relation to larger planning applications.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

265.

Page 106 4.3 Flood Risk 4.3.1 General i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission suggests that in order to address flooding, flood defences and drainage schemes should be studied to determine the most cost effective solutions.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

“The Office of Public Works (OPW) are the lead authority on flooding in the Country and in 2011 they commenced a National Catchment Flood Risk Assessment and Management (CFRAM) programme.  CFRAM is currently being carried out for the Eastern Region which includes Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown. The Eastern CFRAMs are still being finalised and are not in the public domain (July 2014). 

 

The fact that the Eastern CFRAM study is not yet in the public domain places DLR in a vacuum in terms of information. It is hoped that the CFRAM study will have progressed in time to dove-tail with publication of the Draft Plan.

 

The objectives of the CFRAM project are to identify and map existing and future potential flood hazard risk, identify measures for managing that flood risk and develop a long term strategy for dealing and managing that risk.  The CFRAM process has involved the collection of survey data and the development of hydraulic computer models of the various rivers.  The project would have included the study of flood defences and drainage schemes and a key element is cost benefit analysis of proposed solutions.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously

 

 

 

266.

Page 107 4.3 Flood Risk 4.3.1 General ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission recommends that new development on flood plains should be prevented.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) will be used to avoid new development on flood plains.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

267.

Page 107 4.3 Flood Risk 4.3.1 General iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission suggests that County Development Plan should down zone lands in Flood Zones A or B applying the sequential approach.  If the zoning is to be retained a detailed Justification Test must be done.” 

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“As part of the Development Plan process the Council will be carrying out SFRA in accordance with the then DoEHLG Guidelines “The Planning System and Flood Risk Management, Guidelines for Planning Authorities” published in November 2009.

 

The purpose of the SFRA will be to provide sufficient information to allow sound planning decisions to be made on sites at risk of flooding over the lifetime of the next County Development Plan 2016 – 2022 and also to ensure that Elected Members have appropriate information with regard to flooding, the sequential approach and the Justification Test in coming to decisions on the Draft Plan.

 

There are three key principles that underpin the sequential approach in flood risk management.  These are:

·      Avoid the risk, where possible,

·      Substitute less vulnerable uses, where avoidance is not possible, and

·      Mitigate and manage the risk, where avoidance and substitution are not possible.

 

The Guidelines state that where an authority is considering the future development of areas in an urban settlement that are at moderate or high risk of flooding, for uses or development vulnerable to flooding that would generally be inappropriate, it must be satisfied that it can clearly demonstrate on a solid evidence base that the zoning or designation for development will satisfy the Justification Test.

 

The fact that the Eastern CFRAM study is not yet in the public domain places DLR in a vacuum in terms of information for generating the SFRA.  It is hoped that the SFRAM study will have progressed in time to dove-tail with publication of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

268.

Page 107 4.3 Flood Risk 4.3.1 General iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission recommends that any maps on flood risk must include gradient, embankments, existing flood attenuation measures and capacity of culverts.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The CFRAMS process referred to above will generate a suite of maps which will include flood extent maps, flood depth maps, flood velocity maps and flood hazard maps.

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

269.

Page 108 4.3 Flood Risk 4.3.1 General v)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)       “Submission requests good communication on Flood Risk Management.

 

Submission suggests that there is a need to investigate if culvert pipes for Deansgrange River are subject to silting that could slow down flow. 

 

Submission recommends that there is a need to monitor silting in Shanganagh River at Bayview Glen.

 

Submission raises the issue of flood insurance.

Submission requests flood warnings on spring tide surges. An example is a text alert system.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of the submission are noted, however these are not considered to be strategic County Development Plan issues but Water Services Operations Section issues.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

270.

Page 108 4.3 Flood Risk 4.3.1 General vi)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    vi)      “Submission recommends that natural flood plains along streams be restored by widening streambeds and using planting.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of the submission are noted, however these are not considered to be strategic County Development Plan issues but Water Services Operations Section issues.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

271.

Page 108 4.3 Flood Risk 4.3.1 General vii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

  vii)      “Submission states that planning should enhance flood control and not exacerbate it.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of the submission are noted, however these are not considered to be strategic County Development Plan issues but Water Services Operations Section issues.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

272.

Page 108 4.3 Flood Risk 4.3.2 Specific Flooding Issues i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission recommends that coastal towns such as Blackrock and Dún Laoghaire need flood defences.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of the submission are noted, however these are not considered to be strategic County Development Plan issues but Water Services Operations Section issues.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

273.

Pages 108 & 109 4.3 Flood Risk 4.3.2 Specific Flooding Issues ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission requests a monitored sensor for river water levels at Bayview Glen and on the Deansgrange River between Bayview and Seafield.

 

Submission states that flooding has exacerbated in the Bayview estate.  Questions whether there is a need for an emergency plan for estates like Bayview.

 

Submission requests that information on water levels in the Shanganagh River at Bayview Glen and the Deansgrange River at the culvert grid between Seafield and Bayview be linked to the OPW water level website for easily accessible real time information.

 

Submission requests use of soft engineering works to provide more river water soakage at Loughlinstown Common Woodlands and Ecopark.

 

Submission argues that flood attenuation works upstream have created greater hazard for Bayview.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of the submission are noted, however these are not considered to be strategic County Development Plan issues but Water Services Operations Section issues.

 

The contents of the submission are noted, however these are not considered to be strategic County Development Plan issues but Water Services Operations Section issues.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

274.

Page 109 4.3 Flood Risk 4.3.2 Specific Flooding Issues iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission raises impact of Cherrywood development on flooding down stream.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Stringent SUDs measures are incorporated into the Cherrywood Planning Scheme.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

275.

Page 109 4.3 Flood Risk 4.3.2 Specific Flooding Issues iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission requests a wider exit pipe through the railway embankment or a second culvert to deal with the Deansgrange River at Seafield Estate.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of the submission are noted, however these are not considered to be strategic County Development Plan issues but Water Services Operations Section issues.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

276.

Page 109 4.3 Flood Risk 4.3.2 Specific Flooding Issues v)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     v)      “Submission raises issue of man made flooding in Corbawn Drive due to Tennis Club development.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of the submission are noted, however these are not considered to be strategic County Development Plan issues but Roads Maintenance Section issues.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously

 

 

 

277.

Page 109 4.3 Flood Risk 4.3.2 Specific Flooding Issues vi)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    vi)      “Submission requests six new drains along Quinn’s Road to deal with surface water.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of the submission are noted, however these are not considered to be strategic County Development Plan issues but Roads Maintenance Section issues.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

Section 5 - Built Heritage Strategy

278.

Page 113 5.1 Archaeological Heritage 5.1.1 Access to Archaeological Monuments i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission requests that a right of way beginning opposite Rose Cottage, Killiney Hill Road and ending opposite the Monument of Killiney Church would be considered as part of the monument itself as the ROW functioned as a funeral way for burials at the church.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

279.

Page 113 5.1 Archaeological Heritage 5.1.1 Access to Archaeological Monuments ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission suggest that in the context of DLR Heritage Management Plan the new County Development Plan needs to include objectives relating to the implementation of conservation, management and access plans for key sites including:

  • Tully Church
  • Glen Druid Valley and Glen Druid House
  • Rathmichael early medieval monastic site
  • Ballyman, dedicated to St Kevin
  • Pucks Castle, Shankill

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.

 

However, it should be noted that the Council has no control over Protected Structures, Monuments and/or archaeological sites in private ownership and cannot, therefore, commit to improving public accessibility to same.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

280.

Page 113 5.1 Archaeological Heritage 5.1.1 Access to Archaeological Monuments iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission requests the Council to support, promote and preserve public access to Dalkey Island for recreational users and protect its landscape character, amenities and heritage from inappropriate development.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Issues addressed in this submission are already covered by policies and objectives in the current Development Plan including AH1, AH2, AH3, AH4, AH5 and AH6 which will be reincorporated in the preparation of the Draft Plan.

 

The forthcoming Draft Development Plan will have due regard to the recently published ‘Dalkey Islands Conservation Plan, 2014-2024’.”

 

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

281.

Page 114 5.1 Archaeological Heritage 5.1.2 Miscellaneous i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission requests that an exhibition of Heritage sites and monuments should be provided along with useful information available online and on-site.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission have been noted.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

282.

Page 114 5.1 Archaeological Heritage 5.1.2 Miscellaneous ii)

 

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission states that there may be tourism potential in relation to archaeological and architectural heritage within the County. Preservation of such sites/buildings for education purposes should be prioritised rather than exploiting them for economic benefits.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Agreed. There is a balance to be struck between increasing access to key heritage sites and their protection to ensure that this finite resource is not compromised. The Council is committed to achieving this by the formulation of appropriate policies and objectives in the preparation of the Draft Plan.

 

The contents of this submission will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

283.

Page 114 5.1 Archaeological Heritage 5.1.2 Miscellaneous iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission requests that Archaeological Landscapes are identified.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Policy AH4 of the County Development Plan 2010-2016 deals with the designation of Archaeological Landscapes. It is envisaged that this objective will follow through in the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

284.

Page 114 5.1 Archaeological Heritage 5.1.2 Miscellaneous iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission requests additional appendices for Historic Graveyards, Preservation Orders on Monuments and Zones of Archeological Potential.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Many of the County’s historic burial grounds are listed in Appendix C, Schedule 2, Record of Monuments & Places (RMP) in the County Development Plan 2010-2016. The RMP also includes those sites which are the subject of Preservation Order and are marked with (P). Zones of Archaeological Potential are designated by the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (DAHG) and not the Council. The Historic Town of Dalkey is the only area to have been given this designation to date as per Policy AH3.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

285.

Page 115 5.2 Archaeological Heritage 5.2.1 Record of Protected Structures (RPS) i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submissions seek clarification on the status of a property known as Durham Cottage, Tivoli Road and, if not already protected, request its inclusion on the RPS.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“As part of the process leading towards the new Development Plan the current RPS will be reviewed. Any recommendations for the inclusion of a structure will be considered against the categories of Special Interest (architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, cultural, scientific, social or technical interest) as set in the Planning and Development Act, 2000. Any structure, which has one or more of the above categories of special interest, shall be recommended for inclusion in the RPS.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

286.

Page 115 5.2 Archaeological Heritage 5.2.1 Record of Protected Structures (RPS) ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission seeks the removal of Mountainview House from the Record of Protected Structures.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Any structure proposed for removal from the RPS will be assessed using the same procedures for making additions. Deletions will only take place where the Planning Authority considers that the structure has entirely lost its special interest. The removal of structure from the RPS is a reserved function of the Elected Members.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

287.

Page 115 5.2 Archaeological Heritage 5.2.1 Record of Protected Structures (RPS) iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission seeks a review of structures within Cornelscourt Village with a view to protecting structures from a heritage aspect.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“As part of the process leading towards the new Development Plan the current RPS will be reviewed. Any recommendations for the inclusion of a structure will be considered against the categories of Special Interest (architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, cultural, scientific, social or technical interest) as set in the Planning and Development Act, 2000. Any structure, which has one or more of the above categories of special interest, shall be recommended for inclusion onto the RPS.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

288.

Page 115 5.2 Archaeological Heritage 5.2.1 Record of Protected Structures (RPS) iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission requests that there should be a review of Protected Structures periodically to check if structures should be removed. This would depend on their architectural and historical value and only removed with a very strong case to do so.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Any structure proposed for removal from the RPS will be assessed using the same procedures for making additions. Deletions will only take place where the planning authority considers that the structure has entirely lost its special interest. The removal of structures from the RPS is a reserved function of the elected members.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

289.

Page 116 5.2 Archaeological Heritage 5.2.2 Architectural Conservation Area (ACAs) i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission requests that ACAs are further strengthened and encouraged in the new Development Plan. Support and encouragement is provided for the designation of Dún Laoghaire Harbour as an ACA or the equivalent of a Special Area of Conservation.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“There is a statutory obligation under the Planning & Development Act, 2000 for Planning Authorities to include objectives to preserve ACAs within a Development Plan. The Council will progress the adoption of Candidate ACAs currently listed in Appendix C Schedule 4 of the County Development Plan 2010-2016, in accordance with Chapter 3 of the DAHG ‘Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines’ and to critically assess additional candidate areas that may benefit from such designations.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

290.

Page 116 5.2 Archaeological Heritage 5.2.2 Architectural Conservation Area (ACAs) ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission states that Dún Laoghaire Harbour warrants Candidate Architectural Conservation Area status due to the conglomeration of protected structures and monuments.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Harbour is a cACA and there are no plans to remove this designation in the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

291.

Page 116 5.2 Archaeological Heritage 5.2.2 Architectural Conservation Area (ACAs) iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission states that there should be encouragement for designated ACAs to having utility lines underground.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Policy AR9 of the County Development Plan 2010-2016 deals with this subject. This Policy will be retained in the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

292.

Page 116 5.2 Archaeological Heritage 5.2.2 Architectural Conservation Area (ACAs) iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission seeks the designation of Special Planning Control Schemes.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Under the provisions of Section 84 of Planning & Development Act, 2000, and Section 3.13.1 of the DAHG ‘Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines’, ‘a Planning Authority may, if it considers that all or part of an ACA is of special importance to, or as respects, the civic life or the architectural, historical, cultural, or social character of a city or town in which it is situated, prepare a scheme setting out development objectives for the preservation and enhancement of that area, or part of that area, and providing for matters connected therewith.’”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

293.

Pages 116 & 117 5.2 Archaeological Heritage 5.2.2 Architectural Conservation Area (ACAs) v)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     v)      “Submission requests that the Foxrock ACA designation be continued in the new Development Plan and possibly be extended with any new development being mindful of this designation, particularly those developments within the considerable amount of backland area available for development.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“There is an existing ACA for Foxrock and there are no plans to remove this designation. Once objectives to preserve an ACA have been approved by the Elected Members it carries through from Development Plan to Development Plan (as set out in Section 3.1.2 of the Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines).

 

The boundaries of the Foxrock ACA were defined after careful consideration of the wider Foxrock area.

 

An additional area within FoxrockKnocksinna, has been designated a candidate ACA, but it is geographically severed from the Foxrock ACA. Knocksinna therefore will be a stand alone ACA once its status is confirmed.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

294.

Page 117 5.2 Archaeological Heritage 5.2.2 Architectural Conservation Area (ACAs) vi)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

vi) “Submission states Dún Laoghaire Harbour is of International heritage value    which should be recognized in the Draft Plan through key strategic objectives as  set out in the Harbour Masterplan:

·         ‘15. Seek to protect the heritage of the Harbour and ensure the implementation of the Architectural Heritage Management Plan

·         16. Secure the preservation of all Protected Structures within the Harbour area.

·         17. Have regard to the designation of part of the Harbour area as a proposed ACA.

  • 18. Seek to preserve archaeological heritage through investigation, preservation in-situ and recording as appropriate’.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Agree with the sentiments expressed in this submission. The Council recognises the significance of the Harbour as indicated by the number of Protected Structures listed in RPS, the listing of the Harbour as a cACA and in Policy AR7: Protection of Coastline Heritage. The Archeology Heritage is protected under Policy AH1, AH2 and AH6 all of which will be retained in the preparation of the Draft Plan.

 

The Heritage Management Plan prepared by Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company has no statutory basis.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

295.

Page 117 5.2 Archaeological Heritage 5.2.3 General Architectural Heritage i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission requests that The Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities must be implemented in full.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“As stated in Policy AR1 of the County Development Plan 2010-2016 the Council has regard to the DAHG ‘Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities’ in assessing proposals for Protected Structures.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

296.

Pages 117 & 118 5.2 Archaeological Heritage 5.2.3 General Architectural Heritage ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission requests that Blackrock and Dún Laoghaire Baths should be demolished.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“It is an objective of the Council to facilitate improvements to both Blackrock and Dún Laoghaire Baths by way of public realm improvements and/or refurbishments of existing structures. SLO9 of the County Development Plan encourages the redevelopment of the Blackrock Baths and DART Station area.  In the preparation of the Draft Blackrock Local Area Plan, it is anticipated that further improvements will be proposed.   SLO21 of the County Development Plan proposes to improve the area between East Pier and Sandycove including the upgrading of the Dún Laoghaire Baths site.

 

The Council is well advanced in preparing a proposal for interim works at the Dún Laoghaire Baths site. These works include,

  • the renovation and re-opening of pavilion building to provide a public café/gallery, toilets, terrace area and artists studios
  • the creation of a new route with associated landscaping to connect the walkway at Newtownsmith to both the East Pier and the Peoples Park
  • enhanced facilities for swimming and improved access to the waters edge e.g. ramps, steps and renovation of the existing bandstand and
  • the creation of a small jetty in line with the existing structure and the provision of a changing area.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

297.

Page 118 5.2 Archaeological Heritage 5.2.3 General Architectural Heritage iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission states that redevelopment of redundant or derelict buildings are very important as this can define the character of an area. The dereliction of any structure should not be allowed.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Agreed. This however is not a matter that can be dealt with in the context of the Development Plan. This should be dealt with through the established Derelict Sites Legislation. Any property/site referred to Derelict Sites Section would automatically trigger a site inspection.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

298.

Page 118 5.2 Archaeological Heritage 5.2.3 General Architectural Heritage iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission states that the reason for protecting a building in the first place should be preserved in any future provision of energy efficiency and universal access.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Agreed.  Policy AR5 of the County Development Plan 2010-2016 deals with Energy Efficiency and Protected Structures. This Policy will be retained in the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously

 

 

 

299.

Pages 118 & 119 5.2 Archaeological Heritage 5.2.3 General Architectural Heritage v)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     v)      “Submission requests that support be given to a practical approach regarding development within the curtilage of a protected structure and the timing and phasing of any such work in the context of the overall development.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The inclusion of a structure onto the RPS does not prevent development within the curtilage of a structure provided that the impact of any proposed development does not negatively affect its character and setting in accordance with the DAHG ‘Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines’.

It is envisaged that Development Management guidelines for development in relation to Protected Structures as set out in Policy DM4 will be elaborated upon in the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously

 

 

 

Section 6 - Community Strategy

300.

Page 123 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.1.1 Social Inclusion i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission requests that there is better integration of homeless accommodation across the County rather than provision in only certain areas.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

301.

Page 123 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.1.1 Social Inclusion ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission requests a more meaningful engagement with local communities, including children, in the development plan process.”

 

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“There is a statutory obligation as set down within the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, that any plan must go through public consultation to ensure that local communities have their input in the preparation of a Plan.

 

It should be noted that The Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2010, added Section 11(2)(bb) which states that children or groups representing the interests of children are entitled to make submissions / observations. Having regard to this amendment in legislation, the pre-draft consultation process specifically targeted post primary schools within the County seeking input to the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

302.

Page 123 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.1.1 Social Inclusion iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission has stated that the Council appears to be following Government policy of ‘Putting People First’.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“It is a statutory requirement that the preparation of the forthcoming County Development Plan has regard to all relevant Government and National policies. The Local Government Reform Act 2014 made legal provision for the reforms set out in the Government’s Action Programme for Effective Local Government, Putting People First.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

303.

Page 123 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.1.1 Social Inclusion iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission requests that the principal of accessibility and Universal Design should be promoted more rigorously in any new development given the demographics of the County. This should be included in each section of the Plan.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The forthcoming County Development Plan will continue to promote access for all in new developments in line with Building Control requirements.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

304.

Page 124 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.1.1 Social Inclusion v)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     v)      “Submission requests that the Housing Strategy should note the need to provide housing for the homeless, that the Plan should support National and Regional polices to alleviate homelessness and it should commit to addressing the needs of the homeless households in the County.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The forthcoming County Development Plan and Housing Strategy must seek to strike a balance between providing for the needs of all citizens requiring social housing supports, including those who are homeless, rough sleeping or at risk of homelessness and ensuring protection of amenities in residential areas. The contents of this submission are noted and will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

305.

Page 124 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.1.1 Social Inclusion vi)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    vi)      “Submission states that there is a need to engage the community to build together, and if funding is insufficient then compromises are required on both sides – limited funding should not be used as an excuse to do nothing.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Agreed. It is an objective of the Council to engage with key stakeholders / community groups etc to develop shared responsibility for community development in the County. Policy SCC2 of the County Development Plan 2010-2016 states that everyone should be able to participate in and contribute to community life. These objectives and policies will be reincorporated into the preparation of the Draft Plan.

 

The specific contents of this submission are noted and will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

306.

Page 124 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.1.2 Housing and Services for the Elderly i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission supports the provision of retirement villages.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The forthcoming County Development Plan will support the development of Elderly accommodation and specific policies and objectives will be examined during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

307.

Pages 124 & 125 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.1.2 Housing and Services for the Elderly ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submissions relate primarily to the provision of housing and meeting the needs of older people within the County. Specific requests have been made as follows:

·         All potential sites suitable for sheltered housing should be identified and set aside

·         Housing supply and land use policy must have regard to the housing and community need of older people

·         An innovative response to providing housing for older people is required given constraints on availability of money

·         Consideration is given to joint development of sheltered dwellings between the Council and Charities

·         The Council should provide guarantees for commercial loans in order that charities could build sheltered housing in cases where the Government is not in a position to provide funding

  • The best practice model of sheltered accommodation, as used by the Abbeyfield organisation, requires substantial financial resources at the outset and rents alone would not service the cost of borrowing.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The forthcoming County Development Plan will support the development of Elderly accommodation and specific policies and objectives will be examined during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

308.

Extension of Meeting

Following discussion it was AGREED by the majority to continue with meeting until 8.45 pm when the situation would be reviewed.

309.

Page 125 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.1.2 Housing and Services for the Elderly iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission states that a similar project to that of Beaufort (Glasthule) is required in Dún Laoghaire.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The forthcoming County Development Plan will support the development of Elderly accommodation and specific policies and objectives will be examined during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

310.

Page 125 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.1.2 Housing and Services for the Elderly iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission states that there is need for better day care facilities for the elderly within the Shankill Area and should be developed in conjunction with local organisations.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan. It should be noted that there are existing services provided within Shankill for older people including the Shankill Active Retirement Association (SARA) at the St Anne’s Resource Centre and the Shankill Old Folks' Association at the Shankill Old Folks' Centre.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

311.

Page 125 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.1.2 Housing and Services for the Elderly v)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     v)      “Submission states that there is a need for more community based sheltered accommodation within the Shankill area.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The forthcoming County Development Plan will support the development of accommodation for the Elderly and specific policies and objectives will be examined during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

312.

Pages 125 & 126 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.1.2 Housing and Services for the Elderly vi)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    vi)      “Submission requests that as the elderly will form a large demographic within the County it is essential that emphasis is placed on providing additional services for this age group.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

313.

Page 126 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.1.3 Community Facilities i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission requests that all social groups within the Shankill area are facilitated by the provision of social centre (perhaps within the Castle).”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“There are currently a number of community facilities available within the Shankill area, including the recently opened community centre at the Stonebridge Estate and Shanganagh House.

 

An audit of existing community facilities in the County will be undertaken during the preparation of the Draft Plan. The results of this audit will identify deficits. These will be prioritised in the provision of facilities.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

314.

Page 126 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.1.3 Community Facilities ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission states that there is a need for community facilities within the St Columbanus Estate; over recent years the sense of community has been lost in the area and youth facilities/clubs and green spaces within the estate have been lost resulting in limited play opportunities for local children. There were plans for a playground but this has not been progressed.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The provision of a playground within the estate is an operational matter for the Parks and Landscape Services Section of the Council.

 

An audit of existing community facilities in the County will be undertaken during the preparation of the Draft Plan. The results of this audit will identify deficits. These will be prioritised in the provision of facilities.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

315.

Page 126 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.1.3 Community Facilities iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission requests that specific community facilities be provided as standard in line with local and neighbourhood developments in order to provide a successful community.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

316.

Page 127 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.1.4 Libraries and Leisure/Recreational Facilities i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission requests that sailing training is encouraged in schools; Dún Laoghaire harbour is the ideal place to teach students how to sail and survive at sea.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Sports development and recreation will be encouraged through a series of objectives/policies. The Council will investigate the possibility of including a specific policy in relation to water based sports.

 

Providing specific training within local schools however is a matter for each school and cannot be provided for within the County Development Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

317.

Page 127 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.1.4 Libraries and Leisure/Recreational Facilities ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission requests that Shanganagh Castle be developed for community use and youth training. Facilities within the castle such as the gym should be made available and an enhanced library facility could be provided.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“An audit of existing community facilities in the County will be undertaken during the preparation of the Draft Plan. The results of this audit will identify deficits. These will be prioritised in the provision of facilities.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

318.

Page 127 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.1.4 Libraries and Leisure/Recreational Facilities iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission states that Dún Laoghaire Harbour offers world class leisure sailing resource and policies recognizing and supporting water based recreational uses should be provided within the County Development Plan.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Sports development and recreation will be encouraged through a series of objectives/policies. The Council will investigate the possibility of including a specific policy in relation to water based sports.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

319.

Page 127 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.1.4 Libraries and Leisure/Recreational Facilities iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission requests that consideration should be given to providing a cycle racing facility in Jamestown landfill area.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

320.

Page 127 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.1.4 Libraries and Leisure/Recreational Facilities v)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     v)      “Submission requests that the redevelopment of Glenalbyn Pool be fast tracked.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Funding has been provided in the Council’s Capital Programme for the development of a leisure facility at Glenalbyn.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

321.

Page 128 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.1.4 Libraries and Leisure/Recreational Facilities vi)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    vi)      “Submission request that a new library is provided within the Sandyford Industrial Estate.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The adopted Sandyford Urban Framework Plan will provide for the development of a range of social facilities in this area.

 

There is a library planned in Phase 2 of the Samuel Beckett Civic Campus on Ballyogan Road which will provide improved library facilities for the Sandyford area - in addition to existing Library services in Stillorgan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

322.

Page 128 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.1.4 Libraries and Leisure/Recreational Facilities vii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

  vii)      “Submission states that there is a need for smaller local libraries in areas where such facilities do not exist and there may be potential to offer libraries in existing vacant commercial properties. The Killiney/Ballybrack area is in need of such a facility and provision of new/additional libraries should be included within the Development Plan.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The forthcoming County Development Plan will continue to support library development. There are existing library facilities in Dalkey and Shankill which currently serve the Killiney/Ballybrack areas.

 

Gaps in services provided will be examined in the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

323.

Page 128 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.1.4 Libraries and Leisure/Recreational Facilities viii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

 viii)      “Submission requests that the development of the Dún Laoghaire Baths site should include public swimming facilities.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Council is well advanced in preparing a proposal for interim works at the baths site. These works include,

  • the renovation and re-opening of pavilion building to provide a public café/gallery, toilets, terrace area and artists studios
  • the creation of a new route with associated landscaping to connect the walkway at Newtownsmith to both the East Pier and the Peoples Park
  • enhanced facilities for swimming and improved access to the waters edge e.g. ramps, steps and renovation of the existing bandstand and
  • the creation of a small jetty in line with the existing structure and the provision of a changing area.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

324.

Page 128 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.1.4 Libraries and Leisure/Recreational Facilities ix)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    ix)      “Submission seeks an objective in the emerging County Plan for a high standard running track and that Marlay Park would be an ideal venue for such a facility.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

325.

Pages 128 & 129 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.1.4 Libraries and Leisure/Recreational Facilities x)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      x)      “Submission states that existing leisure facilities are under pressure and new facilities would greatly improve resources within the County. The new library will provide some new space, however similar facilities should be spread throughout the County.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The forthcoming County Development Plan will continue to support leisure facilities and library development. The other issues raised in this submission are operational matters.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

326.

Page 129 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.1.5 Schools/ Third & Fourth Level Education Facilities i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)       “Submission requests that the new Development Plan continues to support the aims of the ongoing development of UCD by providing a range of uses on campus and fostering strong links between education, community and the business sector within the County.

 

Submission further states that it is anticipated that an increase of circa 25% of on-campus student accommodation will be required at UCD together with off campus accommodation and this need should be reflected in the next plan as it is presently under policy RES11, however it is suggested that the one pedestrian kilometre is removed due to the significant uptake of cycling – the present maximum distance can be restrictive and a 3km distance would be more reasonable”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Section 8.3.5 of the County Development Plan 2010-2016 recognises the significant role that UCD plays in the County with regards to education, research and employment. The Council actively engages and cooperates with UCD in relation to the continuing development of the campus.

 

The forthcoming County Development Plan will continue to support development at UCD and will examine policies and guidance in relation to on and off campus developments including provisions for the realization of the UCD Master Plan and provision of adequate Student accommodation.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

327.

Pages 129 & 130 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.1.5 Schools/ Third & Fourth Level Education Facilities ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission provides the information used to calculate educational infrastructural requirements, indicates guidance documents for sites suitable for educational provision, asks the Council to note the memorandum of understanding on the acquisition of sites for schools and asks that all existing educational site zonings and reservations be retained in the new County Development Plan.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Council will continue to co-operate with the Department of Education and Skills (DES) with regards to the identification of sites for new schools within the County in accordance with the ‘Memorandum of Understanding Between the Department of Education and Skills and the County and City Managers’ Association on the acquisition of sites for planning purposes’.

 

The forthcoming County Development Plan will continue to support the development of schools within the County and will examine specific policies and guidance in relation to schools having regard to ‘The Provision of Schools and the Planning System - A Code of Practice for Planning Authorities, the Department of Education and Science, and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, 2008’.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

328.

Page 130 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.1.5 Schools/ Third & Fourth Level Education Facilities iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission requests that students are supported within the County – student housing promoted and promotion of training locally within institutions.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The forthcoming County Development Plan will continue to support student facilities and training opportunities within the County.

 

Policies and objectives will be provided in relation to the provision of student housing.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

329.

Page 130 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.1.5 Schools/ Third & Fourth Level Education Facilities iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission states that the current number of schools within the County seems to be inadequate. Provision of new schools should be a priority given the rising population and in order to avoid of overcrowding in existing schools.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“As per the Chief Executive’s response under 6.1.5ii) above, the Council will continue to support the development of schools within the County in cooperation with Department of Education and Skills.

 

The DES has a GIS based data set linked to child benefit year-on-year which is able to identify areas where demand for school places and subsequent school development is required and can prioritise development as required.”  

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

330.

Page 130 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.1.5 Schools/ Third & Fourth Level Education Facilities v)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     v)      “Submission requests that facilities within existing schools be opened up for use by the wider community and actively encouraged (such as the case with New Park School) but not to the detriment to students of the school.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Public access to facilities provided within existing school sites cannot be facilitated under the provisions of the County Development Plan, however dual use of new school facilities can be encouraged and policies / objectives in this regard will be examined in the preparation of the Draft Development Plan.

 

It should be noted that the ‘Memorandum of Understanding Between the Department of Education and Skills and the County and City Managers’ Association on the acquisition of sites for planning purposes’ states that ‘the Department and Local Authorities view the provision of schools as a partnership between them in the provision of facilities in a community’.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

331.

Page 131 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.1.6 Health Care Facilities i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission requests that communities are developed having regard to health impacts given that obesity is a growing problem in Ireland. The development plan should implement policies included in ‘Building Young Hearts’ report recently published, in particular fast food outlet development should be avoided in areas close to schools.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Policies and guidance set out within the Development Plan encourage increased usage of public transport, walking and cycling and aims to reduce dependence on the private car. The Plan also encourages a mix of uses within walking and/or cycling distance of residential areas.

 

In relation to fast food restaurant locations proximate to schools should be considered in the context of combating childhood obesity, it is agreed that land use plans in general are not a panacea and it is unreasonable to expect that Planning Authorities can somehow take responsibility for the lifestyle choice of individuals.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

332.

Page 131 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.1.6 Health Care Facilities ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

                  ii)      “Submission requests that the development plan encourages the development of Health Service providers within Cornelscourt Village.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission are noted and will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.

 

However the provision of health services is primarily the responsibility of the HSE in conjunction with local healthcare practitioners.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

333.

Pages 131& 132 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.1.7 Childcare Facilities i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)       “Submission relates to the provision of childcare facilities within the County specifically requesting the following:

·         Childcare definitions and required floor space per child are updated in line with current guidelines.

·         Population increase in DLR Area will inevitably lead to an increased demand for childcare places, this need must be identified at the earliest stage of the planning process.

·         There has been significant investment and expansion of early years and school age childcare in the County and in order to avoid displacement and duplication of such facilities, a policy should be in place to take account of the geographical distribution of services and the demographic profile of an area when a new facility is proposed.

·         Any policy stated within the Development Plan should take account of updated childcare legislation and remove reference to outdate/replaced guidelines etc.

  • Similar guidelines to those included in Dublin City Development Plan are included in the Dún Laoghaire County Development Plan.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Childcare definitions and requirements will be updated in line with current National Guidelines and Policies during the preparation of the Draft Plan.

 

The forthcoming County Development Plan will continue to support childcare/pre-school development within the County and specific contents of this submission will be examined in the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

334.

Page 132 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.1.7 Childcare Facilities ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission requests that the childcare guidelines for Local Authorities are used as a guide only and that a flexible application of childcare requirement is applied to all new developments. The provision of a crèche in developments of 75 units or more in all cases has resulted in a high vacancy rate in crèches where there is insufficient demand.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The forthcoming County Development Plan will continue to support childcare/pre-school development within the County.

 

The specific contents of this submission will be examined during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

335.

Pages 132 & 133 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.1.8 General i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission requests that the Council actively lobbies for greater Garda resources in the Shankill Area to help deter/reduce crime and there should be CCTV installed to reduce crime, anti-social behaviour and fly tipping in the area.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The forthcoming County Development Plan will continue to promote and deliver safe living environments throughout the County and matters raised within this submission will be examined in conjunction with the Joint Policing Committee during the preparation of the Draft Plan.

 

However the points raised in this submission are, in the main, operational issues primarily under the control of An Garda Siochana and are not a strategic Development Plan matter. Likewise the issue of fly-tipping is an operational management issue to be addressed by the Councils Environmental Section.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

336.

Page 133 6.1 Social & Community Development 6.2 Cultural & Arts Development i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

  1. “Submission request that an objective is included in the Plan to include a Diaspora Centre in the new library with phase 1 being provided between the library and the Mariners Church, rather than providing a new building.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“SLO 16 of the current County Development Plan encourages the redevelopment of the Carlisle Pier and the redevelopment should integrate with the immediate built environment, should provide improved accessibility between the development and Dún Laoghaire town centre and should commemorate the unique heritage and history of the Pier as a gateway for the Irish Diaspora.

 

It is envisaged that the forthcoming Draft Plan will continue to encourage the provision of a Diaspora Centre in Dún Laoghaire.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

Section 7 - Principles of Development

337.

Page 137 7.1 Urban Design, Building Height & Place Making i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission states that Tivoli Road could benefit from urban realm improvements – street lighting/pavement/tree planting/possible one-way traffic system.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of the submission are noted. The County Development Plan review will allow for the shaping of County-wide policy on the issue of public realm enhancement and upgrade schemes.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

338.

Page 137 7.1 Urban Design, Building Height & Place Making ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Plan should include a Village Design Statement, which enable local residents/business to participate positively in the planning process and be ‘Community Led’.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“‘Village Design Statements’ (VDS) are an initiative of The Heritage Council. The VDS Programme seeks to provide “an opportunity for meaningful public participation in the Irish planning system” for local communities, with a particular emphasis placed on the conservation and management of local heritage. The inclusion of policies in relation to VDS and to the County Villages will be examined during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

339.

Page 137 7.1 Urban Design, Building Height & Place Making iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Submission from Cornelscourt Residents & Business Association refers to the village and notes that any new development in Cornelscourt should take account of existing building height and character. Quality street furniture/finishes should be taken into account. The County Development Plan should provide for the completion of the Cornelscourt Village Improvement Scheme.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of the submission are noted. Development standards in relation to building height, character and finishes will be considered as part of the Development Plan Review process.

 

A Specific Local Objective of the current County Development Plan is “To progress the implementation of the Village Improvement Scheme for Cornelscourt Village.” The Review of the County Development Plan will allow for the assessment of such schemes.  As only limited resources are now available to expedite Village Improvement Schemes, projects will be brought forward on a prioritised basis subject to availability of resources.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

340.

Pages 137 & 138 7.1 Urban Design, Building Height & Place Making iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “No more apartments should be built – 3-4 bed houses for families.”

 

The following opinion and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The County Development Plan will include policies on dwelling mix that will generally seek to encourage the establishment of sustainable residential communities by ensuring the provision of a wide variety of housing and apartment types, sizes and tenures.

 

It is notable that the recently published Housing Agency report,”Housing Supply Requirements

in Ireland’s Urban Settlements 2014 – 2018”, forecasts that  57% of all new households formed in the Dublin Region over the Study period will be for one and two person households, while three person households will account for a further 18%. Therefore, three quarters of all households formed over this period will be for three people or fewer.

 

A County Development Plan policy that excludes all dwelling types other than 3-4 bedroom houses would not provide a suitable housing stock for the County’s diverse range of household types.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

341.

Page 138 7.1 Urban Design, Building Height & Place Making v)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     v)      “Submission refers to Ballybrack/Killiney area - Since Ballybrack Village Improvement Scheme, the area has received little attention, with infrastructural upgrading focussing on larger areas. Also notes that housing densities could be increased, particularly near public transport corridors.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The review of the County Development Plan will include consideration of proposals for urban realm enhancements in different parts of the County.  Significant capital expenditure was expended on the Ballybrack Village Improvement Scheme over two financial years between 2002 and 2006.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

342.

Page 138 7.1 Urban Design, Building Height & Place Making vi)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    vi)      “Submission states that, notwithstanding national standards re: density/dwelling size, the Plan should be ‘pragmatic’ when considering current ‘market demands’.

 

There should be more flexibility for building height in relation to infill sites – impacts can be assessed without regard to unnecessarily rigid standards.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The forthcoming County Development Plan must have regard to national policy guidance on residential density as set out in Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas- Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009).While it is possible to review density standards in the context of these Guidelines, the Chief Executive would caution against any course of action that would lead to an abandonment of the principles of sustainable development in favour of dubious short-term market demands.

 

The Building Heights Strategy, which was adopted as a Variation to the County Development Plan in 2011 will be reviewed as part of the County Plan review, providing an opportunity to revisit building height standards for infill development schemes. As an aside, the Building Height Strategy does allow for some discretion – upward and downward modifiers – based on the particular characteristics of the site and seek to avoid blanket, immutable policies for particular areas.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

Section 8 - Non-Specific/Generic Zoning Objectives

343.

Page 141 8.1 Rathmichael Area/Greenbelt/Density i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)       “No development should be permitted above 300ft /90m contour line as was stipulated in previous County Development Plans.

 

Development Plan maps should show specific permitted residential density, as was the practice in previous Plans.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The existing County Development Plan contains a SLO71 stating No insensitive or large scale development shall take place above the 90 metre contour line at Rathmichael, from old Connaught Golf Course to Pucks Castle Lane – maps 10 and 14.  Any proposal for development, other than development directly related to agriculture, forestry recreation or the promotion of other bona fida rural enterprise or employment activity, shall be domestic in scale appearance and function.”

 

The wording of the SLO was amended from “No development” in the previous 2004 Development Plan to “No inappropriate development” in the 2010 Plan. This amendment was introduced to acknowledge certain localised sites zoned “A” on lands above the 300 foot contour limit where sensitive infill development might be considered appropriate subject to the normal planning considerations associated with such sites. It is considered that this policy provision and the restrictive nature of the ‘Objective G’ Zoning affords a high level of protection to these lands. (Also refer to Section 3.1.6 i)).

 

The practice of displaying density ‘bands’ on County Development Plan maps was based on the practice of allowing very low ‘maximum’ densities in unserviced areas such as Rathmichael. It has not been practice to set such low maximum densities since the 1998 County Development Plan. While there are strategic water and drainage (foul and surface) infrastructure deficits in the Rathmichael area and the delivery of Luas Line B2 has been postponed, the longer term strategy for Rathmichael area would be inconsistent with a return to planning for multiple residential low-density schemes as was the case with Development Plans in the 1980’s and 1990’s.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

344.

Pages 141 & 142 8.1 Rathmichael Area/Greenbelt/Density ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Retention of GB zoning and Luas B2 proposal are mutually exclusive – if B2 proceeds, the GB zone will be under threat from development.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The submission is noted. It is acknowledged that the overall context of the Greenbelt lands may change fundamentally with the insertion of Luas Line B2 or whatever substitute public transport system might utilise the corridor as a replacement for Line B2. It is also the case that the infrastructure necessary to serve this part of the County (both public transport, water supply and foul drainage) may not be delivered within the forthcoming Development Plan cycle, depending on resources. The rezoning of any additional lands for development within the existing Greenbelt ‘Objective GB’ lands would have to derive from an evidence-based assessment of residential land supply, as part of the formulation of the Core Strategy – as noted previously in the Report, the key metrics informing the existing Core Strategy have not altered significantly and any recommendation on additional zoning in the forthcoming Plan will reflect this.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

345.

Page 142 8.1 Rathmichael Area/Greenbelt/Density iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “Requests retention of residential zoning at site in Rathmichael area.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The content of the submission is noted.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

346.

Page 142 8.2 Land Use Zoning Objectives i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “A ‘more nuanced’ zoning scheme is required – too broad at present.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The land use zoning ‘matrix’ of permissible uses will be assessed as part of the County Development Plan Review. The submission will be considered as part of this review.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

 

347.

Page 142 8.2 Land Use Zoning Objectives ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “A SLO is proposed to support ‘Pembroke District’ in the Dundrum Shopping Centre, as centre of restaurant/ leisure evening uses – with priority given to commercial uses over residential.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of the submission are noted and will be considered as part of the assessment of zoning policies applicable to Dundrum as a Major Town Centre.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

348.

Pages 142 & 143 8.2 Land Use Zoning Objectives iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “None of the County Development Plans 12 no. land use zonings are mixed use - they generally allow for one primary use, with some ancillary/subsidiary uses. Instance given of Residential zone A, with restrictions on size of convenience stores and/or offices within this zone. A new ‘mixed use’ zoning category should be created for the development of ‘key sites’.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive does not agree with the substance of the submission. There are three separate mixed-use zones in the County – Major Town Centre/District Centre/Neighbourhood Centre – which allow for a broad and diverse range of uses. Many of the other land uses, such as Residential, as referred to in the submission, actually have a broad range of uses ‘Open for Consideration’.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

349.

Page 143 8.2 Land Use Zoning Objectives iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission concerns County Development Plan policy in relation to crematoria. Growth in demand for crematorium services – none in DLR. Crematoria are ‘Open for Consideration’ in Zone F ‘Open Space’, but not at all in Zone B ‘Agriculture’- even though ‘Cemetery’ and ‘Place of Public Worship’ are Permitted in Principle – this is an anomaly. Crematorium should be ‘Open for consideration’ in Zone B and possibly other zones.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The content of the submission is noted – the County Development Plan Review will include a critical reassessment of all of the land use zoning objectives and the various land uses permitted therein.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

350.

Page 143 8.2 Land Use Zoning Objectives v)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     v)      “A submission on behalf of the Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company addresses the land use Zoning Objective ‘W’ (Waterfront and Harbour related Uses) and notes that ‘Shop - Specialist’ defined as a ‘single retail unit which sells specialised merchandise’ is Open for Consideration in the zone. It is stated that one possible interpretation could be that only one such shop would be permissible. The County Development Plan should specifically promote the development of multiple such units.

 

Also, within the Zoning Objective ‘W’ zone, ‘Leisure Facility’ is not permitted. This appears to be “an anomaly.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The land use zoning ‘matrix’ of permissible uses will be assessed as part of the County Development Plan Review. The submission will be considered as part of this review.

 

However it should be noted that any proposed uses in the Harbour area would need to be complementary to the adjacent MTC zoning and uses and should not compete with same.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

351.

Page 143 8.2 Land Use Zoning Objectives vi)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    vi)      “Retain G and B Land use zonings in the Ballycorus Valley area where walkers/cyclists tourists etc enjoy this beautiful scenery.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The content of the submission is noted. It is current Council policy to “conserve and enhance” existing High Amenity zones (Policy LHB2) and any reassessment of zoning designation in these areas would have to be considered with this over-arching principle in mind.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

352.

Page 144 8.2 Land Use Zoning Objectives vii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

  vii)      “Submission from ‘Kentucky Fried Chicken’ UK and Ireland concerns policy in relation to fast food restaurants/takeaways.

 

Submission highlights economic contribution of drive thru ‘restaurants’. States that it is unreasonable that takeaways are singled out for restrictive policies in County Development Plan. There is no specific definition for ‘Fast Food/Takeaway’.

 

‘Drive thru restaurant’ should be included as a typology/land use category in the County Development Plan.

 

Submission queries the use of the planning system to regulate in the area of obesity/healthy eating, noting that a KFC ‘BBQ Rancher Burger’ contains approximately 400 calories - “lower than many high street sandwiches”.

 

LAP Guidelines advice on location of fast food takeaways proximate to schools etc should not be adhered to in County Development Plan – issue more complex than land use. ‘No Fry Zone’ around schools of 1.5km for example would almost prohibit any future takeaway development such is the spatial distribution of schools across the County.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“Policy on fast food restaurants/takeaways in successive County Development Plans has generally considered among other things, the potential effect of noise, general disturbance, hours of operation, litter and fumes on the amenities of nearby residents or adjoining commercial activities. Rather than ‘unfairly singling out’ fast food restaurants/takeaways, it is considered entirely reasonable to take into account the particular characteristics of this commercial use when framing policy in this regard.

 

Takeaway restaurants are generally defined in the Planning and Development Regulations as uses “for the sale of hot food for consumption off the premises” and this general description is considered to be a satisfactory ‘working’ definition in planning terms. The issue of creating a separate use class for ‘drive-thru restaurant’ could be considered as part of the Development Plan Review process.

 

In relation to suggestion in the Local Area Plan Guidelines that fast food restaurant location proximate to schools should be considered in the context of combating childhood obesity, it is agreed that land use plans in general are not a panacea and it is unreasonable to expect that Planning Authorities can somehow take responsibility for the lifestyle choice of individuals.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

353.

Pages 144 & 145 8.2 Land Use Zoning Objectives viii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

 viii)      “Range of uses ‘permitted’ under Zone A is too restrictive.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“As stated above, there is a very wide range of uses which are ‘Open for Consideration’ in the Objective ‘A’ Residential land use zone. This approach allows for consideration of many uses in residential areas, while retaining the primacy of the residential use and recognising the protection of residential amenities as the key consideration.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

354.

Page 145 8.3 Miscellaneous i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Green areas surrounding Marsham Court should be protected.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of the submission will be considered as part of the review of the County Development Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

Section 9 - Development Management

355.

Page 149 9.1 General i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

        i)      “Submission requests that the written statement should include measures to minimize noise as an objective.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Dublin Agglomeration Noise Action Plan 2013-2018 will be referenced during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

356.

Page 149 9.1 General ii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

      ii)      “Submission discusses the parameters for exempted development for domestic extensions.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“These issues are not considered to be pertinent to the County Development Plan as they are statutorily governed by the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended, and Section 5 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

357.

Page 149 9.1 General iii)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     iii)      “There may be a need to improve private and public open space standards depending on the expected population of a new development and open space should be provided where there is insufficient provision locally.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The public and private open space standards for the forthcoming Draft Plan will be reviewed to consider their use and value in relation to proposed developments. One of the central themes in the review will be to base the amount of open space provision on the expected population as suggested in this submission. It may be the case that only new development of a certain size will be capable of providing open space to supplement insufficient local provision. For example the new development at Honeypark has provided a local park for the surrounding area.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

358.

Page 149 9.1 General iv)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

    iv)      “Submission seeks the inclusion of a specific use class and supporting policy in relation to the ‘assisted living’ concept.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive fully recognizes the importance of the ‘assisted living’ concept and is very mindful of the ageing demographic of the County. The average age of persons in the County is one of the highest in the Country.

 

Policy RES9 ‘Housing for the Elderly” in the existing County Development Plan currently supports the concept for independent living for older people.

 

In this regard it is considered that the contents of this submission have merit and will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

359.

Page 149 & 150 9.1 General v)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

     v)      “Submission seeks amendments/additions to the development management section of the Draft Plan included planning enforcement, telecommunications, wind energy, hydro energy, extractive, rights-of-way, fencing and golf courses.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission are noted and will be considered during the preparation of the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

360.

Page 150 9.2 Land Use Zoning Objectives i)

The following summary of submissions received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)       “Submission indicates that zoning objective A in the current plan is too vague and open to interpretation with regard to housing density and the graveyard proposal in Ballycorus.”

 

The following Opinion and Recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The existing County Development Plan is very specific in the uses that may be permitted or are open for consideration in areas zoned with the land use objective A. It is considered that this specificity will be continued in the Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Opinion and Recommendation was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

361.