Agenda and minutes

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

Items
No. Item

369.

Submissions received during public consultation

All submissions from interested parties received during the public consultation period were set out in lever arch files and were available for the Members.

 

 

Development Plan 2016-2022

370.

Development Plan - Ethical Framework Legal Advice pdf icon PDF 130 KB

The following advice which was CONSIDERED and NOTED by the Organisation, Procedure and Protocol Committee at its meeting on 15th September 2008 was circulated for the information of the Members.

 

The report was NOTED.

 

 

371.

Code of Conduct for Councillors pdf icon PDF 59 KB

The following report which had been circulated with the Agenda was CONSIDERED.

 

The report was NOTED.

 

 

372.

Consideration of the Draft Development Plan 2016 - 2022 and the Chief Executive's Report under Section 12 (4) (b) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 (as amended) pdf icon PDF 89 KB

Additional documents:

The following report which had been circulated with the Agenda was READ  and CONSIDERED.

 

“It is recommended that the Council proceed on the basis of 1 – 4  above and that a suspension of Standing Order  19 (c)  is APPROVED.

 

Ms. M. Henchy, Director of Services  gave a presentation which outlined how the agreed procedures would work in practice when the Council was considering the Chief Executive’s Report and motions on the Agenda.

 

The Council AGREED to consider the motions in the order set out on the Agenda and motions received from the floor during the meetings. 

                                                                           

Mr. D. Irvine,  Senior Planner presented the Chief Executive’s Report under Section 12 (4) (b), highlighting the main issues in each Chapter.

 

AnCathaoirleach, Councillor B. Saul, thanked the Chief Executive and staff for their work in preparing the Chief Executive’s Report.   He quoted:

 

“Section 12 (5) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 “The Members of a planning authority shall consider the draft plan and the report of the chief Executive under Subsection (4)””.

 

It was proposed by Councillor B. Saul and seconded by Councillor P. Hand that:

 

“In accordance with the requirements of Section 12 (5) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, this Planning Authority resolves as follows:

 

The Dún Laoghaire Rathdown Draft Development Plan 2016 – 2022 and the Report of the Chief Executive on submissions or observations received on foot of the public display of the Draft Plan have now been considered”.

 

It was AGREED unanimously that the Draft Plan and Chief Executive’s report be deemed CONSIDERED.

 

 

Part 1 - Introduction

373.

Pages 1-3 Part 1 - Introduction

The Chief Executive’s Report on Pages 1 -3 was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

Page 5 Part 2 SUBMISSION BY THE Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government and Chief Executive's Response and Recommendation

2.1 Submission by Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government

374.

Page 7 2.1 Submission by Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government 2.1.1: General (i)

 

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

“Submission from the DECLG requests that the ‘Local Area Plan Guidelines 2013’ and the ‘Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines 2013’ should be included in Appendix 16 and the ‘Unfinished Housing Estate Guidance 2011’ could be included.”

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive notes the content of this submission.

 

Recommendation:

 

Addition of ‘Local Area Plan Guidelines 2013’, ‘Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines 2013’ and ‘Unfinished Housing Estate Guidance 2011’ in Appendix 16.”

 

The above recommendation on Page 7 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

375.

Page 7 2.1.3: Development Areas and Regeneration i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

“Submission from the DECLG requests that a short list of areas considered in need of regeneration/renewal over the plan period be included to fully satisfy Section 10.2 (h) of the Planning Acts.”

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive notes the content of this submission.

 

“A list of areas considered in need of regeneration/renewal over the Plan period is required in order to accord with Section 10.2 (h) of the Planning and Development Acts, (as amended).

 

Recommendation:

 

In Section 1.3.3 Local Area Plans, (page 22) of the Draft Plan add the following sentence at the end of the first paragraph. 

 

In accordance with Section 10 (2) (h) of the Planning and Development Act 2010 (as amended), the following areas are considered to contain lands in need of regeneration/renewal – Dún Laoghaire, Dundrum, Sallynoggin and Stillorgan.  There are differing definitions of regeneration in urban planning but it is taken to mean the integrated local redevelopment of an area”.”

 

The above recommendation on Page 7 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

376.

Pages 7 - 9 2.1.4: Retail and Major Town Centres i)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on pages 7 – 9 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on pages 7 – 9 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

377.

Motion Nos 2 & 3 and Motion No 1 from the floor - ENERGY PERFORMANCE IN NEW BUILDINGS: PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE STRATEGY pdf icon PDF 63 KB

It was AGREED to take Motion Nos 2 and 3 in the name of Councillor M. Baker, Councillor H. Lewis and Councillor K. Gill and Motion No 1 from the floor amends to Motion No. 2  in the name of Councillor M. Baker together.

 

Motion No. 2

 

It was proposed by Councillor M. Baker and seconded by Councillor M. Halpin

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

5.2.3.2 Policy CC7: Energy Performance in New Buildings.*

Remove this text:

It is Council policy to promote and support new development that is low carbon development, is well adapted to the impacts of climate change and that energy conservation is considered and designed at the earliest stages through the use of energy efficiency management systems. It is Council policy that all new development in new buildings should be built to Passive House Standard. Buildings constructed to nZEB standard or other low energy standard may be considered as an appropriate alternative.

And replace it with this:

All new buildings will be required to meet the passive house standard or equivalent, where reasonably practicable.

By equivalent we mean approaches supported by robust evidence (such as monitoring studies) to demonstrate their efficacy, with particular regard to indoor air quality, energy performance, comfort, and the prevention of surface/interstitial condensation. The only exceptions shall be buildings specifically exempted from BER ratings as defined by SEAI.

These requirements are in addition to the statutory requirement to comply fully with Parts A-M of Building Regulations”.

 

Motion No. 1 from the floor – amends Motion No. 2

 

It was proposed by Councillor M. Baker and seconded by Councillor M. Halpin.

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 of The Planning and Development Act 2000 ( as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

5.2.3.2Policy CC7:Energy Performancein NewBuildings.*

 

Removethis text:

 

Itis Councilpolicy topromote andsupport newdevelopment thatis lowcarbon development,is welladapted tothe impactsof climatechange andthat energyconseNationis consideredand designedat the earlieststages throughthe useof energyefficiency managementsystems. Itis Council policythat allnew developmentin newbuildings shouldbe builtto PassiveHouse Standard. Buildingsconstructed to nZEBstandard orother lowenergy standardmay beconsidered asan appropriate alternative.

 

And replace it with this

 

Allnew buildingswill berequired tomeet thepassive housestandard orequivalent, wherereasonably practicable.

 

Byequivalent wemean approachessupported byrobust evidence(such as monitoringstudies) todemonstrate theirefficacy, withparticular regardto indoorair quality, energy performance,comfort, andthe preventionof surface/interstitialcondensation.Buildingsspecifically exemptedfrom BERratings as(definedby SEAI) setout inS.l.No. 666of 2006are also exemptedfrom the requirements of Policy CC7.

Theserequirements arein additionto thestatutory requirementto complyfully withParts A-M ofBuilding Regulations.

 

Pleaseremove textin boldand replaceby thetext underlined”.

 

Following a discussion, Ms. M. Henchy, Director of Services and Ms. L. McGauran, Senior Executive Planner, advised members that the Chief Executives Recommendations on “Energy Efficiency Design” were dealt with on pages 268 – 275 in the Chief Executive’s Report.

 

Motion No 1 from the floor was then PUT.  A roll call vote was then called for which resulted as follows:

 

COUNCILLORS:

FOR

AGAINST

ABSTAINED

Bailey, John F.

?

 

 

Bailey, Maria

 

?

 

Baker, Marie

?

 

 

Boyhan, Victor

?

 

 

Brennan, Shay

?

 

 

Cuffe, Jennifer

?

 

 

Curran, Chris

?

 

 

Daly, Kevin

 

?

 

Devlin, Cormac

?

 

 

Dockery, Liam

 

?

 

Donnelly, Deirdre

?

 

 

Fayne, Mary

?

 

 

Feeney, Kate

?

 

 

Gill, Karl

?

 

 

Halpin, Melisa

?

 

 

Hanafin, Mary

?

 

 

Hand, Pat

 

?

 

Horkan, Gerry

 

?

 

Kingston, Deirdre

 

 

 

Lewis, Hugh

?

 

 

Madigan, Josepha

?

 

 

Martin, Catherine

?

 

 

McCarthy, Lettie

 

?

 

McGovern, Lynsey

 

?

 

McKinney, Carron

?

 

 

Merrigan, Michael

?

 

 

Murphy, Brian

 

?

 

Murphy, Tom

 

?

 

Nic Cormaic, Sorcha

?

 

 

O’Brien, Peter

 

?

 

O’Brien, Shane

?

 

 

O’Callaghan, Denis

 

?

 

O’Neill, Seamas

?

 

 

Richmond, Neale

?

 

 

Saul, Barry

?

 

 

Smyth, Carrie

 

?

 

Smyth, Ossian

?

 

 

Stewart, Patricia

?

 

 

Tallon, Grace

 

?

 

Ward, Barry

?

 

 

TOTAL:

26

13

 

 

An Cathaoirleach, Councillor B. Saul, declared Motion No 1 from the floor CARRIED. Motion No 2 FELL.

 

Motion No. 3

 

It was proposed by Councillor H. Lewis and Councillor K. Gill and AGREED to WITHDRAW   Motion No.3 on the Agenda as follows:

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

Physical Infrastructure Strategy Page 138 5.2.3.2 Policy CC7

Retain section in its entirety.”

 

 

378.

Motion No. 4 - PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE STRATEGY pdf icon PDF 56 KB

It was proposed by Councillor H. Lewis and seconded by Councillor K. Gill.

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

Physical Infrastructure Strategy Page 138 5.2.3.1 Policy CC6

Retain section in its entirety.”

 

Following a discussion Motion No. 4 was PUT.  A roll call vote was then called for which resulted as follows:

 

COUNCILLORS:

FOR

AGAINST

ABSTAINED

Bailey, John F.

 

?

 

Bailey, Maria

 

?

 

Baker, Marie

 

?

 

Boyhan, Victor

 

?

 

Brennan, Shay

 

?

 

Cuffe, Jennifer

?

 

 

Curran, Chris

 

?

 

Daly, Kevin

 

?

 

Devlin, Cormac

 

?

 

Dockery, Liam

 

?

 

Donnelly, Deirdre

 

?

 

Fayne, Mary

 

?

 

Feeney, Kate

 

?

 

Gill, Karl

?

 

 

Halpin, Melisa

?

 

 

Hanafin, Mary

 

?

 

Hand, Pat

 

?

 

Horkan, Gerry

 

?

 

Kingston, Deirdre

 

 

 

Lewis, Hugh

?

 

 

Madigan, Josepha

 

?

 

Martin, Catherine

 

?

 

McCarthy, Lettie

 

?

 

McGovern, Lynsey

 

?

 

McKinney, Carron

 

?

 

Merrigan, Michael

 

?

 

Murphy, Brian

 

?

 

Murphy, Tom

 

?

 

Nic Cormaic, Sorcha

 

?

 

O’Brien, Peter

 

?

 

O’Brien, Shane

 

?

 

O’Callaghan, Denis

 

?

 

O’Neill, Seamas

 

?

 

Richmond, Neale

 

?

 

Saul, Barry

 

?

 

Smyth, Carrie

 

?

 

Smyth, Ossian

 

?

 

Stewart, Patricia

 

?

 

Tallon, Grace

 

?

 

Ward, Barry

 

?

 

TOTAL:

4

35

0

 

AnCathaoirleach, Councillor B. Saul, declared Motion DEFEATED.  

 

 

379.

Motion No. 5 and 6 - PASSIVE HOUSE BUILDING STANDARD: DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT pdf icon PDF 76 KB

It was AGREED to take Motion Nos 5 and 6 in the names of Councillor M. Baker, Councillor K. Gill and Councillor H. Lewis together.

 

Motion No. 5

 

It was proposed by Councillor M. Baker and seconded by Councillor K. Gill

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

Please delete the following text from 8.2.10.3:

Passive House Building Standard
In order for a low energy building to be in compliance with Passive House standard it must have a maximum space heating demand of 15kWh/m2/year, an airtightness level of 0.6 air changes per hour measured at 50 Pascal and a maximum primary energy use of 120 kWh/m2/year. Buildings aiming to meet Passive House Standard should be designed using Passive House Planning Package (PHPP) software. Design stage PHPP verification page should be submitted with any planning application. Prior to occupation, final PHPP verification sheet should also be submitted (refer also to Section 5.2.3.2, Policy CC7).

And replace it with the following:
 
Passive House Building Standard
In order for a low energy building to be in compliance with the passive house standard it must have:
• a maximum space heating/cooling demand of 15kWh/m2/year and/or a maximum specific heating/cooling load of 10w/m2;
• an airtightness level of 0.6 air changes per hour measured at 50 Pascals;
• a maximum primary energy use (including regulated and unregulated energy) of 120 kWh/m2/year;
• a minimum average operative internal temperature of 20C in the heating season and avoidance of overheating in the summer (not exceeding 25C for 90% of the year);
• interior surfaces in the habitable space of all external floors, roofs, walls, windows and doors must be designed to remain above 16.5C through the heating season, in order to avoid surface condensation risk;
• a mechanical ventilation system designed to provide a minimum of 0.3 air changes per hour, to ensure constant fresh air supply.
Buildings aiming to meet the passive house standard should be designed using Passive House Planning Package (PHPP) software. Design stage PHPP verification page should be submitted with any planning application. Prior to occupation, the final PHPP verification sheet should also be submitted (refer also to Section 5.2.3.2, Policy CC7).

The requirement in CC7 regarding comfort refers both to minimum and maximum average temperatures. Efforts to make buildings energy efficient may increase overheating risk, without due design consideration to avoiding overheating. In addition, new buildings built within the time frame of this development plan may be subject to an increase in extreme weather events throughout their lifespan, including increased frequency and intensity of heat waves, leading to heightened risk of excess summer mortality.

New buildings should therefore, at a minimum, be designed so as not to exceed maximum average temperatures above 25C for more than 10% of the year, and preferably for 5% of the year or less, based on current climate data. Due to variability, the use of local microclimate data is preferable. Best practice would include the use of site-specific weather files. In addition to reducing overheating risk, in some instances this may reduce overall construction costs by reducing insulation requirements, for instance.

 

Following a discussion, Ms. L. McGauran, Senior Executive Planner advised members that the Chief Executives Recommendations on “Energy Efficiency Design” were dealt with on pages 268 – 275 and  “Climate Change Adaption and Energy” were dealt with on pages 342 – 344  in the Chief Executive’s Report.

 

The Motion was then PUT.   A roll call vote was then called for which resulted as follows:-  

 

COUNCILLORS:

FOR

AGAINST

ABSTAINED

Bailey, John F.

 

?

 

Bailey, Maria

 

?

 

Baker, Marie

?

 

 

Boyhan, Victor

 

?

 

Brennan, Shay

 

?

 

Cuffe, Jennifer

?

 

 

Curran, Chris

 

?

 

Daly, Kevin

 

?

 

Devlin, Cormac

?

 

 

Dockery, Liam

 

?

 

Donnelly, Deirdre

 

?

 

Fayne, Mary

?

 

 

Feeney, Kate

?

 

 

Gill, Karl

?

 

 

Halpin, Melisa

?

 

 

Hanafin, Mary

 

?

 

Hand, Pat

 

?

 

Horkan, Gerry

 

?

 

Kingston, Deirdre

 

 

 

Lewis, Hugh

?

 

 

Madigan, Josepha

?

 

 

Martin, Catherine

?

 

 

McCarthy, Lettie

 

?

 

McGovern, Lynsey

 

?

 

McKinney, Carron

 

?

 

Merrigan, Michael

 

?

 

Murphy, Brian

 

?

 

Murphy, Tom

 

?

 

NicCormaic, Sorcha

 

?

 

O’Brien, Peter

 

?

 

O’Brien, Shane

 

?

 

O’Callaghan, Denis

 

?

 

O’Neill, Seamas

 

?

 

Richmond, Neale

 

 

 

Saul, Barry

?

 

 

Smyth, Carrie

 

?

 

Smyth, Ossian

?

 

 

Stewart, Patricia

?

 

 

Tallon, Grace

 

?

 

Ward, Barry

?

 

 

TOTAL:

14

24

0

 

An Cathaoirleach, Councillor B. Saul, declared the Motion DEFEATED.  

 

Motion No. 6

 

It was proposed by Councillor K. Gill and Councillor H. Lewis and seconded by Councillor B. Saul.

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

Development Management Section 8.2.10.3

 

Retain section in its entirety.”

 

As Motion No. 5 FELL, An Cathaoirleach, Councillor B. Saul advised the members that Motion No. 6 FALLS.

 

 

380.

Pages 9 - 11 2.1.6: Physical Infrastructure Strategy i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)     “Submission from the DECLG states that the viability and supply of new development will be placed at risk by inserting unreasonable or excessive requirements in relation to the standard of housing. The Draft Plan requirements with regard to Passive Housing is likely to lead to additional costs for housing in DLR and does not comply with all relevant statutory building control requirements.

 

The DECLG considers that the introduction of Passive House Standards will give rise to undesirable legal and administrative difficulties.

 

Submission therefore requests the removal of Sections regarding Passive House from certain sections of the Draft Plan, as follows, Policy CC6, CC7 and Section 8.2.10.3.

 

The DECLG submission states that failure to remove these Sections will entail consideration, by the Minister, of the use of the powers available to him under Section 31 of the Planning Act to ensure overall coherence of the Plan in relation to housing supply and housing standard components. 

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive notes the content of this submission.

 

(See also section 5.2.3 Energy Efficient Design). The DECLG raise serious concerns in relation to the Passive House Standards set out in Policies CC6 and CC7.

 

Central to the DECLG argument is the issue of the County Development Plan as a vehicle for ensuring viability and early delivery of housing as a top priority.  The Department stipulates that a Planning Authority must pay close attention to the impact of Development Plan requirements and obligations especially when such requirements are in excess of relevant National standards.

 

The DECLG position states that the additional redesign required to meet Passive House standards would result in time delays in the provision of housing.

 

The Department also raises issues of legal and administrative difficulties including:

 

·         Passive House Planning Package (PHPP) does not comply with Part L of the Building Regulations and is therefore inappropriate.

·         Reliance on PHPP would fail to ensure compliance with Building Regulations and may render the Building Regulations unenforceable creating problems for the Council.

·         Varying standards in one County does not make sense and will cause confusion.

·         Failure to comply with Part L may leave Ireland vulnerable to infringement proceedings for failure to properly transpose Directive EU/31/2010.

 

The Department advises that the Council remove a number of Sections from the Draft Development Plan.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

Having considered the submissions made, and particularly the points made in relation to the Passive House standard being a independent voluntary standard that differs from current and future National Building Regulations, it is recommended that the following Sections of the Development Plan be removed.

 

Policy CC7 Energy Performance in Buildings*

Delete

It is Council policy that all new development in new buildings should be built to Passive House Standard.  Buildings constructed to nZEB standard or other low energy standards may be considered as an appropriate alternative.”

 

Delete

“The Council will promote development in new buildings to reach near Zero Energy Build and/or Passive House standard. The current National standard energy rating methodology and software may be used to certify any nZEB developments and the PHPP certification software may be used to design and certify works to Passive House standard.”

 

Policy CC6: Energy performance in Existing Buildings.

Delete Para 5

“The Council will, in addition, promote the integrated energy concept of Passive House that will result in high quality constructed, economic, comfortable and healthy future proofed buildings. The EnerPHit standard is the designated standard for Passive House refurbishment projects and accepts slightly lower performance thresholds”.

 

Para 6

Delete “Passive House”

 

Para 7

Delete “The PHPP software should be used to design and certify works to Passive House (EnerPHit) standard.”

 

Page 215 8.2.10.3 Delete

“Passive House Building Standard

In order for a low energy building to be in compliance with Passive House standard it must have a maximum m space heating demand of 15kWH/m2/year, an airtightness level of 0.6 air changes per hour measured at 50 Pascal and a maximum primary energy use of 120kWh.m2/year.  Buildings aiming to meet Passive House Standard should be designed using Passive House Planning Package (PHPP) software. 

 

Design stage PHPP verification page should be submitted with any planning application. 

 

Prior to occupation, final PHPP verification sheet should also be submitted (refer also to Section 5.2.3.2, Policy CC&)”.”

 

The above recommendation on Pages 9 – 11 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED as amended by Motion No. 2 and Motion No. 1 from the floor.

 

 

381.

Pages 11 - 14 2.1.6: Physical Infrastructure Strategy ii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

ii) “Submission from the DoECLG states that:

·         Where the outstanding CFRAM maps are finalised before the adoption of this Plan, a review of the flooding issues should be carried out by the Council in consultation with the OPW and appropriate revisions made

It is noted that the Council states that no Justification Tests have been carried out and the Council is urged to complete this work without delay.”

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive notes the content of this submission.

 

On foot of this submission the Council engaged consultants to produce Flood Zone maps using various sources including the most up to date draft CFRAM information available.  The consultants were also commissioned to carry out the Justification Test in relation to existing zoned land - both developed and undeveloped.  This has resulted in significant material changes to Appendix 13 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and a new set of maps to accompany the Draft Plan.  Policy within the Draft Plan has also been critically reviewed, revised and amended.

 

Recommendation:

 

Replace existing Appendix 13 with new updated Appendix 13 including a suite of flood zone maps.

 

Policy CC14; Catchment Flood Risk And Management (CFRAM),  remove “2010 – 2015” from sixth line, second paragraph and replace with “(on-going)”.

 

Policy CC15: Flood Risk Management, remove “(CFRAMs)” from last line of first paragraph in bold, replace with (ECFRAM Study).

 

Policy CC15: Flood Risk Management, first bullet point, fourth line add “E” in front of “CFRAM”.

 

Policy CC15: Flood Risk Management, second bullet point, remove “may be required”, replace with “must be accompanied by”.  Add “and the SFRA” to last line, second bullet point after, “section 8.2.120.4”.

 

Policy CC15: Flood Risk Management, sixth bullet point, add “and future iterations of other similar studies including studies of impacts of climate change” at end of existing paragraph.

 

Remove final bullet point;

“Coastal Defence Policies”

 

Insert a new Policy CC16 as follows;

 

“Policy CC16: Cross-Boundary Flood Management.

It is Council Policy to work with neighbouring Local Authorities when developing cross boundary flood management work programmes and when considering cross boundary development”.

 

Renumber existing Policy CC16 as CC17, (ensure SEA Environmental Report and AA and cross references also updated).

Amend Section 8.2.10.4 as follows;

 

Replace

 

The Eastern Catchment Flood Risk Assessment and Management (CFRAM) maps should be consulted at pre-planning stage and when planning applications are lodged.”

 

With

 

The Flood zone maps accompanying this Plan should be consulted at pre-planning stage and or prior to lodgement of planning applications”

 

Delete

 

Table 12 in Section 5.1 of the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), which is contained in Appendix 13, outlines the five stage Development Management process advocated by the Guidelines”

 

Amend Section 8.2.10.4 (i) as follows;

 

Replace

 

“Checklist for Minor Developments in Areas at Risk of Flooding:

 

·         Assessment of flood risk carried out by an appropriately qualified Engineer with relevant FRA experience (as deemed acceptable by the Planning Authority).

·         Flood resilient design.”

 

With

 

Checklist of what is required for Minor Development in Areas at Risk of Flooding.

·         Consideration of minor works classification (see section 4.6 of Appendix 13 SFRA).

·         Assessment of flood risk carried out by an appropriately qualified Engineer with relevant FRA experience (as deemed acceptable by the Planning Authority).

·         Flood resilient design

·         Access, egress and emergency plans must be in places which are appropriate to the vulnerability of the development and its occupiers, the intensity of use and the level of flood risk”.

 

Amend Section 8.2.10.4 (ii) as follows;

 

Delete

 

in table 12, section 5.1 in Appendix 13 and” from first paragraph line 4.

 

Fourth paragraph, add “and the Flood Zone maps accompanying this Plan” after “CFRAM maps”, second line.

 

Replace

 

Checklist for Larger Developments in Areas at Risk of Flooding:

 

·         FRA in accordance with Table 12 in Section 5.1 of the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown Strategic  Flood Risk  Assessment  (SFRA)  (Appendix 13)  or  Section 5.9 of the Flooding Guidelines carried out by an appropriately qualified Engineer with relevant FRA experience (as deemed acceptable by the Planning Authority).

·         Development Management Justification Test.

·         Flood resilient design and statement to be submitted.

·         Compliance with GDSDS.

·         SuDs.”

 

With

 

Checklist for Applications for Larger Development in Areas at Risk of Flooding.

·         Development Management ‘Justification Test’ has been passed.

·         FRA in accordance the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown SFRA and the Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines, to be carried out by an appropriately qualified Engineer with relevant FRA experience (as deemed acceptable by the Planning Authority).

·         Flood resilience statement to be submitted. 

·         Compliance with GDSDS and inclusion of SuDS.

·         Assessment of the potential impacts of Climate Change and the adaptive capacity of the development

·         Access, egress and emergency plans must be in place which are appropriate to the vulnerability of the development and its occupiers, the intensity of use and the level of flood risk.””

The above recommendation on Pages 11 – 14 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

382.

Pages 14 - 15 2.1.11: SEA and AA i) and Pages 438 - 440

Pages 14 - 15

 

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

“Submission from the DECLG asks the Council to clarify whether the complete wording for SLO No.131 has been fully examined for effects on the environment as this full wording of the SLO was not included in the SEA. Submission also requests that the numbering of the Landscape, Heritage and Biodiversity chapter should be consistent with the AA Screening Report and the SEA Report.”

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive notes the content of this submission. 

 

An earlier version of SLO No.131 was inadvertently included in the SEA Environmental Report which was placed on public display. The wording of the SLO as it appears in the SEA Environmental Report needs to be updated to reflect the Draft Plan SLO No.131.  Notwithstanding,  the actual SEA evaluation of SL0 131 was based on the correct version of the SLO as it appeared in the Draft Plan

 

Five of the Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Flooding Policies reproduced in the SEA Environmental Report are numbered incorrectly. These are, as they appear in the SEA Environmental Report, Policies CC10, CC11, CC12, CC13 and CC14.

 

Policy CC16 ‘Coastal Defence’ was inadvertently omitted from the Draft Plan SEA Environmental Report.

 

Recommendation:

 

To replace the wording in Section 8 of the SEA Environmental Report to reflect the correct wording for SLO No.131 as follows:

 

“To provide for the development of a Neighbourhood Centre in the north-east ‘quadrant’ of the Park, Carrickmines, with a net retail floorspace cap of 6000 sq.m. and a leisure facility, which will help meet the existing and future retail and leisure needs of the growth areas of Carrickmines, Stepaside-Ballyogan and Kiltiernan-Glenamuck”.

 

In Section 8.7.6 of the SEA Environmental Report:

 

To renumber relevant Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Flooding Policies and incorporate Policy CC16 ‘Coastal Defence’.

 

Pages 438 - 440

 

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

vi)”-Section 8.7.3 of the SEA Report is confusing as some policies are omitted and others numbered incorrectly.  Each policy has not been individually assessed so that the same colour can appear without adequate explanation.  Request amendments.”

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:-

 

“The Chief Executive notes the content of this submission.

 

Sections 8.7.3 to 8.7.10 of the SEA Environmental Report provide an evaluation of Plan provisions.

 

Five of the Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Flooding Policies reproduced in the SEA Environmental Report are numbered incorrectly. These are, as they appear in the SEA Environmental Report, Policies CC10, CC11, CC12, CC13 and CC14.

 

Policy CC16 ‘Coastal Defence’ was inadvertently omitted from the Draft Plan SEA Environmental  Report. As detailed in the SEA Environmental Report: Flood Risk Management Infrastructure and coastal defences have the potential to result in significant adverse environmental effects during construction and operation on most environmental components (these relate to SEOs B1 B2 B3 PHH1 S1 W1 W2 W3 M2 M3 CH1 CH2 L1). These types of infrastructure are often constructed in ecologically and visually sensitive areas along the coast and adjacent to the banks of rivers and streams. Potential adverse effects would be mitigated both by measures which have been integrated into the Draft Plan (see Section 9 of the Environmental Report) and by measures arising from lower tier assessments.

 

In the layout of the SEA Environmental Report the Development Plan Policies are assessed as they are grouped in the Draft Plan. The findings of the assessment are detailed using Strategic Environmental Objective (SEO) codes as well as a text-based narrative. A number of the SEOs occur in multiple columns as certain Policies (or groups of Policies) would be likely to result in both positive and negative interactions. For example, a Policy to provide an integrated green infrastructure network across the County is primarily concerned with the protection and management of the environment and would benefit the protection of ecology. However, the development and improvement of some green infrastructure (e.g. walking and cycling routes) could potentially conflict with the protection of ecology, if unmitigated.

 

Recommendation

In Section 8.7.6 of the SEA Environmental Report:

 

To renumber relevant Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Flooding Policies and incorporate Policy CC16 ‘Coastal Defence’.

 

To add the following clarifying text to Section 8: ‘Evaluation of Draft Plan Provisions’ of the Environmental Report.

 

In the layout of the SEA Environmental Report the Policies are assessed in the order they are grouped in the Draft Plan. A number of the SEOs occur in multiple columns as certain Policies (or groups of Policies) would be likely to result in both positive and negative interactions. For example, a Policy to provide an integrated green infrastructure network across the County is primarily concerned with the protection and management of the environment and would benefit the protection of ecology. However, the development and improvement of some green infrastructure (e.g. walking and cycling routes) could potentially conflict with the protection of ecology, if unmitigated.”

 

The above recommendation on Pages 14 – 15 and pages 438 - 440 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

383.

Pages 15 - 16 2.1.11: SEA and AA ii)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on pages 15 – 16 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on pages 15 – 16 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

Part 3 Summary of Submission by the Eastern and Midlands Regional Assembly and the National Transport Authority and Chief Executive's Response and Recommendation

384.

Pages 19 - 21 3.1: Submission by the Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on pages 19 – 21 as listed of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

“3.1.1:  General i) – vi)

3.1.2:  Strategic Overview i) – iii)

3.1.3:  Sustainable Communities Strategy i) - ii)

3.1.4:  Enterprise and Employment Strategy i) – iii)”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on pages 19 – 21 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

385.

Pages 21 3.1.5: Green County Strategy i)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 21 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 21 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

386.

Pages 21 - 22 3.1.5: Green County Strategy ii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

“Submission welcomes the policy to cooperate with the Coastal Zone Management and the Assembly’s Celtic Seas Partnership. Consideration should be given to the Maritime Spatial planning Directive insofar as it relates to the discharge of its planning function.”

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive notes and welcomes the contents of this submission.

 

It is considered that reference should be made to the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive in Policy LHB7: Coastal Zone Management and Dublin Bay

 

Recommendation:

 

Add additional paragraph to Policy LHB7 as follows:

 

“The Council will have regard to any relevant requirements of the EU Maritime Spatial Planning Directive which acknowledges the interrelationship between marine and coastal activities and aims to find coherence between marine spatial planning and integrated coastal management processes”.”

 

The above recommendation on Pages 21 – 22 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

387.

Pages 22 - 23

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation as listed in the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

“3.1.6:  Physical Infrastructure Strategy i) – ii)

3.1.7:  Built Heritage Strategy i)

3.1.8:  Community Strategy i)

3.1.9:  Principles of Development i)

3.1.10:  Specific Local Objectives i)

3.1.11:  SEA and AA i)”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on pages 22 – 23 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

3.2 Submission by the National Transport Authority

388.

Pages 25 - 26 3.2: Submission by the National Transport Authority

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation as listed in the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

“3.2.1:  General i)

3.2.2:  Sustainable Communities Strategy i)”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on pages 25 - 26 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

389.

Pages 26 3.2.2: Sustainable Communities Strategy ii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

ii)“Submission from the National Transport Authority requests the inclusion of Dundrum within Table 2.2.4: Public Transport Interchanges.”

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive agrees with the contents of the submission.

 

Recommendation:

 

Within Table 2.2.4 Public Transport Interchanges insert the following:

“Dundrum Luas – QBN”.”

 

The above recommendation on Page 26 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

390.

Pages 26 3.2.2: Sustainable Communities Strategy iii) & iv)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on page 26 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on page 26 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

391.

Pages 26 - 27 3.2.3: Sustainable Travel and Transport - Development Management i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)     “Submission from the National Transport Authority (NTA) requests the car parking standard – in “Designated Areas Along Public Transport Corridors” – associated with office development is set at 1 car parking space per 100sqm. The National Transport Authority raises concerns relating to a potential increase in car parking – associated with office developments - along public transport corridors.

 

The National Transport Authority suggests – in certain cases – allowing for residual quantity of car parking to be provided off-site and reduced over time, as wider public transport accessibility improves.”

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive agrees with the contents of this submission.

 

Table 8.2.4 Non-Residential Land-Use – Maximum Car Parking Standards currently prescribes a guidance standard for Offices of 1 space per 50sq.m gross floor area within the “General” area and 1 space per 75sq.m gross floor area within “Designated Areas Along Public Transport Corridors”.

 

The submission from the National Transport Authority (NTA) requests the guidance car parking standard for Office developments – within “Designated Areas Along Public Transport Corridors” is set at 1 car parking space per 100sq.m.

 

On foot of the NTA’s concerns, the Chief Executive recommends that the car parking standard for Office developments in “Designated Areas Along Public Transport Corridors” is set at 1 space per 100sq.m. 

 

The provision of ‘off-site’ residual car parking will continue to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

 

Recommendation:

 

Replace the guidance car parking standard prescribed for “Office – Business, Professional” within “Designated Areas Along Public Transport Corridors” - Table 8.2.4 Non-Residential Land-Use – Maximum Car Parking Standards from “1 space per 75sq.m” to “1 space per 100sq.m”.”

 

The above recommendation on Pages 26 – 27 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

Page 29 Part 4 - Summary of Submissions and Chief Executive's Reponse and Recommendation

Page 31 1. Strategic Overview

Page 33 1.1 Introduction and Context

392.

Motion No. 7 - ACRONYMS pdf icon PDF 33 KB

It was proposed by Councillor M. Baker and seconded by Councillor J. Bailey.

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

That the acronyms, ECFRAM, SERA & FRA be defined under the Acronyms section of the written statement.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Report was ACCEPTED.

 

 

393.

Page 33 1.1.1 Introduction i) - iv)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 33 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 33 was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

394.

Pages 33 - 34 1.1.3 Strategic Framework i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

i) “Submission contends that Section 1.1.3.2 Regional Policy and Guidelines, should substitute “having regard to” for “to be consistent” with”.

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive agrees with this submission.

 

In order to provide clarity, and to acknowledge the change in legislation which now requires a County Development Plan to be consistent with the Regional Planning Guidelines, it is recommended that the text of the Written Statement be amended to reflect this.

 

Recommendation:

 

Amend the Draft County Development Plan, Section 1.1.3.2  ‘Regional Policy and Guidelines’ 1st paragraph as follows:

 

From:

This Draft County Development Plan had been prepared having regard to the current ‘Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area’ and the National Transport Authority (NTA) ‘Greater Dublin Area Draft Transport Strategy’.

To:

This Draft County Development Plan has been prepared to be consistent with the current ‘Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area’ and having regard to the National Transport Authority (NTA) ‘Greater Dublin Area Draft Transport Strategy’”.

 

The above recommendation on Pages 33 - 34 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

395.

Page 34 1.1.5 Context and Challenges in Plan Preparation i) & ii)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on page 34  of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The recommendations on page 34 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

Page 35 1.2 Core Strategy

396.

Pages 35 - 36 1.2.2: Settlement Hierarchy i) - iv)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on pages 35 – 36 of the Chief Executive’s Report on the above pages was CONSIDERED.

 

The recommendations on pages 35 - 36 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

397.

Pages 36 - 40 1.2.4: Residential Land Supply i) - vii)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 36 – 40  of the Chief Executive’s Report on the above pages were CONSIDERED.

 

The recommendations on pages 36 - 40 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

398.

Pages 40 - 42 1.2.5: Phasing, Prioritisation and Infrastructure Delivery

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on pages 40 – 42 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The recommendations on Pages 40 - 42 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

Page 43 1.3 Development Areas and Regeneration

1.3 Development Areas and Regeneration

399.

Page 43 1.3.1: Introduction i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

i) “Plan should include a short list of areas considered in need of regeneration/renewal over the Plan period”.

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission. 

 

A list of areas considered in need of regeneration/renewal over the Plan period is required in order to accord with Section 10.2 (h) of the Planning and Development Acts, (as amended).

 

Recommendation:

 

In Section 1.3.3 Local Area Plans, of the Draft Plan add the following sentence at the end of the first paragraph. 

 

In accordance with Section 10 (2) (h) of the Planning and Development Act 2010 (as amended), the following areas are considered to contain lands in need of regeneration/renewal – Dún Laoghaire, Dundrum, Sallynoggin and Stillorgan.  There are differing definitions of regeneration in urban planning but it is taken to mean the integrated local redevelopment of an area””.

 

The above recommendation on Page 43 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

400.

Pages 43 - 44 1.3.1. Introduction ii)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on pages 43 – 44 of the Chief Executive’s Report on the above pages was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 43 - 44 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

401.

Pages 44 - 45 1.3.2: Strategic Development Zones i) & ii)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 44 – 45 of the Chief Executive’s Report on the above pages were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 44 - 45 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

Page 45 1.3.4: Local Area Plans Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown

402.

Page 45 1.3.4.1 Woodbrook-Shanganagh i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)     “Submission recommends reducing both the building height and residential density provisions of the Woodbrook/Shanganagh LAP lands and to provide a higher level of family homes.

 

Submission comments on the high and prescriptive density parameters of the Woodbrook/Shanganagh LAP and considers that they merit a review. Also comments on the Cherrywood SDZ residential density parameters”.

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of these submissions.

 

Detailed design criteria relating to housing mix, densities, height and design in relation to lands at Shanganagh and Woodbrook are appropriately addressed in the Woodbrook- Shanganagh Local Area Plan 2006 – 2016.  National policy in relation to density seeks densities in excess of 50 units per hectare on greenfield sites proximate to good public transport corridors.  In order to achieve a compact and sustainable urban form, a net residential density of 80 -100 units per hectare is considered appropriate on the Woodbrook lands and is predicated on the proximity and relationship of these lands to the proposed new DART station at Woodbrook.  On the lands at Shanganagh Castle a net residential density of 65 – 75 units per hectare is considered appropriate in view of its relationship to the existing low density urban form at Castle Farm immediately to the north.  Heights of any proposed development on the lands will be assessed in accordance with the Building Height Strategy.

 

The Woodbrook - Shanganagh Local Area Plan is due for review in 2016 and it is considered that an objective should be added to the Draft Plan to ensure that the LAP is reviewed during the life time of the 2016 – 2022 County Development Plan.

 

Recommendation:

 

Addition of an extra sentence at the end of section 1.3.4.1 Woodbrook- Shanganagh as follows; “However, the Local Area Plan is due for review in 2016 and it is recommended that this review be carried out during the lifetime of this County Development Plan.”

 

Amend Table 13.1, second row, fourth column add “(to be reviewed during the lifetime of the County Development Plan)” after “November 2016””.

 

The above recommendation on Page 45 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

403.

Pages 45 - 46 1.3.4.1 Woodbrook-Shanganagh ii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

ii) “Submission requests that a single LAP is prepared incorporating all lands within theWoodbrook/Shanganagh LAP (which will expire 2016) and lands subject of the proposed Old Connaght/Fassaroe LAP – this would facilitate all infrastructure providers to coordinate services and justify investment”.

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive disagrees with this submission. 

 

The submission requests one overarching Local Area Plan encompassing the Old Conna lands, the Woodbrook/Shanganagh lands and lands in the jurisdiction of Wicklow County Council at Fassaroe.  It also includes a sizeable portion of land that is proposed as green belt in the Draft County Development Plan.  The argument put forward for the additional zoning is that insufficient lands have been zoned.  The Chief Executive does not agree with this argument. 

 

The Core Strategy residential zonings as shown in the Draft Plan can fully accommodate the housing and population targets to 2022 notwithstanding that these targets are very likely to be scaled back in the near future as preparation on the replacement to the Regional Planning Guidelines commences.

 

The residential zonings proposed in the Draft Plan are fully consistent with the Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area 2010-2022 and have been endorsed by both the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and the Eastern and Midlands Regional Assembly in this regard.  (see also Section 1.2.4). 

 

The Woodbroook - Shanganagh Local Area Plan is due for review in 2016 and it is considered that an objective should be added the Draft Plan to ensure that the LAP is reviewed during the life time of the 2016 – 2022 County Development Plan.

 

Recommendation:

 

Addition of an extra sentence at the end of section 1.3.4.1 Woodbrook- Shanganagh as follows; However, the Plan is due for review in 2016 and it is recommended that this review be carried out during the lifetime of this County Development Plan.”

 

Amend table 13.1, second row, fourth column add “(to be reviewed during the lifetime of the County Development Plan)” after “November 2016””.

 

The above recommendations on pages 45 - 46 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

404.

Pages 46 - 49 1.3.4.1 Woodbrook-Shanganagh iii) -viii)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on pages 46 – 49 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 46 - 49 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

405.

Pages 50 - 53 1.3.4.2 Kiltiernan-Glenamuck i) - vii)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 50 – 53 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 50 - 53 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

406.

Pages 53 - 54 1.3.4.3 Stillorgan i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)  “Submission requests the insertion of an objective to review the Stillorgan LAP in the short-term”.

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission. 

 

The Stillorgan Local Area Plan is due for review in 2017 and it is considered that an objective should be added the Draft Plan to ensure that the LAP is reviewed during the life time of the 2016 – 2022 County Development Plan.

 

Recommendation:

 

Addition of an extra sentence at the end of section 1.3.4.3 Stillorgan as follows; “The Plan is due for review in 2017 and it is recommended that this review be carried out during the lifetime of this County Development Plan.”

 

Amend Table 13.1, third  row, fourth column add “(to be reviewed during the lifetime of the County Development Plan)” after “October 2017””.

 

The above recommendation on pages 53 – 54 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

407.

Page 54 1.3.4.3 Stillorgan ii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

ii) “Submission questions the extension of the Stillorgan LAP until 2017”.

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission. 

 

The lifespan of the Stillorgan Local Area Plan was extended to October 2017.  This extension was carried out in accordance with the provisions for the extension of Local Area Plans as set out in Section 19 of the Planning and Development Acts (as amended).

 

The Stillorgan Local Area Plan is due for review in 2017 and it is considered that an objective should be added the Draft Plan to ensure that the LAP is reviewed during the life time of the 2016 – 2022 County Development Plan.

 

Recommendation:

 

Addition of an extra sentence at the end of section 1.3.4.3 Stillorgan as follows; “The Plan is due for review in 2017 and it is recommended that this review be carried out during the lifetime of this County Development Plan.”

 

Amend Table 13.1, third row, fourth column add “(to be reviewed during the lifetime of the County Development Plan)” after “October 2017””.

 

The above recommendation on page 54 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

408.

Pages 54 - 55 1.3.4.3 Stillorgan iii) - iv)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 54 - 55 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 54 - 55 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

409.

Pages 56 - 57 1.3.4.5 Old Conna i)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 56 – 57 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 56 - 57 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

410.

Motion No. 8 - BLACKROCK LAP pdf icon PDF 40 KB

It was proposed by Councillor M. Baker and seconded by Councillor V. Boyhan.

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

As the Blackrock LAP has now been adopted by the Council surely this should be reflected in this section.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Report was ACCEPTED.

 

 

411.

Pages 57 - 58 1.3.4.8 Blackrock i)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 57 – 58 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 57 – 58 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

412.

Motion No. 9 - LOCAL AREA PLANS pdf icon PDF 40 KB

It was proposed by Councillor C. Smyth and D. O’Callaghan and seconded by Councillor H. Lewis.

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

That the written statement on page 29 Local Area Plans under 1.3.4.14 Ballybrack/Loughlinstown insert the following words after “area” on the second line:

during the life time of the development plan”.

 

The Chief Executive’s Report was ACCEPTED.

 

 

413.

Pages 58 - 59 1.3.4.9 Stepaside i) - iii)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on pages 58 – 59 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on pages 58 – 59 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

414.

Page 59 1.3.4.10 Dundrum i)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 59 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 59 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

415.

Page 59 1.3.4.10 Dundrum ii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

ii) “Submission seeks the inclusion of additional wording within Section 1.3.4.10 Dundrum, to support and promote Dundrum Town Centre - and the Pembroke District in particular - as an important focus of restaurant, leisure and evening uses”.

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission. 

 

The Planning Authority are in favour of supporting and promoting multi-faceted activity in Dundrum Town Centre and the Pembroke District but always subject to the safeguarding of surrounding residential amenity.

 

Recommendation:

 

In Section 1.3.4.10: Dundrum add additional bullet point as follows:

“Support and promotion of Dundrum Town Centre in general, and the Pembroke District in particular, as an important focus of restaurant, leisure and evening uses subject to the safeguarding of surrounding residential amenity””.

 

The above recommendation on Page 59 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

416.

Pages 59 - 60 1.3.4.10 Dundrum iii) - iv)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on pages 59 - 60 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on pages 59 – 60 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

417.

Page 60 1.3.4.12 Sallynoggin i)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 60 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 60 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

418.

Motion No. 10 - SLO 77 pdf icon PDF 42 KB

Additional documents:

It was proposed by Councillor M. Merrigan and seconded by Councillor V. Boyhan

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

Specific Local Objective 77 (Dun Laoghaire Local Area Plan)

 

Proposal: 

 

"That, due to its very close proximity to the areas covered by SLO 77 and the critical need for coordinated and integrated planning and development in Dun Laoghaire Town and its environs, that the area bounded by Albert Road (east) and the curtilages of the properties thereon and Glenageary Road Upper (east) and continuing on to Glenageary Road Upper (west) (Map 3, PL-15-18 with the area delineated in red, attached) be included in the area covered by the Dun Laoghaire Local Area Plan."

 

The Chief Executive’s Report was ACCEPTED.

 

 

419.

Page 60 1.3.4.12 Dun Laoghaire i)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 60 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 60 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

420.

Pages 60 - 62 1.3.4.13 Clonskeagh/UCD i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)     “Submission requests that the proposal to include UCD Campus within a future LAP for Clonskeagh be omitted.

 

The submission argues that UCD campus is subject to its own non-statutory Campus Development Plan which accords with the provisions of the County Development Plan.  The submission states that the Campus Plan 2010 – 2015 is to be updated this year (2015).  The submission also questions why UCD would be included in a specific LAP for Clonskeagh when UCD also interacts with other neighbouring communities such as Stillorgan, Mount Merrion, Ardliea etc”. 

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive agrees with this submission.

 

UCD campus is subject to it its own non-statutory Campus Development Plan (2010 – 2015) which accords with the provisions of the County Development Plan and which is currently being reviewed.  To align UCD with one particular community to the east of the Campus is misleading and will create a skewed Plan.  While it is acknowledged that there is some interaction between UCD and Clonskeagh, particularly in relation to traffic and parking matters, the primary local issues impacting on Clonskeagh are, in many ways, very different to the issues impacting on UCD.

 

On balance the Chief Executive would agree with the argument being advanced by UCD that there is no need for a specific Local Area Plan including Clonskeagh and that the campus area already has its own Plan which aligns with the County Development Plan. Any planning applications must be in accordance with the provisions of the County Development Plan as the Campus Plan is a non-statutory document. 

 

It is considered that nearly all of the concerns raised during the preparation of the Draft Plan in relation to UCD relate specifically to traffic management and parking issues which can be adequately addressed through considered, targeted and localised traffic/transportation/parking interventions to be advanced through the Council’s Transportation Department. 

 

The DECLG in its publication, ‘Local Area Plans-Guidelines for Planning Authorities’ (June 2013) state that “Local Area Plans provide more detailed planning policies for areas where significant development and change is anticipated”.  In relation to decision-making on whether to prepare a Local Area Plans for a sub-threshold areas the Guidelines suggest that the criteria informing any such decision include the degree to which major development is anticipated such as to justify the preparation of a standalone Local Area Plan, the resource implications of same and the need to focus resources on areas where major alterations to the built environment are anticipated. 

 

The Clonskeagh area is essentially a well-established mature residential suburb with some significant employment and educational uses in the Office Park and UCD campus respectively.  It is not considered that there is any realistic or tenable argument that could be made - in the context of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area - that would justify the preparation of a Local Area Plan for the Clonskeagh/UCD area.  In relation to UCD it is considered unnecessary to prepare a Local Area Plan when the existing 2010 – 2015 Campus Development Plan which aligns with the provisions of the County Development Plan is already being reviewed.

 

During the County Development Plan review process areas have been identified where new Local Area Plans are required.  These areas include the ‘greenfield’ area of Old Conna, and the more built-up areas of Dún Laoghaire, Dundrum and Ballyogan and Environs - which all contain sites with sustainable development/redevelopment potential and where it is envisaged that development could take place in the short-to-medium term.  There are in addition, extant Local Area Plans in place which will require to be reviewed over the life time of the 2016 – 2022 County Development Plan.

 

Notwithstanding the above, the Chief Executive recommends that a SLO is inserted on Maps 1 and 2 to read as follows:

 

“To prepare - in conjunction with the National Transport Authority - a Traffic Management Study for UCD and its surrounding environs to address the existing localised car parking issues within the area”.

 

Recommendation:

 

Remove Section 1.3.4.13 from the Draft County Development Plan. 

 

Remove Clonskeagh/UCD Local Area Plan from Table 1.3.1. 

 

Remove SLO 146 from Map 1 and Map 2.

 

Insert a SLO on Maps 1 and 2 to read as follows:

 

“To prepare - in conjunction with the National Transport Authority - a Traffic Management Study for UCD and its surrounding environs to address the existing localised car parking issues within the area””.

 

The above recommendation on Pages 60 – 62 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

421.

Pages 62 -66 1.3.4: Local Area Plans in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown i) - ix)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on pages 62 - 66 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on pages 62 - 66 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

422.

Pages 66 - 67 1.3.5: Urban Framework Plans i)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 66 – 67 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 66 – 67 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

423.

Motion No. 11 - SANDYFORD VILLAGE pdf icon PDF 29 KB

It was proposed by Councillor L. McCarthy and Councillor P. O’Brien and seconded by Councillor C. Curran

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

In order to preserve and enhance the established character of the buildings and streetscape, and ensure the vibrancy and economic recovery of Sandyford Village, it is proposed that the Village be included in the audit of towns and villages mentioned in Section 1.3.6 of the draft Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan 2016 – 2022.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Report was ACCEPTED.

 

 

424.

Page 67 1.3.6: The Villages of Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown i) - iii)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on page 67 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on page 67 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

Page 69 2. Sustainable Community Strategy

Page 71 2.1 Residential Development

425.

Motion No. 12 - PART V pdf icon PDF 36 KB

It was proposed by Councillor B. Saul and Councillor J. Bailey and seconded by Councillor M. Baker.

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

That the Interim Housing Strategy and the Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown Draft County Development Plan 2016 - 2022 be altered to take account of changes to Part V on foot of the recently enacted and commenced sections of the Urban Regeneration and Housing Act 2015.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Report was ACCEPTED.

 

 

426.

Motion No. 13 & 14 - HOUSING PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES pdf icon PDF 43 KB

It was agreed to take Motion No 13 and 14  in the names of Councillor P. Stewart and Councillor M. Fayne 

 

Motion No 13

 

It was proposed by Councillor P. Stewart and Councillor M. Fayne and seconded by Councillor M. Baker.

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

PAGE 35 OF CDP 2.1.3.2 Policy RES2: Implementation of Interim Housing Strategy 2016-2022, insert at end of this section: Where it is proposed to provide a Residential Unit for the use of a recognised provider of services for the intellectually disabled or another group or housing association undertaking the provision of such accommodation as part of the 20% social housing requirement, that Unit may be regarded as 2 Units.”

 

 

Motion No 14

 

It was proposed by Councillor P. Stewart and seconded by Councillor M. Fayne.

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

Draft Written Statement p43 Policy RES9 (ii) Insert at the end of this paragraph: "The Council recognises the particular difficulties parents of people with intellectual disabilities who must make provision for respite care, or permanent housing when parents can no longer care for their adult children. Current best practice is for the provision of semi-independent or supported living dispersed throughout the community. In instances where it is proposed to provide such units, a reduction in the required percentage of social and affordable housing may be accepted, in the order of 2 Units per Unit provided."

 

The following report was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive agrees with the sentiments of this Motion but not the exact details in relation to wording or location in the Draft Plan.

 

The proposed change relates to where a planning application is made for semi-independent or supported living accommodation for people with intellectual disabilities.  It is requested that in such instances a reduced element of Part V will be required namely that one such unit would be regarded as two units.

 

This is similar to the specific exemptions (where a reduced element of Part V may be required) outlined on page 35 of the Draft Development Plan in relation to provision of elderly accommodation or provision of on-campus student accommodation. 

 

It is considered that it would be acceptable to alter the Draft Plan facilitating a similar exemption to proposals for semi-independent or supported living accommodation for people with intellectual and physical disabilities. 

 

It is not considered appropriate, however, to specify the number of units but rather allow a reduced element to be determined on a case-by-case basis.  In accordance with the provisions of the Urban Regeneration and Housing Act 2015 details of Part V agreements now require to be established at pre-planning stage. It is considered that it is not the role of the Development Plan to be overly prescriptive in relation to Part V agreements as it may hinder flexibility for the Housing Department in terms of meeting the specific needs of the social housing list in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown at any given time. 

 

It should be noted that, in accordance with Section 13 of the Planning and Development Act (as amended) the Part V provision does not apply to the provision of housing by an approved housing body for households qualified for social housing support In the event of an approved housing body providing a scheme for those with intellectual or physical disabilities Part V would not apply in any event.

 

Recommendation:

 

It is recommended that subject to the approval of the Council, the following resolution be passed:

 

“That the Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 (6) of the Planning & Development Act 2000 resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

Amend Policy RES2: Implementation of the Interim Housing Strategy as follows:

 

Add a third bullet point for “specific exemptions to Part V where a reduced social/affordable element may be acceptable are:

semi-independent or supported living accommodation for people with intellectual and/or physical disabilities

 

Amend section 7.6 of the Interim Housing Strategy “Circumstances where a ‘reduced element’ may be acceptable” as follows.

 

Add

 

Semi-independent or supported living accommodation for people with intellectual and/or physical disabilities.

 

The Council recognises the particular difficulties parents of people with intellectual disabilities who must make provision for respite care, or permanent housing when parents can no longer care for their adult children.  Current best practice is for the provision of semi-independent or supported living dispersed throughout the community.  In instances where it is proposed to provide such units, a reduction in the required percentage of social and affordable housing may be accepted.

 

It should be noted that in accordance with section 94 (13) of the Planning and Development Act as amended the Part V provision does not apply to the provision of housing by an approved housing body for households as qualified for social housing support so in the event of an approved housing body providing a scheme for the those with intellectual or physical disabilities who qualify for social housing support Part V would not apply”

 

Following a discussion the Chief Executive’s Reports on Motion Nos 13 and 14 were ACCEPTED.

 

 

427.

Motion No. 15 - HOUSING PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES pdf icon PDF 38 KB

It was proposed by Councillor P. Stewart and seconded by Councillor M. Fayne.

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

PAGE 43 CE’S DRAFT, APPENDICES 1-13, Appendix 2, Policy Res 2.1.3.9 Housing for People with Disabilities [ii]. Append: "It is an objective of the Council to encourage the provision of suitable housing for people with intellectual disabilities which will allow them to live within their communities in an appropriately independent or supported manner."

 

The Chief Executive’s Report was ACCEPTED.

 

 

428.

Page 71 2.1.2: Housing Strategy i)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 71 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 71 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

Page 71 2.1.3: Housing - Supply and Demand

429.

Pages 71 - 78 Policy RES3: Residential Density i) - xvi)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 71 – 78 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 71 – 78 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

430.

Motion No. 16 - LANDS OF CARMELITE ORDER pdf icon PDF 28 KB

It was proposed by Councillor L. Dockery and seconded by Councillor B. Saul.

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

To delete and/or remove the 'INST' symbol on the lands owned and occupied by the Carmelite Order on Upper Kilmacud Road as set out in Map 6."

 

Following discussion the motion was PUT.  A roll call vote was then called for which resulted as follows:- 

 

COUNCILLORS:

FOR

AGAINST

ABSTAINED

Bailey, John F.

?

 

 

Bailey, Maria

?

 

 

Baker, Marie

?

 

 

Boyhan, Victor

?

 

 

Brennan, Shay

?

 

 

Cuffe, Jennifer

?

 

 

Curran, Chris

 

?

 

Daly, Kevin

?

 

 

Devlin, Cormac

?

 

 

Dockery, Liam

?

 

 

Donnelly, Deirdre

?

 

 

Fayne, Mary

 

 

 

Feeney, Kate

?

 

 

Gill, Karl

 

?

 

Halpin, Melisa

 

?

 

Hanafin, Mary

?

 

 

Hand, Pat

 

?

 

Horkan, Gerry

?

 

 

Kingston, Deirdre

 

?

 

Lewis, Hugh

 

?

 

Madigan, Josepha

?

 

 

Martin, Catherine

 

?

 

McCarthy, Lettie

 

?

 

McGovern, Lynsey

?

 

 

McKinney, Carron

 

?

 

Merrigan, Michael

?

 

 

Murphy, Brian

?

 

 

Murphy, Tom

?

 

 

NicCormaic, Sorcha

 

?

 

O’Brien, Peter

 

?

 

O’Brien, Shane

 

?

 

O’Callaghan, Denis

 

?

 

O’Neill, Seamas

?

 

 

Richmond, Neale

?

 

 

Saul, Barry

 

 

?

Smyth, Carrie

 

?

 

Smyth, Ossian

 

?

 

Stewart, Patricia

 

?

 

Tallon, Grace

 

?

 

Ward, Barry

 

?

 

TOTAL:

20

18

1

 

AnCathaoirleach, Councillor B. Saul, declared the Motion CARRIED.  

 

 

431.

Page 78 Policy RES5: Institutional Lands i)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 78 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

Following discussion the recommendation of the Chief Executive was DEFEATED.

 

 

432.

Pages 78 - 79 Policy RES5: Institutional Lands ii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

ii) “Submission requests the removal of the requirement for 25% open space on institutional lands where other gains are proposed (Refer also Section 8.2).

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of the submission.

 

Submission requests that the requirement for 25% open space on institutional lands be removed where other gains are proposed.  The text makes reference to other landscaping gains.  While the specific landscaping gains are not detailed in this submission the Chief Executive acknowledges that, in certain circumstances, the 25% requirement could be relaxed.

 

The Planning Guidelines ‘Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas’ (2009) states that “higher densities should be encouraged on residentially zoned lands particularly in city and town centres, brownfield sites, along public transport corridors, inner suburban / infill sites, sub-division of dwelling sites, Institutional Lands and outer suburban / greenfield sites”.

 

Policy RES5: Institutional Lands, as contained in the Chief Executive’s Draft Plan included the following narrative:

In certain locations, the required 25% open space requirement may be relaxed where higher densities would normally be encouraged - such as sites closely proximate to quality public transport corridors – and/or where there is existing high quality parkland located nearby the subject site.”

 

This paragraph was included in recognition that on some ‘INST’ sites a reduced element of open space may be appropriate - particularly where they are located adjacent to existing parks and open spaces of high quality and in areas where higher densities would be encouraged, e.g. in close proximity to quality public transport corridors.   The phrasing of this paragraph clearly states that the provision to relax the 25% open space requirement may only apply in certain specific locations.

 

Recommendation:

 

It is recommended that the narrative above be reinstated at the end of the fourth paragraph of Policy RES5, page 39, vis:

 

“In certain locations, the required 25% open space requirement may be relaxed where higher densities would normally be encouraged - such as sites closely proximate to quality public transport corridors – and/or where there is existing high quality parkland located nearby the subject site.”

 

Amend 8.2.3.4 (xi), in the Development Management Chapter by adding the following paragraph:

 

The required 25% open space requirement may be relaxed on certain sites where higher densities would be encouraged, such as sites proximate to public transport corridors and where there is existing high quality parkland located adjacent to the subject site. Any such relaxation will be considered on a case-by-case basis and its principle agreed at pre-planning stage”.

 

Following discussion the above recommendation of Chief Executive was DEFEATED.

 

 

433.

Pages 79 - 80 Policy RES5: Institutional Lands iii)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 79 – 80 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

Following discussion the recommendation of the Chief Executive was DEFEATED.

 

 

434.

Extension of Meeting

At 7.20p.m. it was proposed by An Cathaoirleach, Councillor B. Saul and AGREED to extend the meeting to 10.00p.m.

 

 

435.

Adjournment of Meeting

It was AGREED to ADJOURN for 20 minutes

 

The meeting ADJOURNED at 7.20p.m.

 

 

436.

Reconvening of Meeting

The meeting RECONVENED at 7.40 p.m.

 

 

437.

Page 80 Policy RES7: Overall Housing Mix i) - ii)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on page 80 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on page 80 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

438.

Motion No. 17 - GEORGE'S PLACE DEPOT pdf icon PDF 28 KB

It was proposed by Councillor K. Gill and Councillor M. Halpin and AGREED to WITHDRAW Motion No. 17 on the Agenda as follows:- 

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

Residential Development Table 2.1.1 Page 41

 

Add new site to table: “George’s Place Depot.”

 

 

439.

Pages 81 - 83 Policy RES8: Provision of Social Housing i) - viii)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 81 - 83 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 81 – 83 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

440.

Pages 83 - 88 Policy RES9 Housing for All i) - vi)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 83 - 88 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 83 – 88 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

441.

Pages 88 - 90 Policy RES11: Traveller Accommodation i) -vii)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on pages 88 - 90 of the Chief Executives Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on pages 88 – 90 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

442.

Page 91 Policy RES12: Provision of Student Accommodatin i)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 91 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 91 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

443.

Page 91 POLICY RES13: Provision of Women's and Family Refuge

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 91 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 91 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

444.

Pages 91 - 93 Policy RES14: Planning for Communities i) -iii)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on pages 91 – 93 of the Chief Executives Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendatione on pages 91 – 93 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

445.

Pages 93 - 96 Policy RES15: Urban Villages i) - v)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on pages 93 – 96 of the Chief Executives Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on pages 93 – 96 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

446.

Page 96 -97 2.1.4: Rural Housing i) - ii)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on pages 96 - 97 of the Chief Executives Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on pages 96 – 97 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

447.

Pages 97 - 100 2.1.5: Miscellaneous Housing Issues i) -vii)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on pages 97 - 100 of the Chief Executives Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on pages 97 - 100 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

Page 101 2.2 Sustainable Travel and Transportation

448.

Page 101 2.2.1: Introduction and Background i)

 The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

i) “Submission requests that the Sustainable Travel and Transport Section includes a specific objective to ensure that future transport infrastructure projects integrate the requirements of the EIA, Habitats, Birds, Water Framework and Floods Directive, as appropriate”.

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission.

 

The whole Draft Plan – including the future transport projects outlined in the Sustainable Travel and Transportation Chapter - has been prepared in accordance with the overarching European and National legislation.  These include, inter alia, objectives and policies relating to Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA), Appropriate Assessment (AA), Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA), and the Water Framework Directive.

 

Notwithstanding the above, it is considered that the addition of a specific policy as proposed would further contribute towards the protection of the environment, required by the cited legislation.

 

Recommendation:

 

An additional policy be inserted within Section 2.2.6: Planning for Sustainable Living, to read as follows:

 

“Policy ST1: Future Transport Infrastructure and the Requirements of EU Directives

It is Council policy to require that all developments relating to the provision of future transport infrastructure integrate the requirements of the EIA Directive, Habitats Directive, Water Framework Directive and Floods Directive, as appropriate.””

 

The above recommendation on page 101 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

449.

Pages 101 2.2.2: Policy Context i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

i) “Submission from the National Roads Authority (NRA) recommends that Section 2.2.2: Policy Context, makes reference to the ‘Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines for Planning Authorities’ (2012)”.

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive agrees with the contents of this submission.

 

Recommendation:

 

Add an additional bullet point to the list within Section 2.2.2: Policy Context, to read as follows:

 

“Spatial Planning and National Roads, Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2012)””.

 

The above recommendation on page 101 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

450.

Page 102 2.2.2: Policy Context ii)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 102 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 102 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

451.

Page 102 2.2.5 Current Public Transport Networks i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

i) “Submission states that the N31 not the N32 is located in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown”. 

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive notes this typographical error and agrees to rectify.

 

Recommendation:

 

Amend the reference from “N32” to “N31” within Section 2.2.5: Current Public Transport Networks”.

 

The above recommendation on Page 102 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

452.

Page 102 - 104 2.2.6: Planning for Sustainable living Policy ST1: Integration of Land use and Transportation Policies i) -ii) and Policy ST3 i) Accessibility

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on pages 102 - 104 of the Chief Executives Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on pages 102 - 104 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

453.

Pages 104 - 105 2.2.7: Walking and Cycling Policy ST4: Walking and Cycling i)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 104 - 105 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 104 – 105 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

454.

Pages 105 - 106 2.2.7: Walking and Cycling Policy ST4: Walking and Cycling ii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

ii) “Submission suggests the Draft Plan should include a policy on recreational walking and cycling”.

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission.  

 

Policy ST4: Walking and Cycling (Section 2.2.7.1) - which is inclusive of urban, rural and recreational links - already states:

 

“It is Council Policy to secure the development of a high quality walking and cycling network across the County.”

 

In addition, Policy ST5: Footways and Pedestrian Routes (Section 2.2.7.2) also identifies the importance of recreational routes:

 

Recreational pedestrian routes will also be encouragedand will be developed in accordance with the GreenInfrastructure Strategy (Refer to Appendix 14).”

 

Furthermore the following policies already contained within the Draft Plan all relate to the provision of walking and cycling routes:

 

  • Policies OSR1: Green Infrastructure Strategy (Section 4.2.1.1).
  • OSR8: Greenways Network (Section 4.2.2.7).
  • LHB12: Public Rights-of-Way (Section 4.1.2.11).
  • LHB13: Recreation Access Routes (Section 4.1.2.12).
  • LHB15: Trails, Hiking and Walking Routes (Section 4.1.2.14).

 

However, it should be noted that the Council also propose to develop a Walking and Cycling Policy for the County over the lifetime of the 2016-2022 County Development Plan.  This will be prepared in conjunction with all interested stakeholders and will incorporate such items as mountain trails, cycle tourism and cycling promotion.

 

Recommendation:

 

It recommended that the following is inserted after the second paragraph of Policy ST4: Walking and Cycling:

 

It is proposed that, over the lifetime of the Plan, the Council will develop a Walking and Cycling Policy for the County. This will be undertaken in conjunction with all interested stakeholders and will incorporate items such as mountain trails, cycle tourism and cycling promotion””.

 

The above recommendation on page 105 – 106 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

455.

Pages 106 - 107 2.2.7: Walking and Cycling Policy ST4: Walking and Cycling iii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

iii) “Submission suggests alternative wording for Policy ST4: Walking and Cycling”.

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive notes the content of this submission.

 

The following Policies - already contained within the Draft Plan - fully address the issues raised within the submission:

 

  • ST4: Walking and Cycling (Section2.2.7.1).
  • ST5: Footways and Pedestrian Routes (Section 2.2.7.2).
  • OSR1: Green Infrastructure Strategy (Section 4.2.1.1).
  • OSR8: Greenways Network (Section 4.2.2.7).
  • LHB12: Public Rights-of-Way (Section 4.1.2.11).
  • LHB13: Recreation Access Routes (Section 4.1.2.12).
  • LHB15: Trails, Hiking and Walking Routes (Section 4.1.2.14).

 

However, some additional text - as proposed within the submission – should form part of Policy ST4: Walking and Cycling. 

 

Recommendation:

 

Add the following text at the end of the third paragraph of Policy ST4: Walking and Cycling:

 

“Where practicable, retrospective implementation of walking and cycling routes - to maximise permeability and connectivity - may also be required within existing neighbourhoods”.”

 

The above recommendation on pages 106 -107 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

456.

Page 107 2.2.7: Walking and Cycling Policy ST4: Walking and Cycling iv)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 107 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 107 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

457.

Pages 107 - 108 2.2.7: Walking and Cycling Policy Policy ST5: Footways and Pedestrian Routes i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

i) “Submission suggests alternative wording for Policy ST5: Footways and Pedestrian Routes.”

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive notes the content of this submission.

 

It is considered that the amendments - as proposed within the submission - are already fully encompassed within and addressed by, Policies ST4: Walking and Cycling and ST5: Footways and Pedestrian Routes (Section 2.2.7).

 

Furthermore the following policies already contained within the Draft Plan all relate to the provision of walking and cycling routes:

 

  • Policies OSR1: Green Infrastructure Strategy (Section 4.2.1.1).
  • OSR8: Greenways Network (Section 4.2.2.7).
  • LHB12: Public Rights-of-Way (Section 4.1.2.11).
  • LHB13: Recreation Access Routes (Section 4.1.2.12).
  • LHB15: Trails, Hiking and Walking Routes (Section 4.1.2.14).

 

However, it should be noted that the Council also propose to develop a Walking and Cycling Policy for the County over the lifetime of the 2016-2022 County Development Plan.  This will be prepared in conjunction with all interested stakeholders and will incorporate such items as mountain trails, cycle tourism and cycling promotion.

 

Recommendation:

 

It recommended that the following is inserted after the second paragraph of Policy ST4: Walking and Cycling:

 

It is proposed that, over the lifetime of the Plan, the Council will develop a Walking and Cycling Policy for the County. This will be undertaken in conjunction with all interested stakeholders and will incorporate items such as mountain trails, cycle tourism and cycling promotion””.

 

The above recommendation on pages 107 – 108 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

458.

Page 108 2.2.7: Walking and Cycling Policy ST5: Footways and Pedestrian Routes ii)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 108 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 108 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

459.

Page 108 - 111 2.2.7: Walking and Cycling Policy ST6: County Cycle Network i) - ii)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on pages 108 – 111 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on pages 108 - 111 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

460.

Motion No. 73 - SLO

It was proposed by Councillor M. Merrigan and seconded by Councillor V. Boyhan.

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

AMEND the proposed Specific Local Objective (pages 112, 378, 386, 443 and 444 of the Chief Executive's Report on Submissions) which seeks to insert a new SLO on Maps 2, 3, 4 as follows:

 

"It is an objective of the Council to undertake a comprehensive feasibility study on the recreational potential along the coastal area of the County which comprehensively addresses recreational impact - including visitor numbers, mapping and surveying of sensitive habitats and species and identification of significant threats on Natura 2000 sites - which would allow an assessment of any future proposals, alone or in combination, to assess impact on the coastal and marine zone within and adjacent to the County boundary. The Council will explore the possibility of carrying out this study with adjoining and/or coastal local authorities and/or their agencies."

 

Proposal: 

 

"To re-designate the proposed SLO on pages 112,378,386,443 and 444 of the Chief Executive's Report on Submissions as a specific 'Policy' in the Draft County Development Plan as the objectives therein are unclear as to the intended sequential, concurrent or consequential nature of each and therefore, due to this inherent ambiguity, the proposed SLO cannot reasonably be considered to have fully satisfied the criteria necessary for an implementable Specific Local Objective”.

 

The following report was CIRCULATED:

 

“The Chief Executive agrees with this motion.

 

Recommendation:

 

It is recommended that subject to the approval of the Council, the following resolution be passed:

 

“That the Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 (6) of the Planning & Development Act 2000 resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

Remove proposed SLO on pages 112, 378, 386, 443 and 444 of the Chief Executive's Report on Submissions and from Maps, 2, 3 and 4 and insert a new policy as follows;

 

“4.2.10 Policy LHB11: Coastal Area Feasibility Study.

 

It is Council policy to undertake a comprehensive feasibility study on the recreational potential along the coastal area of the County which comprehensively addresses recreational impact – including visitor numbers, mapping and surveying of sensitive habitats and species and identification of significant threats on Natura 2000 sites – and which would allow an assessment of any future proposals, alone or in combination, to assess impact on the coastal and marine zone within and adjacent to the County boundary.  The Council will explore the possibility of carrying out this study with adjoining and/or coastal Local Authorities and/or their agencies.

 

Renumber subsequent policies accordingly”.

 

The Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED

 

 

461.

Pages 111 - 113 2.2.7: Walking and Cycling Policy ST6: County Cycle Network iii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

iii) “Submission raises concern that Policy ST6: County Cycle Network (and specifically the S2S), Policy CC16: Coastal Defence Strategy and Policy LHB9: Coastline Parks and Harbours, could all have a negative effect on natural heritage”.

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission.

 

The legislative obligations of the Habitats Directive are already included in Policy ST6: County Cycle Network (Section 2.2.7.3 ) of the Draft Plan, which states that:

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 SAC’s, SPA’s and pNHA’s in Dublin Bay and the surrounding area”.

 

Policy LHB9: Coastline Parks and Harbours (Section 4.1.2.6) may potentially involve access to new areas.  The consultants carrying out the Appropriate Assessment screening for the Council have advised that proposals in relation to development of coastal recreational facilities are all constrained by their potential to impact on the European Sites along the Dublin coast, both alone, and in combination with, similar developments, such as the S2S.

 

There is currently a deficit of information on features of the coast including information on visitor pressures, mapping of sensitive habitats, the usage of sites by protected species etc.  In order to inform any future recreational development along the coast and in the marine area these issues will need further scoping, survey and analysis to inform decision-making and to allow an Appropriate Assessment of these proposals. 

 

The consultants have strongly recommended that the Plan should include an objective to undertake a feasibility study (or similar) which allows an appropriate assessment of any future proposals, alone or in combination, to assess impact on the coastal and marine zone within and adjacent to the County boundary.  This approach addresses the issues at the level of coastal zone management and will facilitate sustainable development of the resource for the Council.

 

Recommendation:

 

Insert a new SLO on Maps 2, 3, 4 as follows:

 

“It is an objective of the Council to undertake a comprehensive feasibility study on the recreational potential along the coastal area of the County which comprehensively addresses recreational impact – including visitor numbers, mapping and surveying of sensitive habitats and species and identification of significant threats on Natura 2000 sites – which would allow an assessment of any future proposals, alone or in combination, to assess impact on the coastal and marine zone within and adjacent to the County boundary.  The Council will explore the possibility of carrying out this study with adjoining and/or coastal local authorities and/or their agencies.”

 

Insert SLO symbol on Maps 2, 3 and 4.

 

Insert the following sentence at the end of Policy CC16: Coastal Defence (Section 5.2.5.3):

 

“The Council will also require that all coastal defence works will be subject to Appropriate Assessment (AA) to ensure there are no likely significant effects on the integrity of any Natura 2000 sites and that the requirements of Article 6 of the EU Habitats Directive are met.””

 

The above recommendation on pages 111 - 113 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

462.

Pages 113 - 114 2.2.7: Walking and Cycling Policy ST6: County Cycle Network iv)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

iv) “Submission suggests alternative wording for Policy ST6: County Cycleway Network.  Submission also suggests changes to the paragraph under Table 2.2.2. which relates to the National East Coast Cycle Trail being described as Killiney to Bray” - as per the description within the existing 2010-2016 County Development Plan”.

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive notes the content of this submission.

 

Policy ST4: Walking and Cycling  (Section 2.2.7.1) - which is inclusive of urban, rural and recreational links - already states:

 

“It is Council Policy to secure the development of a high quality walking and cycling network across the County.”

 

In addition, Policy ST5: Footways and Pedestrian Routes (Section 2.2.7.2) also identifies the importance of recreational routes:

 

Recreational pedestrian routes will also be encouragedand will be developed in accordance with the GreenInfrastructure Strategy (Refer to Appendix 14).”

 

Furthermore the following policies already contained within the Draft Plan all relate to the provision of walking and cycling routes:

 

  • Policies OSR1: Green Infrastructure Strategy (Section 4.2.1.1).
  • OSR8: Greenways Network (Section 4.2.2.7).
  • LHB12: Public Rights-of-Way (Section 4.1.2.11).
  • LHB13: Recreation Access Routes (Section 4.1.2.12).
  • LHB15: Trails, Hiking and Walking Routes (Section 4.1.2.14).

 

However, it should be noted that the Council also propose to develop a Walking and Cycling Policy for the County over the lifetime of the 2016-2022 County Development Plan.  This will be prepared in conjunction with all interested stakeholders and will incorporate such items as mountain trails, cycle tourism and cycling promotion.

 

An indicative route for the National East Coast Cycle Trail, as detailed within the National Transport Authority’s GDA Cycle Network, has been transposed onto County Development Plan Maps 2, 3, 4, 7, 10 and 14.  The National East Coast Cycle Trail extends significantly further than Killiney to Bray. 

 

The Chief Executive proposes to make a correction to the alignment of the National East Coast Cycle Trail as detailed on Map 14 as the alignment should continue to the County boundary

 

Recommendation:

 

Amend the alignment of the National East Coast Cycle Trail on Map 14 to extend to the County boundary with Wicklow”.

 

The above recommendation on pages 113 – 1114 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

463.

Pages 114 - 117 2.2.7: Walking and Cycling Policy ST6: County Cycle Network v) - xiii)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on pages 114 – 117 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on pages 114 - 117 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

464.

Page 117 2.2.7: Walking and Cycling Policy ST8: Directional/Information/Waymarking Signage i) - iii)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on page 117 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on page 117 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

465.

Pages 117- 118 2.2.7: Walking and Cycling Policy ST8: Directional/Information/Waymarking Signage iv)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

iv) “Submission requests that the photograph of a shared cycle track on page 49 should be removed from the Plan as it illustrates poor cycle infrastructure design”.

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive notes the content of this submission.

 

It should be noted that the National Cycle Design Manual advocates the provision of a combination of solutions – including integrated and segregated routes – depending on the characteristics of, and potential conflicts along, the route.  Notwithstanding, the Chief Executive has no issue replacing the photograph on page 49 with another image.

 

Recommendation:

 

Replace the photograph on page 49 with another cycling/walking image”.

 

The above recommendation on pages 117 – 118 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

466.

Page 118 2.2.7: Walking and Cycling Policy ST8: Directional/Information/Waymarking Signage v)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 118 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 118 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

467.

Page 118 2.2.7: Walking and Cycling Policy ST8: Directional/Information/Waymarking Signage vi)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

vi) “Submission from the National Roads Authority (NRA) requests that the Plan makes reference to Section 3.8 of the DECLGs ‘Spatial Planning and National Roads, Guidelines for Local Authorities’, which indicate a requirement to control the proliferation of non-road traffic signage adjacent to National Roads”.

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive agrees with the contents of the submission.

 

Recommendation:

 

Add the following text at the end of the third paragraph within Policy ST8 Signage:

 

“Due cognizance shall also be taken of the signage requirements in Section 3.8 of ‘Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines for Planning Authorities’ (2012) relating to signage along National Roads””

 

The above recommendation on page 118 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

468.

Pages 118- 119 2.2.8: Public Transport Policy ST10: Public Transport Improvements i)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 118 - 119 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 118 - 119 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

469.

Pages 119-120 2.2.8: Public Transport Policy ST10: Public Transport Improvements ii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

ii) “Submission states that there is poor public transport provision between Dundrum and St. Vincent’s Hospital”.

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive notes the content of the submission.

 

Policy ST12: Bus Rapid Transit (Section 2.2.8.3) does include references to the ‘Blue Line’ BRT which would provide a DART-Luas public transport link between Sandyford/Dundrum and Sydney Parade. In this regard, Policy ST12 (Section 2.2.8.3) states:

 

“It is Council policy to co-operate with the NTA and other relevant agencies to facilitate the introduction of BRT measures as set out in the NTA’s GDA Draft Transport Strategy.”

 

The NTA’s ‘Greater Dublin Area Draft Transport Strategy 2011-2030’, makes reference to the proposed Blue Line BRT route linking the DART line at Sydney Parade Avenue to Sandyford/ Dundrum Town Centre via UCD utilizing, where possible, parts of the Eastern Bypass reservation corridor and therefore forms part of the Draft Plan.

 

On foot of the National Transport Authority’s submission (B0493) relating to the development of Dundrum as one of the County’s primary public transport interchanges, the Chief Executive proposes to re-instate Dundrum within Table 2.2.4: Public Transport Interchanges.

In relation to cycling infrastructure, it should be noted that Policy ST6: County Cycle Network (Section 2.2.7.3) outlines the primary radial and orbital cycle routes, with the Cycle Network  also detailed on Map T1.  This Cycle Network does provide for linkages for cyclists between Dundrum and St. Vincent’s.

During recent discussions with the National Transport Authority (NTA), it was indicated that the Authority is currently examining the provision of additional bus services to and from Dundrum, which is consistent with the Bus Priority Network provided within the Draft Plan. (Supplementary Mapping Booklet – Map T2.)

However, it should be noted that the licensing and operation of bus routes is not within the remit of the Local Authority and is a matter for the National Transport Authority (NTA).  However, the Council will continue to liaise with the National Transport Authority in relation to the issue raised.

 

Recommendation:

 

Within Table 2.2.4 Public Transport Interchanges insert the following:

“Dundrum Luas – QBN””.

 

The above recommendation on pages 119-120 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

470.

Pages 120-121 2.2.8: Public Transport Policy ST10: Public Transport Improvements iii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

iii) “Submission states that public transport services should be improved for staff and customers of Dundrum Shopping Centre. The Green Line Luas does not meet the travel demands of the Shopping Centre”.

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive notes the content of the submission.

 

On foot of the National Transport Authority’s submission (B0493) relating to the development of Dundrum as one of the County’s primary public transport interchanges, the Chief Executive proposes to re-instate Dundrum within Table 2.2.4: Public Transport Interchanges.

In terms of the service currently being provided by the Luas Green Line – which serves Dundrum Town Centre – it operates at a frequency of every 3 – 6 minutes during peak hours.  For the purposes of clarity, the frequency and operating capacity of the Luas is not within the remit of the Local Authority and is a matter for the National Transport Authority. 

 

In relation to cycling infrastructure, it should be noted that Policy ST6: County Cycle Network (Section 2.2.7.3) – which outlines the primary radial and orbital cycle routes – identifies the following Dundrum related cycle routes for prioritisation:

 

“Dundrum Radial Cycle Route – Clonskeagh Road to Carrickmines Interchange via Blackthorn Drive” and “Dundrum to Dún Laoghaire Orbital Cycle Route – Nutgrove Way to York Road via Drummartin Link Road and the N11”.

 

During recent discussions with the National Transport Authority (NTA), it was indicated that the Authority is currently examining the provision of additional bus services to and from Dundrum, which is consistent with the Bus Priority Network provided within the Draft Plan. (Supplementary Mapping Booklet – Map T2.)

 

However, it should be noted that the licensing and operation of bus routes is not within the remit of the Local Authority and is a matter for the National Transport Authority (NTA).  However, the Council will continue to liaise with the National Transport Authority in relation to the issue raised.

 

Recommendation:

 

Within Table 2.2.4 Public Transport Interchanges insert the following:

“Dundrum Luas – QBN””.

 

The above recommendation on pages 120 – 121 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

471.

Pages 121-122 2.2.8: Public Transport Policy ST11: Quality Bus Network i) - v)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on pages 121 - 122 of the Chief Executives Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on pages 121- 122 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

472.

Pages 122 - 123 2.2.8: Public Transport Policy ST12: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

i) “Submission from the National Roads Authority requesting the omission of some text from SLO No. 6 - which relates to a number of potential short-term uses of the Dublin Eastern Bypass Corridor - until greater clarity has been reached with the National Transport Authority.”

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive agrees with the contents of the submission.

 

The County Development Plan is statutorily obliged to be consistent with both the Regional Planning Guidelines and the National Transport Authority’s Draft Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area.  In this regard, the Dublin Eastern Bypass is currently included within both documents and the Council is, therefore, bound to adhere to the National Roads Authority ‘Corridor Protection Study 2011’.

 

The Dublin Eastern Bypass is, however, a Long-Term Roads Objective within the Draft Plan and - in this instance - it is considered reasonable and appropriate to examine other potential short-term uses along the reservation corridor. 

 

However, any additional uses would be subject to appropriate engineering and environmental studies being carried out - in accordance with the relevant EU Directives. It is recommended therefore that the text of Policy ST12: Bus Rapid Transit (Section 2.2.8.3) be modified to reflect this.

 

Recommendation:

 

Add a line at the end of the last paragraph of Policy ST12: Bus Rapid Transit, as follows:

 

“Any potential additional future short-term uses of the reservation corridor will be subject to a joint feasibility study to be undertaken by the NRA and NTA”.

 

Therefore SLO No. 6 is amended to read, as follows:

 

“To promote potential additional future uses of the Dublin Eastern Bypass reservation corridor, including a greenway/cycleway, a pedestrian walkway, biodiversity projects, and public transport provision such as Bus Rapid Transit services, pending a decision from the National Roads Authority/Central Government in relation to the future status of the Bypass. Any potential additional future short-term uses of the reservation corridor will be subject to a joint feasibility study to be undertaken by the NRA and NTA.””

 

The above recommendation on page 122 – 123 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

473.

Pages 123 - 124 Policy ST13: Public Transport Interchanges

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 123 – 124 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

“Policy ST13:  Public Transport Interchanges i) – ii)

Policy ST14:  Luas Extension i) – ii)

Policy ST15:  Rail Stations/Luas Stops.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 123 – 124 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

474.

Pages 125 Policy ST17: Taxi/Minibus/Hackney Transport i)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 125 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

“Submission requests that all taxi-ranks have electric charging points provided to encourage the use of electric taxis. The submission also suggests the Council encourage the taxi-community to become ‘greener’ and more environmentally friendly.

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED.

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission.

 

It should be noted that taxi-ranks facilitate the collection of passengers and allow taxis to queue, mainly on a short-term basis, and thus taxi-ranks are not considered to be suitable locations for the charging of electric vehicles.

 

However, in conjunction with ESB, the Council is currently rolling out parking bays for the charging of electric vehicles around the County in accordance with the traffic regulations. This on-going roll-out will facilitate the charging of all electric vehicles – inclusive of taxis.

 

In this regard, the Chief Executive recommends an amendment to Policy ST23: Control of On-Street Parking (Section 2.2.9.6), to support the provision of charging of electric vehicles at appropriate locations.

 

The requirement for the taxi-community to become ‘greener’ and environmentally friendly should be more appropriately progressed though the Office of the Taxi-Regulator.  

 

Recommendation:

 

Additional text be included at the end of Policy ST23: Control of On-Street Parking, to read as follows:

 

“The Council will also facilitate the provision of car parking spaces for the charging of electric vehicles at appropriate locations.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 125 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

475.

Page 126 2.2.9: Travel Demand Management Policy ST18: i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)     “Submission from the NRA recommends that the M50 Demand Management Report (2014) – produced by the NRA and the four Dublin Authorities - is included within the Plan.” 

 

 Submission requests that the Development Plan ensures that the protection of the safety, carrying capacity and efficiency of existing National Roads is maintained.

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive agrees with the contents of this submission.

 

Recommendation:

 

Add the following text at the end of Policy ST25: Motorway and National Roads, to read as follows:

 

“The Council will take due cognisance of the M50 Demand Management Report (April 2014) and work alongside all other stakeholders – including the NRA and NTA - in implementing the various measures required to ensure that the strategic function of the M50 is protected and growth in travel demand is managed as set out in the Report.””

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 126 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

476.

Pages 126 - 127 Policy ST23: Control of On-Street Parking i) - iii)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on pages 126 – 127 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on pages 126 -127 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

477.

Page 127 Policy ST23: Control of On-Street Parking (iv)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

iv) “Submission requests that the Council strengthen their support for the roll-out of Electric Vehicle infrastructure.”

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive agrees with the contents of this submission.

 

Recommendation:

 

Additional text be included at the end of Policy ST23: Control of On-Street Parking, to read as follows:

 

“The Council will also facilitate the provision of car parking spaces for the charging of electric vehicles at appropriate locations.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 127 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

478.

Pages 127 - 130 2.2.10: Roads Policy ST14 Roads i) - xi)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on pages 127 – 130 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on pages 127 – 130 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

479.

Pages 130 - 131 2.2.10 Roads Policy ST14 Roads xii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

xii) “Submission from the National Roads Authority stresses the importance of the on-going NRA ‘M50/N11 Merge to Kilmacanogue Corridor Study’ and the on-going ‘M50/M11/N11 Corridor Study’, in relation to future roads projects in close proximity to this roads corridor.

 

The submission raises specific concerns relating to the wording of SLO No 42- Grade Separation at Loughlinstown Roundabout and SLO No. 56 - Upgrade of Wilford Interchange.

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive agrees with the contents of this submission.

 

The National Roads Authority is currently undertaking a ‘M50/M11 Merge to Kilmacanogue Corridor Study’ which will feed into the on-going ‘M50/M11/N11 Corridor Study’, in relation to which the Council are liaising with the National Roads Authority.

 

The importance of both these studies - in terms of the carrying capacity, efficiency and safety of, not only the National Road Network, but also the local road network - is recognised by the Chief Executive. 

 

In this regard, the Chief Executive recommends amendments to the text associated with SLO Nos. 42 and 56. 

 

Recommendation:

 

Amend the text associated with SLO No. 42 to read:

 

“To liaise with the National Roads Authority (NRA) to investigate potential improvements to the Loughlinstown Roundabout with any such improvements to be informed by the outcomes of the NRA’s on-going Corridor Studies.”

 

Amend the text associated with SLO No. 56 to read:

 

“To investigate the potential upgrading of the Wilford interchange to provide connectivity to lands west of the M11 and Old Conna Village with any such improvements to be informed by the outcome of the NRA’s on-going Corridor Studies.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 130 – 131 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

480.

Pages 131 - 136 2.2.10 Roads Policy ST14 Roads xiii) - xxii)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on pages 131 – 136 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on pages 131 – 136  of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

481.

Motion No. 9 from the floor

It was proposed by Councillor O. Smyth and seconded by Councillor C. Martin.

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

To delete “Dublin Eastern ByPass (as identified in the Dublin Eastern By Pass Corridor Protection Study, NRA 2011) from table 2.2.6 (Long Term Roads Objective).

 

Following discussion, Mr. C. Clarke, Assistant Planner responded to Members’ queries.

 

The motion was PUT. A roll call vote was then called for which resulted as follows:-   

 

COUNCILLORS:

FOR

AGAINST

ABSTAINED

Bailey, John F.

 

 

?

 

Bailey, Maria

 

?

 

Baker, Marie

 

?

 

Boyhan, Victor

?

 

 

Brennan, Shay

 

?

 

Cuffe, Jennifer

 

?

 

Curran, Chris

 

?

 

Daly, Kevin

 

?

 

Devlin, Cormac

 

?

 

Dockery, Liam

 

?

 

Donnelly, Deirdre

?

 

 

Fayne, Mary

 

?

 

Feeney, Kate

 

?

 

Gill, Karl

?

 

 

Halpin, Melisa

?

 

 

Hanafin, Mary

 

 

 

Hand, Pat

 

?

 

Horkan, Gerry

 

?

 

Kingston, Deirdre

 

?

 

Lewis, Hugh

?

 

 

Madigan, Josepha

 

 

?

Martin, Catherine

?

 

 

McCarthy, Lettie

 

?

 

McGovern, Lynsey

 

?

 

McKinney, Carron

 

?

 

Merrigan, Michael

?

 

 

Murphy, Brian

 

 

?

Murphy, Tom

 

?

 

Nic Cormaic, Sorcha

 

?

 

O’Brien, Peter

 

?

 

O’Brien, Shane

 

?

 

O’Callaghan, Denis

 

?

 

O’Neill, Seamas

 

?

 

Richmond, Neale

 

?

 

Saul, Barry

 

?

 

Smyth, Carrie

 

?

 

Smyth, Ossian

?

 

 

Stewart, Patricia

?

 

 

Tallon, Grace

 

?

 

Ward, Barry

?

 

 

TOTAL:

10

27

2

 

AnCathaoirleach, Councillor B. Saul, declared the Motion FALLS.

 

482.

Motion No. 18 SLO-KNOCKRABO pdf icon PDF 45 KB

It was proposed by Councillor B. Saul and seconded by Councillor V. Boyhan

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

To insert a SLO on page 243 Map 1 – To encourage the provision of playing pitches on the road reservation in the Knockrabo site.”

 

Following a discussion, it was AGREED that the words inclusive of playing pitches be included in the Chief Executive’s Report to read as follows:-

 

“To promote potential additional future uses of the Dublin Eastern Bypass reservation corridor, including a greenway/cycleway, a pedestrian walkway, biodiversity projects, recreational opportunities –“ inclusive of playing pitches” and public transport provision such as Bus Rapid Transit services, pending a decision from the National Roads Authority/Central Government in relation to the future status of the Bypass. Any potential additional future short-term uses of the reservation corridor will be subject to a joint feasibility study to be undertaken by the NRA and NTA

 

The Chief Executive’s Report with Amendment was AGREED.

 

 

483.

Pages 136 - 137 2.2.10 Roads Policy ST14 Roads xxiii)

The following summary of submission was CONSIDERED:

 

“Submission from the National Roads Authority relating to SLO No. 72 - in relation to the line of the Dublin Eastern bypass between the N11 and Dublin Bay - not being fixed. The submission states that the requirements of the Corridor Protection Study of 2011 need to be observed

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission.

 

The County Development Plan is statutorily obliged to be consistent with both the Regional Planning Guidelines and the National Transport Authority Draft Transport Strategy.  In this regard, the Dublin Eastern Bypass is currently included within both documents and the Council is, therefore, bound to adhere to the National Roads Authority ‘Corridor Protection Study 2011’. The Dublin Eastern Bypass is a Long-Term Roads Objective within the Draft Plan. 

 

SLO No. 72 of the Draft Plan states:

 

“The line of the Eastern Bypass between the N11 and Dublin Bay is not fixed. The route will be determined following environmental assessment including appropriate assessment and a process of public consultation”. 

 

In this regard, the Route Corridor for the Dublin Eastern Bypass between the N11 to Dublin Bay - where SLO No. 72 applies - is now identified within the ‘Corridor Protection Study 2011’. Therefore SLO No. 72 should be removed as it is not consistent with the ‘Corridor Protection Study 2011’.

 

Recommendation:

 

The provisional alignment of the Dublin Eastern Bypass be amended on County Development Plan Maps 1, 2, 5 and 6 and T3 (Supplementary Mapping Booklet) to reflect the National Roads Authority ‘Corridor Protection Study 2011’.

 

All references to SLO No. 72 be removed from the County Development Plan Written Statement and Mapping.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 137 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

484.

Page 137 2.2.10 Roads Policy ST24 Roads xxiv)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

xxiv)”Submission requests that SLO No. 72 be reworded so that the Dublin Eastern Bypass does not overlap with St. Helens Hotel so that reasonable development proposals can be facilitated.

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

The Chief Executive disagrees with the contents of this submission.

 

The County Development Plan is statutorily obliged to be consistent with both the Regional Planning Guidelines and the National Transport Authority Draft Transport Strategy.  In this regard, the Dublin Eastern Bypass is currently included within both documents and the Council is, therefore, bound to adhere to the National Roads Authority ‘Corridor Protection Study 2011’. The Dublin Eastern Bypass is a Long-Term Roads Objective within the Draft Plan. 

 

SLO No. 72 of the Draft Plan states:

 

“The line of the Eastern Bypass between the N11 and Dublin Bay is not fixed. The route will be determined following environmental assessment including appropriate assessment and a process of public consultation”. 

 

In this regard, the Route Corridor for the Dublin Eastern Bypass between the N11 to Dublin Bay - where SLO No. 72 applies - is now identified within the ‘Corridor Protection Study 2011’. Therefore SLO No. 72 should be removed as it is not consistent with the ‘Corridor Protection Study 2011’.

 

Recommendation:

 

The provisional alignment of the Dublin Eastern Bypass be amended on County Development Plan Maps 1, 2, 5 and 6 and T3 (Supplementary Mapping Booklet) to reflect the National Roads Authority ‘Corridor Protection Study 2011’.

 

All references to SLO No. 72 be removed from the County Development Plan Written Statement and Mapping.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 137 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

485.

Page 137 - 138 2.2.10 Roads Policy ST24 Roads xxv)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

xxv) “Submission requests the removal of the Goatstown Interchange section of the Eastern By-Pass at Knockrabo as current National Roads Authority policy confirms that it no longer forms part of the motorway corridor.

 

(See Mapping Issues Section - Map 2)”

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive disagrees with the contents of this submission.

 

The County Development Plan is statutorily obliged to be consistent with both the Regional Planning Guidelines and the National Transport Authority Draft Transport Strategy.  In this regard, the Dublin Eastern Bypass is currently included within both documents and the Council is, therefore, statute bound to include the Dublin Eastern Bypass within the County Development Plan.

 

The Dublin Eastern Bypass is a Long-Term Roads Objective within the Draft Plan.  In their submission (B0256), the National Roads Authority request that the requirements of the Corridor Protection Study 2011 and, in particular, that the corridor alignment in the study be observed. 

 

The County Development Plan Mapping - Maps 1,2,5 and 6 and T3 (Supplementary Mapping Booklet)- requires amending, to ensure consistency with the alignment of the Dublin Eastern Bypass as detailed within the NRAs 2011 ‘ Corridor Protection Study’.

 

Recommendation:

 

The provisional alignment of the Dublin Eastern Bypass be amended on County Development Plan Maps 1, 2, 5 and 6 and T3 (Supplementary Mapping Booklet) to reflect the National Roads Authority ‘Corridor Protection Study 2011’.

 

All references to SLO No. 72 be removed from the County Development Plan Written Statement and Mapping.”

 

The above recommendation on pages 137 – 138   of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

486.

Page 138 - 139 2.2.10 Roads Policy ST24 Roads xxvi)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 138 – 139 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 138 – 139 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

487.

Page 139 Policy ST28: Road Safety i) - ii)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 139 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 139 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

488.

Page 139 Policy ST28: Road Safety iii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

iii)” Submission from the National Roads Authority states that Section 2.2.10.5 should be amended so as to refer to the Road Safety Authority’s, Road Safety Strategy 2013 – 2020.

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive agrees with the contents of this submission.

 

Recommendation:

 

Within Policy ST28: Roads Safety, delete references to the “National Road Safety Plan 2013-2020” and replace with “Road Safety Authority’s, Road Safety Strategy 2013-2020”.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 139 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

489.

Motion No. 19 TURNAROUND AREA pdf icon PDF 27 KB

It was proposed by Councillor L. McCarthy and seconded by Councillor P .O’Brien

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

That a turnaround area be created in Glenamuck Cottages/Rockville Drive, (beside land parcel 29b), in order to facilitate the turning of large vehicles.

 

Following a discussion Ms. M. Henchy responded to Member’s queries and gave an undertaking that the problem being experienced in Glenamuck Cottages/Rockville Drive would be forwarded to Transportation Department for their attention.

 

The Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED.  

 

 

490.

Pages 139 - 140 Policy ST29: Traffic Management i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)”Submission requests that speed ramps are provided on Carrickbrennan Road at Richmond Hill

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission.

 

However, this is not considered a strategic County Development Plan issue.

 

Notwithstanding, the Transportation Department propose to prepare an Accident Investigation and Prevention (AIP) Programme 2015 - 2020 over the lifetime of the Plan which will examine all road safety issues in the County - including the assessment of the need for traffic calming. Carrickbrennan Road and Richmond Hill will be examined as part of this process. 

 

It is recommended that additional text is added to the end of Policy ST29: Traffic Management (Section 2.2.10.6), to reflect this.

 

Recommendation:

 

The following text is added to the end of the last paragraph of Policy ST29:Traffic Management:

 

“In addition, an Accident Investigation and Prevention (AIP) Programme - that will examine in detail road safety issues throughout the County – will be introduced by the Transportation Department over the lifetime of this Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 139 – 140 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

491.

Pages 140 - 141 Policy ST29: Traffic Management ii) - iv)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 140 – 141 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 140 – 141 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

492.

Pages 141 - 142 - 2.2.11: Ports Policy ST30: Ports i) - ii)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 141 – 142 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 141 – 142 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

493.

Pages 142 - 143 2.2.12: Financial Contributions Policy ST31 Section 48 and 49 Levies i) - iv)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 142 – 143 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 142 - 143 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

3. ENTERPRISE AND EMPLOYMENT STRATEGY

494.

Pages 147 - 152 3.1: Enterprise and Employment

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 147 – 152 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

“3.1.1:   Trends in Enterprise and Employment i)

3.1.2:   Strategy, Policies and Objectives i) – xiii) “

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 147 – 152 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

495.

Motion No. 20 and Motion No. 8 from the floor - TOURISM pdf icon PDF 40 KB

It was proposed by Councillor D. O’Callaghan and seconded by Councillor C. Smyth

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

To include under Policy E14 Tourism and Recreation contained in page 152 of the CEO’s Report this Council will encourage and support the enhancement of tourism potential of the Dublin Mountains Way including promotion of linkages Bus, DART and Luas and to also include route map dispensing machine at the commencement of the Dublin Mountains Way walking route in Shankill Village.” 

 

It was AGREED to take Motion No. 8 from the floor at this time.

 

Motion No. 8 from the floor.

 

It was proposed by Councillor C. Smyth and seconded by Councillor D. O’Callaghan.

 

“Include following text:

 

and use of public right of ways as far as possible”

After

“DART and LUAS”

 

Following discussion it was AGREED to amend the Chief Executive’s recommendation as follows:

 

Recommendation:

 

“It is recommended that subject to the approval of the Council, the following resolution be passed:

 

“That the Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12(6) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

Add the following text to Policy E14 (Section 3.1.2.14) (at end of last paragraph):

“The Council will encourage and support the enhancement of the tourism potential of the Dublin Mountains Way including promotion of public transport linkages including Bus, DART and Luas.””

 

The Chief Executive’s Recommendation with amendment was ACCEPTED.

 

 

496.

Pages 152 - 155 Policy E14: Tourism and Recreation i) - viii)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 152 – 155 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 152 – 155 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

497.

Pages 155 - 156 Policy E14: Tourism and Recreation ix)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED.

 

ix)” Submission, on behalf of Fáilte Ireland, requests deletion of Policy E14 Tourism and Recreation and the creation of an entire new Section 3.2 -  Tourism and Recreation - which has regard to the ‘Grow Dublin Tourism Alliance’ of which DLRCC is a member. Fifteen policies are suggested ranging from Responsible Tourism to Cruise Tourism.”

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive welcomes the substantial and positive submission from Failte Ireland and acknowledges the productive ongoing collaboration between the Council and Failte Ireland, in particular the ‘Grow Dublin Tourism Alliance’ of which DLRCC is a member.

 

The submission, however, proposes a very extensive additional Section be added to the Draft Plan, in lieu of the relatively concise Policy E14: ‘Tourism and Recreation’. It is considered that the inclusion of an extensive new section, much of it outlining the details of another published standalone policy document is not warranted. However, the Chief Executive recommends that the element of the submission referring to the ‘Grow Dublin Tourism Alliance’ be included in the Plan.

 

Recommendation:

 

Amend the Draft Plan as follows:

 

Add the following text to Section 3.1.2.14 Policy E14: Tourism and Recreation, after paragraph 2:

 

It is Council policy to continue to work in collaboration with other key stakeholders to implement the programmes and plans of the GROW Dublin initiative over the lifetime of the Plan to maximise the tourism potential of the County. Established in 2012 to focus on the marketing and branding of Dublin city and region, the Grow Dublin Tourism Alliance has been tasked with the role of identifying how the city and county could deliver substantial growth based on tourism by 2020. The forum is a major collaborative initiative by the key interested parties including the Dublin Local Authorities, Failte Ireland, Dublin Chamber of Commerce, and the tourist industry & development organisations. 'Dublin ' in the context of the Alliance's remit refers to the wider Dublin region comprising Dublin City Council and South Dublin, Fingal and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Councils. The report, 'Destination Dublin - A Collective

 

Strategy for Growth to 2020' was launched in 2014.

 

The report states the Dublin Region needs to differentiate itself as a ‘must-visit’ destination. As trips become shorter, particularly to cities, Dublin must distinguish itself as a stand-alone destination and an aspirational European short-break destination. If the variety and vibrancy of the City and County’s attractions can be communicated to potential visitors in key target markets, this is where return on investment is likely to be greatest.

 

The Alliance has identified five key sectors that offer the best potential for significant growth and the best return on investment:

·         Holidaymakers identified as 'Social Energisers' - young couples and adult groups looking for excitement, new experiences, and fun, social getaways to novel destinations;

·          Holidaymakers identified as 'Culturally Curious' - mostly older couples or solo travellers with time (and money) to spend - independent active sightseers looking to explore new places and broaden their minds

·         Business Tourism - where visitor expenditure is amongst the highest of all visitors and who are more prone to visit in times when cash flow for Dublin businesses is critical – in the shoulder and off-seasons;

·         Cruise Tourism -who come to the Dublin Region as part of a European cruise;

Event Tourism - coming to the Dublin Region specifically to attend an event or festival, whether sporting, cultural, business or any other type of event.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 155 – 156 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

498.

Pages 156 - 158 Policy E14: Tourism and Recreation x) - x) - xiv)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 156 – 158 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 156 – 158 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

499.

Pages 159 - 166 - Cruise Berth Facility - Dun Laoghaire Harbour i) - xiii)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 159 – 166 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 159 – 166 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

3.2 Retail and Major Town Centres

500.

Pages 167 - 175 3.2 Retail and Major Town Centres

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 167 – 175 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

“3.2:   Retail and major Town Centres

3.2.1:   Introduction i)

3.2.2: Strategic Context

Policy RET3:  Retail Hierarchy – Carrickmines i) – ix)

Policy RET3:  Retail Hierarchy i)”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 167 – 175 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

501.

Conflict of Interest

It was NOTED that Councillor D. Donnelly declared an interest and excused herself from the Council Chamber for the duration of the discussion of this item.

 

 

502.

Motion No. 21 - COMMUNITY RADIO pdf icon PDF 27 KB

It was proposed by Councillor B. Saul and seconded by Councillor S. O’Neill.

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

To insert a SLO on page 243 Map 1 – To support the retention of a community radio Station in the Dundrum Town Centre.”

 

Following a discussion, Ms. M. Henchy, Director of Services responded to Members’ queries.

 

The Chief Executive’s Report was ACCEPTED.

 

 

503.

Pages 175 - 184

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 175 – 184 of the of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

“Policy RET4:   Major Town Centres i) – iv).

Policy RET5:   District Centres i) – vii)

Policy RET6:  Neighbourhood Centres i) – iii)”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 175 – 184 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

504.

Motion No. 22 - SLO DUNDRUM TOWN CENTRE pdf icon PDF 27 KB

It was proposed by Councillor B. Saul and seconded by Councillor C. Martin.

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

To insert a SLO on page 243 Map 1 – To ensure that Phase 2 of the Dundrum town Centre would include significant floor space for community & cultural use.”

 

Following discussion it was AGREED to defer consideration of Motion No. 22 until an adjourned meeting of the County Council at 5.00p.m. on Thursday 15th October, 2015.

 

 

505.

Motion No. 23 CABINTEELY/KILLINEY/SALLYNOGGIN pdf icon PDF 52 KB

It was proposed by Councillor K. Gill and seconded by Councillor M. Halpin.

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

Specific Local Objective

Cabinteely/Killiney

New SLO: “To ensure that there should be no more than one large supermarket in any future developments along the Sallynoggin Road Lower”.

 

Following a discussion, Ms. M. Henchy, Director of Services responded to Members’  queries.

 

The Chief Executive’s Report was ACCEPTED.

 

 

506.

Pages 184 - 191

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 184 – 191 of the Chief Executive’s Report  was CONSIDERED.

 

“Policy RET7:   Convenience Shops i) – ii)

Policy RET9:  Non-Retail Uses i)

Policy RET10:  Retail Warehousing and Retail Parks i) – v)

3.2.3:  Additional Retail Floor Space i) - vi)”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 184 – 191 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

CHAPTER 4 - GREEN COUNTY STRATEGY

4.1: Landscape, Heritage and Biodiversity

507.

PAGES 195 - 199

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 195 – 199 of the  Chief Executive’s Report was  CONSIDERED.

 

“4.1.1: Introduction i) – ii)

4.1.2:  Landscape i)  - iv)

Policy LHB6:  Views and Prospects i) – iv)

Policy LHB7:  Coastal Zone Management and Dublin Bay i) – iii)”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 195 – 199 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

508.

Motiion No. 11 from the floor

Motion No. 11 from the floor in the names of Councillors D. Donnelly, Councillor C. Martin and Councillor O. Smyth. 

 

It was proposed by Councillor D. Donnelly and seconded by Councillor C. Martin.

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

To add a further additional policy after Policy LHB10:   Beaches as follows:-

 

“Policy LHB/11Dublin Bay Biosphere Reserve

It is Council policy to participate in and actively support the work of the Dublin Bay Biosphere Partnership.  In furtherance of this policy the Council aim to develop and implement a Biosphere work programme within the County in support of the work of the Dublin Bay Biosphere Partnership.

 

Biosphere Reserves are places where nature and people connect.   They are areas which are internationally recognised for their biological diversity yet also actively managed to promote a positive relationship between people and nature.   The Dublin Bay Biosphere Reserve is a special designation awarded by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation 9UNESCO).   Its is part of a global network of 651 Biosphere Reserves in 120 countries.  The Biosphere designation does not add or detract from the regulatory framework already in place for the Bay but is designed to assist stakeholders in finding sustainable solutions to the management of the Bay which ensure good outcomes for both people and nature.  The Biosphere is managed by the Dublin Bay Biosphere Partnership which includes Fingal County Council, Dublin City Council, Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council, Dublin Port, National Parks & Wildlife Service and local community groups and NGOs.  The partnership is working to promote the protection of habitats and species, to support education and research within the site and to support a sustainable economy for people living and working in the area all in accordance with the Habitats Directive.”

 

Following a discussion the Motion was AGREED.

 

 

509.

Pages 199 - 202

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 199 – 202 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

“Policy LHB8:  Development in the ‘Nearshore’ area i)

Policy LHB12:  Public Rights-of-Way i) – iii)

Policy LHB13:  Recreational Access Routes i)

Policy LHB15:  Trails, Hiking and Walking Routes i) – ii)”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 199 – 202 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

510.

Page 202 Policy LHB15: Trails, Hiking and Walking Routes iii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

iii) “Incorrect reference to Policy CC15 on page 101”.

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission. 

 

The error outlined in the submission is acknowledged.

 

Recommendation:

 

Change last line Policy LHB7 (p 101) from Policy CC15 to Policy CC16.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 202 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

511.

Page 202 - 209

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 202 – 209 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

“Policy LHB16:  Indicative Forestry Strategy i)

4.1.3:   Biodiversity

Policy LHB17:  Protection of Natural Heritage and the Environment i) -  v)

Policy LHB20:  Designated Sites i) -  ix)

Policy LHB21:  Non-Designated Areas of Biodiversity Importance i)

Policy LHB23:  Rivers and Waterways i)”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 202 – 209 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

512.

Motion No. 24 - SPECIAL AMENITY AREA pdf icon PDF 33 KB

It was proposed by Councillor C. Smyth and seconded by Councillor D. O’Callaghan.

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

To include under Policy LHB20 Designated Sites contained in page 204 of the CEO’s Report this Council will designate Mullins and Roches Hill candidates of a Special Amenity Area Order (SAAO).”

 

It was AGREED to defer consideration of Motion No. 24  to an adjourned meeting of the County Council at 5.00p.m. on  Thursday 15th October, 2015.     

 

 

513.

Pages 209 - 210 Policy LHB23: Rivers and Waterways ii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED.

 

ii)” Submission raises concerns relating to the lack of a review of the decision to culvert the Slang River prior to 2016.”

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED.

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission. 

 

“Under Section 8.2.9.7: New Development – Environmental Impacts,  of the Draft County Development Plan 2016 -2022 it is stated that the Planning Authority will:

 

  • Not permit culverting of streams unless considered absolutely necessary by the Council’s Water Services Section.”

 

It is considered that this section could be further strengthened by the addition of a bullet point relating to the opening up of streams that have been culverted.

 

Recommendation:

 

Addition of a further bullet point in section 8.2.9.7 after

 

“Not permit culverting of streams unless considered absolutely necessary by the Council’s Water Services Section” as follows:

 

“Encourage the opening up of existing culverts where practicable (in accordance with the recommendations of the GDSDS)”.

 

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED.

 

iii)”Submission proposes a complete replacement section for Policy LHB23: River and Waterways, which includes additional policies in relation to waterways.  New policy on rivers and waterways  addresses both navigable and non-navigable waterways, shorelines, streams and focuses on keeping them free from inappropriate development while at the same time increasing access to waterways”.

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED.

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission. 

 

Submission proposes a very lengthy replacement for Policy LHB23: Rivers and Waterways with a considerable emphasis being placed on facilitating public access to rivers - which may potentially have unintended consequences in relation to AA and SEA.  Submission recommends alternative replacement wording which would excise existing, and long established, guidance and protection in relation to evaluating development proposals in riparian corridors. 

 

The Chief Executive would not be in support of the changes proposed.  A total of 7 no. additional policies in relation to waterways are proposed - including improving rights of ways, access to waterways, providing linkages along and between river corridors and a policy on water sports etc.  Rights-of-Way are already comprehensively addressed in Policy LHB12. The development and promotion of water sports are likewise comprehensively addressed in existing Policy OSR 12.   Both policies are sufficiently robust and framed to ensure the objectives of the Council are satisfactorily addressed. 

 

However it is noted that existing policy LHB23 Rivers and Waterways refers to

 

river corridors” in the fourth line of the second pargraph. This should be changed to “riparian corridors”

 

Recommendation:

 

Amend Policy LHB23: Rivers and Waterways as follows:

Second paragraph, fourth line, change “river corridors” to “riparian corridors””.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 209 – 210 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

514.

Pages 210 - 211 Policy LHB23: Rivers and Waterways iv) - v)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 210 – 211 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 210 – 211 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

515.

Conflict of Interest

It was NOTED that Councillor B. Murphy declared an interest and excused himself from the Council Chamber for the duration of the discussion of this item.

 

 

516.

Pages 211 - 212 Policy LHB25: Geological Sites i) - ii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED.

 

i)”Submission requests that Table 4.1.3 Geological Sites, and Fig 4.12 of the SEA Report are updated to reflect the list of County Geological Sites identified by GSI in 2014”.

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission. 

 

The 2014 updates to the County Geological sites are acknowledged.  It was noted that the submission from the Geological Survey of Ireland included two additional sites, Murphytown Quarry and Carrickgolligan and omitted two sites currently on the list – Killiney Adit and Shankill.  Further correspondence with the GSI to ascertain why the two sites were to be omitted clarified that these two sites are already included in other sites, Killiney Adit is included in White Rock and Shankill is part of the Killiney Bay site.

 

Recommendation:

 

Update table 4.1.3 as per information submitted by Geological Survey Ireland (GSI).  Update SEA Report.

 

Update Policy LHB25 as follows:

 

Replace:

To date, sites of geological interest have not been comprehensively included under the existing nature conservation designations. The Geological Survey of Ireland, in partnership with the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) are now currently addressing the matter through the identification of the best Nationally significant geological and geomorphological sites for statutory designations as NHAs (National Heritage Areas). Other geological sites of National or local importance are being identified as County Geological Sites (CGS) and  - by virtue of their recognition in the County/City Development Plans - will be protected from potentially damaging developments through the Development Management system. The list of Geological Sites is set out in Table 4.1.3. The list has been prepared in conjunction with the Geological Survey of Ireland”

 

With:

To date, sites of geological interest have not been comprehensively included under the existing nature conservation designations. The Geological Survey of Ireland, in partnership with the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) are now currently addressing the matter through the identification of the best Nationally significant geological and geomorphological sites for statutory designations as NHAs (National Heritage Areas). Other geological sites of National or local importance are identified as County Geological Sites (CGS) and  - by virtue of their recognition in the County/City Development Plans - will be protected from potentially damaging developments through the Development Management system.

 

The Geological Survey of Ireland, in partnership with the Heritage Council and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council carried out an audit of County Geological Sites in 2014 as an action of the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown Heritage Plan 2013 – 2019.  The audit provides a reliable study of sites and replaces a provisional listing based on a desk top study that was contained in the previous County Development Plan 2010 – 2016. The revised list of Geological Sites is set out in Table 4.1.3

 

Add Murphystown Quarry and Carrickgolligan to Table 4.1.3. Remove White Rock and Killiney Adit.”

 

The following summary of submission  received  was CONSIDERED.

 

ii)”Submission requests that Policy LHB25: Geological Sites is amended to include ‘promote and conserve’ after ‘policy to protect’.”

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive agrees with this submission.

 

Recommendation:

 

On page 110 LHB 25: add the words “promote and preserve” after the word “protect”.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on pages 211 – 212 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

517.

Pages 212 - 213 Policy LHB25: Geological Sites iii) vii)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 212 – 213 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 212 – 213 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

518.

Pages 213 - 214 4.1.4: Heritage Policy LHB28: Heritage Plan : i) - ii)

The following summary of submission received  was CONSIDERED.

 

i)” Submission suggests new wording for Policy LHB28: Heritage Plan.  New wording relates to implementation, promotion and support of the aims and objectives of the Heritage Plan”.

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive notes the submission.

 

It is considered that the existing Policy LHB 28 adequately addresses implementation, support and promotion of the aims and objectives of the Heritage Plan.  However it is considered that reference should be made to some of the documents that were proposed as the result of actions outlined in the first Heritage Plan.

 

Recommendation:

 

It is recommended that the following be added to Policy LHB28: Heritage Plan:

 

The implementation of the Heritage Plans has resulted in the completion of a number of projects that increased the level of knowledge, awareness and understanding of the heritage of the County. Due regard should be given to these documents in any future development.

These include the:

·         Industrial Heritage Survey

·         Historic Landscape Character Assessments for Kiltiernan, Glencullen, Rathmichael, Old Conna, Barnacullia and Ballycorus

·         Survey of Coastal Architecture

·         Habitat Survey

·         Hedgerow Survey

·         Geological Heritage Survey

·         Dublin Uplands Archaeology Survey

·         Dalkey Islands Conservation Plan

Carrickmines Castle Conservation Plan (Draft).”

 

The following summary of submission received  was CONSIDERED.

 

ii)”Submission contends that the current Heritage Plan should be reviewed.”

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive notes the submission.

 

It is the intention of the Council to review the existing Heritage Plan prior to its expiry in 2019, if possible.

 

Recommendation:

 

Add ‘It is the intention of the Council to review the existing Heritage Plan prior to its expiry, if possible’ at the end of Policy LHB28: Heritage Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on pages 213 – 214 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

519.

Pages 214 - 219

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 214 – 219 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

“Policy LHB28:   Heritage Plan iii) – iv)

Policy LHB31:  Community Led Village Design Statements i)

Miscellaneous i) - viii)”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 214 – 219 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

520.

Page 219 Miscellaneous ix)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED.

 

ix)” Submission proposes numerous policy objectives effectivity based policies other City and County Development Plans from across the state”.

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission. 

 

The contents of this submission, including all the proposed changes outlined therein, have been considered.  The submission is an extremely lengthy submission with very detailed and specific changes proposed and cross-referenced to various other Local Authority County and City Development Plans across the State.  Some of the changes proposed have already been addressed within the specific policy sections above.  A number of other minor changes are recommended below.

 

However, in the preparation of the Draft Plan the Planning Authority would have examined best practice in terms of comparable policy from other plans and it is considered that the policies advanced in the Draft County Development Plan are appropriate and relevant to the particular spatial, economic and heritage context and characteristics of Dún Laoghaire- Rathdown as a County.  To suggest that the Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown County Development Plan should slavishly adopt and embrace wholesale, selective, policies and objectives from other parts of the State which differ fundamentally from Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown would be ill-conceived and inappropriate.

 

Recommendation:

 

·         Amend Policy LHB5: Historic Landscape Character Areas by inserting “and in the preparation of plans” after the word ‘proposals’ in the first line.

Policy LHB14 National Park.  Insert “to promote and” after the word ‘policy’ in first line.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 219 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

521.

Page 219 Miscellaneous x)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on the page 219 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 219 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

4.2 Open Space and Recreation

522.

Pages 221 - 222 4.2: Open Space and Recreation 4.2.1: Introduction i) - iii)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 221 – 222 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 221 – 222 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

523.

Motion No. 25 OPEN SPACE AND PARKS pdf icon PDF 62 KB

It was proposed by Councillor D. O’Callaghan and seconded by Councillor C. Smyth.

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

To include under Policy 4.2.2 Open Space and Parks contained in page 222 of the CEO’s Report this Council will review Shanganagh Park Master Plan to upgrade Shanganagh Park from Gateway to Regional status in the life time of this plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Report was ACCEPTED.

 

 

524.

Pages 222 - 229 4.2.2: Open Space and Parks

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 222 – 229 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

“Policy ORS4:  Future Improvements i) – ix)

Policy OSR6:  Allotments and Community Gardens i)

Policy OSR7:  Trees and Woodland i) - vi)”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 222 – 229 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

525.

Page 229 Policy OSR8: Greenways Network i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED.

 

i)     “Submission states that the remediation and improved landscaping of the landfill site in Bray would provide opportunities for:

·        The extension of the East Coast Cycle Route to Bray

Local walkways into the coastal area north of Bray Harbour”.

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The contents of this submission are noted by the Chief Executive.

 

The East Coast Trail Cycle Route – a National Strategic Route extending from Dundalk to Rosslare - is illustrated on the Draft Plan Maps and it is represented diagrammatically on Map 14 adjacent to the County boundary with Bray. The continuation of the representation of this route into Bray town itself would be the responsibility of Wicklow County Council.

 

As noted in Section 2 ‘Policy ST6 - County Cycle Network’ (iv) of this Report, the Chief Executive proposes to make a correction to the alignment of the National East Coast Cycle Trail as detailed on Map 14 as the alignment should continue to the County boundary.

 

Recommendation:

 

Amend the alignment of the National East Coast Cycle Trail on Map 14 to extend to the County boundary with Wicklow.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 229 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

526.

Pages 229 - 233

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 229 – 233 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

“Policy OSR8:   Greenways Network ii) – iii)

Policy OSR10:  Sports and Recreational Facilities i) – viii)”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 229 – 233 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

527.

Motion No. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and Motion No. 13 from the floor - PROTECTION OF SPORTS GROUNDS/FACILITIES; Pages 233 - 234 Policy OSR11: Protection of Sports Grounds/Facilitiesi) - ii) pdf icon PDF 55 KB

It was AGREED to take Motion Nos. 26, 27, 28, 29,30 and Motion No. 13 from the floor in the names of Councillor J. Madigan, Councillor D. Donnelly, Councillor C.  Martin, Councillor G. Horkan, Councillor B. Saul and Councillor M. Bailey with this item.

 

Motion No. 26

 

It was proposed by Councillor J. Madigan and seconded by Councillor B. Boyhan.

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

It is proposed that the following be added to paragraph “4.2.2.10 Policy OSR11: Protection of Sports Grounds/Facilities”.

 

“Given the Council’s policy to ensure that existing sports facilities and grounds within the established urban area are protected, retained and enhanced, it is recognised that development in the immediate environs of these facilities and grounds may have adverse implications for the achievement of this policy objective.  Where therefore development is proposed within 10m of such a facility/grounds there will be an obligation on the developer to undertake such protective measures, as are deemed necessary by the Council, to ensure that the subject development will not interfere with the operational capacity of the sports facility/sports ground to fulfil its recreational/amenity function.”

 

Motion No. 27

 

It was proposed by Councillor D. Donnelly and seconded by Councillor L. McCarthy.

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

Add the following to paragraph “4.2.2.10 Policy OSR11: Protection of Sports Grounds/Facilities”.

“Given the Council’s policy to ensure that existing sports facilities and grounds within the established urban area are protected, retained and enhanced, it is recognised that development in the immediate environs of these facilities and grounds may have adverse implications for the achievement of this policy objective.  Where therefore development is proposed within 10m of such a facility/grounds there will be an obligation on the developer to undertake such protective measures, as are deemed necessary by the Council, to ensure that the subject development will not interfere with the operational capacity of the sports facility/sports ground to fulfil its recreational/amenity function.”

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive does not agree with this Motion.

 

It is considered that the Draft Plan, as currently crafted, already provides for ample protection of existing sports grounds and sports facilities – such as golf courses – across the entire County.

 

Policy OSR11: Protection of Sports Grounds/Facilities, already unequivocally states, “It is Council policy to ensure that adequate playing fields for formal active recreation are provided in new development areas and that existing sports facilities and grounds within the established urban area are protected, retained and enhanced.” This is a very clear and unambiguous policy statement regarding these facilities.

 

To that end, it is considered that the additional proviso regarding development proposed within 10 metres of such a facility/grounds, as sought by the Motion, is already provided for in the Draft Plan in Development Management Section 8.3.2 Transitional Zonal Areas, which states:

 

“The maps of the County Development Plan show the boundaries between zones. While the zoning objectives and development management standards indicate the different uses and densities, etc. permitted in each zone, it is important to avoid abrupt transitions in scale and use in the boundary areas of adjoining land use zones. In dealing with development proposals in these contiguous transitional zonal areas, it is necessary to avoid developments which would be detrimental to the amenities of the more environmentally sensitive zone. For instance, in zones abutting ‘residential areas’ or abutting residential development within mixed-use zones, particular attention must be paid to the use, scale and density of development proposals in order to protect the amenities of these residential properties.”

 

The above Section of the Draft Plan clearly indicates that when ‘developers/applicants’ are preparing planning applications, they need to avoid abrupt transitions in scale and use in the boundary areas of adjoining land use zones. Section 8.3.2 goes on to further contextualise and amplify “that in contiguous zonal areas, it is necessary to avoid developments which would be detrimental to the amenities of the more environmentally sensitive zone.”

 

In this regard it is considered that the provisions of Policy OSR11 and the Transitional Zonal Areas set out in Section 8.3.2 already ensures that sports grounds/facilities are more than adequately protected and safeguarded throughout the Draft Plan. The additional narrative proposed by the Motion is considered neither necessary nor warranted.

 

Recommendation:

 

No change to Draft Plan”.

 

Motion No. 28

 

It was proposed by Councillor C. Martin and seconded by Councillor O. Smyth

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

 

That the following text be added to paragraph 4.2.2.10 policy OSR11: Protection of Sports Grounds Facilities

 

"Given the Council's policy to ensure that existing sports facilities and grounds within the established urban area are protected, retained and enhanced, it is recognised that development in the immediate environs of these facilities and grounds may have adverse implications for the achievement of this policy objective. Where therefore development is proposed within 10m of such a facility/grounds there will be an obligation on the developer to undertake such protective measures, as are deemed necessary by the Council, to ensure that the subject development will not interfere with the operational capacity of the facility/sports ground to fulfil its recreational/amenity function."

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive does not agree with this Motion.

 

It is considered that the Draft Plan, as currently crafted, already provides for ample protection of existing sports grounds and sports facilities – such as golf courses – across the entire County.

 

Policy OSR11: Protection of Sports Grounds/Facilities, already unequivocally states, “It is Council policy to ensure that adequate playing fields for formal active recreation are provided in new development areas and that existing sports facilities and grounds within the established urban area are protected, retained and enhanced.” This is a very clear and unambiguous policy statement regarding these facilities.

 

To that end, it is considered that the additional proviso regarding development proposed within 10 metres of such a facility/grounds, as sought by the Motion, is already provided for in the Draft Plan in Development Management Section 8.3.2 Transitional Zonal Areas, which states:

 

“The maps of the County Development Plan show the boundaries between zones. While the zoning objectives and development management standards indicate the different uses and densities, etc. permitted in each zone, it is important to avoid abrupt transitions in scale and use in the boundary areas of adjoining land use zones. In dealing with development proposals in these contiguous transitional zonal areas, it is necessary to avoid developments which would be detrimental to the amenities of the more environmentally sensitive zone. For instance, in zones abutting ‘residential areas’ or abutting residential development within mixed-use zones, particular attention must be paid to the use, scale and density of development proposals in order to protect the amenities of these residential properties.”

 

The above Section of the Draft Plan clearly indicates that when ‘developers/applicants’ are preparing planning applications, they need to avoid abrupt transitions in scale and use in the boundary areas of adjoining land use zones. Section 8.3.2 goes on to further contextualise and amplify “that in contiguous zonal areas, it is necessary to avoid developments which would be detrimental to the amenities of the more environmentally sensitive zone.”

 

In this regard it is considered that the provisions of Policy OSR11 and the Transitional Zonal Areas set out in Section 8.3.2 already ensures that sports grounds/facilities are more than adequately protected and safeguarded throughout the Draft Plan. The additional narrative proposed by the Motion is considered neither necessary nor warranted.

 

Recommendation:

 

No change to Draft Plan”.

 

Motion No. 29

 

 

It was proposed by Councillor G. Horkan and seconded by Councillor C. Delvin.

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

Given the Council’s policy to ensure that existing sports facilities and grounds within the established urban area are protected, retained and enhanced, it is recognised that development in the immediate environs of these facilities and grounds may have adverse implications for the achievement of this policy objective.  Where therefore development is proposed within 10m of such a facility/grounds there will be an obligation on the developer to undertake such protective measures, as are deemed necessary by the Council, to ensure that the subject development will not interfere with the operational capacity of the sports facility/sports ground to fulfil its recreational/amenity function.”

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive does not agree with this Motion.

 

It is considered that the Draft Plan, as currently crafted, already provides for ample protection of existing sports grounds and sports facilities – such as golf courses – across the entire County.

 

Policy OSR11: Protection of Sports Grounds/Facilities, already unequivocally states, “It is Council policy to ensure that adequate playing fields for formal active recreation are provided in new development areas and that existing sports facilities and grounds within the established urban area are protected, retained and enhanced.” This is a very clear and unambiguous policy statement regarding these facilities.

 

To that end, it is considered that the additional proviso regarding development proposed within 10 metres of such a facility/grounds, as sought by the Motion, is already provided for in the Draft Plan in Development Management Section 8.3.2 Transitional Zonal Areas, which states:

 

“The maps of the County Development Plan show the boundaries between zones. While the zoning objectives and development management standards indicate the different uses and densities, etc. permitted in each zone, it is important to avoid abrupt transitions in scale and use in the boundary areas of adjoining land use zones. In dealing with development proposals in these contiguous transitional zonal areas, it is necessary to avoid developments which would be detrimental to the amenities of the more environmentally sensitive zone. For instance, in zones abutting ‘residential areas’ or abutting residential development within mixed-use zones, particular attention must be paid to the use, scale and density of development proposals in order to protect the amenities of these residential properties.”

 

The above Section of the Draft Plan clearly indicates that when ‘developers/applicants’ are preparing planning applications, they need to avoid abrupt transitions in scale and use in the boundary areas of adjoining land use zones. Section 8.3.2 goes on to further contextualise and amplify “that in contiguous zonal areas, it is necessary to avoid developments which would be detrimental to the amenities of the more environmentally sensitive zone.”

 

In this regard it is considered that the provisions of Policy OSR11 and the Transitional Zonal Areas set out in Section 8.3.2 already ensures that sports grounds/facilities are more than adequately protected and safeguarded throughout the Draft Plan. The additional narrative proposed by the Motion is considered neither necessary nor warranted.

 

Recommendation:

 

No change to Draft Plan”.

 

Motion No. 30

 

It was proposed by Councillor B. Saul and seconded by Councillor M. Baker.

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

· It is proposed that the following be added to paragraph 4.2.2.10 Policy OSR11: Protection of Sports Grounds/Facilities.

 

Given the Council’s policy to ensure that existing sports facilities and grounds within the established urban area are protected, retained and enhanced, it is recognised that development in the immediate environs of these facilities and grounds may have adverse implications for the achievement of this policy objective.  Where therefore development is proposed within 10m of such a facility/grounds there will be an obligation on the developer to undertake such protective measures, as are deemed necessary by the Council, to ensure that the subject development will not interfere with the operational capacity of the sports facility/sports ground to fulfil its recreational/amenity function.”

 

The following response and recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive does not agree with this Motion.

 

It is considered that the Draft Plan, as currently crafted, already provides for ample protection of existing sports grounds and sports facilities – such as golf courses – across the entire County.

 

Policy OSR11: Protection of Sports Grounds/Facilities, already unequivocally states, “It is Council policy to ensure that adequate playing fields for formal active recreation are provided in new development areas and that existing sports facilities and grounds within the established urban area are protected, retained and enhanced.” This is a very clear and unambiguous policy statement regarding these facilities.

 

To that end, it is considered that the additional proviso regarding development proposed within 10 metres of such a facility/grounds, as sought by the Motion, is already provided for in the Draft Plan in Development Management Section 8.3.2 Transitional Zonal Areas, which states:

 

“The maps of the County Development Plan show the boundaries between zones. While the zoning objectives and development management standards indicate the different uses and densities, etc. permitted in each zone, it is important to avoid abrupt transitions in scale and use in the boundary areas of adjoining land use zones. In dealing with development proposals in these contiguous transitional zonal areas, it is necessary to avoid developments which would be detrimental to the amenities of the more environmentally sensitive zone. For instance, in zones abutting ‘residential areas’ or abutting residential development within mixed-use zones, particular attention must be paid to the use, scale and density of development proposals in order to protect the amenities of these residential properties.”

 

The above Section of the Draft Plan clearly indicates that when ‘developers/applicants’ are preparing planning applications, they need to avoid abrupt transitions in scale and use in the boundary areas of adjoining land use zones. Section 8.3.2 goes on to further contextualise and amplify “that in contiguous zonal areas, it is necessary to avoid developments which would be detrimental to the amenities of the more environmentally sensitive zone.”

 

In this regard it is considered that the provisions of Policy OSR11 and the Transitional Zonal Areas set out in Section 8.3.2 already ensures that sports grounds/facilities are more than adequately protected and safeguarded throughout the Draft Plan. The additional narrative proposed by the Motion is considered neither necessary nor warranted.

 

Recommendation:

 

No change to Draft Plan”.

 

Motion No. 13 from the floor

 

It was proposed by Councillor  M. Bailey and seconded by Councillor J. Madigan  Councillor M. Baker, Councillor J. Bailey and Councillor B. Saul.

 

“To add the following text after last line.

 

“that any lands abutting established sporting grounds that are seeking to develop, ensure that they protect their property from any stray objects from such sporting lands”.”

 

Following a discussion, Mr. D. Irvine, Senior Planner responded to Members’ queries.

 

It was proposed by Councillor M. Bailey and AGREED to WITHDRAW   Motion No.  13  from the floor.

 

Following discussion motion Nos. 26, 27, 28 29 and 30 were PUT.  A roll call vote was then called for which resulted as follows:

 

COUNCILLORS:

FOR

AGAINST

ABSTAINED

Bailey, John F.

?

 

 

Bailey, Maria

?

 

 

Baker, Marie

?

 

 

Boyhan, Victor

?

 

 

Brennan, Shay

?

 

 

Cuffe, Jennifer

 

 

 

Curran, Chris

 

?

 

Daly, Kevin

?

 

 

Devlin, Cormac

?

 

 

Dockery, Liam

?

 

 

Donnelly, Deirdre

?

 

 

Fayne, Mary

 

 

?

Feeney, Kate

?

 

 

Gill, Karl

?

 

 

Halpin, Melisa

?

 

 

Hanafin, Mary

?

 

 

Hand, Pat

?

 

 

Horkan, Gerry

?

 

 

Kingston, Deirdre

 

?

 

Lewis, Hugh

?

 

 

Madigan, Josepha

?

 

 

Martin, Catherine

?

 

 

McCarthy, Lettie

?

 

 

McGovern, Lynsey

?

 

 

McKinney, Carron

?

 

 

Merrigan, Michael

?

 

 

Murphy, Brian

?

 

 

Murphy, Tom

?

 

 

NicCormaic, Sorcha

 

?

 

O’Brien, Peter

 

?

 

O’Brien, Shane

?

 

 

O’Callaghan, Denis

 

?

 

O’Neill, Seamas

?

 

 

Richmond, Neale

?

 

 

Saul, Barry

?

 

 

Smyth, Carrie

 

?

 

Smyth, Ossian

?

 

 

Stewart, Patricia

?

 

 

Tallon, Grace

 

?

 

Ward, Barry

?

 

 

TOTAL:

31

7

1

 

 

AnCathaoirleach, Councillor B. Saul, declared the Motions CARRIED.  

 

 

As the above motions were CARRIED The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 233 – 234  of the Chief Executive’s Report were DEFEATED.

 

528.

Motion No. 31 - FOXROCK GOLF CLUB pdf icon PDF 44 KB

It was proposed by Councillor B. Saul and seconded by Councillor M. Bailey.

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 12 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

To insert a SLO on page 248 Map 6 – To protect and support the continuation of Foxrock Golf Club as a local community centred sporting amenity in the heart of Foxrock.”

 

The report of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED.

 

Following a discussion, Mr. L. Walsh, Senior Executive Planner responded to Members’ queries.

 

Motion No. 31 was PUT. A roll call vote was then called for which resulted as follows:

 

COUNCILLORS:

FOR

AGAINST

ABSTAINED

Bailey, John F.

?

 

 

Bailey, Maria

?

 

 

Baker, Marie

 

?

 

Boyhan, Victor

 

 

 

Brennan, Shay

?

 

 

Cuffe, Jennifer

 

 

 

Curran, Chris

 

?

 

Daly, Kevin

 

?

 

Devlin, Cormac

?

 

 

Dockery, Liam

?

 

 

Donnelly, Deirdre

?

 

 

Fayne, Mary

 

?

 

Feeney, Kate

 

?

 

Gill, Karl

 

?

 

Halpin, Melisa

 

?

 

Hanafin, Mary

?

 

 

Hand, Pat

?

 

 

Horkan, Gerry

?

 

 

Kingston, Deirdre

 

?

 

Lewis, Hugh

 

?

 

Madigan, Josepha

?

 

 

Martin, Catherine

?

 

 

McCarthy, Lettie

 

 

 

McGovern, Lynsey

?

 

 

McKinney, Carron

 

?

 

Merrigan, Michael

 

?

 

Murphy, Brian

?

 

 

Murphy, Tom

 

?

 

Nic Cormaic, Sorcha

 

?

 

O’Brien, Peter

 

?

 

O’Brien, Shane

 

?

 

O’Callaghan, Denis

 

?

 

O’Neill, Seamas

?

 

 

Richmond, Neale

?

 

 

Saul, Barry

?

 

 

Smyth, Carrie

 

?

 

Smyth, Ossian

?

 

 

Stewart, Patricia

 

?

 

Tallon, Grace

 

?

 

Ward, Barry

?

 

 

TOTAL:

18

19

0

 

An Cathaoirleach Councillor B. Saul declared the Motion DEFEATED.

 

 

529.

Conclusion of meeting

The meeting concluded at 10.15 p.m.

 

 

530.

Adjournment of Meeting

It was AGREED to adjourn the meeting to Thursday 15th October, 2015 at 4.30 p.m.