Agenda and minutes

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

Items
No. Item

530.

Motion No. 22 SLO Dundrum Town Centre

It was AGREED to take Motion No. 22 with an amended report at this time.

 

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.”

 

The following report of the Chief Executive a copy of which was circulated to the Members, was CONSIDERED:

 

TheChiefExecutive’sagreeswiththesentimentsofthisMotion,butnot,however,the specificwording.

Arangeofuseswouldbe PermittedinPrinciple’withinthisMajorTownCentresite.

 

Inorderto ensurethata rangeofnon-retailusesisprovidedforwithinanyfutureredevelopment,theChiefExecutiverecommendsthefollowingalternativeSLO:

 

ThatanyfutureredevelopmentofDundrumVillage Centre(Phase2)shallprovideforandretaina rangeofcomplementarynon-retailusesincluding- butnotlimitedto - employment,restaurant,leisure,entertainment,cultural,community,andcivicuses– to supplementthosealreadyprovidedforwithinthewiderDundrumTownCentre.

 

Theabovewordingincorporatesan ObjectivefromthepreviousDundrumUrban FrameworkPlanandSection1.3.4.10Dundrum(bullet9) oftheDraftPlan,andalsois fullyalignedwith:

      PolicyRES2:GDARetailStrategywhichstatesthescaleandnatureofretailwithinMTCsshouldintegrateleisure,entertainmentandculturalfacilities

      Table3.2.1,PolicyRET3:RetailHeirarchywhichstatesthatDundrumPhase2 shouldincludeand appropriatelevel of  complementarynon-retail uses  and activitiese.g.recreational,entertainment,cultural’

      PolicyRET4:MajorTownCentreswhichalsostatesthereshouldbe arangeof complementaryleisure,entertainmentandculturalfacilities.

 

 

Section1.3.4.10:Dundrum,statesthata LocalAreaPlanforDundrumwill beprepared.ItisconsideredthatthisLAPprocesscouldalsobe usedas anadditionalmechanismto identifya consideredandbalancedsuiteofusesto beaccommodatedwithinthesitein question”.

The following recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

Itisrecommendedthatsubjectto theapprovaloftheCouncil,thefollowingresolutionbe passed:

 

“ThatthePlanningAuthoritypursuantto Section12 (6)ofthePlanning& DevelopmentAct2000 resolvesto amendtheDraftDevelopmentPlanas follows:

AnewSLOisinsertedontoMap to state:

 

ThatanyfutureredevelopmentofDundrumVillage Centre(Phase2)shallprovideforandretaina rangeofcomplementarynon-retailusesincluding- butnotlimitedto - employment,restaurant,leisure,entertainment,cultural,community,andcivicuses– to supplementthatalreadyprovidedforwithinthewiderDundrumTownCentre.””

 

The Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED.

 

 

531.

Motion No. 24 - Special Amenity Area

It was AGREED to take Motion No. 24 with an amended report at this time.

 

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:

 

ToincludeunderPolicyLHB20DesignatedSitescontainedin page204 oftheCEOsReportthisCouncilwilldesignateMullinsandRochesHillcandidatesofa SpecialAmenityAreaOrder(SAAO).

The following report of the Chief Executive a copy of which was circulated to the Members’, was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive does not agree with this motion.

 

APlanningAuthoritymay makea SpecialAmenityAreaOrder(SAAO)declaringa specifiedareato beofspecialamenityby reasonofitsoutstandingbeauty,specialrecreationalvalueortheneedfornatureconservation.Suchan Ordermaystatethe PlanningAuthority’sobjectivesregardingthepreservationorenhancementofthe characterorspecialfeaturesofthearea,includingobjectivesforthepreventionorlimitationofdevelopmentin it.

 

Table4.1.2oftheDraftCountyDevelopmentPlanlistsDalkeyCoastalZoneandKillineyHillas aproposedNaturalHeritageArea.ThisincludesMullinsHillandRochesHill.NHAsaredesignatedforimportanthabitatsandspeciesofplantsandanimalsand include sites,whichareconsideredto beofnationalimportancefor nature conservation.Thissitehasbeendesignatedforitsgeologicalandbiologicaldiversity.

 

 

SAAOscanpotentiallybe usefulincontrollingdevelopmentinsensitiveareasoutsideof publiccontrol,wheredevelopmentproposalsandplanningapplicationsmay beadvancedby land owners.  However,by contrasta verylargeproportion of the areaofRochesand MullinsHillisactuallyintheownershipof,andmaintainedby,theCountyCouncil.Indeed,theParksDepartmentpublisheda DraftRochesHillManagementPlan2013 - 2017inOctober2012.ThatDraftManagementPlansetsouta seriesofspecificmanagementproposalsforRochesHillthatwould,inessence,besimilarto thetypeof objectivesthatwouldbe includedina SAAO.

 

GiventhatthelandsinquestionareeffectivelyinCouncilcontrolandthatManagementPlansandproposalsforthesitesareprogressivelybeingintroducedforthesitesthe preparationofan SAAOwouldrepresentunnecessaryduplicationandalsoconsiderablecost.Itisconsideredthattherewouldbenodiscernablebenefitwithregardto conservationandenhancementofthecharacterofthearea– whichisalreadyadequatelysecuredas aresultoftheCouncilsownershipandcontrolofthelands,in conjunctionwiththeirproposedNaturalHeritageAreadesignation”.

 

The following recommendation of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

Itisrecommendedthatsubjectto theapprovaloftheCouncil,thefollowingresolutionbe passed:

“ThatthePlanningAuthoritypursuantto Section12 (6)ofthePlanning& DevelopmentAct2000 resolvesto amendtheDraftDevelopmentPlanas follows:

 

Amend the wording of SLO 78 Map 7 to read as follows;

 

Topreparea ManagementPlanforKillineyHillParktoincludetheareacomprisingtheentirepNHAofKilliney, DalkeyHillandRoches/MullinsHillinconsultationandliaisonwiththeNationalParksand Wildlife Service.

 

Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: þÿ

 

Following a discussion, in which Councillor D. O’Callaghan requested the Chief Executive to write to the National Parks and Wildlife Services in this regard. 

 

The Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED.

 

 

PAGE 234 CHAPTER 4 GREEN COUNTY STRATEGY - POLICY OSR12: WATER-BASED SPORTS

532.

Motion No. 32 - Harbour pdf icon PDF 67 KB

It was proposed by Councillor J. Madigan, seconded by Councillor J. Bailey and AGREED TO WITHDRAW Motion No. 32.

 

“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 Protect Dún Laoghaire as an outstanding recreational harbour and sporting amenity of national significance.

 

‘Add further Policy after Policy OSR12 as follows:’

 

“It is the policy of the council to protect and enhance the water based recreational amenity of Dun Laoghaire Harbour and its ability to host national and international competitions.

 

Any commercial shipping proposals within the Harbour should be required to ensure that there is no material detrimental impact upon the water based recreational amenity facilities of the Harbour and its ability to host national and international competitions. “

 

Reason:

 

It is noted that the draft Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown County Development Plan includes a number of polices which relate to water based sports and recreation, including the following:

 

“Policy OSR12: Water-Based Sports

It is Council policy to support and encourage waterbased sports and maritime leisure activities along the coast subject to Beach Bye-Laws. The County features seventeen kilometres of coastline, which is a valuable asset. If utilised to its full potential it can contribute to the health and wellbeing of the residents of, and workers, in the County and can also offer significant potential for tourism growth”.

 

The sub-text to Policy OSR12 states that:

 

“It is recognised that the development of improved facilities for sailing and other water-based sports are important for the revitalisation of Dún Laoghaire Harbour and the other harbours along the coast of the County. The Council will support such water-based uses and activities in the harbours and along the coastline, with an emphasis on those that cater for a broader spectrum of the population”.

 

However, the Draft County Development Plan does not include any policies or objectives which seek to ensure that these water based recreational and sporting facilities of national significance at Dun Laoghaire Harbour are protected and not significantly impacted upon by future commercial development in Dún Laoghaire Harbour.

 

The importance of the incorporation of such policies in the County Development Plan to protect water based recreational and sports facilities, including sailing, in Dún Laoghaire Harbour is highlighted by the recently publish proposals for very large scale commercial cruise liner berthing facility in the centre of the Harbour. Such a proposal for a commercial cruise liner and berthing facilities in the harbour, designed to accommodate extremely large commercial ships, has the potential to seriously undermine the existing water based sporting and recreational facilities at the harbour and in particular sailing. 

 

The Dún Laoghaire Rathdown County Development Plan 2016 – 2022 should explicitly recognise that development to facilitate commercial shipping operations in the harbour should only be considered where they do not materially diminish the water based recreational amenity and compromise the value of the harbour, which is an important national sporting asset, and it’s ability to continue host national and international events.

 

In addition the County Development Plan should recognise that the nearby Dublin Port is capable of fully meeting the commercial shipping needs of the city and region, including berthing facilities for very large commercial cruise ships, in accordance with the Dublin Port Masterplan and in accordance with the National Ports Policy.

 

The national significance of Dún Laoghaire as an outstanding recreational harbour and sporting amenity should not be permitted to be seriously diminished or eroded by inappropriate large scale commercial shipping proposals such as a very large scale commercial cruise ship berth in the centre of the Harbour.”

 

 

533.

Motion No. 33 - Harbour pdf icon PDF 68 KB

It was proposed by Councillor V. Boyhan 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:

 

New Policy (Dún Laoghaire Harbour)

 

Proposal: That, a new Policy be included after policy OSRI 2 as follows: "To Protect Dún Laoghaire as an outstanding recreational harbour and sporting amenity of national significance. It is the policy of the council to protect and enhance the water based recreational amenity of Dun Laoghaire Harbour and its ability to host national and international competitions.

 

Any commercial shipping proposals within the Harbour should be required to ensure that there is no material detrimental impact upon the water based recreational amenity facilities of the Harbour and its ability to host national and international competitions".

 

Reason:

 

It is noted that the Draft Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan includes a number of polices which relate to water based sports and recreation, including the following:

 

"Policy OSR12: Water-Based Sports

"It is Council policy to support and encourage waterbased sports and maritime leisure activities along the coast subject to Beach Bye-Laws. The County features seventeen kilometres of coastline, which is a valuable asset. If utilised to its full potential it can contribute to the health and well­ being of the residents of, and workers, in the County and can also offer significant potential for tourism growth".

 

The sub-text to Policy OSR12 states that:

“It is recognised that the development of improved facilities for sailing and other water-based sports are important for the revitalisation of Dún Laoghaire Harbour and the other harbours along the coast of the County. The Council will support such water-based uses and activities in the harbours and along the coastline, with an emphasis on those that cater for a broader spectrum of the population".

 

However, the Draft County Development Plan does not include any policies or objectives which seek to ensure that these water based recreational and sporting facilities of national significance at Dún Laoghaire Harbour are protected and not significantly impacted upon by future commercial development in Dún Laoghaire Harbour.

 

The importance of the incorporation of such policies in the County Development Plan to protect water based recreational and sports facilities, including sailing, in Dún Laoghaire Harbour is highlighted by the recently published proposals for very large scale commercial cruise liner berthing facility in the centre of the Harbour. Such a proposal for a commercial cruise liner and berthing facilities in the harbour, designed to accommodate extremely large commercial ships, has the potential to seriously undermine the existing water based sporting and recreational facilities at the harbour and in particular sailing.

 

It is respectfully submitted that the Dún Laoghaire - Rathdown County Development Plan 2016-2022 should explicitly recognise that development to facilitate commercial shipping operations in the harbour should only be considered where they do not materially diminish the water based recreational amenity and compromise the value of the harbour, which is an important national sporting asset and its ability to continue to host national and international events.

 

It is further submitted that the County Development Plan should recognise that the nearby Dublin Port is capable of fully meeting the commercial shipping needs of the city and region, including berthing facilities for very large commercial cruise ships, in accordance with the Dublin Port Masterplan and in accordance with the National Ports Policy.

 

The national significance of Dún Laoghaire as an outstanding recreational harbour and sporting amenity should not be permitted to be seriously diminished or eroded by inappropriate large scale commercial shipping proposals such as a very large scale commercial cruise ship berth in the centre of the Harbour.”

 

The report of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED.

 

Following a discussion, Ms. M. Henchy, Director of Services responded to Members’ queries, Motion No. 33 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:

22

13

1

 

AnCathaoirleach, Councillor B. Saul declared the Motion CARRIED.

 

 

534.

Motion No 34 Harbour and Motion No. 2 from the floor pdf icon PDF 61 KB

Additional documents:

It was proposed by Councillor J. Bailey, seconded by Councillor M. Bailey and AGREED TO WITHDRAW Motion No. 34

 

“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 new Policy after policy OSR12 as follows:

 

To Protect Dun Laoghaire as an outstanding recreational harbour and sporting

amenity of national significance.

 

It is the policy of the Council to protect and enhance the water based recreational amenity of Dun Laoghaire Harbour and its ability to host national and international competitions. Any commercial shipping proposals within the Harbour should be required to ensure that there is no material detrimental impact upon the water based recreational amenity facilities of the Harbour and its ability to host national and international competitions.”

 

Motion No. 2 from the floor.

 

It was proposed by Councillor J. Bailey seconded by Councillor C. Devlin and AGREED to WITHDRAW Motion No. 2 from the floor.

 

“ThatthisPlanningAuthoritypursuantto Section12 ofthePlanning& DevelopmentAct, 2000(as amended)resolvestoamendtheDraftCountyDevelopmentPlanas follows:

 

Add new Policy after Policy OSR12 as follows:

"ToProtectDúnLaoghaireasanoutstandingrecreationalharbourandsportingamenityofnationalsignificance.

It is thepolicyofthecouncilto protectandenhancethewaterbasedrecreationalamenityofDunLaoghaireHarbouranditsability tohostnationalandinternationalcompetitions.AnycommercialshippingproposalswithintheHarbourshouldbe requiredto ensurethatthereisnomaterialdetrimentalimpactupon thewaterbasedrecreationalamenityfacilitiesofthe Harbouranditsabilityto hostnationaland internationalcompetitions.Furthermoreanydevelopmentwithintheharbourshouldnotincludeprivateresidential."

 

 

535.

Motion No. 14 from the floor and Amendment

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

 

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

 

In section 4.2.2.11 (page 118) – Policy OSR12 – Water Based Sports that, after the words ‘subject to Beach Bye-Laws’, insert ‘and, where applicable Harbour Bye-Laws.”

 

Reason:

 

The amendment seeks to reinstate the specific intention of the section i.e. ‘to support and encourage water-based sports and maritime leisure activities along the coast’ which, of course, must include our entire 17km of coastline and its beaches and harbours.

Also, the amendment necessarily takes regard of the National Ports Policy

 

Following discussion it was proposed by Councillor B. Ward and seconded by Councillor M. Merrigan

 

to substitute the following motion ‘In Section 4.2.2.11 (page 118) – Policy OSR12 – Water Based Sports that, for the words “subject to Council Bye-Laws.”

 

The amended Motion was AGREED.

 

 

536.

Pages 234 - 238

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on Pages 234 – 238 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

“Policy OSR1.2:   Water-Based Sport i) – vi)

 

Policy OSR13: Play Facilities i)

 

Miscellaneous i) – v)”

 

The Response and Recommendations on pages 234-238 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

CHAPTER 5. PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE STRATEGY

537.

Page 241 - 243 5.1.1 Water Supply and Wastewater

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on Pages 241 – 243 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

“5.1.1:   Water Supply and Wastewater i) – iii)

 

Policy E11:   Water supply and Appropriate Assessment i) – ii)”

 

The Response and Recommendations on Pages 241 - 243 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

538.

Pages 244 - 245 Policy EIS: Water Supply and Wastewater i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)“Submission states that all new developments should have dual water supply systems installed requiring rain water storage for non-drinking water.”

 

The following response of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission.”

 

“It should be noted Policy EI5: Water Supply and Wastewater (Section 5.1.1.5), of the Draft Plan states:

 

“It is Council Policy to promote the advancement of grey water harvesting systems and other water conservation measures in the County.”

 

In addition, it is Council policy that all development proposals incorporate Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) that are consistent with the Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study. Development will only be permitted where the Council is satisfied that suitable measures have been considered that balance the impact of urban drainage through the achievement of control of run-off quantity and quality, and enhances amenity and habitat.  In particular the requirements of the ‘SUDS Manual’ by the UK's Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) shall be followed unless specifically exempted by Council.

 

The use of water from non-potable sources such as recycled greywater and rainwater-harvesting is regarded as a SuDS component and is encouraged where practicable, and appropriate. However, the introduction of piped non-potable water, such as rainwater and greywater, into buildings involves potentially serious issues for public health and risk of contamination of the public water supply both within the premises and in the public network. For this reason, it is essential that water reuse systems are properly regulated.  This is recognised within the Water Services Acts (2007 – 2014) - Section 56 (14) which gives the Minister powers to introduce such regulation, which has not been done to date.

 

Therefore it is considered premature to introduce a mandatory requirement for greywater re-use systems or rainwater harvesting systems in advance of Ministerial regulation. However, the Chief Executive recognises that both greywater re-use systems and rainwater harvesting systems should be supported within the Draft Plan and therefore recommends the change highlighted below.

 

Recommendation:

 

Delete the last sentence within Policy EI5 which states:

 

“In addition, it is Council Policy to promote the advancement of grey water harvesting systems and other water conservation measures in the County.”

 

Replace with:

 

“In addition, it is Council Policy to promote the advancement of greywater re-use systems and rain water harvesting systems and other water conservation measures in the County, in accordance with best practice and subject to compliance with Ministerial Guidelines/Regulations.””

 

The above recommendations on Pages 244 - 245 of  the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

539.

Pages 245 - 246 Policy EI5: Water Supply and Wastewater ii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

ii) “Submission states that the practical and cost implications of domestic implementations of grey water harvesting systems technology are not tested or resolved.  The submission requests Council to await Central Government guidance before setting policy.”

 

The following response of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“The Chief Executive agrees with the sentiment of this submission”.

 

It should be noted that Policy EI5: Water Supply and Wastewater, of the Draft Plan states:

 

“It is Council Policy to promote the advancement of grey water harvesting systems and other water conservation measures in the County”

 

In addition, it is Council policy that all development proposals incorporate Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) that are consistent with the Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study. Development will only be permitted where the Council is satisfied that suitable measures have been considered that balance the impact of urban drainage through the achievement of control of run-off quantity and quality, and enhances amenity and habitat.  In particular the requirements of the ‘SUDS Manual’ by the UK's Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) shall be followed unless specifically exempted by Council.

 

The use of water from non-potable sources such as recycled greywater and rainwater-harvesting is regarded as a SuDS component and is encouraged where practicable, and appropriate. However, the introduction of piped non-potable water, such as rainwater and greywater, into buildings involves potentially serious issues for public health and risk of contamination of the public water supply both within the premises and in the public network. For this reason, it is essential that water reuse systems are properly regulated.  This is recognised within the Water Services Acts (2007 – 2014) - Section 56 (14) which gives the Minister powers to introduce such regulation, which has not been done to date.

 

Therefore it is considered premature to introduce a mandatory requirement for greywater re-use systems or rainwater harvesting systems in advance of Ministerial regulation. However, the Chief Executive recognises that both greywater re-use systems and rainwater harvesting systems should be supported within the Draft Plan and therefore recommends the change highlighted below.

 

Delete the last sentence within Policy EI5 which states:

 

“In addition, it is Council Policy to promote the advancement of grey water harvesting systems and other water conservation measures in the County.”

 

Replace with:

 

“In addition, it is Council Policy to promote the advancement of greywater re-use systems and rain water harvesting systems and other water conservation measures in the County, in accordance with best practice and subject to compliance with Ministerial Guidelines/Regulations””.

 

The above recommendations on Pages 245 – 246 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

540.

Pages 246 - 253 - Policy E18: Sustainable Drainage Systems

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 246 -253 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

“Policy E18:   Sustainable Drainage Systems i) – ii)

Policy E111:  Water Services Investment Programme i) – iii)

5.1.2:  Waste Management

Policy E114:  Private Waste Companies i)

5.1.3 Pollution

Policy E120:  Air and Noise Pollution i)

Policy E122:  Water Pollution i) – ii)”

 

The recommendations on Pages 246 – 253 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

541.

Motion Nos . 35, 36 and Motion No. 20 from the floor SLO RATHMICHAEL pdf icon PDF 67 KB

It was proposed by Councillor M. 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:

 

To remove SLO 126 Rathmichael from the development plan Page 412.”

 

The report of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED.

 

Following a discussion, Mr. D. Irvine, Senior Planner, Mr. C. Clarke, Assistant Planner and Mr. B. Egan, Senior Executive Engineer responded to Members’ queries.  Motion No. 35 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:

21

16

0

 

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

 

AnCathaoirleach, Councillor B. Saul advised that as Motion No. 35 was CARRIED Motion No. 36 and Motion No. 20 from the floor are no longer relevant.

 

Motion No. 36

 

It was proposed 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 remove SLO 126 and its attendant red line from the Development Plan Page 412”.

 

Motion no. 20 from the floor

 

Motion No 20 from the floor in the names of Councillor M. Bailey, Councillor J. Bailey, Councillor J. Cuffe and Councillor S. O’Brien.

 

“Amendment SLO 126 Motion 36

That SLO should be solely based on the Council’s own hydrology study carried out by Daly Associate 2010 this would exclude the upper section of Rathmichael Road from the SLO.”

 

 

542.

Pages 253 - 257 Policy E123 Rathmichael Ground and Surface Water (SLO 126) (i) - ii)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 253 – 257 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 253 – 257 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

543.

Pages 257 - 258 5.1.4 Specific Objectives and Policies (Relating to Water and Wastewater) i) - iii)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 257 – 258 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 257 – 258 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

544.

Pages 259 - 262 - Irish Water i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)     “Submission from Irish Water notes that the commencement of the upgrading of the Vartry Water Supply Scheme (which is included in the Capital Investment Plan 2014-2016 has the potential to augment water supply to Cherrywood. The next investment cycle (2017-2021) will identify capacity/treatment issues in the Old Connaught/Woodbrook Water and Sewerage Schemes.

 

Submission suggests that the reference to ensuring equilibrium between ‘zoned, serviced’ land and projected demand should be amended to reflect the potential of land ‘to be serviced’”.

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive welcomes Irish Water’s commitment to the upgrading of the Vartry Water Supply Scheme and acknowledges its importance for the early development of Cherrywood. Likewise, the inclusion of the Old Connaught/Woodbrook Water and Sewerage Schemes in the next investment cycle (2017-2021) will be critical to unlocking development lands in Old Conna and Woodbrook/Shanganagh LAP areas.

 

The suggestion that the reference to ensuring an equilibrium between ‘zoned, serviced’ land and projected demand should be amended to reflect the potential of land ‘to be serviced’ is noted. However the Chief Executive is of the view that the Core Strategy makes very clear the fact that land ‘to be serviced’ remains an integral part of the overall future residential landbank in the County.  

 

Recommendation:

 

No change to Draft Plan”

 

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

·         “Submission from Irish Water requests the inclusion of twelve new policies as follows:

    Proposed New Policy: Timely Delivery of Water Services.

 

“It is the policy of the Council to work closely with Irish Water to facilitate the timely delivery of the water services required to realise the development objectives of this Plan.”

 

    Proposed New Policy: Water and Wastewater Network Design and Construction.

 

“It is the policy of the Council to facilitate the provision of integrated and sustainable water services through effective consultation with Irish Water on the layout and design of water services in relation to the selection and planning of development areas and the preparation of Masterplans/LAPs/ SDZ Planning Schemes.”

 

    Proposed New Policy: Taking in Charge Standards.

 

“It is the policy of the Council to ensure that development proposals comply with the standards and requirements of Irish Water in relation to water and wastewater infrastructure to facilitate the proposed developments.”

 

    Proposed New Policy: Maximising Use of Existing Water Services Capacity.

 

“It is the policy of the Council to maximise the use of existing capacity in water services in the planning of new development.”

 

    Proposed New Policy: Ensuring Availability of Water Services for Planned Development.

 

“It is the policy of the Council to ensure that adequate water services will be available to service planned development prior to the granting of planning permission and to request that applicants consult with Irish Water regarding capacity prior to applying for planning Permission.”

 

    Proposed New Policy: Protecting Water Services Infrastructure.

 

“It is the policy of the Council to protect way leaves and buffer zones around public water services infrastructure and to facilitate the provision of appropriate sites for required water

services infrastructure as necessary.”

 

    Proposed New Policy: Promote Water Conservation.

 

“It is the policy of the Council to promote water conservation and demand management measures among all water users.”

 

    Proposed New Policy: Separate Water Drainage Systems.

 

“It is the policy of the Council to require all new development to provide a separate foul

and surface water drainage system and to incorporate sustainable urban drainage system.”

    Proposed New Policy: Surface Water Discharge to Combined Sewers.

 

“It is the policy of the Council to prohibit the discharge of additional surface water to combined (foul and surface water) sewers in order to maximise the capacity of existing collection systems.”

 

    Proposed New Policy: Trade Discharges to Sewers.

 

“It is the policy of the Council to support Irish Water in the promotion of effective management of trade discharges to sewers in order to maximise the capacity of  the existing sewer networks and minimise detrimental impacts on sewage treatment works.”

 

    Proposed New Policy: Private Waste Water Treatment Plants.

 

“It is the policy of the Council to refuse planning permission for development that requires the provision of private waste water treatment facilities, other than for single house systems.”

 

    Proposed New Policy: Septic Tanks.

 

“It is the policy of the Council to ensure the changeover from septic tanks to collection networks in all cases, where feasible (subject to  connection agreements with Irish Water) and that all new developments utilise and connect to public wastewater infrastructure.  The provision of individual septic tanks and treatment plants will be strongly discouraged to minimise the risk of groundwater pollution. Where such facilities are permitted, full compliance with the prevailing regulations and standards including the EPA's Code of Practice Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems Serving Single Houses (PE. 10) (EPA 2009} , as may be amended , will be required.”

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission”.

 

The Chief Executive recognises the importance of continuing to develop and foster a close working relationship with Irish Water to achieve common objectives such as alignment with the Regional Planning Guidelines settlement strategy and to ensure that the provision of water/wastewater services will not be a limiting factor in terms of forecasted growth.   

 

The Chief Executive has assessed the merits of each policy and recommends minor amendments to the wording of some of the policies requested by Irish Water.

 

However, four of the policies requested by Irish Water – “Taking Estates in Charge Standards”, “Maximising Use of Existing Water Services Capacity”, “Surface Water Discharge to Combined Sewers” and “Trade Discharge to Sewers” have not been recommended for inclusion within the Draft Plan. 

 

The ‘Taking Estates-in-Charge’ process is solely within the remit of the Local Authority, which is clearly set out within Section 180 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended). Therefore the Chief Executive does not consider a policy relating to Irish Water’s requirements within the ‘Taking Estates-in Charge’ process as appropriate for including in the Draft Plan.

 

The policy relating to “Maximising Use of Existing Water Services Capacity” is considered ambiguous and imprecise in nature and, therefore, not appropriate for

 

The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission.

 

The Chief Executive recognises the importance of continuing to develop and foster a close working relationship with Irish Water to achieve common objectives such as alignment with the Regional Planning Guidelines settlement strategy and to ensure that the provision of water/wastewater services will not be a limiting factor in terms of forecasted growth.   

 

The Chief Executive has assessed the merits of each policy and recommends minor amendments to the wording of some of the policies requested by Irish Water.

 

However, four of the policies requested by Irish Water – “Taking Estates in Charge Standards”, “Maximising Use of Existing Water Services Capacity”, “Surface Water Discharge to Combined Sewers” and “Trade Discharge to Sewers” have not been recommended for inclusion within the Draft Plan. 

 

The ‘Taking Estates-in-Charge’ process is solely within the remit of the Local Authority, which is clearly set out within Section 180 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended). Therefore the Chief Executive does not consider a policy relating to Irish Water’s requirements within the ‘Taking Estates-in Charge’ process as appropriate for including in the Draft Plan.

 

The policy relating to “Maximising Use of Existing Water Services Capacity” is considered ambiguous and imprecise in nature and, therefore, not appropriate for including in the Draft Plan.

 

The policy relating to “Surface Water Discharge to Combined Sewers” does not warrant inclusion as the matter is already addressed within Policy EI8: Sustainable Drainage Systems (Section 5.1.1.8) of the Draft Plan.

 

The policy relating to “Trade Discharge to Sewers” is not a strategic County Development Plan issue but an operational matter for Irish Water.

 

Recommendation:

 

It is recommended that the following policies are inserted into a ‘stand-alone’ text box to be located between EI5: Water Supply and Wastewater and EI6: Integrated Water Management Plans.

 

“Timely Delivery of Water Services

 

It is the policy of the Council to support Irish Water in the facilitation of the timely delivery of the water services required to realise the development objectives of this Plan.

 

Water and Wastewater Network Design and Construction

 

It is the policy of the Council to support the provision of integrated and sustainable water services through effective consultation with Irish Water on the layout and design of water services in relation to the selection and planning of development areas and the preparation of Masterplans/LAPs/ SDZ Planning Schemes.

 

Ensuring Availability of  Water Services for Planned Development

 

It is the policy of the Council to advise applicants to consult with Irish Water regarding capacity issues prior to applying for planning permission – where practicable.

 

Protecting Water Services Infrastructure

 

It is the policy of the Council to advise applicants to consult with Irish Water and be aware of Irish Water’s requirements regarding way leaves and buffer zones around public water utilities.

 

Promote Water Conservation

 

It is the policy of the Council to promote and support water conservation and demand management measures among all water users.

 

Separate Water Drainage Systems

 

It is the policy of the Council to require new development to provide a separate foul and surface water drainage system – where practicable.

 

Domestic Waste Water Treatment Systems

 

·         It is the policy of the Council to refuse planning permission for any residential development that requires the provision of domestic waste water treatment systems, other than for single house systems.

 

·         It is the policy of the Council to strongly discourage the provision of individual septic tanks and domestic waste water treatment systems and, where applicable, to connect the development to the public sewer mains network, in order to minimise the risk of groundwater pollution. Where such facilities are permitted, full compliance with the prevailing regulations and standards including the EPA's Code of Practice Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems Serving Single Houses (PE. 10) (EPA 2009) , as may be amended , will be required.”

 

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

 

·         “Submission from Irish Water requests amendment of Policy EI4: Groundwater  Protection and Appropriate Assessment:

 

“It is Council policy to ensure the protection of the groundwater resources in and around the County and associated habitats and species, in accordance with the Groundwater Directive 2006/118/EC and the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Groundwater) Regulations , 2010, and will facilitate the implementation of Irish Water 's Water Safety Plans to protect sources of public water supply and their contributing catchment.””

 

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

 

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

 

Recommendation:

 

Amend Policy EI4 to read, as follows:

 

“It is Council policy to ensure the protection of the groundwater resources in and around the County and associated habitats and species, in accordance with the Groundwater Directive 2006/118/EC and the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Groundwater) Regulations 2010.  In this regard the Council will support the implementation of Irish Water's Water Safety Plans to protect sources of public water supply and their contributing catchment.””

 

The above recommendations on Pages 259 – 262 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

545.

Pages 262 - 265 - 5.2.5 Statutory Undertakers and Telecommunications Policies

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 262 – 265 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

“Statutory Undertakers and Telecommunications Policiies i) – iv)

 

Miscellaneous i) – iv) “

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 262 – 265 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

5.2 CLIMATE CHANGE , ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND FLOODING

546.

Page 267 5.2.1: CLimate Change Adaptation and Mitigation i) - ii)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on page 267 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on page 267 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

547.

Page 267 5.2.1: CLimate Change, Energy Efficiency and Flooding iii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

iii)“Submission states the Plan should be more forceful in acknowledging the increasing risks from climate change and should stress the need for decarbonisation. Various text changes are recommended.  The Plan should clearly state support for national legislation on climate change including binding targets. The submission recommends that references to the County Climate Change Mitigation Framework be repositioned before Policy CC1 which relates to the National Climate Change Adaptation Framework.  The submission also recommends inserting references to ‘mitigation’ before references to ‘adaptation’ in the text”.

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission. 

 

The submission recommends that a County Climate Change Mitigation Framework be inserted into the Plan before Policy CC1 which relates to the National Climate Change Adaptation Framework.  At National level a Mitigation Framework is not required whereas an Adaptation Framework is a statutory requirement.  The need for an Adaptation Framework at Local Authority level will come directly from and be influenced by the DECLG National Climate Change Adaptation Framework.  This National Framework details the links between adaptation and mitigation and states that further guidance will be forthcoming “to inform a stronger, clearer process of climate change proofing development plans objectives, embracing both mitigation (such as green building measures or delivery of more compact, less carbon intensive forms of development) and adaption measures (such as flood risk assessment and management) across the major elements of such Plans”

 

Recommendation:

 

“In Section 5.2.1. Title, reposition the terms ‘mitigation’ and ‘adaptation’. 

 

In Section 5.2.1. Paragraph 2, reposition the terms ‘adaptation’ and ‘mitigation’ on the last line. 

 

Reposition paragraphs 3 and 4 to ensure reference to ‘mitigation’ appears first.”

 

The above recommendation on Page 267 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

548.

Page 268 5.2.2: Energy Efficient (i) & ii)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 268 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 268 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

549.

Motion No. 37 and Motion No. 4 from the floor- CARBON CEMENT pdf icon PDF 43 KB

It was AGREED to take Motion No 4 from the floor in conjunction with this Item.

 

Motion No. 37

 

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 and Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

That the written statement will include a paragraph, which includes the following: 

The Council will encourage the utilisation of low carbon cement in the built environment across the County in achieving environment objectives and sustainability in building and development projects.” 

 

The Chief Executive’s Report was ACCEPTED.

 

Motion No. 4 from the floor

 

It was proposed by Councillor O. Smith and seconded by Councillor S. O’Brien.

 

“That this PlanningAuthority pursuantto Section12 ofthe Planningand Development Act,2000 (asamended)resolvestoamendtheDraftDevelopmentPlanas follows:

Toappendthefollowingto 8.2.10.3EnergyEfficiencyandClimateChangeAdaptation.“Wherepossible,buildingmaterialswithlowembodiedcarbonshouldbe used”.

 

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

 

“TheChiefExecutivedoesnotagreewiththisMotion.

 

Itisnotconsidered,however,thattheStrategicCountyDevelopmentPlanhasa rolein specifyingtheformofbuildingmaterialsinconstructionprojects.Inaccordancewiththe PlanningandDevelopmentActa DevelopmentPlan“setsoutan overallstrategyforthe properplanningandsustainabledevelopmentandtheareaoftheDevelopmentPlan.

 

To specifywhat formof building materialisusedina buildingproject is considered to be a levelofdetailnotappropriateto aDevelopmentPlan.Itraisesquestionsintermsof enforcementandmonitoringofitsusewhicharebeyondtheremitrequiredofa DevelopmentPlanorthePlanningcode.

 

Notwithstanding existing Policy CC7: Energy performance in New Buildings states:

 

Itis Councilpolicyto promoteandsupportnewdevelopmentthatis lowcarbondevelopment

 

Recommendation:

 

“Nochangeto DraftPlan”.

Following discussion Motion No. 4 from the floor 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:

29

8

0

 

An Cathaoirleach, Councillor B. Saul, declared Motion No. 4 from the floor CARRIED.

 

 

550.

Pages 268 - 272 -5.2.3: Energy Efficient Design (i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:     

 

i) “A number of submissions were opposed to the Passive House standard and

    Policies CC6 and CC7. Issues raised included:

 

·         The DECLG has the primary role of setting National standards – National standards must be established in advance of Local Authorities setting standards.

 

·         There is no regulatory oversight of Passive House standards which is a standard supported by a private sector institution.

 

·         The DLR proposal conflicts with an EU Directive for Energy Efficiency.

 

·         Passive House method measures only energy performance whereas DEAP measures energy and carbon emissions.

 

·         Passive House standard does not require renewables, therefore conflicts with statutory standards set out within Part L of the Building Regulations.

 

·         Passive House standard is supported by a non-statutory body, the Passive House Institute which is a private German based independent institute.

 

·         Passive House standard is a voluntary marketing standard not supported by the EU Directive.

 

·         The policy will lead to confusions, conflict and litigation.

 

·         Conflict with the statutory obligations required under Building Regulations will delay the recovery of local building activity.

 

·         Passive House standards impose an obligation to use mechanical heat recovery ventilation systems which will not suit all households.

 

·         There will be an additional cost for new building owners due to certification to PH standards.

 

·         An aspirational objective rather than a prescriptive policy should be applied.

 

·         The EU Energy Performance of Buildings Directive will require higher standards by 2020.

 

·         The Council should implement a pilot programme for improved standards within its own building stock and new buildings to help assist setting National standards.

 

·         The submission specifically requests the removal of elements of Policy CC7 in Section 5.2.3.2 and also elements of Section 8.2.10.3

 

·         Submission states that the requirements with respect to Passive House certification need to be amended and a threshold value applied in order to avoid false or misleading verification.

 

·         Submission from NAMA recommends that Passive House standards should be removed from the Draft Plan.

 

·         Submission supports the policy of delivering energy efficient homes, but the Policy wording of CC7 as it stands is too onerous and should be amended.

 

·         Submission requests that Policy CC7 be amended to remove all reference to ‘Passive House’ standard. This is a Building Control matter.

 

·         Submission expresses concern at the requirement to build new developments to Passive House standard and recommends amending Policy CC7 to support and promote such standards, rather than enforce them in advance of National guidance on the matter.

 

·         Submission raises concern in relation to Policy CC6 and the appropriateness of requiring a privately developed building standard as part of a Development Plan. 

 

·         Submission raises concern in relation to the fact that a single, commercially-operated third party will certify all projects – this is not competitive.

 

·         Submission requests that Policy CC7 be deleted and replaced with existing Policy CC5.  Part L of the Building Regulations already had an adverse impact on the time requested at design and build stages.  

 

·         Submission argues that implications of requiring Passive House are not possible on all sites especially apartment developments.

 

·         Implications of Policy CC7 are serious for DLR and the industry’s ability to deliver affordable family homes.

 

·         There is a lack of public education around the use and maintenance of passive energy systems.

 

Submission contends that the Passive House standard is difficult to achieve in smaller buildings.  How much deviation will be allowed?”

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of these submissions. 

 

Policies CC6 and CC7 as contained in the Draft CPD have generated a considerable amount of comment in the submissions received.  Submissions diverge hugely and are either categorically in favour of stipulating that all new build in the County be built to Passive House standard or are opposed to such a mandatory measure. 

 

Many submissions welcome the new policies and the commitment given towards more sustainable building methods which address concerns such as climate change.  A number of submissions provide very detailed levels of information in relation to various voluntary standards pertaining to Passive House and its equivalent.  A number also address the issue of cost and argue that costs of construction in relation to Passive House standard are broadly similar to building to current Part L of the Building Regulations.

A considerable number of submissions raise serious concerns about building to Passive House standards as the Passive House standard and the Passive House Planning Package (PHPP) are voluntary private standards that differ from the National Building Regulations.  Some submissions argue that the Passive House standard is a private sector standard controlled by a single third party commercial entity.  The issue of cost is also raised.

 

Developments in relation to energy efficiency in building have evolved considerably over the last ten years and the new builds of today are considerably more efficient than those built in the past.  This efficiency has been driven primarily on foot of continuing incremental changes in the Building Regulations.  Further changes are due to come into force which will increase efficiency and ensure new builds and retrofits meet nZEB (near zero energy building) standard. 

 

It is the Council policy to support on an on-going basis the Government programme for the development of National Climate Change Policy and Legislation through the inclusion and implementation of supporting and complementary County Development Plan policies.

 

The Draft County Development Plan 2016-2022 references the 2014 DECLG Climate Action and Low Carbon Development national position policy paper which has as its fundamental objective to achieve transition to a competitive, low-carbon, climate resilient and environmentally sustainable economy by 2050.

 

Through the ‘Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and Flooding Chapter’ the Council is striving to future proof the county to serve the citizens, businesses and visitors of DLR and to meet National and European targets.

 

Whilst including mandatory obligations in the County Development Plan that all new build must meet Passive House Standard might be considered innovative and forward thinking, the early introduction of PH and nZEB standards may lead to issues and these include:

 

  • PH is different to nZEB which is the standard which will be required by the Building Regulations in the very near future (during the lifetime of the 2016 – 2022 County Development Plan) and which will then become the norm.   DLR could therefore be operating to a different standard to the rest of the Country. 

 

  • While it is argued that to build to Passive House standard carries an additional cost, this is not proven either way.  Whilst it is acknowledged that any additional cost may be recouped over time due to lower energy consumption and by default costs, it is possible that any additional initial capital cost will be borne by the consumer.  In a County such as DLR where affordability is already again becoming an issue this is a concern.  It is acknowledged that the relative cost of building to the PH standard has reduced as normal building costs have increased to meet the higher standard required by the Building Regulations.  Once nZEB is statutorily in place via the Building Regulations it is expected that there may be no differential between building to PH and Building Regulation standards. 

 

  • To build to PH or nZEB requires meeting a number of precise technical criteria and also requires specific on-site care and training.  It is likely that nationally considerable up-skilling of the design and construction sectors will be required.  In addition Policy CC7 as currently drafted does not just apply to houses but to all buildings.

 

  • Applying a more onerous standard for all new buildings in the County that is so different to all parts of the State including neighbouring counties in the Dublin and Eastern Region could significantly depress the amount of construction activity in DLR for the next three years or until such time as the nZEB standards are enshrined in the National Building Regulations Standards. 

 

  • The current wording of Policy CC7 states all new buildings should be built to Passive House standard including not just new homes but also all commercial and educational/institutional buildings – schools, offices, hospitals, retail units etc. 

 

  • Attaching conditions to a planning permission requiring buildings to meet PH standard is attaching a condition relating to a subject outside of the planning code – i.e. the Building Regulations.  Advice from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government set out in the ‘Development Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities’ is to avoid attaching conditions relating to other codes as it creates confusion and duplication (It is noted that the DOECLG submission raises a number of legal and administrative concerns).

 

In conclusion, the insertion of Passive House Policy (Policy CC7) in the Draft Plan is not in accordance with current central Government policy and what will in the near future be the norm in the entire Country (nZEB).

 

To proceed with the requirement for PH standard at this stage could be overly onerous on both the consumer and the construction sector and could delay the delivery of new homes being built in the County at a time when Government policy is to address the supply deficiencies across the Country – but particularly in Metropolitan Dublin. 

 

Recommendation:

 

It is noted that the DoEHLG Guidelines “Sustainable Residential Development In urban Areas” (2009) state in paragraph 4.11 that:

 

the construction sector should not have to contend with different standards set by individual planning authorities for the environmental performance of buildings.  However, local authorities may wish to encourage voluntary higher standards” 

 

It should be noted that the recommendation below still allows for Policy CC6 and CC7 to remain in the Draft Plan but suitably redrafted to be no longer prescriptive and mandatory but, rather, seek to encourage buildings to be constructed to energy efficient standards in advance of the introduction of the National nZEB Building Regulations by 2020.

 

It is recommended that the following sections 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”.

 

Delete Para 6:

 “Passive House”

 

Delete Para 7:

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

 

Delete Page 215 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 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 CC7)””.

 

AnCathaoirleach, Councillor B. Saul and the Members’ AGREED that this had already been dealt with at the meeting dated 13th October, 2015.

 

 

551.

Pages 272 - 275 5.2.3: Energy Efficient Design ii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

ii) “A number of submissions were fully supportive of Passive House standards

          and Policies CC6 and CC7. Issues raised included:

 

·         Submission welcomes the commitment to enforce developers to meet nZEB standards.

 

·         Submission suggests that DLR use the Home Quality Rating System developed by the Irish Green Building Council which is currently at Besta testing stage.

 

·         Submission promotes the Home Quality Rating System as it integrates the Passive House approach.  Submission outlines various details of the system and argues that the use of the system is a way for DLR to ensure homes actually reduce overall environmental and carbon impacts of the occupants. 

 

·         Submission refers to research of Prof Franz Fuesrst of the University of Cambridge.

 

·         Submission suggests that the Irish Green Building Council engage with DLR and work together on developing a National system for measuring all environmental impacts rather than each Local Authority adopting a separate approach.

 

·         Submission welcomes the adaptation of ‘Passive House’ standard for energy efficiency for future building occupiers.  One submission requested the inclusion of a statement of intent in relation to delivering low carbon footprint buildings.

 

·         Submission welcomes the introduction of the ‘Passive House’ standard and cites example of New York City’s policy on Passive House.

 

·         Submission welcomes the provision of the Passive House policy within the Development Plan. it considers that it will lead to:

i)     Export potential and job creation

ii)    Tourism potential

iii)   Improved skills and training opportunities.

 

·         Submission welcomes the introduction of the ‘Passive House’ standard as it will:

i)     insulate the residents against a fossil fuel crisis

ii)    ensure we become a European leader in this area

iii)   increase construction related employment

iv)   assist in reducing climate change

v)    provide significant cost savings

vi)   provide a healthy and comfortable lifestyle.

 

·         Submission provides a two year log of a certified Passive House in Kerry which should address any concerns being expressed in relation to air quality.

 

·         Building to PH standard will not cause costs to rise as new houses being constructed have to hit 60% energy reductions.  Construction costs are therefore at the same level as Passive House costs.

 

·         Passive House is an opportunity for the traditional construction sector.

 

·         Air quality is better in Passive House.

 

·         Building to Passive House standard now is a climate change adaptation measure for the future.

 

·         Houses built to Building Regulations standards may overheat.

 

·         Passive House is the leading low energy building standard in the world.

 

·         It is complimentary to existing building regulations (Part L).

 

·         Ireland is an international leader in Passive House construction.

 

·         Passive House creates wealth and health.

 

Passive House is now affordable as introduction of Part L to the Building Regulations has eliminated any cost differential of building to Passive House standard”.

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of these submissions. 

 

Policies CC6 and CC7 as contained in the Draft CPD have generated a considerable amount of comment in the submissions received.  Submissions diverge hugely and are either categorically in favour of stipulating that all new build in the County be built to Passive House standard or are opposed to such a mandatory measure. 

 

Many submissions welcome the new policies and the commitment given towards more sustainable building methods which address concerns such as climate change.  A number of submissions provide very detailed levels of information in relation to various voluntary standards pertaining to Passive House and its equivalent.  A number also address the issue of cost and argue that costs of construction in relation to Passive House standard are broadly similar to building to current Part L of the Building Regulations.

 

A considerable number of submissions raise serious concerns about building to Passive House standards as the Passive House standard and the Passive House Planning Package (PHPP) are voluntary private standards that differ from the National Building Regulations.  Some submissions argue that the Passive House standard is a private sector standard controlled by a single third party commercial entity.  The issue of cost is also raised.

 

Developments in relation to energy efficiency in building have evolved considerably over the last ten years and the new builds of today are considerably more efficient than those built in the past.  This efficiency has been driven primarily on foot of continuing incremental changes in the Building Regulations.  Further changes are due to come into force which will increase efficiency and ensure new builds and retrofits meet nZEB (near zero energy building) standard. 

 

It is the Council policy to support on an on-going basis the Government programme for the development of National Climate Change Policy and Legislation through the inclusion and implementation of supporting and complementary County Development Plan policies.

 

The Draft County Development Plan 2016-2022 references the 2014 DECLG Climate Action and Low Carbon Development national position policy paper which has as its fundamental objective to achieve transition to a competitive, low-carbon, climate resilient and environmentally sustainable economy by 2050.

 

Through the ‘Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and Flooding Chapter’ the Council is striving to future proof the county to serve the citizens, businesses and visitors of DLR and to meet National and European targets.

 

Whilst including mandatory obligations in the County Development Plan that all new build must meet Passive House Standard might be considered innovative and forward thinking, the early introduction of PH and nZEB stadards may lead to issues and these include:

 

  • PH is different to nZEB which is the standard which will be required by the Building Regulations in the very near future (during the lifetime of the 2016 – 2022 County Development Plan) and which will then become the norm.  DLR could therefore be operating to a different standard to the rest of the Country. 

 

  • While it is argued that to build to Passive House standard carries an additional cost, this is not proven either way.  Whilst it is acknowledged that any additional cost may be recouped over time due to lower energy consumption and by default costs, it is posible that any additional initial capital cost will be borne by the consumer.  In a County such as DLR where affordability is already again becoming an issue this is a concern.  It is acknowledged that the relative cost of building to the PH standard has reduced as normal building costs have increased to meet the higher standard required by the Building Regulations.  Once nZEB is statutorily in place via the Building Regulations it is expected that there may be no differential between building to PH and Building Regulation standards. 

 

  • To build to PH or nZEB requires meeting a number of precise technical criteria and also requires specific on-site care and training.  It is likely that nationally considerable up-skilling of the design and construction sectors will be required.  In addition Policy CC7 as currently drafted does not just apply to houses but to all buildings.

 

  • Applying a more onerous standard for all new buildings in the County that is so different to all parts of the State including neighbouring counties in the Dublin and Eastern Region could significantly depress the amount of construction activity in DLR for the next three years or until such time as the nZEB standards are enshrined in the National Building Regulations Standards. 

 

  • The current wording of Policy CC7 states all new buildings should be built to Passive House standard including not just new homes but also all commercial and educational/institutional buildings – schools, offices, hospitals, retail units etc. 

 

  • Attaching conditions to a planning permission requiring buildings to meet PH standard is attaching a condition relating to a subject outside of the planning code – i.e. the Building Regulations.  Advice from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government set out in the ‘Development Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities’ is to avoid attaching conditions relating to other codes as it creates confusion and duplication (It is noted that the DOECLG submission raises a number of legal and administrative concerns).

 

In conclusion, the insertion of Passive House Policy (Policy CC7) in the Draft Plan is not in accordance with current central Government policy and what will in the near future be the norm in the entire Country (nZEB).

 

To proceed with the requirement for PH standard at this stage could be overly onerous on both the consumer and the construction sector and could delay the delivery of new homes being built in the County at a time when Government policy is to address the supply deficiencies across the Country – but particularly in Metropolitan Dublin.  

 

Recommendation:

 

It is noted that the DoEHLG Guidelines “Sustainable Residential Development In Urban Areas” (2009) state in paragraph 4.11 that

 

the construction sector should not have to contend with different standards set by individual planning authorities for the environmental performance of buildings.  However, local authorities may wish to encourage voluntary higher standards” 

 

It should be noted that the recommendation below still allows for Policy CC6 and CC7 to remain in the Draft Plan but suitably redrafted to be no longer prescriptive and mandatory but, rather, seek to encourage buildings to be constructed to energy efficient standards in advance of the introduction of the National nZEB Building Regulations by 2020.

 

It is recommended that the following sections 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”.

 

Delete Para 6:

“Passive House”

 

Delete Para 7:

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

 

Delete Page 215 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 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 CC7)””.

 

AnCathaoirleach Councillor B. Saul and the Members’ AGREED that this had already been dealt with at the meeting dated 13th October, 2015

 

 

552.

Pages 275 - 276 5.2.4: Renewable Energy i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

“Submission suggests the Plan should note the need for local ‘in-County storage’ to buffer intermittent renewable energy”.

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission.

 

Through the ‘Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and Flooding Chapter’ the Council is striving to future proof the County to serve the citizens, businesses and visitors and to meet National and European targets. The Draft Plan already supports localised on-site energy through renewable energy as well as district heating systems and energy networks (See Policy CC11: Renewable Energy).

 

Installation of energy networks at development stage will allow for ease of future transition or change as technology develops to mitigate against dependency on fossil fuels and will provide a buffer to intermittent renewable energy.

 

Connection to an energy network can allow energy transfer between users at all levels including domestic if planned holistically at design stage.

 

Although policy CC11 refers to energy networks the title of the policy does not.  It is considered that the title should be changed”.

 

Recommendation:

 

Change title of Policy CC11 to:

Renewable Energy and Energy Networks”.”

 

The above recommendation on page 276 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

553.

Pages 276 - 280 5.2.5 i) - vii)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 276 – 280 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 276 – 280 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

554.

Pages 280 - 281 5.2.5: Flood Risk viii) - ix)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

viii) “Submission requests a review of the policy to culvert streams. Submission emphasises –with examples of flooding at Harold’s Cross and Dundrum Town Centre- that culverting of streams leads to flooding.”

 

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:

 

Amend bullet point in Policy LHB23:

 

“Provide for drainage and flooding”.to “Provide routes for drainage and flooding.”

 

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:

 

ix)  “Submission states that the Plan should explicitly state that sea levels will rise and that the OPW CFRAM high end scenario of +1m is insufficient in the long term”. 

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the content of this submission.

 

Section 3.3.7 of the amended SFRA includes reference to climate change and acknowledges that the OPW guidance may be an underestimate of future impacts. However, this is the existing guidance given by the OPW and thus endorsed by central government.  In recognition of that face that this guidance may change over the life time of the plan it is recommended that Policy CC15: Flood Risk Management be amended so that future studies on climate change can be taken into account.

 

Section 5.3.8 of the SFRA also addresses coastal flooding in the County and states that “any flood risk assessment for infill or small new development should take into account the potential impact of climate change on sea leaves”. 

 

Recommendation:

 

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.””

 

The above recommendations on pages 280 & 281 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

555.

Page 281 5.2.5: Flood Risk x)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on Page 281 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on Page 281 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

CHAPTER 6 BUILT HERITAGE STRATEGY

556.

Pages 285 - 287 6.1 Archaeological and Architectural Heritage

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 285 – 287 in the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

“6.1.1:    Introduction i) - iv)

 

6.1.2:  Archaeological Heritage i)”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 285 – 287 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

557.

Page 287 & 289 6.1.2 Archaeological Heritage ii) - iii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

ii) “Submission suggests a number of new policies relating to:

·         rights of way to archaeological sites

 

·         promotion of archaeological landscapes

 

·         promotion of archaeological heritage as a tourism resource, and

 

·         identification of sensitive historic landscapes”.

 

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

 

“It is considered that access to archaeological sites (as appropriate) is already promoted in the Draft Plan via a series of Policies and Objectives.

 

Policy AH1: Protection of Archaeological Heritage states: “…the Council will endeavour to review and assess the feasibility of improving public accessibility to sites and monuments under the direct ownership or control of the Council or of the State.

 

Likewise, Policy LHB12: Public Rights-of-Way states:

“It is Council policy to….

·         Create new rights-of-way or extend or enhance existing rights-of-way either by agreement with landowners or through the use of compulsory powers in the interest of ensuring access to amenities, including the coast, upland areas, river banks, heritage sites and National Monuments…”.

 

In addition to the above, it is a specific Action of the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown Heritage Plan 2013 - 2019 to encourage partnerships to provide appropriate managed access to certain archaeological features and National Monuments.  The Council however, has no power to enforce public access to archaeological sites where there is no existing right-of-way.  It would be necessary to provide extensive proof of historic use.  While this may be possible in certain circumstances a blanket policy that such access should be provided would be unrealistic and impossible to deliver upon.

 

It should be noted that Policy AH4: Designation of Archaeological Landscapes of the current Development Plan has been deleted from the Draft Plan as there are no Archaeological Landscapes within the County.

 

Draft Policy E14: Tourism and Recreation, specifically relates to the promotion of tourism within the County. It is not considered necessary to include a standalone policy in relation to archaeological heritage-related tourism.  This could, however, be readily incorporated into Policy E14.

 

Finally, in relation to Historic Landscapes, Policy LHB5: Historic Landscape Character Areas of the Draft Plan reaffirms that five Historic Landscape Assessments have already been carried out for the most sensitive landscapes of Barnacullia, Kiltiernan, Glencullen, Ballycorus-Rathmichael and Old Conna”.

 

Recommendation:

 

Amend the last sentence of Policy E14: Tourism and Recreation to state:

 

The tourism potential of the County’s heritage and diaspora is recognised as an important area for development. Accordingly, the Council will encourage the development of cultural, literary, historical, archaeological, architectural heritage and genealogical tourism opportunities, products and facilities in the County, where practical and feasible.””

 

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

iii) “Submission seeks inclusion of a policy relating to consultation with the Council in relation to archaeological interest”.

 

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

 

The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission.

 

While it is considered that development proposals generally benefit from pre-planning consultation, and Section 8.2.2(i): Pre-Planning Meetings, positively encourages applicants to seek advice at an early stage, the Council cannot insist that any particular type of development must be discussed at pre-plan stage.  There is no imperative on an applicant to request a pre-planning meeting nor can the Planning Authority compel a prospective applicant to do so.  It is, therefore, not considered appropriate to create a Policy to that effect.

 

It is however considered reasonable to reiterate the benefits of seeking pre-planning advice having regard to archaeological sites. In this regard, any potential applicant should consult with The National Monuments Service in relation to development proximate to archaeological sites”.

 

Recommendation:

 

“Add a new sentence to the end of Section 6.1.2(ii) The Record of Monuments and Places (RMP): “Applicants for development proximate to sites listed within the RMP are encouraged to consult with The National Monuments Service in order to ascertain any specific requirements that may be required to protect the site in question.””

 

The above recommendations on pages 287 - 289 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

558.

Motion No. 38 - ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE 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 and Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

To include under Policy 6.1.2 Archaeological Heritage contained in page 289 of the CEO’s Report change the word “may” in the last line of the CEO’s recommendation to read “shall be required to protect the site in question.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Report was ACCEPTED

 

 

559.

Pages 289 - 290 6.1.2: Archaeological Heritage iv) - vi)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 289 & 290 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 289 & 290 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

560.

Pages 290- 292 - Policy AH1: Protection of Archaeological Heritage i) - iii)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 290 – 292 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 290 – 292 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

561.

Motion 7 from the floor

Motion No 7 from the floor in the names of Councillors V. Boyhan, S. O’Neill, D. Donnelly, M. Merrigan, L. McGovern, B. Ward, N. Richmond, K. Daly, P. Stewart.

 

It was proposed by Councillor V. Boyhan and seconded by Councillor S. O’Neill.

 

“Proposed SLO – Carrickmines Castle

 

To conserve and protect Carrickmines Castle site and to proceed to implement the Carrickmines Conservation Plan (currently in draft, once approved).”

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive agrees with this Motion.

 

In addition to the provision of a new SLO, the Chief Executive also recommends that Policy AH4: Carrickmines Castle is updated to reflect the status of the Archaeological Conservation Plan for the site.

 

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:

 

A new SLO is provided on Map 9 and Policy AH4: Carrickmines Castle is amended to sate:

“It is Council Policy to support the implementation of the (Archaeological) Conservation Plan for the Carrickmines Castle Site.””

 

The Chief Executive’s Report was ACCEPTED.

 

 

562.

Motion No. 15 from the floor

Motion No. 15 from the floor in the names of Councillors M. Merrigan and V. Boyhan.

 

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

 

“Thatthis PlanningAuthoritypursuantto Section12 ofthe Planning& DevelopmentAct,2000 (asamended)resolvestoamendtheDraftDevelopmentPlanas follows:

 

In section 6.1.2.1 (page 146) – Policy AH1 – Protection of Archaeological Heritage, that, amend ‘where feasible and appropriate’ to read ‘where feasible, appropriate and applicable’.”

 

Reason: 

 

To emphasise the words ‘manage’ and ‘maintain’ cannot be construed to mean sites outside the Council’s ownership.”

 

The Motion was AGREED.

 

 

563.

Motion No. 39 - ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 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 and  Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

Protection of Archaeological Heritage Policy AH1

 

To delete the additional wording "to manage, maintain" included in the Chief Executive's Report on Submissions Received page 293 as it is not the function of the Local Authority to manage and maintain archaeological sites not in the ownership of the Council.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Report was ACCEPTED.

 

 

564.

Pages 292 - 293 Policy AH1: Protection of Archaeological Heritage iv)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

iv)“Submission suggests inclusion of a policy relating to management and maintenance of archaeological heritage.”

 

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

 

“While it is not considered necessary to include a standalone policy in relation to maintenance and management of site, such narrative could, nevertheless, be readily incorporated into Policy AH1: Protection of Archaeological Heritage.

 

Recommendation:

 

Amend first sentence of Policy AH1 from: “…where feasible and appropriate, to promote access…” to “…where feasible and appropriate, to manage, maintain and promote access…””.

 

The above recommendations on Pages 292 - 293 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

565.

Page 293 Policy AH1: Protection of Archaeological Heritage v)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 293 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 293 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

566.

Pages 293 Policy AH2: Protection of Archaeological Material in Situ i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

i) “Submission suggests a reconfiguration and an amendment to Policy AH2 by repositioning the second sentence to 8.2.11.1 and revising last paragraph.”

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission.

 

It is considered that the second sentence of Draft Policy AH2: Protection of Archaeological Material in Situ, should be retained.  It is considered useful, however, to reiterate that regard requires to be had to the advice and recommendations of the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, within the related Development Management Section 8.2.11.1: Archaeological Heritage.

 

Note Section 8.2.11.1 makes reference to the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government – this should be the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht and will be amended accordingly.

 

Recommendation:

 

Amend last sentence of Section 8.2.11.1 from: “…be referred to the Minister through the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government.” to “…be referred to the Minister through the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht and to the Heritage Council.  In considering such planning applications, the Planning Authority will have regard to the views and recommendations of the National Monuments Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht and other interested bodies.””

 

The above recommendation on Page 293 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

567.

Page 293 - 294 Policy AH3: Protection of Historic Towns i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

i) “Submissions request that Policy AH3 includes reference to (a) the promotion of Dalkey as a tourist destination and (b) the recently upgraded Heritage Centre.”

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission.

 

The ‘promotion’ of Dalkey Heritage Town could readily be incorporated into Policy AH3: Protection of Historic Towns.

 

Recommendation:

 

Include ‘and promote’ after ‘protect’ in the first sentence of Policy AH3.”

 

The above recommendations on pages 293 - 294 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

568.

Pages 294 - 297

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 294 – 297 of the Chief Executives Report were CONSIDERED.

 

“Policy AH5:   Historic Burial Grounds i)

6.1.3:  Architectural Heritage i) – ii)

Policy AR3:   Protected Structures and Building Regulations i)

Policy AR6:  Protection of Buildings in Council Ownership i)

Policy AR8:   Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Buildings, Estates and Features

Policy AR10:  Protection of Coastline Heritage i)”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 294 – 297 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

569.

Motion No. 40 - SLO-DÚN LAOGHAIRE pdf icon PDF 35 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 and  Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

Specific Local Objective (Dún Laoghaire)

 

Proposal:

 

“That, a Specific Local Objective be included to 'Enhance the character, ambiance and quality of the environment, historic streetscapes and public realm of the residential streets in the areas adjoining Lower George's Street, Dun Laoghaire (Map 3 - PL-15-0 19 with the area delineated in red, attached) and in particular, the areas of early twentieth century social housing, to ensure that the public realm in this older residential area which, is in close proximity with the core business district of the Town, is enhanced, improved and maintained to the standard provided for other residential and business districts adjoining Upper and Lower George's Street.”

 

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

 

?

 

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:

30

9

0

 

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

 

 

570.

Motion No. 16 from the floor - Policy AH6

Motion No 16 from the floor in the names of Councillors M. Merrigan and V. Boyhan

 

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:

 

In Section 6.1.3.6 (page 149) – Policy AH6 – Protection of Buildings in Council Ownership, that, after the words ‘good quality early twentieth century housing’ insert, ‘including, social housing’.”

 

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

 

“The amendment seeks to emphasise the importance of the early twenty century ‘social housing’ stock by specific mention.

 

Following a discussion, Ms. J. Craig, Conservation Officer advised that there would be implications if this motion was passed.  Ms. M. Henchy, Director of Services advised that all housing includes ‘social housing’ “ 

 

The Chief Executive’s Report was ACCEPTED.

 

 

571.

Motion No. 41 and Motion No. 12 from the floor - STEPASIDE GARDA STATION pdf icon PDF 42 KB

Motion No 41

 

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 and  Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

That the former Stepaside Garda Station building be afforded protection under Policy AR12 “Vernacular Heritage - Renovation of Re-Use of Locally Significant Buildings.”

 

It was AGREED to take Motion No. 12 from the floor in conjunction with this Item.

 

Motion No 12 from the floor

 

Amend Motion No. 41 – Change wording “AR12” to “AR5” (rest of motion stays the same).

 

Following discussion, Ms. Z. Horan, 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

?

 

 

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:

35

1

0

 

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

 

 

572.

Page 297 Policy AR10: Protection of Coastline Heritage ii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED.

 

ii) “Submission suggests changes to Policy AR10 to include ‘and promote’ after ‘Encourage’ as per AR7 in the existing County Development Plan.”

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive agrees with this submission.

 

Recommendation:

 

Amend Policy AR10 part ‘i’ to state ‘Encourage and promote…’.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 297 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

573.

Pages 297 - 298 6.1.3 : Architectural Conservation Areas (ACA)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on pages 297 – 298 of the Chief Executives Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on pages 297 – 298 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

CHAPTER 7 - COMMUNITY STRATEGY

574.

Pages 301 - 302 7.1: Social Infrastructure and Community Development

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 301 – 302 of the Chief Executives Report were CONSIDERED.

 

“7.1.2:  Community Support and Social Inclusion

Policy SCC3:  Universal Access i)

Policy SCC4:  Safer Living Environment i)

Policy SCC6:  Community Facilities i)”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendations on pages 301 – 302 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

575.

Motion No. 10 from the floor as amended - Policy SCC6: Community Facilities ii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED.

 

ii) “Submission states that the local resource centre serving the Kilcross/Sandyford Area is not suitable for multi-purpose activities and there have been funding issues for a new club house – more assistance from DLR would benefit an active community”.

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive has considered the contents of this submission.

 

The Draft Plan supports the provision of community facilities throughout the County under the provisions of Policy SCC6: Community Facilities and Section 8.2.12.3 Community Facilities. It is noted, however, that Policy SCC6 refers exclusively to new facilities. In order to ensure that improvements to existing facilities are also captured within the Draft Plan, it is considered appropriate to amend Policy SCC6 accordingly.

 

It is considered that the issue of new/improved community facilities within specific areas and locations, will be addressed by the upcoming LECP.  In addition, the mapping of facilities, services and resources will inform future decisions.  The delivery of the LECP is fully supported under Policy SCC1: The Local Economic and Community Plan.

 

Recommendation:

 

Amend:

·         First sentence in bold, Policy SCC6: Community Facilities from ‘…to support the development and provision…’ to ‘…to support the development, improvement and provision….

·         After fourth paragraph add new paragraph as follows: ‘The Council will also support improvements to and/or redevelopment of existing community facilities throughout the County as appropriate. All such proposals should have regard to the provisions set out above and the guidance provided within Section 8.2.12.3: Community Facilities’”.

 

 

It was AGREED to take Motion No. 10 from the floor in conjunction with this Item at this time.

 

Motion No. 10 from the floor

 

It was proposed by Councillor M. Murphy, seconded by Councillor N. Richmond.

 

“Thatthis PlanningAuthoritypursuantto Section12 ofthe Planning& DevelopmentAct,2000 (asamended)resolvestoamendtheDraftDevelopmentPlanas follows:

 

Withregardto Section1.3.4.9oftheDraftDevelopmentPlanfortheBallyoganEnvironsthat thisPlanningAuthoritylook at makingtheoldGarda  StationinStepasidea protectedStructureforcommunityuse.”

The following report of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED.

 

TheChiefExecutivedoesnotagreewiththisMotion.

 

TheissueofStepasideGardaStationssuitabilityforinclusion on theRecordofProtectedStructuresisalsoaddressedinMotionno.74.

 

TheChiefExecutiveisoftheviewthatStepasideGardaStationisa modeststructureanddoesnotsatisfythecriteriaforspecialinterestassetoutinSection51 (1)ofthe Planning& DevelopmentAct,2000 (asamended)andSection2.5.4oftheDoEHLGArchitecturalHeritageProtectionGuidelines for PlanningAuthorities’.The building is notconsideredto beofspecialArchitectural,Archaeological,Artistic,Cultural,Historical,Scientific,SocialorTechnicalinterestto warrantinclusionontotheRecordofProtectedStructures.

 

TheformerGardaStationoccupiesa prominentsiteinStepasidevillageandinthisregarditissubjectto theprovisionsofPolicyAR5: BuildingsofHeritageInterest,whichseekstoRetain,whereappropriate,and encouragetherehabilitation and suitablereuseofexistingolderbuildings/structures/featureswhichmake apositivecontributionto thecharacterandappearanceofa streetscapein preferencetotheirdemolitionand redevelopment”.

 

Withregardto apolicyrequiringa communityuseinthebuilding,theChiefExecutivewouldnotethatthebuildingisnotintheownershiporcontroloftheCouncilandthe Councilhasnodirectpowerstomandatea community-relateduse.

 

Itisconsideredthatthefuturefunction/useoftheStationmay bebetterfacilitatedviaan objectiveinthefutureBallyoganandEnvironsLocalAreaPlan.

Following a discussion it was proposed by Councillor T. Murphy, seconded by Councillor N. Richmond the following amendment

 

“with regard to section 1.3.4.9 of the Draft Development Plan for the Ballyogan Environs, that the Planning Authority explore the opportunity of the re-use of the Old Garda Station in Stepaside for Community use.

 

Recommendation:

 

No change to Draft Plan”.

 

Following a discussion the following Amendment to Motion No 10 from the floor was proposed by Councillor T. Murphy and seconded by Councillor N. Richmond.

 

“With regard to Section 1.3.4.9 of the Draft Dev Plan for the Ballyogan Environs

 

That the Planning Authority explore the opportunity of the re-use of the Old Garda Station in Stepaside for community use.”

 

The amended Motion No 10 from the floor was AGREED.

 

The recommendation on Page 302 – 303 (ii) of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

576.

Pages 303 - 305 Policy SCC6 - Community Facilities

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 303 – 305 of the Chief Executives Report were CONSIDERED.

 

“Policy SCC6:  Community Facilities iii) – iv)

Policy SSC8:  Schools i) – ii)

Policy SSC9:  Further and Higher Education Facilities i)”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 303 – 305 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

577.

Page 305 Policy SSC9: Further and Higher Education Facilities ii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED.

 

ii) “Submission requests that the locational and functional description of UCD - on page 160 and throughout the Plan - be amended to reflect updated student and staff numbers.”

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive agrees with this submission.

 

Recommendation:

 

All references to staff and student numbers within the Draft Plan will be updated to reflect the figures provided within the submission as follows:

 

·         Section 1.2.6.2, last sentence changed to: ‘The largest single employer in the County – UCD – remained largely unchanged at c.4,000.’

·         Section 1.2.6.3(i), fifth sentence changed to: ‘UCD currently has a workforce of c.4,000…’

·         Section 3.1.1(ii), second paragraph, last sentence changed to state: ‘The largest single employer in the County – UCD – remained largely unchanged at c.4,000.’

·         Section 7.1.3.4(i), second paragraph listed figures changed to:

·         26,750 students

·         4,000 staff

·         Approximately 6,580 international students

·         Approximately 127 countries.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 305 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

578.

Page 306 - 307 Policy SSC10: Health Care Facilities i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED.

 

i)     “Submission requests an amendment to the wording of Policy SSC10: Health Care Facilities in the Draft Plan, for the provision of step-down medical facilities and rehabilitation services and accommodation.

 

(See also Rezoning and SLO Sections)”

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive agrees in general with the sentiments of this submission.

 

It is considered that Policy SSC10: Health Care Facilities supports and encompasses all types of health care, including those referred to within this submission.

 

Policy SSC10: Health Care Facilities states:

‘…provision of appropriate healthcare facilities – including the system of hospital care and the provision of community-based primary care facilities, mental health and wellbeing facilities…’.

 

It is noted however, that ‘Health Care Facility’ is not listed in Section 8.2.12: Definition of Use Classes. In order to ensure that the wider panoply of health care uses outlined within Policy SSC10 are provided with a more considered definition, it is considered reasonable to amend the definition of ‘Health Centre’ in Section 8.2.12 accordingly.

 

Notwithstanding the change of definition, the location of any such facility would require to be fully in compliance with both the underlying land use zoning objectives and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

 

It should be noted that a ‘Health Care Facility’ with any form of overnight accommodation would be considered as a form of ‘hospital’ as per Section 8.2.12: Definition of Use Classes.

 

Recommendation:

 

Amend Section 8.3.12 Definition of Use Classes as follows:

 

  • Title of ‘Health Centre’ to change to ‘Health Centre / Healthcare Facility’.
  • Change end of paragraph from ‘…clinics and primary care centres.’ to ‘…clinics, primary care centres, mental health and wellbeing facilities and other complimentary medical services.(The above relates to outpatient services only - see ‘Hospital’ for inpatient services).’

 

Amend all Land Use Zoning Objective Tables (listed below) in Section 8.3 which list ‘Health Centre’ to state ‘Health Centre / Healthcare Facility’:

 

  • Table 8.3.2 – Open for Consideration
  • Table 8.3.3 – Permitted in Principle
  • Table 8.3.6 - Permitted in Principle
  • Table 8.3.7 - Permitted in Principle
  • Table 8.3.8 - Permitted in Principle
  • Table 8.3.9 - Open for Consideration
  • Table 8.3.13 - Permitted in Principle
  • Table 8.3.15 - Permitted in Principle
  • Table 8.3.16 - Permitted in Principle
  • Table 8.3.17 - Permitted in Principle””

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 306 – 307 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

579.

Pages 307 - 308 Policy SSC11: Childcare Facilities & Policy SSC13: Libraries

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on pages 307 – 308 of the Chief Executives Report were CONSIDERED.

 

“Policy SSC11:  Childcare Facilities i)

Policy SSC13:  Libraries i) - iii)”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on pages 307 – 308 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

CHAPTER 8 PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT

580.

Pages 311 - 313 - Urban Design

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 311 – 313 of the Chief Executives Report were CONSIDERED.

 

“8.1.1:  Introduction

Policy UD3:  Public Realm Design i)

8.1.2:  Urban Design at the Local Level

Policy UD4:  Local Area Plans i) - ii)

Policy UD6:  Building Height Strategy i)”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 311 – 313 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

581.

Motion No. 42 and Amendment - SLO-DUNDRUM pdf icon PDF 43 KB

It was proposed by Councillor B. Saul and seconded by Councillor P. Stewart.

 

“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:

 

To insert a SLO on page 243 Map 1 – To ensure that Phase 2 of the Dundrum town Centre would include a height restriction of 3 story on the Dundrum main street in order to retain and enhance  the old village and streetscapes of Dundrum.”

 

Following a discussion an amendment from the floor was proposed by Councillor V. Boyhan and seconded by Councillor B. Saul.

 

“Delete everything after “include” and replace with

 

takes cognisance of the character and streetscape of the old Main Street”.

 

Following a discussion, Ms. Z. Horan, Assistant Planner responded to Members’ queries.  The amended Motion was AGREED.

 

 

582.

Adjournment of Meeting

It was AGREED to ADJOURN for 20 minutes.

 

The meeting ADJOURNED  at 7.50p.m.

 

 

583.

Reconvening of meeting

The meeting RECONVENED at 8.10p.m.

 

 

584.

Extension of Meeting

At 8.10p.m. it was proposed by An Cathaoirleach, Councillor B. Saul and AGREED to extend the meeting to 12.00a.m.

 

 

585.

Motion No. 43 - HEIGHT LIMIT pdf icon PDF 45 KB

It was proposed by Councillor D. Donnelly 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:

 

That when planning permission is sought for the demolition of a dwelling in a built up residential area and the building of a number of smaller multi-storey dwellings in its place that a strict limit is placed on the height of the new structures as well as the amount of new dwellings to be built. Other issues such as privacy to neighbours, parking and traffic problems should also be taken into account.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Report was ACCEPTED

 

 

586.

Pages 315 - 317 8.2 Development Management

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 316 – 371 of the Chief Executives Report were CONSIDERED.

 

“8.2.1:  Introduction i) – iii)

8.2.2:  Planning Process i)

8.2.3:  Residential Development i) – ii)”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 316 – 317 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

587.

Pages 317 - 318 8.2.3: Residential Development iii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED.

 

iii) “Submission states that planning applications within housing estates consider the development within the confines of the site alone and do not consider the street or surrounding estate”.

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission.

 

The consideration of planning applications is not a strategic County Development Plan matter but is a Development Management issue. Nevertheless, all planning applications received in respect of residential development, be it new dwellings or extensions/alterations to existing dwellings, are assessed having regard to site conditions, adjoining amenities and the character of both the immediate and wider environs.

 

All proposed residential development must adhere to Policies and Guidance set out within the County Development Plan, in particular:

 

  • Policy RES3: Residential Density, which states that new residential development should “ensure a balance between reasonable protection of existing residential amenities and the established character of areas…”.
  • Policy RES4: Existing Housing Stock and Densification, which requires that new residential development have “due regard to the amenities of existing established residential communities…”.
  • Section 8.2.3.1: Quality Residential Design requires that planning applications for new developments have regard to Government Guidelines including ‘Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas’ (2009), Section 3.4 of which requires the ‘context’ of a site to be considered in the design of any new development.

 

Recommendation:

 

In order to ensure that reference to site context is made more explicit within Section 8.2 Development Management, the following bullet point be added to Section 8.2.3.1: Quality Residential Design:

 

‘Context – having regard to the setting of a site and the surrounding character and streetscape’.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 317 – 318  of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

588.

Page 318 8.2.3: Residential Development iv)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation page 318 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 318 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

589.

Pages 318 - 319 8.2.3.3 Apartment Development i) - ii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED.

 

i) “Submission requests that Section 8.2.3.3: ‘Apartment Development’ be expanded to explicitly state that the feasibility of installing solar panels to apartment buildings be considered at design stage in accordance with the DoEHLG guidelines”.

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive agrees with this submission.

 

Recommendation:

 

It is recommended that Section 8.2.3.3 of the Draft Plan be amended by the addition of the following sentence at the end of ‘(i) Design Standards’ as follows:

‘The feasibility of installing solar panels to apartment buildings shall be considered at design stage in accordance with the above Guidelines.’”

 

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED.

 

ii) “Submission requests that Section 8.2.3.3(ii): Dual Aspect, is amended to provide more flexibility in relation to dual aspect apartments”.

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive generally agrees with the sentiments of this submission.

 

Section 5.5 of the DoEHLG Guidelines: ‘Sustainable Urban Housing: Design Standards for New Apartments’, states that “Dual-aspect apartments are likely to maximise the availability of sunlight, and should be the norm”. In this regard, it is considered that the 70% minimum dual aspect apartment limit is considered to be reasonable criteria aimed at maximising the availability of daylight into apartment units.

 

However a well-designed and/or a more innovative apartment layout can optimise daylight availability for single aspect units, particularly when such units have a southern and/or western aspect. In this regard, it is considered that flexibility to the 70% requirement could be considered in cases where an applicant can adequately demonstrate that windows to habitable rooms within single aspect units would receive appropriate levels of natural light and would not have to rely on artificial lighting.

 

Recommendation:

 

Amend Section 8.2.3.3(ii): Dual Aspect by adding the following sentence and footnote to the end:

 

  • ‘A relaxation* of the 70% dual aspect requirement may be considered on a case-by-case basis where an applicant can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, that habitable rooms of single aspect units will be adequately served by natural light and/or innovative design responses are used to maximise natural light.

 

* Where an applicant is seeking a relaxation, all details/requirements will require to be discussed with the Planning Authority at pre-application stage’.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 318 - 319 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

590.

Motion No. 44 - APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT pdf icon PDF 39 KB

It was proposed by Councillor H. Lewis 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:

 

Principles of Development Page 173 8.2.3.3 Apartment Development

Under Dual Aspect change “should be avoided” to “will not be considered”

 

The Chief Executive’s Report was ACCEPTED.

 

 

591.

Page 319 8.2.2.3 Apartment Development (iii)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 319 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 319 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

592.

Pages 319 - 322 8.2.3.4 (i) Extensions to Dwellings

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 319 – 322 of the  Chief Executives Report were CONSIDERED.

 

“82.3.4 (i) Extensions to Dwellings i) – iii)”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 319 – 322 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

593.

Motion no. 5 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(as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

Chapter 8.2.3.4. i) Extension of Dwellings

"Dormer extensions to roofs will be considered with regard to impacts on existing character and form, and the privacy of adjacent properties. The design, dimensions and bulk of any roof proposal relative to the overall size of the dwelling and gardens will be the overriding considerations. Dormer extensions (whether for functional roof space or light access) shall generally not form a dominant part of a roof. The extension shall be set back from the eaves, gables and/or party boundaries. Consideration may be given to dormer extensions proposed up to the ridge level of a house, but in all cases no dormer extension shall be higher than the existing ridge height of the house.

 

The proposed quality of materials/finishes for dormers will be considered carefully as this can greatly improve their appearance. The level and type of glazing within a dormer structure should have regard to existing window treatments and fenestration of the dwelling. Particular care will be taken in evaluating large dormer window structures - due to potential excessive overlooking of adjacent properties and the possibility of visual dominance when viewed from the surroundings.

 

Roof light windows and roof level windows (including dormers) that convert into or create a balcony/ balconette are not encouraged.

 

More innovative design responses will be encouraged, particularly within sites where there may be difficulty adhering to the above guidance"

 

To be replaced by:

Dormer extensions to roofs will be considered with regard to impacts on existing character and form, and the privacy of adjacent properties. The design, dimensions and bulk of any roof proposal relative to the overall size of the dwelling and gardens will be the overriding considerations. Dormer extensions shall be set back from the eaves, gables and/or party boundaries.

 

The proposed quality of materials/finishes for dormers will be considered carefully as this can greatly improve their appearance. The level and type of glazing within a dormer structure should have regard to existing window treatments and fenestration of the dwelling. Particular care will be taken in evaluating large, visually dominant dormer window structures, with a balance sought between quality residential amenity and the privacy of adjacent properties. Excessive overlooking of adjacent properties should be avoided unless support by the neighbours affected can be demonstrated.

 

More innovative design responses will be encouraged, particularly within sites where there may be difficulty adhering to the above guidance and where objectives of habitability and energy conservation are at stake”.

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive does not agree with this Motion.

 

Section 8.2.3.4 i) Extensions to Dwellings already provides very robust guidance in respect of dormer extensions / roof alterations.

 

This guidance is constantly evolving and has been formulated not only to provide technical design guidance in respect of dormer extensions / roof alterations, but to also have regard to potential impacts upon both established residential and visual amenities.

 

The inclusion of - ‘Roof light windows and roof level windows (including dormers) that convert into or create a balcony/ balconette are not encouraged’ - was provided in order to ensure that roof windows did not, in themselves, result in unacceptable overlooking of adjoining properties. It is important to note that they are ‘not encouraged’ and not completed excluded – certain properties would be capable of providing such windows without undue impact on neighbouring amenities.

 

While support from neighbours can be, and often is, provided with any application through the Development Management process, in the context of the Planning and Development Act and accompanying Regulations this cannot be made mandatory or compulsory. Inherent in the Development Management process is the imperative that the amenities of both existing and future residents are to be protected. Third parties, of course, (and indeed applicants) also have the recourse to An Bord Pleanala should they be aggrieved by the decision of the Planning Authority.

 

The Chief Executive considers the inclusion of ‘and where objectives of habitability and energy’ is unnecessary as there is already a suite of Policies and guidance provided in relation to energy within Section 5.2 Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Flooding and Section 8.2.10 Climate Change Adaptation and Energy. ‘Habitability’ is a matter for compliance with Building Control Regulations.

 

Recommendation:

 

No Change to Draft Plan”.

 

Following discussion, Ms. Z. Horan, 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

?

 

 

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:

38

2

0

 

 

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

594.

Pages 322 - 323 8.2.3.4 (xi) Institutional Lands i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED.

 

i) ”Submission requests the removal of the requirement for 25% open space on institutional lands where other gains are proposed. (see also section 2.1)”

 

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

 

The Chief Executive agrees with the sentiments of this 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””.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 322 – 333 of the Chief Executive’s Report were DEFEATED.

 

 

595.

Pages 323 - 325 8.2.3.4 (xii) Student Accommodation i)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on page 323 – 325 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

i) “Submission from UCD raises concerns that the criteria relating to location of student accommodation in close proximity to existing or planned public transport corridors, cycle and pedestrian routes and green routes (1km distance from the boundary of a Third Level Institution) is too onerous. Submission requests the policy as detailed in the 2010-2016 County Development Plan should remain in situ.”

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive does not agree with this submission.

 

It should be noted, for clarification, that the criteria set out within Section 8.2.3.4(xii): Student Accommodation, does not represent a change in policy or guidance from that set out within the current 2010-2016 County Development Plan.

 

Rather, Draft Plan Section 8.2.3.4(xii) represents a combination of Section 16.3.4(xi) and the specific parameters in respect to student accommodation set out within Policy RES11: Provision of Student Accommodation, of the current Development Plan.

 

The criteria of “one pedestrian kilometre from a third level institute and/or of a quality public transport mode” as stated within Policy RES11 of the current Development Plan has been simply revised to clarify that the 1kmdistance is from the boundary of the Institution. Particularly in the context of UCD, and given the spatial scale of that campus, it was considered reasonable to clarify this point.

 

In response to an earlier submission (Submission No.A037) from UCD received at the Pre-Draft Stage of the Development Plan process the Planning Authority created a map with a 1km, 1.5km, 2km, 2.5km and 3km ‘catchments’  from the boundaries of both UCD and IADT in order to assess the implications of facilitating increased distances from each of the campuses. Having completed this analysis, it was considered there was no real or objective justification to increase the 1km catchment as more than sufficient zoned lands and sites for the provision of purpose-built student accommodation is located within 1km distance from the boundaries of both UCD and IADT.

 

If, for example, the distance were to be increased to 2km for both UCD and IADT, the overall catchment area covered would be excessive and would have potential to adversely impact on various parcels of land suitable for other forms of housing within the County.

 

It is recognised however, that there is potential to provide student accommodation within close proximity to high quality public transport links such as the DART, Luas and N11 bus corridor which would not only provide for student accommodation for Third Level Institutes within the County, but also provide accommodation with sustainable links for Institutes outside the County.

 

The preferred option for Student accommodation would be to provide it on campus, followed by provision in close proximity to campus. However, it is considered reasonable that accommodation may be provided in appropriate locations within close proximity to high quality public transport routes.

 

Having regard to this, it is considered reasonable to provide a sequential approach to requirements in relation to Student Accommodation within Section 8.2.3.4(xii) of the Draft Plan.

 

While examining the existing policy in relation to student accommodation it emerged that the Draft Plan contains a definition of “residential (student)” accommodation in the list of definitions.  This is causing confusion as the only place this use class is ‘Permitted in Principle’ or ‘Open for consideration’ is the TLI - Third Level Institution - land use zoning objective.  The reason for the “Residential (student)” definition stems from the fact that there was a need to exclude other forms of residential development in the TLI zoning as opposed to it being a separate use class.  To avoid confusion when dealing with applications for student accommodation off campus it is considered that this definition should be removed and that the caveat relating to student accommodation in TLI be strengthened.

 

Recommendation:

 

Amend Section 8.2.4(xii), bullet 1 to state:

·         The location of student accommodation within the following hierarchy of priority:

·         On Campus

·         Within 1km distance from the boundary of a Third Level Institute

·         Within close proximity to high quality public transport corridors (DART, N11 and Luas), cycle and pedestrian routes and green routes.

In all cases such facilities will be resisted in remote locations at a remove from urban areas”.

 

Remove definition of “Residential (student)” from Section 8.3.12.

 

Remove “(Student)” from Table 8.3.13 and add “in accordance with Department of Education and Science Guidelines on Residential Development for Third Level Students (1999) and subsequent supplementary document (2005)”.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 323 – 325 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

596.

Pages 325 - 328 8.2.4: Sustainable Travel and Transport

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 325 – 328 of the Chief Executives Report were CONSIDERED.

 

“8.2.4:   Sustainable Travel and Transport i) – v)”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 325 – 328 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

597.

Page 328 - 330 8.2.4: Sustainable Travel and Transport vi) & vii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED.

 

vi) “Submission requests that the car parking standard detailed for Sports Grounds is applied as a minimum standard.  The submission also recommends the use of overspill car parking, adequate bus parking and secure bicycle parking is incorporated within the Sports Grounds category.”

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the content of this submission.

 

The car parking standards in Table 8.2.4 for Non-Residential Land-Uses are maximum parking standards. To allow for flexibility in car parking - within Sports Grounds - for overflow car parking and to provide for set down and coach parking (depending on location, proximity to public transport, existing facilities etc) it is recommended that the text of Table 8.2.4 be amended.

 

The development of adequate secure cycle parking is provided as an integral part of any new development in accordance with the Council’s Cycling Policy Guidelines and Standards and Section 8.2.4.7: Cycle Parking.  Provision of cycle parking in public areas will be considered as part of the on-going cycle parking programme and thus no change to Section 8.2.4.7 is recommended.

 

Recommendation:

 

Amend the text in Table 8.2.4: Non-Residential Land-Use – Maximum Car Parking Standards for Sports Ground (for both “General” and designated areas “Along Public Transport Corridors”) as follows:

 

“15 spaces per pitch. Overflow car parking, set down parking and coach parking to be decided on a case-by-case basis for each sports ground.””

 

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED.

 

vii) “Submission from ESB requests that DLR strengthen their support for the roll-out of EV infrastructure by amending the wording of Section 8.2.4.12: Electrically Operated Vehicles.”

 

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

 

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

 

However, it is considered that the standards - as proposed within this submission - may be too onerous on smaller-scale infill developments. Therefore, it is considered necessary to incorporate certain thresholds within the proposed amendments.

 

Recommendation:

 

Delete Section 8.2.4.12 and replace with the following:

 

“To encourage the use of Electric Vehicles, in line with Council and National Policy, developments shall provide Electric Vehicle Charging spaces as follows:

 

1.  Residential Developments (with private car spaces including visitor car parking spaces) minimum of one car parking space per ten residential units should be equipped with one fully functional Electric Vehicle Charging Point.

 

2.   Non-Residential Developments (with private car parking spaces including              visitor car parking spaces e.g. office developments) minimum of one car parking space per ten car parking spaces should be equipped with one fully functional Electric Vehicle  Charging Point.

 

3.    Developments with Publicly Accessible Spaces (e.g. supermarket car park, cinema etc.) Minimum of one car parking space per ten car parking spaces should be equipped with one fully functional Electric Vehicle  Charging Point

The Charge Point Parking space(s) should be clearly marked as being designated for Electric Vehicle charging.  Appropriate signage indicating the presence of a Charge Point or Points should also be erected.  All Charge Points fitted in publically accessible areas should be capable of communicating usage data with the National Charge Point Management System and use the latest version of the Open Charge Point Protocol (OCPP). They should also support a user identification system such as Radio Frequency Identification (RFID).

The remainder of the car parking spaces, for all land-uses, shall be constructed to be capable of accommodating future charging points, including ducting and wiring, as required.  As sales of battery operated cars increase to meet the Government objectives of 10% car ownership by 2020 it would be expected that such spaces would be specifically allocated to that use similar to dedicated parking spaces for the disabled and ‘Parent and Child’”.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 328 – 330 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

598.

Pages 330 - 332 8.2.6: Retail Development i) - iv)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 330 – 332 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 330 – 332 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

599.

Pages 332 - 333 8.2.6: Retail Development v)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED.

 

v) “Submission from ‘Kentucky Fried Chicken’ concerns policy in relation to fast food restaurants/takeaways as set out in Section 8.2.6.5 of the Draft Plan.

 

Submission highlights the economic contribution of drive-through ‘restaurants’. Requests that the restrictive provisions in Section 8.2.6.5 bullet points 5 and 7 relating, respectively, to the proximity of fast food outlets to schools/parks and drive-through facilities restricted to Major Town Centres and District Centres – should be omitted in their entirety.

 

The submission indicates that regarding bullet point 7 it would appear that drive-through facilities will only be permitted in Major Town Centres or District Centres. This would be contrary to a number of recent decisions by An Bord Pleanala.

Submission also indicates that the policy may conflict with itself in that it seeks to locate drive-throughs in specific areas then states that the proliferation of them in areas can have impacts.

 

Submission includes a map of a notional ‘No Fry Zone’ around schools of 1.5km and indicates that this would almost prohibit any future takeaway development such is the spatial distribution of schools across the County.

 

Submission queries the use of the planning system to regulate in the area of obesity/healthy eating, noting that a KFC ‘BBQ Rancher Burger’ contains approximately 400 calories - “lower than many high street sandwiches”.

 

LAP Guidelines advice on location of fast food takeaways proximate to schools etc should not be adhered to in County Development Plans.”

 

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

 

The Chief Executive has noted the contents of this submission.

 

Policy on fast food restaurants/takeaways in the existing 2010-2016 County Development Plan and the 2016-2022 Draft Plan has generally considered, inter alia, the potential effect of noise, general disturbance, hours of operation, litter and fumes on the amenities of nearby residents or adjoining commercial activities. Rather than ‘unfairly singling out’ fast food restaurants/takeaways, it is considered entirely reasonable to take into account the particular characteristics of this type of commercial use when framing appropriate policy to address same.

 

The map of a notional ‘No Fry Zone’ around schools of 1.5km which is included in the submission, is not included or referred to in the Draft Plan.

 

In relation to the suggestion in the National ‘Local Area Plan Guidelines’ that fast food restaurant locations proximate to schools should be considered in the context of combating childhood obesity, it is acknowledged that land use plans are not a panacea and it is unreasonable to expect that Planning Authorities can somehow take responsibility for the lifestyle choice of individuals.

 

In that regard it is considered appropriate to remove bullet point five as requested in this submission in relation to the location of fast food outlets in the vicinity of parks and schools.

 

Regarding bullet point seven, however, it is considered that, generally, the most appropriate locations for fast food restaurants/takeaways with proposed drive-through facilities are in the Major Town Centres or District Centres. This is reflected in  the Land Use Zoning Objectives tables whereby ‘Restaurant’ use is ‘Permitted in Principle’ in the ‘Major Town Centre’ and ‘District Centre’ zonings. Any planning application for such a use would be considered on a case-by-case basis.  ‘Restaurant’ use is also ‘Open for Consideration’ in other land use zonings elsewhere in the County.

 

The reference in the submission to the decision by An Bord Pleanala to grant permission under D11A/0497 for two drive-through restaurants in Carrickmines is noted. This application was initially refused permission by the Council. The decision by the Council was founded on the policies and objectives of the 2010-2016 County Development Plan. The Bord took a different view on the proposal.

 

Recommendation:

 

Remove bullet point five from Section 8.2.6.5 of the Draft Plan.

 

  • Careful consideration of the location of fast food outlets in the vicinity of schools and parks.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 332 – 333 of the Chief Executive’s Report were DEFEATED.

 

 

600.

Motion No. 45 - FAST FOOD OUTLETS pdf icon PDF 41 KB

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

 

“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:

 

Reinsert bullet point 5 to Section 8.2.6.5 of the Draft Plan i.e.

Careful consideration of the location of fast food outlets in the vicinity of schools and parks.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Report was ACCEPTED.

 

 

601.

Motion No. 46 - FAST FOOD OUTLETS pdf icon PDF 43 KB

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

 

“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:

 

Development Management Page 198 Section 8.2.6.5 Fast Food Outlets

Retain bullet point 5 “Careful consideration of the location of fast food outlets in the vicinity of schools and parks.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Report was ACCEPTED.

 

 

602.

Pages 334 8.2.7: Landscape, Heritage and Biodiversity i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED.

 

i)     “Submission requests changes to Section 8.2.7.3: High Amenity Landscapes Views and Prospects as follows:

 

  • After landscapes on 2nd line add “including uplands and river valleys”.
  • After “development” on 6th line addincluding photomontages, on-site height poles and setting out alternative sites that were considered”.

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission.

 

It is not considered necessary, or indeed appropriate, to single out uplands and river valleys as one particular type of landscape as this would almost infer that they are more important than other landscapes in the County.  The word ‘landscape’ is taken to encompass all the varied types of landscapes present in the County.

 

The use of photomontages in the assessment of planning applications for developments in High Amenity areas has some merit. It is recommended that a reference to photomontages be included in Section 8.2.7.3.

 

Recommendation:

 

Section 8.2.7.3 - after “development” on 6th line add“including photomontages”.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 334 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

603.

Pages 334 - 335 8.2.7: Landscape, Heritage and Biodiversity ii) & iii)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 334 - 335 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 334 - 335 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

604.

Pages 335 - 336 8.2.8.2 (i) Residential/Housing Developments i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED.

 

i) “Submission states that the amendments in the Draft Plan to Public/Communal Open Space standards represent a doubling of what is currently required and would be most inappropriate in terms of achieving sustainable densities on site. It is recommended that ‘10sqm per person’ in multiple residential schemes is an appropriate standard”.

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission.

 

In advance of the preparation of the Chief Executive’s Draft Plan a full and comprehensive review of the open space requirements set out within the current 2010-2016 County Development Plan was undertaken.  It was considered that the existing standards represented too broad a spectrum of what may be ‘acceptable’ in terms of open space quantum - leading to some confusion in terms of what was considered an acceptable and appropriate open space provision within any given site. In addition, a review of recent planning decisions was also carried out to determine what had been considered acceptable and appropriate in terms of open space provision.

 

In addition to the above review, the Planning Authority also examined the open space requirements for each of the other Local Authorities within the Greater Dublin Area having regard to the recommendations in relation to open space as set out within the DoEHLG Guidelines – ‘Design Standards for New Apartments’ and ‘Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas’.

 

It was duly considered that 20sq.m. per person within a residential development represented a reasonable standard, and, when tested against the current Development Plan standards, this figure yielded a similar open space requirement for the higher end of the combined Class 1 and Class 2 open space requirements set out within the current 2010-2016 County Development Plan.

 

A number of caveats have been provided for within the Draft Plan that may provide for a relaxation in open space provision within a site. Section 8.2.8.2(iii): Financial Contributions in Lieu of Open Space, provides for a relaxation in the quantum of open space in certain circumstances, subject to a minimum of 10% of the overall site area being retained for open space.

 

The current open space standards in the 2010-2016 County Development Plan provides for an excessive range in terms of overall acceptable open space quantum.  It is noted that the 20sq.m per person – as a minimum standard – may significantly increase open space requirements in certain sites. In this regard, it is considered reasonable to provide a more condensed spectrum of acceptable open space quantum.

 

It is considered that 15sq.m. per person is a reasonable lower end to the range of acceptable open space, however higher quantums of open space should be encouraged across the board with lower quantums only being permitted where exceptionally well designed and laid out open areas are provided.

 

This particular submission specifically refers to lands at Woodbrook which are located within the Woodbrook/Shanganagh LAP 2006-2016. The LAP identifies two development sites – one at Shanganagh Castle and the other at Woodbrook. SLO No. 54 within the Draft Plan requires lands at Woodbrook to be developed in accordance with the LAP.

 

Section 3.2.4(g) of the Woodbrook/Shanganagh LAP also states Shangangh Park can be included in the pool of open space area required for both development lands (in line with the provisions of the County Development Plan, p.80-81). This effectively means that open space can be relaxed to a degree… The Council will however, require a financial contribution in lieu of open space…”. In this regard, a relaxation in open space provision at Woodbrook has already been provided for.

 

Recommendation:

 

  • Amend first sentence of Section 8.2.8.2(i) Residential/Housing Developments from “…the requirement of 20sq.m. of open space…’ to ‘…the requirement of 15sq.m. – 20sq.m. of open space…”.
  • Add new sentence to the end of the first paragraph of Section 8.2.8.2(i): “A lower quantity of open space (below 20sq.m. per person) will only be considered acceptable in instances where exceptionally high quality open space is provided on site and such schemes may be subject to financial contributions as set out under Section 8.2.2.2(iii) below.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 335 – 336 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

605.

Pages 336 - 338 Open Space and Recreation

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 336 – 338 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

“8.2.7:  Landscape, Heritage and Biodiversity ii) – iii)

8.2.8.2 (iii) Financial Contributions in Lieu of Open Space i)

8.2.8.4 (i) Private Open Space for Houses i)

8.2.8.4 (ii) Separation Distances i)”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 336 – 338 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

606.

Pages 338 - 339 8.2.8.4 (iv) Private Open Space for Apartment Development i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED.

 

i) ”Submission is opposed to increases in private open space standards for apartment developments and requests that rather than increasing standards, the County Development Plan should encourage innovative designs that improve usability and quality of balconies e.g. the use of retractable glazing creating winter gardens. Standards should be more flexible where higher densities are sought”.

 

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

 

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

 

Section 4.4: Balconies, of the DoEHLG ‘Design Standards for New Apartments’ guidelines refers to “Balconies (or glass-screened ‘winter gardens’, separated from living spaces)…”. The provision of ‘winter garden’-type private open space serving apartments would therefore be an acceptable form of open space In this regard, it is considered appropriate to include ‘winter gardens’ within the provisions of Section 8.2.8.4(iv). Any proposed ‘winter garden’ would be treated as if it were an open balcony and would be subject to the same minimum size standards as set out within Draft Plan Table 8.2.5: Balconies: Minimum Private Open Space.

 

In relation to increases in balcony sizes, it should be noted that the minimum balcony sizes listed within Table 8.2.5 remain unchanged from those listed within the current 2010-2016 County Development Plan (Table 16.1). A new minimum balcony size for larger 4+ bed apartments was, however, added to the Draft Plan to ensure that if larger apartments of 4 or more bedrooms were proposed in future schemes the scale of private open space serving them would be proportionate to the size of the unit.

 

Recommendation:

 

Amend:

  • Second sentence of Section 8.2.8.4(iv) from ‘…private open space in the form of a balcony or patio area…’ to ‘…private open space in the form of a balcony, winter garden or patio area…’

Title of Table 8.2.5 from ‘Balconies…’ to ‘Balconies/Winter Gardens/Patios…’.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 338 – 339 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

607.

Page 339 8.2.8.6 Trees and Hedgerows

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 339 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 339 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

608.

Page 340 8.2.9.7 New Development - Environmental Impacts

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 340 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 340 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

609.

Motion No. 47 - GREEN ROOFS pdf icon PDF 753 KB

It was proposed by Councillor M. Halpin  and seconded by Councillor H. Lewis.

 

“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:

 

Development Management Section 8.2.10.3

Insert new section at end: “Green Roofs It is an objective of this plan to ensure that apartment, employment, retail, ancillary shopping, leisure developments and education facilities with roof space of over 300 sq metres should install Green Roofs as per the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the National Biodiversity Plan.  A green roof in all cases shall cover a minimum of 60% of the roof area.  The minimum soil thickness shall be 2 to 4 cm for a moss/sedum type and 10 to 15 cm for a grassed type of extensive green roof.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Report was ACCEPTED.

 

 

610.

Page 341 - 342 8.2.9.9 Telecommunications Antennae and Structures i)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 341 – 342 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 341 – 342 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

611.

Motion No. 48 - MOBILE PHONE BASE STATION pdf icon PDF 67 KB

The following motion in the name of Councillor D. Donnelly was NOT MOVED.

 

“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:

 

That the new Plan re-instates the following from Policy 16.14 of the current Plan:

“Planning applications will be required to demonstrate:That the beam of greatest intensity from a base station does not fall on any part of school grounds or buildings without agreement from the school and parents. Where an operator submits an application for planning permission for the installation, alteration or replacement of a mobile phone base station, whether at or near a school or college, the operator must provide evidence that they have consulted with the relevant body of the school or college.”

 

 

612.

Motion Nos. 49, 50 & No 22 from floor - TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANTENNAE AND STRUCTURES pdf icon PDF 61 KB

It was AGREED to take Motions 49, 50 and No. 22 from the floor with an amendment in the names of Councillor H. Lewis and M. Halpin (49) and Councillor M. Merrigan & V. Boyhan (50) and B. Saul (No 22 from floor)

 

Motion No. 49

 

It was proposed by Councillor H. Lewis 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:

 

Development Management Page 213 Section 8.2.9.9 Telecommunications Antennae and Structures

Insert new bullet point

"That the beam of greatest intensity from a base station does not fall on any part of school grounds or buildings without agreement from the school and parents. Where an operator submits an application for planning permission for the installation, alteration or replacement of a mobile phone base station, whether at or near a school or college, the operator must provide evidence that they have consulted with the relevant body of the school or college."

 

Motion No. 50

 

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

 

“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:

 

Telecommunications Antennae and Structures

 

Proposal:

That, Section 16.14 of the current County Development Plan regarding 'Telecommunications Antennae and Structures' and in particular, in the following provision:

 

"That the beam of greatest intensity from a base station does not fall on any part of school grounds or buildings without agreement from the school and parents. Where an operator submits an application for planning permission for the installation, alteration or replacement of a mobile phone base station, whether at or near a school or college, the operator must provide evidence that they have consulted with the relevant body of the school or college"

 

Be retained in its entirety and restated in the Draft County Development Plan 2016-2022 in the interest of public health and safety and especially, for the young children, students, staff and teachers in schools or colleges within the area of the beam of greatest intensity from telecommunications antennae and structures.”

 

Motion No. 22 from the floor

 

Motion No 22 from the floor in the names of Councillors B. Saul and Councillor J. Bailey. It was proposed by Councillor B. Saul and seconded by Councillor J. Bailey

 

“To Motion 49 – 50 – Not within 600 metres of any school”

 

"That the beam of greatest intensity from a base station does not fall Not within 600 metres of any school” on any part of school grounds or buildings without agreement from the school and parents. Where an operator submits an application for planning permission for the installation, alteration or replacement of a mobile phone base station, whether at or near a school or college, the operator must provide evidence that they have consulted with the relevant body of the school or college"

 

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

 

Motion No’s 49 & 50 with the amendment (Motion No 22 from the floor) 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:

6

32

1

 

An Cathaoirleach, Councillor B. Saul, declared amended Motion Nos 49 and 50  (22 from the floor)  DEFEATED.  

 

The Chief Executive’s Reports were AGREED.

 

 

613.

Page 342 8.2.9.10 Development and Overhead Power Lines i)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 342 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 342 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

614.

Pages 342 - 344 8.1.10: Climate Change Adaptation and Energy i), ii) & iii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED.

 

i) “Submission requests that relevant paragraphs in Section 8.2.10.3 in relation to Passive House Building Standards be omitted as they contradict existing statutory documentation.

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive agrees with this submission. (See also section 5.2.3(i))

 

Recommendation:

 

Having considered the submission made, it is recommended that the following Section of the Development Plan be removed.

 

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 CC7)”.

 

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED.

 

ii) “Submission states that requirements with respect to Passive House certification is amended and a threshold value applied in order to avoid false or misleading verification.  Specific wording is suggested”.

 

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

 

The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission. (See also section 5.2.3(i))

 

Submission relates specifically to verification of Passive House Standard and the existing line in the Draft Plan “Prior to occupation, final PHPP verification sheet should also be submitted (refer to Section 5.2.3.2 Policy CC7)”. It has already been recommended (immediately above) to omit the entire section on Passive House Building Standard from Section 8.2.10.3.

 

Recommendation:

 

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 CC7)”.

 

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED.

 

iii) “Submission raises concern in relation to passive house certification and suggests an alternative whereby DLR recognise a range of verifiable standards.  DLR should provide a matrix which outlines the alternative means of compliance and what element of the building regulations the alternative standards are being accepted in lieu of.

 

DLR should clarify the role of the assigned certifier”.

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission. (See also section 5.2.3(i))

 

Submission relates specifically to verification of Passive House Standard and the existing line in the Draft Plan “Prior to occupation, final PHPP verification sheet should also be submitted (refer to Section 5.2.3.2 Policy CC7)”. It has already been recommended (immediately above) to omit the entire section on Passive House Building Standard from Section 8.2.10.3.

 

Recommendation:

 

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 CC7)””.

 

AnCathaoirleach, Councillor B. Saul advised that The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 342 - 344 of the Chief Executive’s Report were already AGREED when dealing with the Passive Housing issues.

 

 

615.

Pages 344 - 345

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 344 - 345 the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

“8.2.10:  Climate Change Adaptation and Energy iv) - v)

8.2.11:  Archaeological and Architectural Heritage i) - ii)”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 345 – 345 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

616.

Motion No. 17 from the floor Pages 345 - 348 8.2.11: Archaeological and Architectural Heritage iii),

Motion No. 17 from the floor

 

It was AGREED to take Motion No. 17 from the floor in the names of Councillor M. Merrigan and Councillor V. Boyhan.

 

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

 

“Thatthis PlanningAuthoritypursuantto Section12 ofthe Planning& DevelopmentAct,2000 (asamended)resolvestoamendtheDraftDevelopmentPlanas follows:

 

In section 8.2.11.1 amend the following recommended text ‘…and recording shall be carried out and submitted by a qualified archaeologist where appropriate’ to read ‘…and recording, where appropriate, shall be carried out and submitted by a qualified archaeologist’.

 

Reason: 

 

For clarity in respect of the engagement of a qualified archaeologist”.

 

The Motion was AGREED.

 

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED.

 

iii) “Submission outlines various issues relating to dealing with applications for development within areas of special archaeological interest. Submission requests that the following is included within the Draft Plan:

 

·         Require that an on-site assessment is carried out by trial works.

·         Have regard to and consider archaeological concerns when considering proposed public service schemes/infrastructure (including transport, electricity, sewerage, telecommunications and water supply and road works) located in or close to Recorded Monuments and Places and to the zones of archaeological potential.

·         Where it is proposed to undertake ground works within an area of archaeological potential the Council will require the preparation of an archaeological field evaluation by a licensed archaeologist.

·         Development applications shall be assessed against Archaeological & Development Guidelines for Good practice for Developers and the DECLG/ICF Archaeological Code of Practice (2009)

Where a development would result in ground disturbance within a Zone of Archaeological Potential and in sites on or abutting Monuments identified in the RMP, or a previously unknown archaeological feature the retention of a licensed archaeologist will be required and if he/she deems that development threatens the site, work must be immediately suspended until direction is given by the DoAHG. Planning conditions may be applied and if the site works proceed a licensed archaeologist should be employed to supervise and monitor the development”.

 

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 many of the activities by Statutory Undertakers referred to in the submission may not necessarily require planning permission, as much of their activities are exempted development under the provisions of Section 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended).

 

Notwithstanding, it is considered that the National Monuments Act 1930-2004 provides protection to all works proximate to National Monuments, including those which would not constitute development and would not necessarily fall within the remit of a County Development Plan.

 

In addition, there are already a number of long established Codes of Practice between the National Monuments Service and various utility and Statutory Undertakers, which provides a framework within existing legislation, policy and practice enabling these bodies to progress with programmes of work whilst carrying out appropriate archaeological mitigation having regard to a set of principles and actions agreed by both parties:

 

  • ‘Code of Practice between the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and ESB Networks’
  • ‘Code of Practice between the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and EirGrid’.
  • ‘Code of Practice between Bord Gáis Éireann and The Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands’.
  • ‘Code of Practice Agreed Between The National Roads Authority and The Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and The Islands’

 

Any works which would normally require planning permission – for example  telecommunication structures - would be subject to compliance with Policies set out in Section 6.1.2: Archaeological Heritage of the Draft Plan and the Development Management guidance set out in Section 8.2.11: Archaeological Heritage.

 

Section 8.2.11.1: Archaeological Heritage states that “Pre-development archaeological testing, surveying, monitoring and recording shall be carried out where appropriate.”

 

Any assessment of any planning application relies on the case planner consulting the Development Plan maps in order to identify land use zoning objectives, including identification of other objectives such as Zones of Archaeological Potential. When a site is identified to be located within, or indeed in close proximity to a historical site, the RMP is consulted and the application is subsequently referred to the National Monuments Service for comment.

 

In general, such applications – if granted permission – would contain a number of conditions requiring:

 

·         Employment of a suitably-qualified archaeologist prior to the commencement of development that is responsible for assessing the site and monitoring all site development works.

·         An archaeological appraisal of the site providing for the preservation, recording and protection of archaeological materials or features which may exist within the site and submission of the report to the Local Authority prior to commencing works.

·         Notification of works to the Planning Authority/National Monuments Service four weeks prior to commencement of any works on site

·         Facilitation of the National Monuments Service to safeguard any items of archaeological significance as required

 

Given that conditions attached to planning permissions require the services of an archaeologist to be retained, it is considered reasonable to include such a reference in Section 8.2.11.1: Archaeological Heritage. In addition, it is considered reasonable to make reference to the Heritage Council’s document ‘Archaeology & Development: Guidelines for Good Practice for Developers’ (2000) in order to provide potential applicants with an additional guidance source.

 

(Note –Section 8.2.11.1 makes reference to the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government – this should be the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht and will be amended accordingly).

 

Recommendation:

 

Amend paragraph 2, Section 8.2.11.1 from “…and recording shall be carried out where appropriate” to “…and recording shall be carried out and submitted by a qualified archaeologist where appropriate.”

 

Add new sentence to the end of paragraph 2, Section 8.2.11.1: “In addition to the Government’s ‘Frameworks and Principles for the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage’, regard should be had to the Heritage Council’s guidance document ‘Archaeology & Development: Guidelines for Good Practice for Developers’ (2000).”

 

Amend last sentence of Section 8.2.11.1 from: “…be referred to the Minister through the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government.” to “…be referred to the Minister through the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht and to the Heritage Council.  In considering such planning applications, the Planning Authority will have regard to the views and recommendations of the National Monuments Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht and other interested bodies.”

 

As Motion No. 17 from the floor  was AGREED, the first paragraph  in the  The Chief Executive’s  Recommendation on pages 347   of the Chief Executive’s Report was AMENDED unanimously.

 

The 2nd and 3rd paragraph of The Chief Executive’s Recommendation on Page 347 – 348 were  AGREED unanimously 

 

 

617.

Pages 348 - 349 8.2.11: Archaeological and Architectural Heritage iv)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

iv) “Submission proposes an entire new replacement section for Section 8.2.11.1: Archaeological Heritage. The proposed ‘replacement’ section is c.1000 words long”.

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive has noted to contents of this comprehensive submission.

 

It is considered that the wording of existing Draft Plan Section 8.2.11.1: Archaeological Heritage, in combination with all other Policies set out within Section 6.12: Archaeological Heritage, already adequately captures – albeit in a condensed form – the subject matter of this submission. 

 

Any development which may impact upon an archaeological site is bound by legislative controls set by National Monuments (Amendment Act) 1994. The introduction of Draft Plan Section 6.1.2: Archaeological Heritage states: “The Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands (DoAHGI) sets out guiding policies in the publication ‘Framework and Principles for the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage’, (1999) and part of the defining policy is that full account is taken of archaeological considerations in the wider planning and development process.”

 

When a site is identified to be located within, or indeed, in close proximity to, a historical site, the application is referred to the National Monuments Service for comment who, in turn, specify appropriate measures for applicants to take in relation to development works within a specific site.  Development Management Section 8.2.11.1: Archaeological Heritage, states that “Pre-development archaeological testing, surveying, monitoring and recording shall be carried out where appropriate.”

 

Furthermore, any such applications – if granted permission – would already include, as a matter of course, a number of conditions requiring:

 

·      Employment of a suitably-qualified archaeologist prior to the commencement of development that is responsible for assessing the site and monitoring all site development works.

·      An archaeological appraisal of the site providing for the preservation, recording and protection of archaeological materials or features which may exist within the site and submission of the report to the Local Authority prior to commencing works.

·      Notification of works to the Planning Authority/National Monuments Service four weeks prior to commencement of any works on site

·      Facilitation of the National Monuments Service to safeguard any items of archaeological significance as required

 

It is not considered necessary or appropriate to set out very prescriptive and specific requirements in relation to development works adjacent to archaeological sites as these requirements may vary from site to site.  It is more appropriate for the National Monuments Service to provide any such specific requirements and localised guidance in relation to proposed development works on a site-by-site basis.

 

Given that conditions attached to planning permissions require the services of an archaeologist to be retained, it is considered reasonable to include such a reference in Section 8.2.11.1: Archaeological Heritage. In addition, it is considered reasonable to make reference to the Heritage Council’s document ‘Archaeology & Development: Guidelines for Good Practice for Developers’ (2000) in order to provide potential applicants with an additional guidance source.

 

Recommendation:

 

Amend paragraph 2, Section 8.2.11.1 from “…and recording shall be carried out where appropriate” to “…and recording shall be carried out and submitted by a qualified archaeologist where appropriate.”

 

Add new sentence to the end of paragraph 2, Section 8.2.11.1: “In addition to the Government’s ‘Frameworks and Principles for the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage’, regard should be had to the Heritage Council’s guidance document ‘Archaeology & Development: Guidelines for Good Practice for Developers’ (2000).”

 

Amend last sentence of Section 8.2.11.1 from: “…be referred to the Minister through the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government.” to “…be referred to the Minister through the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht and to the Heritage Council.  In considering such planning applications, the Planning Authority will have regard to the views and recommendations of the National Monuments Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht and other interested bodies.””

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 348 – 349   of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

618.

Motion No. 18 from the floor Pages 349 - 350 8.2.11: Archaeological and Architectural Heritage v)

Motion No. 18 from the Floor

 

It was AGREED to take Motion No. 18  from the floor in the names of Councillor M. Merrigan and Councillor V. Boyhan.

 

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

 

“Thatthis PlanningAuthoritypursuantto Section12 ofthe Planningand DevelopmentAct,2000 (asamended)resolvestoamendtheDraftDevelopmentPlanas follows:

In Policy E14 that, the recommended text on page 349 – ‘The tourism potential of the County’s heritage and disspora is recognised as an important area for development.  Accordingly, the Council will encourage the development of cultural, literary, historical, archaeological, architectural heritage and genealogical tourism opportunities, products and facilities in the County, where practical and feasible’ be amended to include ‘maritime heritage’ after the words ‘architectural heritage’

Reason: 

The amendment seeks to emphasise the importance of the County’s maritime heritage and the scope for the promotion and development of marine archaeology around our 17kms of coastline.”

 

The Motion was AGREED.

 

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED.

 

v) “Submission requests that a new section in relation to developments relating to recreational and tourism-based development and environmental heritage”.

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission.

 

It is considered that Draft Plan Policy E14: Tourism and Recreation, is comprehensive, robust and inclusive and satisfactorily deals with tourism-related development across the County. There is no requirement to provide a specific tourism section within Section 8.2: Development Management.

 

It is considered appropriate however to amend Policy E14 to include reference to archaeological heritage related tourism.

 

Recommendation

Amend the last sentence of Policy E14: Tourism and Recreation to state:

 

The tourism potential of the County’s heritage and diaspora is recognised as an important area for development. Accordingly, the Council will encourage the development of cultural, literary, historical, archaeological, architectural heritage and genealogical tourism opportunities, products and facilities in the County, where practical and feasible.””

 

Following a discussion it was AGREED that the words be included in theChief Executive’s Recommendation to read as follows:-

 

The tourism potential of the County’s heritage and diaspora is recognised as an important area for development. Accordingly, the Council will encourage the development of cultural, literary, historical, archaeological, architectural heritage  “maritime heritage” and genealogical tourism opportunities, products and facilities in the County, where practical and feasible.””

 

The Chief Executive’s Recommendation with an amendment was AGREED.

619.

Page 350 8.2.12: Community Support Facilities i)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 350 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 350 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

620.

Motion 51 and Motion 21 from the floor - Zoning pdf icon PDF 33 KB

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

 

Principles of Development Table 8.3.19 Page 234 Zoning Objective “W” 

From “Open for Consideration” delete: “Hotel/Motel, Off License, Public House, Residential, and Residential Institution.”

 

Following a discussion an amendment from the floor in the names of Councillors M. Halpin, H. Lewis B. Saul and K. Gill.

 

Motion No 21 from the floor

 

 It was proposed by Councillor M. Halpin and seconded by Councillor H. Lewis.

 

“Amendment to 51 – change motion to read:

 

From “Open for Consideration delete “Residential and Residential Institution”.

 

Following a discussion, Ms. L. McGauran responded to Members’ queries. 

 

Motion No 51 with an amendment from the floor 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:

12

27

1

 

AnCathaoirleach, Councillor B. Saul, declared the amended Motion DEFEATED.  

 

 

621.

Pages 351 - 353 8.3 Land Use Zoning Objectives

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 351 – 353 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

“8.3.3:  Permitted in Principle i) – iii)

83.8:  Non-Conforming Uses i)”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 351 – 353 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

622.

Motion No. 3 from the floor - Provision of Crematorium use.

Motion No 3 from the floor in the names of Councillors N. Richmond and T. Murphy

 

It was proposed by Councillor N. Richmond and seconded by Councillor T. Murphy.

 

“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:

 

1.    Inclusion of a Specific Local Objective in Map 9 of the Draft Dún Laoghaire Rathdown County Development Plan 2016-2022 to provide a “Crematorium” on lands zoned for agricultural purposes at Ballycorus Road, identified in red below.

2.    Inclusion of SLO 14B within Chapter 9 of the Draft County Development Plan with the following objective: SLO 14B: To provide for a Crematorium on lands zoned for agricultural purposes on Ballycorus Road.

3.    It is proposed to include Crematorium as a use wghich is “permitted in principle” in table 8.3.5 of the Draft County Development Plan on lands zoned for agricultural purposes and subject to SLO 14B at Ballycorus Road.

 

ZONING OBJECTIVE ‘B’

 

“To protect and improve rural amenity and to provide for the development of agriculture”.

 

Permitted in principle

 

Allotments, Agricultural Buildings, Boarding Kennels, Caravan Park-Holiday, Cemetery, Crematorium*, Community Facility, Concrete /Asphalt (etc), Plant in or adjacent to a Quarry, Home Based Economic Activities, Industry-Extractive, Open Space, Place of Public Worship, Public Services, Rural Industry-Cottage, Rural Industry-Food, Travellers Accommodation.

 

*Crematorium use is only permitted in principle on lands zoned for agricultural purposes and subject to SLO 14B at Ballycorus Road.

 

Report:

 

“TheChiefExecutivedisagrees withtheprincipleoftheadditionofa veryprescriptive,exclusiveand sitespecific SLOonMap9 andon page148toprovidefora crematoriumon lands at Ballycorus.

 

Crematoriaare‘OpenforConsiderationinthe‘Fzoning– ‘Topreserveandprovideforopen spacewithancillaryactiverecreationalamenities’.Thisiscurrentlytheonlylandusezoningin theCountywherecrematoriaare‘OpenforConsideration’.Thereisa caveatattachedthatnot morethan40%ofthelandintermsofthebuiltformandsurfacecarparkingcombinedshallbe developed uponwhensucha facilityis providedforintheF zone.

 

TheChiefExecutive’sReportagreesthatthereisa needforcrematorium/crematoriaintheCounty. SpecificLocalObjectiveNo.61 onMap14isToencouragethedevelopmentofa crematoriumat Shanganagh Cemetery.

 

WhiletheChiefExecutive’sReportdisagreesfundamentallywiththeargumentthatcrematoria shouldbePermittedinPrinciple’inthe‘Bzone,itisconsideredthatcrematoriacouldbeOpenfor ConsiderationintheBzonewherethezoningobjectiveis– Toprotectandorimproverural amenityandtoprovideforthedevelopmentof agriculture.

 

Usesshownas‘OpenforConsideration‘areuseswhichmaybepermittedwherethePlanning