Agenda and minutes

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

Items
No. Item

655.

Adjournment of Meeting

It was AGREED to ADJOURN for 30 minutes.

 

The meeting ADJOURNED at 4.40p.m.

 

 

656.

Reconvening of Meeting

The meeting RECONVENED at 5.00p.m.

 

 

657.

Motion No. 6 ,24 and 27 from the floor, Motion No. 63 and 64 - SLO FORMER TOTAL FITNESS pdf icon PDF 44 KB

Additional documents:

Motion No. 6 from the floor

 

It was proposed by Councillor C. Curran, seconded by Councillor S. NiCormaic

 

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

Torezonepartofthe landas highlightedontheattachedimageonMap5 knownlocallyas theTotalFitnesssite:

From: ObjectiveF -Topreserveandprovideforopenspacewith ancillaryactiverecreationalamenities.

 

To: ObjectiveMH –Toimproveandencouragetheprovisionandexpansionof medical/hospitalusesandservices.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

“TheChief Executiveagreeswith thesentimentsofthisMotion in thecontextthata moreconsideredandappropriaterezoningofpartoftheoverallsubjectsite– whichis currentlyzonedObjectiveF:Toprovideforopenspacewithancillaryactiverecreationalamenities”– isfundamentallynecessarytofacilitatetheexpandedpaletteof usesandactivitiessoughtto beaccommodatedonthesiteby ‘related’MotionsNos.63 and64.

TheTotalFitnessHealthandFitnessCluboccupiesa visuallyprominent10 hectaresiteoffBlackglenRoadinSandyford.Thesiteiselevated(c.145m/470ft)andfallssteeplyalongitsnorthernedgeandsoprovidingpanoramicviewsfromthesitetowardsDublinCity.Thelocaldistributor accessroadto thesitefromBlackglenRoad- TicknockDrive- alsoservesthenearbyresidentialdevelopmentsofBrackenHill,TicknockHillandSandyfordView,immediatelyto thenorthofwhichtheyareflankedby theM50 corridor.

 

TheTotalFitnessSportsScienceComplexandHealthandFitnessClubwas originallygrantedplanningpermissionin2000 andthe overallfacility –includingan associated56 no.bedroomdormitoryblockand6 no.unitapartmentblock– havebeeninsitufor c.12-13 years.TheprimaryTotalFitnessbuildingextendsto over10,700sq.m.overtwo floorsandcontainsa comprehensivepackageofrecreationalandsportsrehabilitationfacilities– 25metreswimmingpool,rehabilitationpool,hydrotherapypool,gymnasium,sportsinjuryclinicandtreatmentareas,200 metreindoorrunningtrack,sauna/solarium, cafeteriaandadministrative offices. An extensive 350 no.space surfacelevelcarparkframesthenorthernflankoftheprimarybuilding.

TheTotalFitnessfacilitywas awell-establishedsportsandleisurefacilityinSandyfordfor anumberof yearsuntil2011 but sincethen ithaseffectivelylain vacantanddisusedwithverylittleapparentmaintenanceactivity.Theeconomicrealitywouldsuggestthat theprospectsofthefacilitybeingletona commercialbasisin itscurrentformareextremelyunlikelyandthereisa concernthatthiswillremainthecaseforthe foreseeablefuture.

 

DraftPlansubmissionB0507 promoteda proposalaimedat refocusingandallyingthe healthandfitnessclubfacilitiesalready insituwithan extensivemedicalrehabilitation/ transitional‘stepdowncarecentreactivityoperation.Whilethesportsandleisurecomplexwouldcontinueto beaccessibleby clubmembers/generalpublica wholeseriesofcomplementaryfacilitieswouldbe expandedandintroducedspecificallyto addressall aspectsofinjury,rehabilitationandtransitionalcareservicesforpatients‘steppingdownfroma mainstreamacutehospitalenvironmentpriorto beingdischargedintomoregeneralcareinthecommunity.Theproposalalsoenvisagestheconstructionofon-sitetransitionalshort-stayaccommodation(c.100beds)as a‘stepdownfacilityforpatientsrequiringfurtherpost-acutemedicalcareandrehabilitationservicesbeforereleaseintothecommunity.

 

Thesubmissionadvocatedthattransitionalor‘stepdown’post-acutehealthcarefacilitiesareincreasinglybecomingan integralpartoftheoverallhealthcaresectorand thattheirimportanceshouldbe reflectedinplanningpolicy.Indeed,thisisevidencedlocallyby therecentHSErepositioning’ofMountCarmelHospital- tosupportacutehospitalandcommunityservicesinDublin- byprovidinga rangeofshort-stayaccommodationin anon-acutesettingbutwithon-siteaccesstohealthandsocialcareservicesincludingphysiotherapy,occupationaltherapyandnursing/medical/carestaff.

 

TheChiefExecutiverecommendsthat- havingregardto(i)thecontinuingand seeminglyintractablelegacyissuesandconcernsassociatedwiththemothballedTotal Fitnessfacility(ii)thewidernationalimperativestofacilitateearlyreleaseofhighvalueacutebedsinmainstreamhospitalsthroughtheprovisionofadditional‘step-down/transitionalaccommodationinnon-acutesettings,and(iii)to facilitatea morecomplexrangeofrehabilitationandshort-term‘stepdowncarefacilitiesonthesubjectsite– itwouldbe anappropriateandconsideredpolicyresponseifthezoningofpartof thesubjectsitewereto berezonedfromObjectiveF’to ObjectiveMH’: Toimprove,encourageandfacilitatetheprovisionandexpansionofmedicalhospitalusesand services.ToretainthecurrentObjectiveF’zoningonthesite,andthenseekto

artificiallyintroducea wholeraftoflandusesandbuildingsthatareincompatiblewith thatzoning- (asisbeingproposedby Motions63 and64) -wouldcompletelyunderminethefundamentalpremiseandrationalebehindthepurposeofhavingsuiteoftailoredandtargetedlandusezoningobjectivesacrossthedifferentandvariedpartsofthe County.InthisparticularcasethesuiteofusesproposedintheMotionwouldbe whollycontradictoryto theobjectiveoftheF’zone– thepurposeofwhichis“Topreserveand provideforopenspacewith ancillaryactiverecreationalamenities”.

 

IncontrasttheMHzoningofpartoftheoverallsitewouldinnoway compromisethe continuingoperationoftheTotalFitnesscomplexas asportandleisurefacilityinthe unlikely event ofa third partytaking overthe running of the existing complexas agoingconcern because(i)thefacilityisalready  in situandwouldnotrequireplanningpermission,and(ii)‘LeisureFacility’andSportsFacilityusesareOpenforConsiderationintheMHzoninginanyevent.

 

TheChiefExecutivealsorecommendsthat,to providesomeparametersandboundariesto thepossiblefuturefurtherdevelopmentoftherezonedpartofthesubjectsite,thata newSpecificLocalObjectivebe includedonMap5 asfollows:

Tofacilitatesuitableproposalsfortheuse/reuseandextensionoftheexistingsports

sciencecomplexandhealthandfitnessclubfacilityat BlackglenRoad/TicknockDriveandto provideforsuitableuses,includingusesrelatingto healthandfitness,rehabilitationservicesandtransitional/’step-downcareservicesandassociatedmedicalsupportservicesincludingtheprovisionofan appropriatelevelofassociatedshort-stayaccommodationonthesite”.

 

TheChiefExecutivealsorecommendsthatthefollowingusebe includedintheMH’– ‘PermittedinPrinciplesectionofthezoningmatrix(Table8.3.15)– “Transitional/step-downnon-acutemedicalfacilitiesandrehabilitationservices(includingon-site,short-stayaccommodation)”.

 

HavingreassessedfurthertheMHzoningmatrix(Table8.3.15)inthecontextofthe currentMotion,andhavingregardto (i)thesixotherlandusezoningObjectivesin whichResidentialInstitutionuseisPermittedinPrinciple’and,(ii) givenalsothe relativelylimited,finiteextentofzoningObjectiveMHlandin theCounty,theChiefExecutivenowconsidersthatResidentialInstitutionisnolongeran appropriatelanduseto beincludedintheMH‘PermittedinPrinciplecategoryandrecommendsthatit beremovedfromthePermittedin Principlesection of thematrixand relocatedintothe ‘OpenforConsiderationsectionofthematrix.


Finally,theChiefExecutiverecommendsthata definitionof“Transitional/’step-down’medical/rehabilitationservicesisprovidedinSection8.3.12– DefinitionofUseClasses’as follows:

 

Abuildingorpartthereoforlandusedforpost-acutehospitalcareor‘step-down’/ transitionalmedicalandrehabilitationservicesusuallywith associatedon-site,short-stayaccommodation””.

 

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

 

“Itisrecommendedthatsubjectto theapprovaloftheCouncil,thefollowingresolutionbe passed:

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

RezonelandsidentifiedonMap 5fromzoningObjectiveF’to zoningObjectiveMH.

Inserta newSpecificLocalObjectiveonMap 5:

Tofacilitatesuitableproposalsfortheuse/reuseandextensionoftheexistingsportssciencecomplexandhealthandfitnessclubfacilityat BlackglenRoad/TicknockDriveandto provideforsuitableuses,includingusesrelatingto healthandfitness,rehabilitationservicesan transitional/step-downcareservicesandassociatedmedicalsupportservicesincludingtheprovisionofan appropriatelevelofassociatedshort-stayaccommodationonthesite”.

 

Amend the ‘MH’ zoning matrix (Table 8.3.15) to :

 

(i)            include‘Transitional/’step-downnon-acutemedicalfacilitiesandrehabilitationservices(includingassociatedon-site,short-stayaccommodation)’use inthe ‘PermittedinPrinciplecategory,and

(ii)           RelocateResidentialInstitutionusefromPermittedin Principlecategoryto ‘OpenforConsiderationcategory

 

Add a new definition to Section 8.3.12: Definition of Use Classes as follows:

Transitional/Step-DownMedical/RehabilitationServices

 

Abuildingorpartthereoforlandusedforpost-acutehospitalcareorstepdown/transitionalmedicalandrehabilitationservicesusuallywith associatedon-site,short-stayaccommodation”.

 

Motion No. 63

 

It was proposed by Councillor C. Curran and AGREED to WITHDRAW Motion No 63 on the Agenda as follows:

 

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

 

INSERT - New SLO on map 5 as follows: “To facilitate suitable proposals for the use/ reuse of the existing sports science complex and health and fitness club facility (former Total Fitness) at Blackglen Road and to provide for suitable ancillary uses, including uses relating to health and fitness, rehabilitation services and transitional/step-down care services and associated medical services including provision of associated short stay accommodation.”

 

 

Motion No. 64

 

It was proposed by Councillor N. Richmond and AGREED to WITHDRAW   Motion No 64 on the Agenda as follows:

 

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

 

Re: Proposal for use of former Total Fitness Site as a Health and Fitness Club and Medical Rehabilitation Centre at Blackglen Road, Sandyford, Dublin 18.

Submission by: Stanford Woods Care Centre Limited

 

Insert new Specific Local Objective (SLO) on Map 5 as follows-

“SLO X – To facilitate suitable proposals for the use/reuse and extension of the existing sports science complex and health and fitness club facility (former Total Fitness) at Blackglen Road and to provide for suitable uses, including uses relating to health and fitness, rehabilitation services and transitional/step-down care services and associated medical services including provision of associated short stay accommodation on the site.”

 

Reason:

 

The site and buildings are vacant at present and are in need of a sustainable long term use.  An appropriate Specific Local Objective relating to the subject site would recognise the established buildings/uses on the site and would also facilitate the use of the site to provide for rehabilitation services with ancillary on-site short stay accommodation for inpatients and related medical facilities”.

 

Following a discussion it was AGREED to take Motion No. 24 from the floor (amendment to Motion No. 6 from the floor) at this time.

 

Motion No. 24 from the floor

 

It was proposed by Councillor N. Richmond, seconded by Councillor B. Saul

 

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

 

To rezone part of the land as highlighted on the attached image on map 5 known locally as the Total Fitness site:

 

From: Objective F – ‘To preserve and provide for open space with ancillary active recreational amenities’.

 

To: Objective MH – ‘To improve and encourage the provision and expansion of medical/hospital uses and services’”.

 

Following a further discussion it was AGREED to take Motion No. 27 from the floor amending Motion Nos. 6 and 24 from the floor, in the names of Councillors V. Boyhan, L. McGovern, M. Merrigan, K. Daly, D. Donnelly and S. O’Neill. 

 

Motion No. 27 from the floor

 

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

 

“Objective “F” “To provide for open space with ancillary active recreational amenities”

 

Within the Central area of the site, outlined in red”.

 

Following discussion, it was AGREED to adjourn the meeting for 30 minutes.

 

 

658.

Adjournent of Meeting

It was AGREED to ADJOURN for 30 minutes.

 

The meeting ADJOURNED at 6.15p.m.

 

659.

Reconvening of meeting

The meeting RECONVENED at 6.45p.m.

 

 

 

660.

Motion No. 29 from the floor and Pages 397 - 398 iv) SLO FORMER TOTAL FITNESS

Following adjournment it was AGREED to WITHDRAW Motion No’s 63, 64, 6, 24 and 27 from the floor.

 

Following a discussion it was AGREED to take Motion No. 29 from the floor at this time.

 

Motion No. 29 from the floor.

 

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

 

“Rezone lands identified on Map 5 from zoning Objective ‘F’ to zoning Objective ‘MH’.

 

Insert a new Specific Local Objective on Map 5:

 

“To facilitate suitable proposals for the use/reuse and extension of the existing sports science complex and health and fitness club facility at Blackglen Road/Ticknock Drive and to provide for suitable uses, including uses relating to health and fitness, rehabilitation services an transitional/step-down’ care services and associated medical support services including the provision of an appropriate level of associated short-stay accommodation on the site”.

 

Amend the @MH’ zoning matrix (Table 8.3.15) to:

(i)           Include ‘Transitional/’step-down non-acute medical facilities and rehabilitation services (including associated on-site, short-stay accommodation)’ use in the ‘Permitted in Principle’ category, and

(ii)          Relocate ‘Residential Institution’ use from ‘Permitted in Principle’ category to ‘Open for Consideration’ category

Add a new definition to Section 8.3.12: Definition of Use Classes as follows:

 

Transitional/’Step-Down’ Medical/Rehabilitation Services

 

A building or part thereof or land used for past-acute hospital care of ‘step down’/transitional medical and rehabilitation services usually with associated on-site, short-stay accommodation.

 

This motion also notes per the attached map, that the “hatched” areas remain F zoned (car park and central green landscaped open space).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Following a discussion, Mr. D. Irvine, Senior Planner responded to Members’ queries.

 

Motion No. 29 from the floor was AGREED.

 

AnCathaoirleach Councillor B. Saul declared that as Motion No. 29 from the floor was AGREED, Pages 397 – 398 iv) of the Chief Executive’s recommendation was DEFEATED.

 

 

661.

Page 398 v) Map 5

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 398 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 398 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

662.

Motion No. 65 and Motion No. 31 from the floor - SLO GLENALBYN SWIMMING POOL - Pages 398 -399 I) Map 6 pdf icon PDF 34 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 & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Draft Development Plan as follows:

 

Inclusion of the following S.L.O.:

 

That a S.L.O. be provided to support and facilitate the rebuild of Glenalbyn Swimming Pool.”

 

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

 

Motion No 31 from the floor in the names of Councillors J. Madigan, C. Devin, K. Feeney, M. Fayne, M. Hanafin, T.  Murphy, B. Murphy,  P. Hand, P. Stewart, M. Baker, J. Bailey, M. Bailey B. Saul, C. Smyth, C. McKinney, B. Ward, N. Richmond, L. Dockery,  G. Horkan was taken at this time.

 

Motion No 31 from the floor

 

It was proposed by Councillor J. Madigan and seconded by Councillor B. Murphy.

 

to delete “inclusion of the following SLO – That a SLO be provided to support and facilitate the rebuild of Glenalbyn Swimming Pool” and replace with

 

“To support and facilitate the provision of a swimming pool and leisure facility within the Stillorgan area.””

 

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

 

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

 

COUNCILLORS:

FOR

AGAINST

ABSTAINED

Bailey, John F.

?

 

 

Bailey, Maria

?

 

 

Baker, Marie

?

 

 

Boyhan, Victor

 

?

 

Brennan, Shay

?

 

 

Cuffe, Jennifer

?

 

 

Curran, Chris

 

 

 

Daly, Kevin

 

?

 

Devlin, Cormac

?

 

 

Dockery, Liam

?

 

 

Donnelly, Deirdre

 

?

 

Fayne, Mary

?

 

 

Feeney, Kate

?

 

 

Gill, Karl

 

?

 

Halpin, Melisa

 

?

 

Hanafin, Mary

?

 

 

Hand, Pat

?

 

 

Horkan, Gerry

?

 

 

Kingston, Deirdre

?

 

 

Lewis, Hugh

 

?

 

Madigan, Josepha

?

 

 

Martin, Catherine

 

?

 

McCarthy, Lettie

?

 

 

McGovern, Lynsey

 

?

 

McKinney, Carron

?

 

 

Merrigan, Michael

 

?

 

Murphy, Brian

?

 

 

Murphy, Tom

?

 

 

Nic Cormaic, Sorcha

 

?

 

O’Brien, Peter

?

 

 

O’Brien, Shane

 

?

 

O’Callaghan, Denis

?

 

 

O’Neill, Seamas

 

?

 

Richmond, Neale

?

 

 

Saul, Barry

?

 

 

Smyth, Carrie

?

 

 

Smyth, Ossian

 

?

 

Stewart, Patricia

?

 

 

Tallon, Grace

?

 

 

Ward, Barry

?

 

 

TOTAL:

26

13

0

 

An Cathaoirleach, Councillor B. Saul, declared the amended  Motion CARRIED.   As a result Motion 65 FELL.

 

AnCathaoirleach, Councillor B. Saul declared that pages 398 - 399 i) – Map 6 FELL.

 

 

663.

Pages 400 - 402 - Map 6 ii) - vii)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 400 – 402 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 400 - 402 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

664.

Motion No. 66 - CABINTEELY/KILLINEY/SALLYNOGGIN pdf icon PDF 35 KB

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

 

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

 

Cabinteely/Killiney (Change name of this table to include Sallynoggin).”

 

The Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

665.

Motion No. 67 - DEERHUNTER SITE pdf icon PDF 42 KB

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

 

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

 

Specific Local Objective

Cabinteely/Killiney

New SLO: “To ensure that commercial developments at the Deerhunter site in Sallynoggin remain low-key, non-intrusive and in character with the surrounding residential area”.

 

The Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

666.

Motion No. 68 - DEERHUNTER SITE pdf icon PDF 50 KB

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

 

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

 

Specific Local Objective

Cabinteely/Killiney

New SLO: “To prioritise the acquisition of the Deerhunter site for a Social Housing Development with appropriate amenities”.

 

The Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED.

 

 

667.

Motion No. 69 - DEERHUNTER SITE pdf icon PDF 46 KB

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

 

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

 

Specific Local Objective

Cabinteely/Killiney

New SLO: “To ensure that any future development at the Deerhunter site on Glenageary roundabout has respect for the current road system and that any potential future changes in relation to entrance/exit points are done only with majority agreement of local residents in Glenageary Avenue, Parnell Street, Emmet Street, Sarsfield Street and this end of the Sallynoggin Road Lower.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED.

 

 

668.

Motion No. 28 from the floor

It was proposed by Councillor C. Devlin and seconded by Councillor J. Bailey.

 

“New Specific Local Objective:

 

“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:

 

INSERT New SLO on Map 7 as follows:

 

“To facilitate, support and enhance development of the area, that both roundabouts at Killiney (Shopping Centre) and at Glenageary, are retained to ensure proper traffic management of the area.”

 

Following a discussion, Mr. D. Irvine, Senior Planner and Ms. A. Devine, Senior Engineer responded to Members’ queries.

 

Following a discussion Motion No28 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

?

 

 

Nic Cormaic, Sorcha

 

?

 

O’Brien, Peter

 

?

 

O’Brien, Shane

 

?

 

O’Callaghan, Denis

 

?

 

O’Neill, Seamas

 

?

 

Richmond, Neale

 

?

 

Saul, Barry

?

 

 

Smyth, Carrie

 

?

 

Smyth, Ossian

?

 

 

Stewart, Patricia

 

?

 

Tallon, Grace

 

?

 

Ward, Barry

?

 

 

TOTAL:

18

18

0

 

AnCathaoirleach Councillor B. Saul declared the result an equal division of votes and in accordance with Standing Order No. 25 (I) An Cathaoirleach utilised his casting vote and voted for the Motion.

 

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

 

 

669.

Pages 403 - 405 - Map 7 i) - vii)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 403 – 405 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 403 – 405–of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

670.

Adjournment of Meeting

It was AGREED to ADJOURN for 20 minutes.

 

The meeting ADJOURNED at 7.45p.m.

 

 

671.

Reconvening of meeting

The meeting RECONVENED at 8.05p.m.

 

 

672.

Page 405 - Map 8 i)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 405 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 405 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

673.

Page 405 - Map 8 ii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

ii) “Submission welcomes the provisions of SLO No.36 – relating to the preparation of a Masterplan for Fernhill Gardens and requests that it be amended to include narrative relating to the conservation of the house at Fernhill.”

 

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

 

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

 

Recommendation:

 

Amend SLO No.36 to read, as follows:

 

To prepare and adopt a Masterplan to develop Fernhill Gardens into a ‘Gateway’ Park/Regional Park with all the recreational amenities associated with a major park, such as pitches, playground, ponds, paths and a car park. The Masterplan should also ensure the continued conservation of Fernhill House and the preservation of trees, woodlands and amenity gardens at Fernhill.”

 

The above recommendation on page 405 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

674.

Pages 405 - 410 - Map 9 i) - v)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 405 – 410 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 405 – 410 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

675.

Pages 410 - 416 Map 10 i) - v)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 410  416  of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 410  416 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

676.

Page 417 - Map 10 vi)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

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

 

The submission raises specific concerns relating to the wording of SLO No 42- Grade Separation at Loughlinstown Roundabout.”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

In this regard, the Chief Executive recommends amendments to the text associated with SLO No. 42.

 

Recommendation:

 

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

 

“To liaise with the National Roads Authority (NRA) to investigate potential improvements to the Loughlinstown Roundabout with any such improvements””.

 

The above recommendation on page 417 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

677.

Pages 417 - 421 Map 10 vii)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 417 – 421 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 417 – 421  of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

678.

Motion No. 70 - SLO CONTRA HOUSE AND LANDS pdf icon PDF 27 KB

Additional documents:

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:

 

Supports the Chief Executive Officer’s recommendation on pages 421 and 422 under map number 10 that no SLO be proposed on Clontra House and lands.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED.

 

 

679.

Pages 421 - 424 viii) - x)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 421 – 424 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 421 – 424 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

680.

Motion No 71 with an amendment - SLO WILFORD ROUNDABOUT and Page 424 - 425 i) pdf icon PDF 41 KB

Additional documents:

It was AGREED to take Motion No. 71 in conjunction with this Item.

 

Motion No. 71

 

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

 

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

 

To include on Map 14 on Council owned land at the Wilford Roundabout a SLO on a portion of the Economic Development and Employment zoned lands Objective E a pedestrian corridor of connectivity from Cois Cairn to Dublin Road.  Outlined in red in attached map.” 

 

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

 

It was proposed by Councillor D. O’Callaghan and seconded by Councillor C. Smyth to amend the motion as follows:

 

in conjunction with the Development of the Council owned E zoned site on the upgrading of the Wilford Roundabout”.”

 

Following discussion the amended Motion as follows was AGREED.

 

“To include on Map 14 on Council owned land at the Wilford Roundabout a SLO on a portion of the Economic Development and Employment zoned lands Objective E a pedestrian corridor of connectivity from Cois Cairn to Dublin Road in conjunction with the Development of the Council owned E zoned site on the upgrading of the Wilford Roundabout.  Outlined in red in attached map.”

 

 

 

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

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

 

The submission raises specific concerns relating to the wording of SLO No. 56 - Upgrade of Wilford Interchange.”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

In this regard, the Chief Executive recommends amendments to the text associated with SLO No. 56. 

 

Recommendation:

 

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

 

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

 

The above recommendations on pages 424 -425 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

681.

Motion No. 72 - SLO SHANGANAGH CASTLE pdf icon PDF 30 KB

Additional documents:

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

 

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

 

To include under map number 14 a SLO for Shanganagh Castle to conserve and enhance the building for use as a public amenity.  Please see map attached.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Report was ACCEPTED.

 

 

682.

Pages 425- 433 - Map 14 ii) - viii)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 425 – 433 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 425 – 433 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

10 STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT

10.1: Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

683.

Page 437 10.1.2: Policy Context i) - ii)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 437 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 437 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

684.

Pages 437 10.1.3: Sea Process i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

i) “Submission requests reference to the S2S in the SEA Environmental Report under Relationship with other Plans and Programmes.”

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission.

 

The Sutton to Sandycove (S2S) cycleway is incorporated into the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan 2013 (which has been subject to SEA and AA).”

 

Recommendation:

 

In Section 2.5 – “Relationship with Other relevant Plans and Programmes’ of the Environmental Report add the following text to the bullet point for the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan 2013.

 

The Sutton to Sandycove Cycleway is incorporated into the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan 2013.”

The above recommendation on page 437 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

685.

Pages 437 - 438 ii) - iii)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 437 – 438 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 437 – 438 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

686.

Page 438 iv)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

iv) ”Submission requests that Table 4.5.3 Geological Sites of the SEA Report be updated to include a list of County Geological Sites identified by GSI in 2014”.

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the content of this submission.

 

The information on sites of geological interest in Section 4.5 will be replaced with that provided in the submission.

 

Recommendation:

 

To replace the information on sites of geological interest in Section 4.5 of the SEA Environmental Report with that provided by the GSI in their submission.”

 

The above recommendation on page 438 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

687.

Pages 438 v)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 438 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 438 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

688.

Pages 438 - 440 vi)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

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

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the content of this submission.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Recommendation:

 

In Section 8.7.6 of the SEA Environmental Report:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The above recommendations on pages 438-440 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED.

 

 

689.

Page - 440 vii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

vii)” Submission states that in terms of any future development associated with Dún Laoghaire Port, the relationship between the Plan and the ‘Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company Master Plan’should be clarified. It would be useful, where appropriate, to outline how environmental sensitivities that may arise as a result of implementing the Master Plan have been taken into account in the Plan.

 

Attention is brought to the requirements of 'The Foreshore and Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Act 2009'which should be referenced and integrated into the Plan as relevant and appropriate.”

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the content of this submission.

 

The Dún Laoghaire Harbour Master Plan is a non-statutory documents prepared by a third party namely the Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company.  It is understood that the Masterplan has been subject to its own environmental assessment processes.

 

Environmental sensitivities throughout the County – including at the Harbour – have been taken into account by both the SEA and the Masterplan. These include coastal ecology, the status of coastal waters, human health and the status of archaeological and architectural heritage.

 

In response to the EPA’s reference to the 'The Foreshore and Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Act 2009', it is recommended that an additional provision be integrated into the Plan.

 

Recommendation:

 

It is recommended that the following sentence is added at the end of policy LHB8: Development in the “nearshore” area on page 101 of the Draft Plan.

 

“The Council are cognisant of the requirements and obligations of “The Foreshore and Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Act 2009”.”

 

The above recommendation on page 440 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

690.

Pages 440 viii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

viii)”The Council should clarify whether the complete wording of SLO No.131, that includes a 6,000 sq.m net retail floorspace at Carrickmines has been fully examined for effects on the environment as this full wording of the SLO was not included in the SEA, see page 146 of the SEA (additionally, this SLO should perhaps be included for Map 9, as per the written statement).”

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the content so this submission.

 

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

 

Recommendation:

 

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

 

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

 

The above recommendation on page 440 of the Chief Executive’s Report was already AGREED unanimously.

 

 

691.

Pages 441 ix)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 441 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 441 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

692.

Pages 441 10.1.4: Monitoring and Review i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)“Submission requests that the section on “Selected Indicators, Targets and Monitoring Sources” should include a commitment to reviewing the effectiveness of the monitoring /mitigation measures during the lifetime of the plan.

 

Submission suggests linking SEA monitoring to Plan monitoring.”

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive notes and welcomes this submission.

 

Recommendation:

 

To add the following text to Section 10.4 of the SEA Environmental Report as part of the monitoring/review process:

 

Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council are responsible for the implementation of the SEA Monitoring Programme including

 

  • Linking SEA monitoring output with the mid-term review of the Development Plan;
  • Monitoring specific indicators and identifying any significant effects, including cumulative effects;
  • Reviewing the effectiveness of monitoring/mitigation measures during the lifetime of the Plan; and identifying any cumulative effects”.

 

The above recommendation on page 441 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

Pages 443 - 10.2 Appropriate Assessment

693.

Pages 443 - 444 10.2.2: Policy Context i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

i) ”Submission raises concern that Policy ST6: County Cycle Network, Policy CC16 Coastal Defence and Policy LHB 9: Coastline Parks and Harbours all could have a negative effect on natural heritage.”

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission.

 

Obligations under the Habitats Directive are already included in Section 2.2.7.3, Policy ST6 of the Draft Plan, which states that: Any development proposals shall be subject to Appropriate Assessment Screening in accordance with the requirements of the EU Habitats Directive to ensure the protection and preservation of all designated SAC’s, SPA’s and pNHA’s in Dublin Bay and the surrounding area”.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Recommendation:

 

Insert a new SLO on Maps 2, 3, 4 and on pages 244, 245 and 246  as follows:

 

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

 

Insert SLO on Maps 2, 3 and 4.

 

Add the following sentence at the end of Policy CC16: Coastal Defence:

 

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

 

As Motion No. 73 was AGREED earlier, the above Recommendation on pages 443 - 444 of the Chief Executive’s Report FALLS.

 

 

694.

Page 444 10.2.3: AA Process i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)”Section 5 of the AA Screening process should be comprehensive as it does not include policy CC16 for example which relates to Coastal Defence.  Projects under the Coastal Defence Strategy will need to be subjected to AA screening and if necessary Appropriate Assessment. “

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive agrees with this submission.

 

Recommendation:

 

The AA will be amended to include an assessment of Coastal Defence.”

 

The above recommendation on page 444 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

695.

Pages 444 - 445 10.2.3: AA Process ii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

ii)”The AA screening must be able to clearly demonstrate that the mitigation policies will be effective in safeguarding European sites.”

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission.

 

Numerous protective policies have been built in to the Draft Plan, including several specific individual protective policies and an overarching policy ensuring that any plan/project and associated works in the County will undergo Appropriate Assessment. However, there is still a risk that individual policies such as LHB8 (Coastline Parks and Harbours) may have the potential to negatively impact on designated sites along the coast. The insertion of a new SLO committing the Council to undertaking a comprehensive feasibility study on recreational potential along the coastal area in the County will ensure adequate safeguarding and mitigation.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

Insert a new SLO on Maps 2, 3, 4 and on pages 244, 245 and 246 as follows:

 

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

 

Insert SLO on Maps 2, 3 and 4.””

 

The above Recommendations on pages 444 – 445 of the Chief Executive’s Report were already  AGREED unanimously.

 

 

696.

Pages 449 - Appendix 2: Interim Housing Strategy i)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 449 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 449 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

Appendix 4: Record of Protected Structures/Record of Monuments/Architectural Conservation Areas

697.

Motion No. 74 - STEPASIDE GARDA STATION pdf icon PDF 38 KB

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

 

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

 

That the former Stepaside Garda Station be included in buildings of special interest as set out in Section 51 (1) of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) and Section 2.5.4 of the DOEHLG "Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities", in the Historical category.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Report was ACCEPTED.

 

 

698.

Pages 451 - 453 i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)     “Submissions request that the following structures are added to the RPS:

 

a)    Ramblers Rest Pub, Ballybrack

 

b)    Durham Cottage, Rear 1-3 Tivoli Road

 

c)    Parochial House, Holy Church, Dundrum

 

d)    Water Fountain, Kellystown Village and Grumleys Well

 

e)    Old Fire Station (Entire building), Dún Laoghaire

 

f)    Kellys Cottage (Pembroke style) Ticknock Road

 

g)    Neptune House, Neptune Lodge and Sandycove Lifeboat House, Sandycove

 

h)    Harrow House, Balure, South Lodge and Evergreen, Church Road, Killiney / Ballybrack

 

i)     Clontra House, Shankill

 

j)     Shankill Library

 

k)    Shanganagh Park House

 

l)     Pucks Castle

 

m)  New Vale Cottages

 

n)    Upside Down Houses, Shankill

 

o)    Rosedale House

 

p)    Ballycorus Chimney

 

q)    The Battery, opposite Shanganagh Cliffs.

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive has considered the contents of these submissions.

 

Twenty-three buildings/structures/groups of structures have been put forward for inclusion onto the Record of Protected Structures (RPS). In many instances no supporting documentation was provided such as photographs, site location map or any rationale for their addition i.e. ‘Special Interest’ in accordance with the criteria as set out in Section 51 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended). 

 

Nine of the proposed structures are already included on the Record of Protected Structures (RPS) and/or the Record of Monuments and Places (RMP) in Appendix 4 of the Draft Plan:

 

·         Clontra House

·         Shankill Library

·         Shanganagh Park House

·         Rosedale House

·         Ballychorus Chimney

·         Former Fire Station, Dún Laoghaire.

·         Grumleys Well (DU022-035)

·         Pucks Castle (DU026-049)

·         Battery at Shanganagh Cliffs (DU026-05501).

 

It should be noted that the Old Fire Station, Dún Laoghaire, has been heavily altered internally as part of its conversion to the Enterprise Centre. The floor plan has been extensively modified, floor levels raised, false ceilings and new staircases inserted. As a result there are few features of heritage interest remaining. The front elevation, with its engaged Doric Portico fronting onto George’s Street Lower, is the most significant feature of this building and it is this that is already included on the RPS (RPS No.528)

 

Three of the structures requested to be added to the RPS - Balure, South Lodge and Evergrquinneen, Church Road - have already been subject to planning permissions for their demolition and/or significant alterations or development within the curtilage and are not, therefore, considered appropriate for inclusion on the Record of Protected Structures.

 

It is considered that the following structures do not meet one or more of the categories of ‘Special Interest’, in accordance with Section 51 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended) and are, therefore, not recommended for inclusion onto the RPS:

 

·         Durham Cottage

·         Water Fountain, Kellystown Village

·         Kellys Cottage, Ticknock

·         Neptune Lodge

·         New Vale Cottages

·         Upside Down Houses, Shankill

 

It is considered that these structures would be safeguarded against inappropriate development under various other Policies already included in the Draft Plan including:

·         Policy AR5: Buildings of Heritage Interest

·         PolicyAR6: Protection of Buildings in Council Ownership

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

·         Policy AR9: Protection of Historic Street Furniture

·         Policy AR12: Architectural Conservation Areas.

 

Durham Cottage comprises of a simple vernacular outbuilding and an adjoining dwelling which has been significantly altered and is not of sufficient architectural significance to warrant inclusion onto the RPS. While it is not recommended to be added to the Record of Protected Structures it is, however, afforded protection under Policy AR5: Buildings of Heritage Interest, where the Council seeks to retain, where appropriate, and encourage the reuse of existing older buildings.

 

In the case of Neptune Lodge and Sandycove Lifeboat House both structures are already located within Sandycove Architectural Conservation Area (ACA). This designation protects the external appearance of all buildings that contribute to the character and appearance of the ACA to ensure the retention of all original features and provides guidance for their appropriate development.

 

Having considered and inspected the proposed additions, the following structures are considered to meet one or more of the categories of ‘Special Interest’ in accordance with Section 51 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended) and are recommended for inclusion onto the RPS:

 

·         Parochial House, Holy Cross Church, Main Street, Dundrum

·         Neptune House/The Battery, Sandycove Point, Sandycove

·         Harrow House, Church Road, Killney

·         Rambler’s Rest, Ballybrack Village

 

It is noted that the Parochial House at Holy Cross Church, Dundrum has always been treated as a Protected Structure due to its association with the Church. However, in the interests of clarity it is now recommended to afford the Parochial House its own individual RPS No.

 

Recommendation:

 

Amend Draft Plan to include the following onto Appendix 4, Record of Protected Structures:

 

·         Parochial House, Holy Cross Church, Main Street, Dundrum

·         Neptune House/The Battery, Sandycove Point, Sandycove

·         Harrow House, Church Road, Killney

·         Rambler’s Rest Pub, Ballybrack

 

Following a discussion it was AGREED to remove “Neptune House” from the list of Recommendations.

 

The above Recommendations on pages 451 - 453 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.”

 

 

699.

Pages 453 Support of Buildings Entered into the Record of Protected Structures (RPS) i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)”Submission supports the designation of Dunleary House (Yellow Brick building) as a Protected Structure.”

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of these submissions.

 

The Chief Executive continues to hold the position as set out in the Chief Executive’s response to Agenda Item 171 Motion 18 during the consideration of the Chief Executive’s Draft County Development Plan in February 2015.

 

The building in question is not considered to be of sufficient architectural, historical and social interest to merit inclusion onto the Record of Protected Structures.  The building contributes to the streetscape and in this regard it is subject to the provisions of Policy AR5: Buildings of Heritage Interest, which seeks to “Retain, where appropriate, and encourage the rehabilitation and suitable reuse of existing older buildings/structures/features which make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of a streetscape in preference to their demolition and redevelopment”.

 

Recommendation:

 

Amend Draft Plan to remove Dun Leary House (RPS No.1957) from Appendix 4, Record of Protected Structures.”

 

The above recommendation on page 453 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

700.

Pages 453 -454 ii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)     “Submissions supports the inclusion of the following structures in the RPS:

a)    Gate Lodge at the entrance to Daughters of Charity Lands, Blackrock

b)    1-6 Sydenham Road

c)    Church of Ireland National School, Monkstown.”

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive has considered the contents of these submissions.

 

Gate Lodge, Blackrock

The Chief Executive continues to hold the position as set out in the Chief Executive’s response to Agenda Item 173 Motion 52 during the consideration of the Chief Executives Draft Plan in Feb 2015.

 

Blackrock LAP Objective D11 states “The Council will retain the Gate Lodge and necessitate any extensions to ensure its continued use and viability, in accordance with Policies and Objectives set out in Chapter 2 of this Plan”. The inclusion of the Gate Lodge, and in particular, the Gate Lodge boundary wall, railings and fronting area onto the Record of Protected Structures will have implications for the proposed junction improvements as set out in Objective R18 of the Blackrock LAP which reads “It is an objective of the Council to facilitate the future upgrading of the junction at Temple Hill/Newtown Avenue/St Vincent’s Park in tandem with the redevelopment of the St Teresa’s and Dunardagh Land Holdings in accordance with Objective DS15.” It is therefore recommended that the Gate Lodge is removed from the RPS.

 

Sydenham Road

This submission supports the addition of 1-6 Sydenham Road into the RPS. The Chief Executive welcomes this submission.

 

Church of Ireland School

The submission supports retaining the Church of Ireland National School, Monkstown as a Protected Structure. The Chief Executive welcomes this submission

 

Recommendation:

 

Amend Draft Plan to remove Gate Lodge at entrance to Daughters of Charity Lands, Blackrock from the Appendix 4, Record of Protected Structures.”

 

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

 

It was proposed by Councillor V. Boyhan and seconded by Councillor M. Baker not to REMOVE the Gate Lodge at entrance to ‘Daughters of Charity Lands, Blackrock from the Appendix 4, Record of Protected Structures.

 

The above recommendation on page 454 of the Chief Executive’s Report was  unanimously  NOT  AGREED.

 

 

701.

PAGE 454 - 455 iii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

iii)” Submission queries the inclusion of the following structures onto the RPS:

 

a)    Amritsar, Knocknacree Road, Dalkey

Prince Patrick House, Dalkey.

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive has considered the contents of these submissions.

 

The inclusion of Amritsar was an administrative error. The structures proposed to be added to the Record of Protected Structures were a pair of buildings known as Prince Patrick House and Arcadia (formerly known as Amritsar).  The notification letter was incorrectly issued to a modern house known as Amritsar which is not proposed to be added to the Record of Protected Structures.

 

Notwithstanding works carried out to Prince Patrick House, it is still considered that the structure – attached to Arcadia – warrants inclusion within the RPS.  It is noted that this Protected Structure (RPS No. 1911) is listed only as ‘Prince Patrick’. The RPS will be amended to include its full name of ‘Prince Patrick House’.

 

It is still the intention to propose the addition of Arcadia onto the Record of Protected Structures in accordance with Section 12 (3) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended).

 

Recommendation:

 

Amend Draft Plan to remove Amritsar and include Arcadia onto Appendix 4, Record of Protected Structures and amend RPS No. 1911 to state ‘Prince Patrick House’.”

 

The above Recommendations on pages 454 - 455 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

702.

Motion No. 75 - SLO/ DUN LEARY HOUSE, Page 455 - 456 i) pdf icon PDF 42 KB

Additional documents:

It was AGREED to take Motion No 75 at this time.

 

Motion No. 75

 

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

 

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

 

Given the social and industrial heritage associated with Dun Leary House (Yellow Brick House) and having regard to the Chief Executive's advice, the following is proposed:

 

Substitute:

 

The entry of Dun Leary House on the Record of Protected Structure's with the following Specific Local Objective:

 

Specific Local Objective:

 

“That Dun leary House (Yellow Brick House) and associated boundary be retained in situ and renovated." (boundary delineated in Red Ink on the attached map).

 

Following discussion, the Chief Executive’s Report  as amended was ACCEPTED.

 

 

 

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)    “Submissions request that the following structures are removed from the RPS:

 

a)    Barrington Tower, Brennanstown Road (amended to afford protection to Tower only).

 

b)    Dunleary House, Monkstown

 

c)    Old School House, Church of Ireland, Carrickbrennan Road, Monkstown.”

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive has considered the contents of these submissions.

 

Barrington Tower

The Chief Executive agrees with this submission which seeks to amend Appendix 4 of the Written Statement and the Development Plan Maps to protect only the original ‘Tower’ and not the modern house that is attached. The modern house which is of mid-twentieth century origin, is constructed using block work and is of no architectural interest. It has also been subject to extensive fire damage. The original Barrington’s Tower was built as a folly in 1818 and historical photographs show the Tower as a ‘standalone’ structure. The removal of the modern building from the Record of Protected Structures could allow the Tower to return to its original intended state.

 

Dunleary House

The Chief Executive agrees with the sentiments of the submission and shares the view that the property does not warrant designation as a Protected Structure in accordance with the relevant test set out in the legislation i.e. the subject structure is not of special architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, social, technical and scientific interest.

 

The building in question is not considered to be of sufficient architectural, historical and social interest to merit inclusion onto the Record of Protected Structures.  The building contributes to the streetscape and in this regard it is subject to the provisions of Policy AR5: Buildings of Heritage Interest, which seeks to “Retain, where appropriate, and encourage the rehabilitation and suitable reuse of existing older buildings/structures/features which make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of a streetscape in preference to their demolition and redevelopment”.

 

In addition, Section 3.2.3: The Gut/West Pier, of the Dún Laoghaire Urban Framework Plan (Appendix 12) makes reference to the ‘sensitive’ redevelopment of the Tedcastle Site with the accompanying ‘Ideas for Tedcastle Site’ drawing stating that development should “Explore retention of existing house in order to provide scale and detail to street.”

 

Old School House

The Chief Executive does not agree with this submission which seeks the removal of the Old School House from the Record of Protected Structures to facilitate the demolition of the building in order to redevelop the site. The delisting of a structure from the Record of Protected Structures can only be justified where the ‘Special Interest’ of that particular building has been entirely lost. The Old School House remains of architectural, historic and social interest and should therefore remain on the Record of Protected Structures in accordance with Section 51 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended).

 

Recommendation:

 

Amend Draft Plan to include only the Barrington’s Tower ‘folly’ RPS No. 1729.

 

Remove Dunleary House (RPS No.1957) from Appendix 4, Record of Protected Structures.”

 

The above recommendations on pages 455 – 456 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

703.

An Cathaoirleach - Absent from the Chair

At 9.05p.m. An Cathaoirleach, Councillor B. Saul excused himself from the Chair and in his absence An Leas Cathaoirleach Councillor J. Madigan chaired the meeting.

 

 

704.

Motion No. 76, 77 and 78 - Pages 456 - 458 i) pdf icon PDF 29 KB

Additional documents:

It was AGREED to take Motion Nos. 76, 77 and 78 at this time.

 

Motion No. 76

 

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

 

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

 

That the area in Rathmichael outlined and signed in the attached maps 10 and14 for identification purposes be considered by the Council as a designated ACA.  Outlined in red in attached map.” 

 

Following a discussion, Ms. Z. Horan, Assistant Planner and Ms. J. Craig, Conservation Officer, responded to Members’ queries.

 

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

 

COUNCILLORS:

FOR

AGAINST

ABSTAINED

Bailey, John F.

 

 

 

Bailey, Maria

?

 

 

Baker, Marie

 

?

 

Boyhan, Victor

?

 

 

Brennan, Shay

 

?

 

Cuffe, Jennifer

 

 

 

Curran, Chris

?

 

 

Daly, Kevin

 

 

 

Devlin, Cormac

 

?

 

Dockery, Liam

 

?

 

Donnelly, Deirdre

 

 

 

Fayne, Mary

?

 

 

Feeney, Kate

 

?

 

Gill, Karl

?

 

 

Halpin, Melisa

?

 

 

Hanafin, Mary

?

 

 

Hand, Pat

 

?

 

Horkan, Gerry

 

?

 

Kingston, Deirdre

?

 

 

Lewis, Hugh

?

 

 

Madigan, Josepha

 

?

 

Martin, Catherine

?

 

 

McCarthy, Lettie

?

 

 

McGovern, Lynsey

 

?

 

McKinney, Carron

?

 

 

Merrigan, Michael

?

 

 

Murphy, Brian

 

?

 

Murphy, Tom

?

 

 

NicCormaic, Sorcha

?

 

 

O’Brien, Peter

?

 

 

O’Brien, Shane

?

 

 

O’Callaghan, Denis

?

 

 

O’Neill, Seamas

?

 

 

Richmond, Neale

 

 

 

Saul, Barry

 

?

 

Smyth, Carrie

?

 

 

Smyth, Ossian

?

 

 

Stewart, Patricia

 

?

 

Tallon, Grace

?

 

 

Ward, Barry

 

 

 

TOTAL:

22

12

0

 

An Leas-Cathaoirleach, Councillor J. Madigan, declared the Motion CARRIED.

 

Motion No. 77

 

It was proposed by Councillor T. Murphy and seconded by Councillor K. Feeney.

 

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

 

"In order to preserve and enhance the established character of the buildings and streetscape, and ensure the vibrancy and economic recovery of Sandyford Village, it is proposed that the Village be considered as a candidate Architectural Conservation Area (ACA) and also be included in the audit of towns and villages mentioned in Section 1.3.6 of the draft Dún Laoghaire County Development Plan 2016 -2022".

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive does not agree with this Motion.

 

Those buildings of any architectural and historic interest within Sandyford Village are already included on the Record of Protected Structures including St. Mary’s Church and Parochial House. The core of the village is Zoned Objective ‘NC’: “To protect, provide for and-or improve mixed use neighbourhood centre facilities”. The village does not contain a sufficient collection of buildings of special architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, cultural, scientific, social or technical interest to merit designation as a Candidate Architectural Conservation Area.

 

The Motion makes reference to “ensuring the vibrancy and economic recovery” of the village by considering it as a Candidate Architectural Conservation Area (cACAC). This is not what a cACA or ACA is designed for and would be an inappropriate use and misinterpretation of the provisions of Section 81 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended).

 

There are other policies and objectives in the Draft Plan which are more suitable to address the sentiments raised in the Motion in particular Section 1.3.6: The Villages of Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown which outlines the plans of the Council to carry out an audit of the existing towns and villages during the lifetime of the Plan. The purpose of this audit will be to improve the quality of the life of the citizens and enable the Council to prioritise and direct actions for the improvement of the County’s towns and villages.

 

The Chief Executive intends to include Sandyford Village in the audit of Towns and Villages as set out within Section 1.3.6 of the Draft Plan.

 

Recommendation

No change to Draft Plan”

 

Motion No. 78

 

It was proposed by Councillor C. Curran and seconded by Councillor L. McCarthy.

 

“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:

 

INSERT in Policy AR16 “To include Sandyford Village as a Candidate Architectural Conservation Area.”

 

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

 

The Chief Executive does not agree with this Motion.

 

It should be noted that Candidate Architectural Conservation Areas are not listed under Policy AR16 of the Draft Plan but are set out within Appendix 4.

 

Those buildings of any architectural and historic interest within Sandyford Village are already included on the Record of Protected Structures including St. Mary’s Church and Parochial House. The core of the village is Zoned Objective ‘NC’: “To protect, provide for and-or improve mixed use neighbourhood centre facilities”. The village does not contain a sufficient collection of buildings of special architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, cultural, scientific, social or technical interest to merit designation as a Candidate Architectural Conservation Area.

 

There are other policies and objectives in the Draft Plan which are more suitable to address the sentiments raised in the Motion in particular Section 1.3.6: The Villages of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown which outlines the plans of the Council to carry out an audit of the existing towns and villages during the lifetime of the Plan. The purpose of this audit will be to improve the quality of the life of the citizens and enable the Council to prioritise and direct actions for the improvement of the County’s towns and villages.

 

The Chief Executive intends to include Sandyford Village in the audit of Towns and Villages as set out within Section 1.3.6 of the Draft Plan.

 

Recommendation:

 

No change to Draft Plan”

 

The Chief Executive’s Reports on Motion Nos 77 & 78  were ACCEPTED.

 

 

 

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

i)     “Submissions request that the following areas are designated as ACA’s:

 

a)    Old Tram Station adjacent Newtown Villas, Blackrock

 

b)    Blackrock Park, Blackrock

 

c)    Mount Merrion Avenue and Cross Avenue

 

d)    Rathmichael

 

e)    1900-1920 Cottages at:

·         Wayside Cottages

·         New Vale Cottages

·         Grange Road

·         Kellystown Road

·         Farenboley Park

 

f)    Properties in Dundrum:

·         Glenville Terrace

·         Waldemar Terrace

·         4-5 and 8-9 Main Street

·         Pembroke Terrace

·         Eglinton Terrace

·         1-2 Sydenham Place

·         Herberton and Overton

·         Belmont House, Monte Vista and Cullenagh, Stoney Road

·         Stretch of Upper Kilmacud Road from Airfield to Holywell.

 

g)    Sandyford Village”.

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

 

“The Chief Executive has considered the contents of these submissions.

 

Old Tram Station, Blackrock

The Chief Executive does not agree with the submission to designate the Old Tram Station as an Architectural Conservation Area. The buildings have been significantly altered and are not of any significant architectural merit.  The site is included within the adopted Blackrock Local Area Plan, March 2015. The Plan includes a Site Framework Strategy for the redevelopment of this site (Section 3.5.3 of the Blackrock Local Area Plan). It is not considered appropriate or practical to designate the site as an ACA.

 

Blackrock Park

The significant features of architectural heritage interest within Blackrock Park are already included on the Record of Protected Structures i.e. bandstand, entrance gates and pavilion. Blackrock LAP also includes a number of objectives for the enhancement and future vision for Blackrock Park.  It is not considered necessary, therefore, to designate the Park itself as an Architectural Conservation Area. 

 

Mount Merrion/Cross Avenue

Those buildings of architectural and historical interest along Cross Avenue and Mount Merrion Avenue are already included on the Record of Protected Structures. Therefore, it is not considered necessary to designate these roads as Architectural Conservation Areas.

 

Rathmichael

The submissions seek the designation of an ACA for Rathmichael to protect the green belt, sylvan character of the area and buildings of historical/architectural interest. Those buildings of architectural heritage interest in Rathmichael, such as the Church of Ireland, are already included in the Record of Protected Structures.  Architectural Conservation Areas are designed to protect the built heritage of a particular place/group of buildings. Rathmichael has a dispersed settlement pattern with no concentration of structures of architectural heritage significance which would warrant designation as an ACA. An ACA is not the appropriate planning tool to meet the objectives expressed in the submission.

 

1900-1920 Cottages

The Draft Plan includes a combination of policies designed to protect those older buildings which, although not Protected Structures, are considered to make a positive contribution to the streetscapes. These include Policy AR5: Buildings of Heritage Interest, which encourages the rehabilitation and reuse of older structures and original features of merit, Policy AR8: Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Buildings, Estates and Features, which seeks to ensure the character of buildings/areas are not compromised and Policy RES4: Existing Housing Stock and Densification, which seeks to retain houses that “contribute beneficially to the area”.  The designation of an ACA for these areas in question is not considered appropriate or necessary.

 

Properties in Dundrum

Many of the terraces/groups of buildings listed in this submission are located within the bounds of the Dundrum Urban Framework Plan (2003) which is set out in Section 3.4.2 of the 2010-2016 County Development Plan. This Plan will inform the future Local Area Plan (LAP) for Dundrum as set out in Section 1.3.4.10 of the Draft Plan.  It is envisaged that the draft LAP would incorporate many of the objectives in the original 2003 Urban Framework Plan including “The Conservation, preservation and re-use of historic and interesting buildings, including groups of blocks of such buildings like existing terraces. These form an established part of the town and contribute to its overall character”.  In addition, there are a number of Policies in the Draft Plan that already afford protection to these terrace/groups of buildings namely Policy AR5: Buildings of Heritage Interest, AR8: Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Buildings, Estates and Features and Policy RES4: Existing Housing Stock and Densification.

 

However, having considered the contents of the submission a number of structures within the suggested ACAs’ are considered to meet one or more of the categories of ‘Special Interest’ in accordance with Section 51 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended) and are recommended for inclusion onto the RPS as follows:

·        Eglinton Hall (former Church of Ireland), Eglinton Terrace

·        Former Church of Ireland School and Master’s House, Eglinton Terrace

·        Ivy Grove (No.1), Eglinton House (No.2), Eglinton Lodge, Eglinton Terrace

·        1 & 2 Sydenham Place, Upper Kilmacud Road

·        Herberton and Overton, Upper Kilmacud Road

 

Sandyford Village

Buildings of architectural and historical interest within Sandyford village are already included on the Record of Protected Structures such as St Mary’s Church and Parochial House. Sandyford village does not contain a sufficient collection of buildings of architectural interest to warrant a designation as an Architectural Conservation Areas. Other policies and objectives in the Draft plan are more suitable to address the sentiments raised in the submission such as Section 1.3.6: The Villages of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown.

 

Recommendation:

 

To amend Record of Protected Structures, Appendix 4 of the Draft Plan to include the following buildings:

 

·        Eglinton Hall (former Church of Ireland), Eglinton Terrace

·        Former Church of Ireland School and Master’s House, Eglinton Terrace

·        Ivy Grove (No.1), Eglinton House (No.2), Eglinton Lodge, Eglinton Terrace

·        1 & 2 Sydenham Place, Upper Kilmacud Road

Herberton and Overton, Upper Kilmacud Road”

 

The above Recommendations on pages 456 - 458 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

705.

Page 458 Recommendations for Architectural Conservation Areas (ACA ) Designation ii)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 458 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 458 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

706.

Pages 458 - 459 Miscellaneous i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

i) “Submission seeks to define the boundary of proposed protected structure at Summerfield House, Dalkey”.

 

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

 

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

 

The submission seeks to establish a boundary between the proposed Protected Structure - Summerfield House - and the site of a new house approved under Reg Ref D08A/0019 and granted extension permission for a further 5 years under Reg Ref D08A/0019/E.

 

The proposed boundary line is demarcated by mature planting which forms a physical and visual barrier to the south of Summerfield House. This line is considered to distinguish between the formal garden around the proposed Protected Structure and the reminder of the site, which is subject to planning permission.  The proposed boundary makes physical and planning control sense. It is recommended therefore that the boundary is amended in accordance with the site layout plan attached to this submission.

 

Recommendation:

 

Amend boundary of Summerfield House on Draft Plan Map 4 in accordance with the site plan submitted with this submission.”

 

The above Recommendations on pages 458 - 459 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

707.

Pages 459 - 460 Miscellaneous ii) - v)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 459 – 460 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 459 – 460 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

Appendix 8

708.

Page 461 Appendix 8: Public Rights of Way/Recreational Access Routes i)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 461 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation on page 461 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

709.

Page 461 - 462 Appendix 8: Public Rights of Way/Recreational Access Routes ii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

ii) ”Submission recommends that Appendix 8 be expanded to include Way-marked ways of medium/long-long distance walking routes, Sli na Slainte, heritage/historic walking trails, pilgrim paths, paths to mass rocks and holy wells, looped walks, hillwalks and other defined walking trails and cycle routes and a data base should be set-up and up-dated as new trails emerge. Reference is made to South Dublin County Councils Plan section 4.3.9.”

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive noted the contents of this submission. Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown has a strong track record in displaying rights-of-way on the County Development Plan maps and considerable work and research was undertaken during the preparation of the 2004-2010 County Development Plan to include, for the first time, rights-of-way on the Development Plan Maps.

 

However, in making a right-of-way the burden of proof rests with the Local Authority and, therefore, sufficient supporting evidence is required in order to allow the Council make the decision on whether a right-of-way should or should not be made.  The ultimate arbiter on a right-of-way is the Circuit Court and a number of the rights-of-way included in the 2004-2010 County Development Plan have subsequently had to be removed on foot of Circuit Court cases.  There are still some pending cases. 

 

It should be noted that the Development Plan does not purport to include every right-of-way in the County.  Section 14 (7) (a) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 – 2010 states that “Nothing in this section shall effect the existence or validity of any public right-of-way which is not included in the development plan” which can be interpreted to mean that rights-of-way exist even when they are not included in the County Development Plan.

 

To, as suggested by the submission, expand Appendix 8 to include Way-marked ways of medium/long-long distance walking routes, Sli na Slainte, heritage/historic walking trails, pilgrim paths, paths to mass rocks and holy wells, looped walks, hill walks and other defined walking trails and cycle routes would require the Council gather substantial evidence, undertake comprehensive research and establish proofs that may be subject to discussion and dispute (between users and landowners).  The Council would require, at a minimum, the services of a local historian and experienced legal Counsel to take a view as to whether any such evidence gathered would meet the threshold established by the Supreme Court in the Lissadell case.  This would be a very time consuming and very resource intensive process that needs to be done correctly.   It is considered that the very short time-frame associated with the Development Plan Process is patently inadequate in which to undertake such a massive evidence-based exercise as described above.

 

Recommendation:

 

To avoid making any premature decisions which may give rise to judicial challenge it is recommended that, subject to resources, a list of purported additional rights-of-way be investigated during the lifetime of the 2016 - 2022 County Development Plan and that the provision of Section 206 of the Planning and Development Act, which allows for creation of a right-of-way by means of agreement with the landowners consent, also be investigated thus avoiding litigation. 

 

The above Recommendations on pages 461 - 462 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

710.

Page 462 - 463 Appendix 8: Public Rights of Way/Recreational Access Routes iii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

iii) ”Submission contends that the following should be added: “Following the adoption of the Plan a temporary register of additional routes shall be maintained and should be included in the web site pending inclusion in the next Plan”.

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive noted the contents of this submission. Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown has a strong track record in displaying rights-of-way on the County Development Plan maps and considerable work and research was undertaken during the preparation of the 2004-2010 County Development Plan to include, for the first time, Rights-of-Way on the Development Plan Maps.

 

However, in making a right-of-way the burden of proof rests with the Local Authority and, therefore, sufficient supporting evidence is required in order to allow the Council make the decision on whether a right-of-way should or should not be made.  The ultimate arbiter on a right-of-way is the Circuit Court and a number of the rights-of-way included in the 2004-2010 County Development Plan have subsequently had to be removed on foot of Circuit Court cases.  There are still some pending cases. 

 

It should be noted that the Development Plan does not purport to include every right-of-way in the County.  Section 14 (7) (a) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 – 2010 states that “Nothing in this section shall effect the existence or validity of any public right-of-way which is not included in the development plan” which can be interpreted to mean that rights-of-way exist even when they are not included in the County Development Plan.

 

Recommendation:

 

To avoid making any premature decisions which may give rise to judicial challenge it is recommended that, subject to resources, a list of purported additional rights-of-way be investigated during the lifetime of the 2016 - 2022 County Development Plan and that the provision of Section 206 of the Planning and Development Act, which allows for creation of a right-of-way by means of agreement with the landowners consent, also be investigated thus avoiding litigation. 

 

The above Recommendations on pages 462 - 463 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

711.

Page 463 - 464 Appendix 8: Public Rights of Way/Recreational Access Routes iv) - vii)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 463 - 464 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 463 - 464 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

Appendix 9

712.

Pages 465 - 466 Appendix 9: Building Height Strategy i) - iii)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 465 – 466 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 465 - 466 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

Appendix 12

713.

Motion No. 19 from the floor amended by Motion 25 from the floor

Motion 19  from the floor

 

Motion No 19   from the floor in the names of Councillors M. Merrigan, V. Boyhan, K. Gill and J. . Bailey.

 

It was proposed by Councillor M. Merrigan, seconded by Councillor J. Bailey.

 

“Page:  467 Appendix 12 (page 203)

New Policy – Strengthening Links with Adjoing Areas

 

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

Thata new policybe included as follows: It is thepolicy oftheCouncilto seekto acquireBullockHarbourandSandycoveHarbourinorderto providefortheeffectivemanagementoftheentiretyoftheCountys17kmlongcoastline.

Reason:

 

Theamendmentseeksto incorporatea policyobjectiveofacquiringtheseheritageand maritimeassetsfromtheDublinPortAuthority”.

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

 

“The Chief executive does not agree with this Motion.

 

Thisisnota StrategicCountyDevelopmentPlanissue.TheCountyDevelopmentPlanprocessdoesnotconsidertheissueoflandownershipbutratherproperplanningand sustainabledevelopment. The Motiondoesnotalter or amendinany way theunderlyingplanningimperativesof thesitesinquestion.Ratheritseekssolelythattheybe acquiredandbroughtintoCouncilownership.

Recommendation:

“No change to draft plan”

Following a discussion Motion No. 25 from the floor in the names of Councillors M. Merrigan, J. Bailey, S. O’Brien, M. Halpin, V. Boyhan, K. Gill.

Motion No. 25 from the floor

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

 

“Amendment to Motion 19 from the floor (alternative wording)

 

ThatthisPlanningAuthoritypursuantto Section12 ofthePlanningand  DevelopmentAct, 2000(as amended)resolvestoamendtheDraftDevelopmentPlanas follows:

That a new policy be included as follows:  “It is the policy of the Council to formulate in conjunction with the relevant stakeholders a Masterplan for Bullock Harbour and Sandycove Harbour in order to provide for the effective management of the entirety of the County’s 17 km long coastline.”

Reason:

The amendment seeks to incorporate a policy objective for these heritage and maritime assets along our County’s coastline although these harbours are currently in the ownership of Dublin Port Authority.

Following discussion, Mr. L. Walsh, Senior Executive 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:

31

2

0

 

An Leas  Cathaoirleach, Councillor J. Madigan , declared the amended Motion CARRIED.  

 

 

714.

An Cathaoirleach - Returns to the Chair

At 9.30p.m. An Cathaoirleach Councillor B. Saul returned to the Chair.

 

 

715.

Pages 467 - 468 Section 1: Introduction i) - iii)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 467 – 468   of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 467 – 468 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

716.

Pages 468 - 469 Section 1: Introduction iv)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

iv) ”Submission from the Dún Laoghaire BID Company highlights the importance of encouraging population growth within the Dún Laoghaire area in order to create vitality within the Town. Policies in relation to encouraging living over the shop and student accommodation should be encouraged.

 

The submission also includes, in full, the recently published ‘20/20 Vision Report – A Strategic Vision for the Town of Dún Laoghaire’. Submission suggests that the key points outlined in the BID Company’s ‘20/20 Vision’ for Dún Laoghaire be considered in the making of the Plan, including:

 

  • The revitalisation of George’s Street and the designation of ‘Town Quarters’
  • The development of a ‘hyper’ local economy
  • Mobility and permeability
  • IADT integration with the Town and employment generation
  • The creation of a ‘Smart Town’
  • The creation of an ’18 hour economy’
  • A Safe Town
  • Linkage to neighbourhoods
  • A property and retail forum
  • Placemaking
  • Multimodal transport infrastructure for the Town

Support for cruise ship strategy and related tourism.”

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the content of the submission.

 

The UFP already sets out the objective of creating vitality through a focus on supporting the commercial activities of the Town, particularly along George’s Street, increasing the residential population to create demand for local services, developing the Waterfront as a marine, leisure and tourism destination and creating a high quality public realm and placemaking that will support improved social and leisure activities.

 

Similarly the UFP already has set out ‘Character Quarters’ for the Town Centre and in addition is supportive of developing cruise business into the County, the ‘creation of an 18 hour economy’ and provision of student accommodation.

 

In addition Draft Plan Policy RES4: Existing Housing Stock and Densification, Policy RES12: Student Accommodation and Section 8.2.3.4 (ix) Living-Over-The-Shop and 8.2.3.4 (xii) Student Accommodation separately and in combination all actively promote and encourage densification, living over the shop in Dún Laoghaire and the provision of student accommodation in locations that have convenient access to Third Level colleges.

 

The relationship between population levels and the retail and commercial vibrancy of a Town is well established. Demographic analysis of the intercensal period 2006-2011 highlighted population increases in the core of Dún Laoghaire in the range of 17-20%. This has been as a result of the densification policies contained in previous and the existing County Development Plan and these successful policies are continued on into the Draft Plan.

 

It is considered that the overall vision and objectives of Written Statement of the Draft Development Plan and Appendix 12 Dún Laoghaire UFP closely correlate with the strategic priorities contained in the ‘20/20 Vision’ for Dún Laoghaire. The Chief Executive is therefore generally supportive of the submission and the ‘20/20 Vision’ document.

 

Recommendation:

 

Amend Paragraph 4 of Section 3 Creating Vitality of Dún Laoghaire UFP - as follows:

 

“The key projects identified in the Framework Plan to achieve the objective of creating vitality are described below. These focus on supporting the commercial activities of the Town, particularly along George’s Street, the creation of an 18hr economy and, increasing the residential population, including student accommodation, to create demand for local services, while developing the Waterfront as a marine, leisure and tourism destination and creating a high quality public realm that will support improved social and leisure activities. At the same time it is an objective to protect, preserve and enhance the unique historic character, ambiance and identity of the adjoining residential streets and communities.””

 

The above Recommendations on pages 468 – 469   of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

717.

Motion 26 from the floor

Motion No. 26 from the floor in the names of Councillors M. Merrigan, J. Bailey, S. O’Brien, M. Halpin, V. Boyhan and K. Gill.

 

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

 

“New Specific Local Objective – Dún Laoghaire Harbour

 

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

To include a Specific Local Objective as follows “The Council shall formulate and implement, where appropriate and applicable, a Masterplan for the future development of Dún Laoghaire Harbour.”

Reason:

As the current ‘Dun Laoghaire Harbour Masterplan’ is a non-statutory document, prepared by an independent third party – namely the Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company, it cannot form part of the 2016-2022 Draft County Development Plan.

 

The Council does not own the current Masterplan nor any of the data or drawings underpinning its objectives. Therefore, there are issues over ownership and intellectual property rights of the current Masterplan which may not be resolved simply by the transfer of the governance of the Harbour to the Council.

 

The amendment seeks to regularise the situation in respect of a Masterplan for the Harbour.

 

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

 

Following a discussion, Ms. M. Henchy, Director of Services and Mr. L. Walsh, Senior Executive 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:

15

23

 

                                                                                                               

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

 

 

718.

Pages 469 - 470 Section 1: Introduction v) - vi)

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 469 – 470 of the Chief Executive’s Report were CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations on pages 469 – 470 of the Chief Executive’s Report were AGREED unanimously.

 

 

719.

Adjournment of Meeting

It was AGREED to adjourn the meeting to Thursday 22nd October, 2015. At 4.00p.m.

 

 

720.

Conclusion of Meeting

The meeting concluded at 10.30p.m.