Agenda and minutes

Items
No. Item

1.

Submissions received during public consultation

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

 

 

2.

County Development Plan 2016 -2020 pdf icon PDF 130 KB

Additional documents:

a) Development Plan - Ethical Framework Legal Advice

 

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

 

The report was NOTED.

 

 

b) Code of Conduct for Councillors

 

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

 

The Report was NOTED.

 

 

c) Chief Executive's update current stage

 

The following report which had been circulated was CONSIDERED:-

 

The report was NOTED and AGREED.

 

 

d)Proposed Amendments Chief Executive's report on Submissions received - Synopsis Report

 

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

 

The report was NOTED and AGREED.

 

 

3.

Pages 3 - 5 Part 1 - Introduction

The Chief Executive’s Report on Pages 3 – 5 was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

PAGE 7 PART 2 SUMMARY OF SUBMISSION BY THE MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT COMMUNITY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE'S RESPONSE AND RECOMMENDATION

4.

Motion No. 2 - SLO 126 & Pages 9 - 16 Submission by Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government 2 (a): Physical Infrastructure Strategy

It was AGREED to take Motion No. 2 in conjunction with this Item.

 

Motion No. 2

 

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:-

 

That the Council supports the Chief Executive’s recommendation to SLO 126 on pages 15 and 16.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED:-

 

“The Chief Executive strongly agrees with the contents of this Motion.

 

SLO No. 126 relates to groundwater and surface water protection in Rathmichael.  Having reviewed the recent consultant’s report referenced below the Chief Executive is still of the opinion that the protection zone needs to be reinstated.  It should be noted however, that on foot of the consultants report received in November 2015 the area to which SLO 126 applies will be significantly reduced.

 

Having regard to:

 

·         The Council’s legal obligations under the EC Water Framework Directive.

·         The evidence and recommendations presented in the initial hydrological consultant’s report (May 2010).

·         The Circular letter PSSP 1/10 advising a precautionary approach to additional development in areas of groundwater vulnerability.

·         The evidence and recommendations presented in the follow-up hydrological consultant’s report (November 2015), specifically indicating high levels of total coliforms and e.coli at surface water test sites.

·         The presence of domestic water supplies at risk from contamination

·         The reassessment of the analytical results within the various AREAs of the study.

·         The need to ensure the issue is highlighted in a transparent manner to try reduce avoidable costs in terms of both time and finance by informing all stakeholders inclusive of residents, developers and architects.

·         The recommendations of the consultants appointed on behalf of the Council to prepare the AA and SEA.

·         The submissions received from the EPA and DoECLG.

 

The Chief Executive recommends that, pending the outcome of further water quality investigations, including the necessary Groundwater monitoring, and in accordance with the precautionary approach, that SLO No. 126 and associated Policy EI23 be reinstated. However, the geographical extent of the area should also be amended to incorporate the findings of the Aqua GeoServices’s Report, in restricting development to AREAS Ib, II, and III detailed in the AGS report and shown on Drawing No.DLR-WS-11-01-15 (Please see Drawing No. PL-16-007 attached below), and that the amended SLO be reinstated on Maps 10, 13 and 14 of the Draft Plan.

 

It should be noted that the overall area covered by the red line boundary will be reduced as a result of these proposed amendments. Please see map PL-16-013 below showing a comparison between the previously proposed and amended red line boundary.

 

 

In terms of the context and background, the purpose of SLO No. 126 is to ensure there is no further degradation of groundwater and surface water quality within the Rathmichael/Ferndale area and to requirements on the Council to meet its obligations under the Water Framework Directive. In this regard, SLO No. 126 states:

 

“To refuse planning permission for any new developments which include on-site wastewater treatment facilities within this catchment, until the groundwater issues in the area are resolved or ameliorated.”

 

It should be noted that consultants appointed on behalf of the Council to carry out ongoing and iterative Appropriate Assessment on the draft Plan have recommended in their Natura Impact Report, November 2015” that SLO 126 and Policy EI23 be reinstated so as to avoid any potential for adverse impact in the vicinity of the Natura 2000 site of Ballyman Glen.  Their reinstatement is identified as a specific mitigation measure.  The SEA consultants also recommend their reinstatement.

 

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) applies to rivers, lakes, groundwater and coastal waters and requires a co-ordinated approach to water management, which in Ireland is being undertaken in hydrological units termed River Basin Districts (RBDs). 

 

The principal objective of the Directive is the achievement of “good status”, for all waters by 2015. The WFD was transposed into Irish law by the European Communities (Water Policy) Regulations 2003 (S.I. 722 of 2003) in December 2003. 

 

The objectives set out for groundwater within the WFD, are as follows:

 

Ø  “To achieve ‘good status’ for all groundwater by 2015.  Good groundwater status is the status achieved by a groundwater body when both its quantitative status and its chemical status are at least ‘good’.

Ø  To reverse any significant and sustained upward trend in concentration of any pollutant resulting from the impact of human activity”.

 

The EC Groundwater Directive is a ‘Daughter Directive’ of the WFD and provides for the protection of groundwater against pollution.  It includes criteria for good groundwater chemical status.

 

The WFD…. is concerned, inter alia, with the protection of the aquatic ecosystem per se or, where necessary, its restoration, to achieve conditions (good status) in all waters which are only slightly degraded from those of the natural or reference state.  The definition of ‘good status’ in the case of surface waters is based on both ecological status, i.e. the composition of the faunal and floral communities and the natural chemical and physical characteristics, and on chemical status which, in the context of the Directive, refers to a number of specified toxic and/or bioaccumulative substances.  In the case of groundwaters ‘good status’ relates to the natural chemical composition of the water and to these same chemical substances as well as to quantitative status (i.e. the extent to which reserves are depleted by abstraction)” (EPA, 2005).

 

The functional area of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council falls within the Eastern RBD catchment. The Final Characterisation Report for the ERBD Project was published in September 2005 and provides information on surface water and groundwater bodies.  The River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) and Program of Measures (POM) associated with the WFD were adopted by this Council in October 2009.

 

The main objective of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EC) is to achieve ‘good status’ in all our waters by 2015. The River Basin Management Plan and Program of Measures (POM) associated with the WFD were adopted by this County Council in October 2009. A critical element in the POM is the proper management of septic tank discharges.

 

In May 2008 Groundwater, Hydrological & Environmental Consultants (Eugene Daly and Associates) were requested to undertake a feasibility study for the scope of investigations required to determine the potential impact of proposed un-sewered housing development on groundwater and surface water quality in the Rathmichael/Ferndale area. The Consultants reported on their initial findings in November 2008.

 

Following a further period of water sampling and analyses, the Consultant issued a ‘Final Interim Report’ in May 2010, which recommended a course of action for dealing with future planning applications in the general Rathmichael/Ferndale area and in the Crinken Stream catchment.

 

Circular Letter PSSP 1/10 (DoEHLG) dated 5th January 2010 advised Local Authorities of arrangements with regards to their assessment obligations in respect of on-site wastewater disposal systems for single houses and referenced the EPA Code of Practice on Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems serving Single Houses (October 2009).

 

The Circular highlighted three key requirements of the Code of Practice that Planning Authorities must take on board in discharging their functions under planning legislation. Of relevance to the Crinken catchment is the need to effect:

 

“A thorough site assessment, in accordance with the Code of practice, in the case of every relevant development proposal considered by planning authorities, taking account of not only conditions specific to the proposed site as reported by the applicant in a site suitability assessment but also the planning authority’s wider experience and knowledge of the area in relation to patterns of development, experience with existing on-site systems in the area and the provisions of the Development Plan.”

 

In relation to this particular requirement the Circular states that:

 

“Planning Authorities should ensure that: …all sites for development in unsewered areas will be rigorously assessed in compliance with the EPA Code of Practice and taking account of the cumulative effects of multiple developments in such areas.”

 

The Circular also goes on to state:

 

“In assessing relevant planning applications, notwithstanding the fact that a given site may be in a position to comply with the Code of Practice, it is also a matter for the planning authority to take into account in its assessment and decision-making as to whether or not to consider wider planning and water quality issues which have not been addressed adequately in the information submitted with the planning application. Such wider planning issues may, inter alia, include the concentration of on-site wastewater treatment systems in an area, the availability or otherwise of public water supplies, reliance on wells, the likelihood of the area being serviced by municipal wastewater collection and treatment systems in the near future and the risk of the deterioration of surface and/or groundwater quality due to vulnerability of such waters. Planning authorities should adopt a precautionary approach and not approve any development where concerns in relation to the matters above have not been adequately addressed.”

 

Since October 2010, and in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Council Commissioned Eugene Daly Report and the contents of Circular Letter PSSP 1/10, it has been the policy of the Council’s Water Services Department to issue recommendations of refusal for any new development proposals which include an on-site wastewater treatment facility within the Crinken Stream catchment west of the M11. Proposals for change of use of, or alteration to or extension of, existing approved developments within these areas involving on-site wastewater treatment facilities are assessed in the context of there being no further potential deterioration of ground or surface waters.

 

The above position was reviewed internally within the Council’s Water Services in July 2014 and a decision was made to continue with this policy pending a further review.

 

In June 2015 Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council appointed Aqua GeoServices to  review the Eugene Daly Associates report (2010), to scope the extent of work and/or further studies that would be required to enable Water Services to complete the evolution of current policy in determining the potential impact of proposed developments on the receiving waters (surface water and groundwater) in relation to new applications for un-sewered development in the Rathmichael (Crinken Stream Catchment) area.

 

Aqua GeoServices submitted a comprehensive report in November 2015.

 

The Report concluded that:

 

“The Rathmichael area lies between the Shanganagh Water Body and the Dargle Water Body.  Both the Shanganagh Water Body and the Dargle River Body are classified as being “at risk of not achieving good status” from diffuse sources of pollution. The Rathmichael stream is ranked as ‘unassigned’ as it is not currently being monitored by the EPA. Being situated between two River bodies currently at risk, the Rathmichael/Crinken stream is also likely to be at risk itself.

 

The results of the surface water monitoring carried out to date by Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council shows that the surface water is generally of moderate quality.  Some of the key physico-chemical parameters (Ammonia, BOD and Orthophosphate) of the Rathmichael/Crinken stream (and its tributaries) would fail to achieve “Good status” as per the WFD requirements along most of its course.

 

Ammonium and Orthophosphates (Molybdate Reactive Phosphorous) are two of the key pollution indicators for surface water bodies. In particular, Orthophosphate is regarded as the key limiting nutrient that causes eutrophication in rivers. Their elevated levels associated with elevated averaged Nitrites values indicate that an organic/nutrient enrichment takes place in the water. The microbiological results also showed high levels of Total Coliforms and E.Coli. This suggests that there is a widespread issue across the catchment area draining AREAS Ib, II and III of the Rathmichael/Crinken stream, which could be due to a number of factors such as:

 

·         Local land use (grazed land, forestry, golf course etc.).

·         Impact from residential development (poorly sited, designed and/or constructed wastewater treatment systems but also misconnections from dishwasher/washing machines).

 

This may also be exacerbated by a combination of:

 

1.    A higher density of unsewered residences in the aforementioned AREAs.

2.    The presence of outcropping/subcropping tight bedrock with steep slopes to the west of the catchment area, thus limiting percolation and favouring surface water runoff.

3.    The presence of well-drained soils overlying low permeability Irish Sea-Derived Till to the east of the catchment area, again favouring surface water runoff.

 

Information regarding the water quality of the bedrock aquifers underlying the study area is almost non-existent. No groundwater quality monitoring is currently taking place within the study area. The status of the underlying Groundwater Body does not rely on in-situ data for the area either.

 

Except for Quarry Road, drinking water supply is provided locally by water mains. Residents living on the upper ground of Quarry Road all rely on their own domestic water supplies. Given that the aquifer vulnerability is ranked from High to X (bedrock at or near surface) within most of AREA Ib, AREA II & AREA III, there is a high potential for the contaminants highlighted in the surface water monitoring to adversely impact the groundwater quality in these AREAs.

 

Based on the results of AGS’s desk study and the analytical results of the surface water quality monitoring undertaken to date, AGS concur with the conclusions provided in the EDA interim report (E09-03B dated 25/05/2010) as they relate to AREAs Ib, II and III.

 

As a precautionary measure to protect water and human health and avoid any further deterioration of the surface water quality, AGS recommend that any prohibition of un-sewered development should be limited to AREAs Ib, II and III as delineated in the present report (Cf. Figure 3) and should remain in force until and unless the results of the recommended investigations determine otherwise.

 

Regarding AREA Ia and AREA IV, there is currently insufficient evidence to warrant an outright prohibition of un-sewered developments on groundwater or surface water grounds. However, further investigations will be warranted to substantiate any potential impact on groundwater and/or surface water grounds. Any proposal within these two areas shall be subject to rigorous site investigations that are conducted in line with the EPA (2009) Code of Practice for any new planning applications for single houses.”

 

The contents and recommendations of the  Aqua GeoServices (AGS)  report “Assessment of potential impacts of new developments on receiving waters in the upper catchment area of the Rathmichael/Crinken Stream” dated 4th November 2015, have been considered and accepted by Municipal Services Section and, in accordance with those  recommendations, it is now the policy of the water Services Section to issue  recommendations of refusals for any new development proposals which include an on-site wastewater treatment facility within the Rathmichael/Crinken Stream catchment area in areas Ib, II, and III detailed in the AGS report and shown on Drawing No.DLR-WS-11-01-15.

 

Proposals for change of use of, or alteration to or extension of, existing approved developments within these areas involving on-site wastewater treatment facilities will be assessed in the context of there being no further potential deterioration of ground or surface waters.

 

In areas Ia and IV, detailed in the AGS report, and shown Drawing No. DLR-WS-11-01-15 there is is currently insufficient evidence to warrant an outright prohibition of un-sewered developments, on groundwater or surface water grounds. However, further investigations will be warranted to substantiate any potential impact on groundwater and/or surface water grounds. Any proposal within these two areas shall be subject to rigorous site investigations that are conducted in line with the EPA (2009) Code of Practice for Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems Serving Single Houses.

 

A comprehensive assessment of groundwater quality within the catchment requires an understanding of the whole groundwater system within the catchment and it is through development of the understanding of the overall groundwater system that progress towards sustainable management of the groundwater resource can be achieved. In conjunction with on-going monitoring of surface water quality it is therefore of critical importance that groundwater quality is monitored within the catchment

 

Aqua GeoServices’s report has identified the most suitable locations for groundwater monitoring however most of such locations are located in private lands. Therefore, assistance from private landowners in allowing monitoring boreholes to be drilled within their property (or to provide such boreholes themselves) will be key to developing the proper understanding of the overall groundwater system in the catchment.

 

Having regard to all of the above the Chief Executive recommends that, pending the outcome of further water quality investigations, including the necessary Groundwater monitoring, and in accordance with the precautionary approach, that SLO No. 126 and associated Policy EI23 be reinstated. However, the geographical extent of the area should also be amended to incorporate the findings of the Aqua GeoServices’s Report, in restricting development to AREAS Ib, II, and III detailed in the AGS report and shown on Drawing No.DLR-WS-11-01-15 (Please see Drawing No. PL-16-007 attached below and contained within Section 4 (d) of the Chief Executive’s Report), and that the amended SLO be reinstated on Maps 10, 13 and 14 of the Draft Plan.

 

Recommendation

Reinstate SLO No. 126 within Section 9: Specific Local Objectives, to read as follows:

 

“To refuse planning permission for any new developments which include on-site wastewater treatment facilities within this catchment, until the groundwater issues in the area are resolved or ameliorated.”

 

Amend Proposed Mapping Change No. 57 by reinstating the newly amended boundary of SLO No. 126 - on Maps 10, 13 and 14 - in accordance with the findings of the Aqua GeoServices Report to Areas Ib, II and III detailed in the AGS Report and shown on Drawing No. PL-16-007 attached below and contained within Section 4(d) of the Chief Executive’s Report.

 

Reinstate Policy EI23: Rathmichael Ground and Surface Water Protection to read as follows:

 

“Policy EI23: Rathmichael Ground and Surface Water Protection

It is Council policy to refuse planning permission for any new developments which include an on-site wastewater treatment facility within the Rathmichael area until the groundwater issues in the area are resolved or ameliorated (See SLO No. 126 Maps 10, 13 and 14).

 

This policy will be implemented through the Development Management process through the refusal of planning permission for any new developments - which include an on-site wastewater treatment facility – within the Rathmichael area (See SLO No. 126 Maps 10, 13 and 14 for the boundary of this area). This policy is necessitated due to the potential impact of un-sewered developments on groundwater and surface water quality and also on the ability of the Council to meet its obligations under the Water

Framework Directive.

 

Proposals for change of use, or alteration to, or extension of, existing approved developments within these areas involving on-site wastewater treatment facilities will be assessed in the context of there being no potential deterioration of ground or surface waters”.

 

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

 

The Motion and the recommendation on Pages 15 & 16  of the Chief Executive’s ware  AGREED. 

 

 

5.

Page 16 Policy CC6: Energy Performance in Existing Buildings

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 16 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 16 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

6.

Pages 16 - 18 Policy CC7: Energy Performance in New Buiidlings i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

i)     DoECLG have raised serious concerns with the ‘vires’ of Policy CC7 given that it endorses one producer and possibly excludes others which has the potential to trigger anti-competitive behaviour.

 

DoECLG raise concerns in relation to the “where reasonably practicable” proviso in CC7 and considers that it is ambiguous in its meaning and also in how it might be adjudicated within the Development Management process. 

 

DoECLG raise the point that the Passive House standard does not require assessment through the Dwellings Energy Assessment Procedure or DEAP, so it is unknown whether or not this system meets necessary performance requirements.

 

Passive House uses its own calculation method which has not been tested in this state against the requirements of Annex 1 of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive or European Standards.  DoECLG argues that the Passive House standard does not calculate carbon emissions and does not comply with Part L of the Building Regulations.

 

DoECLG hold the view that it is not appropriate for a Planning Authority through its Draft Development Plan, to seek to impose a separate and higher standard as a mandatory requirement.  It would be likely to lead to confusion and uncertainty.

 

DoECLG states that Policy CC7 is breaching the clear statutory separation between planning and building control codes.

 

The argument is also made that the Council do not have legal authority to enforce a change of standard requiring all new builds to be built to passive house standard.  The DoECLG argue that this could potentially expose the State to infringement proceedings being initiated by the European Commission.

 

DoECLG again state that they will consider the use of powers available under Section 31 of the Planning and Development Acts where the Planning Authority has ignored or not taken sufficient account of the Minister’s views or where the Plan is not in compliance with the requirements of the Planning Act.”

 

Text Box: Refer also to Sections: • 5.2.3 Policy CC7 (i)
 

 

 

 

 

 


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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission which raises concerns about the amendment to Policy CC7 Energy Performance in New Buildings which states that “All new Buildings will be required to meet the passive house standard or equivalent, where reasonably practicable”.

 

It is noted that the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government again state that they will consider the use of powers available under Section 31 of the Planning and Development Acts to issue a direction where the Planning Authority has ignored or not taken sufficient account of the Ministers views or where the Plan is not in compliance with the requirements of the Planning Act.

 

Concerns are raised relating to the fact that the Passive House standard (PHS) is a voluntary private sector standard and that a mandatory requirement to accord with such a standard could be anti-competitive.

 

The Chief Executive would concur with the views put forward in the submission received from the DoECLG.

 

PHS is different to nZEB which is the standard which will be required by the Building Regulations in the very near future (during the lifetime of the 2016 – 2022 CDP) and which will then become the norm across the State.   Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown could therefore be operating to a different standard to the rest of the Country. 

 

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

 

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

 

The insertion of the phrase “where reasonably practicable” will create ambiguity and would not provide the certainly and clarity that are required from a County Development Plan as it would allow each applicant put forward their own arguments as to why they should, or should not, accord with the PH standard.  Who would adjudicate?  How would it be decided, particularly when it relates to a code separate to the planning code.  What methodology would be used? How would it be enforced? 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Recommendation

Delete the amended text from Policy CC7:

 

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

 

By equivalent we mean approaches supported by robust evidence (such as monitoring studies) to demonstrate their efficacy, with particular regard to indoor air quality, energy performance, comfort, and the prevention of surface/interstitial condensation. Buildings specifically exempted from BER ratings as set out in S.I No 666 of 2006 are also exempted from the requirements of CC7.

 

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

 

Following discussion the Chief Executive’s Recommendation on Page 18 was PUT.                                                                                                                                     A roll call vote was then called for which resulted as follows:- 

 

 

COUNCILLORS:

FOR

AGAINST

ABSTAINED

Bailey, John F.

 

?

 

Bailey, Maria

?

 

 

Baker, Marie

 

?

 

Boyhan, Victor

 

?

 

Brennan, Shay

 

 

 

Cuffe, Jennifer

 

 

 

Curran, Chris

 

?

 

Daly, Kevin

 

?

 

Devlin, Cormac

 

?

 

Dockery, Liam

 

?

 

Donnelly, Deirdre

 

?

 

Fayne, Mary

 

?

 

Feeney, Kate

 

?

 

Gill, Karl

 

?

 

Halpin, Melisa

 

?

 

Hanafin, Mary

 

?

 

Hand, Pat

 

?

 

Horkan, Gerry

?

 

 

Kingston, Deirdre

?

 

 

Lewis, Hugh

 

?

 

Madigan, Josepha

 

?

 

Martin, Catherine

 

?

 

McCarthy, Lettie

?

 

 

McGovern, Lynsey

?

 

 

McKinney, Carron

 

?

 

Merrigan, Michael

 

?

 

Murphy, Brian

 

 

 

Murphy, Tom

?

 

 

Nic Cormaic, Sorcha

 

?

 

O’Brien, Peter

?

 

 

O’Brien, Shane

 

?

 

O’Callaghan, Denis

?

 

 

O’Neill, Seamas

 

?

 

Richmond, Neale

 

?

 

Saul, Barry

 

?

 

Smyth, Carrie

?

 

 

Smyth, Ossian

 

?

 

Stewart, Patricia

 

?

 

Tallon, Grace

?

 

 

Ward, Barry

 

?

 

TOTAL:

10

27

0

 

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

 

Following the result, Ms. M. Henchy, Director of Services advised the members that the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government required the reasons why the Chief Executive’s Recommendation in her report was DEFEATED.

 

The reasons given by the Elected Members in support of maintaining Policy CC7 in its amended form in the adopted Plan were as follows:

 

Cllr M. Halpin

Cllr P. Stewart

Cllr M. Baker

Cllr S. O’Brien

Cllr O. Smyth

Cllr V.Boyhan

In the interests of the environment

Economically very good

Issue of damp, environment, and air quality

Ambitious for the people we represent

Keep people warm in their home

In interest of proper planning and sustainable development.

Want high planning standards

Reduction in heating bills

Better quality of building to live and work in

Democracy

Reduce respiratory disease

 

Protection of the people

Long term view

 

Reduce fossil fuel usage

Cost

 

Step ahead of other Local Authorities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.

Page 18 Policy CC7: Energy Performace in New Buildings ii)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 18 & 19  of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

DoECLG request that a review of the Housing Strategy be undertaken as part of the statutory 2 year review of the Plan taking into account the new Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy (RSES) which will replace the RPGs in terms of future population and housing allocations for the constituent local authorities in the region.  The DoECLG request that this requirement be included in the Plan.”

 

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

 

Recommendation

Reinstate the word “Interim” in second sentence section 2.1.2. 

 

Reinstate the word “Interim” in section 2.1.3.2 RES2: implementation of Housing Strategy.

 

Reinstate the word “Interim” in Section 2.1.3.8 Policy RES8: Provision of Social Housing.

 

Section 2.1.3.2. RES 2: Implementation of Housing Strategy.  Insert the following after “In accordance with the Planning and Development Act 200 (as amended) and the Urban Regeneration and Housing Act 2015”

 

“The Interim Housing Strategy will be reviewed and updated as part of the mandatory two year report of progress under Section 15 (2) of the Act taking account of future population and housing allocations outlined in any new Regional Spatial and Econom

 

population and housing allocations outlined in any new Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy (RSES)”.

 

The above recommendation on Pages 18 & 19 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

8.

Motion Nos 3 & 4 Quarry Road - Page 19 & 20 2 (c) Mapping Changes pdf icon PDF 201 KB

It was AGREED to take Motion Nos 3 & 4  in conjunction with this Item.

 

Motion No. 3.

 

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:-

 

That the Council agrees with the Chief Executive to rezone the lands identified as mapping amendment no. 63 at Quarry Road from Objective “A” (Residential) to Objective “G” (High Amenity) (on page19).”

 

Following discussion Mr. C. Fulcher, 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

 

?

 

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:

19

16

0

 

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

 

Motion No. 4

 

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:-

 

That the Council agrees with the Chief Executive to rezone the lands identified as mapping amendment no. 64 at Ferndale Road from Objective “A” (Residential) to Objective “GB” (Green Belt) (on page19 and 20)”.

 

The following report was CONSIDERED.

 

“The Chief Executive fully agrees with this Motion.

 

Mapping Amendment No. 64

The lands in question are located at Ferndale Road, Rathmichael and are approximately 3 hectares (12.5 acres) in area. The lands have been zoned Objective ‘GB’ Greenbelt in successive County Development Plans for over 40 years and lie within the Rathmichael Ground and Surface Water Protection area. There is no foul water drainage infrastructure in the area and adjacent dwellings are served by private wastewater treatment systems.

 

The submission on the Draft Plan requesting rezoning of the lands (reference B0359) made the case essentially for rezoning on the basis of proximity of the then Greenbelt lands to existing residential zoned lands and that the rezoning of the subject site would represent a logical ‘extension’ of the residential zone. This argument is untenable as the same case could be made for every parcel of agricultural/greenbelt/high amenity lands that adjoin development-zoned lands in the County. The Chief Executive maintains that this rationale is completely spurious and contrary to the strategic approach to land management advocated in Government Guidelines, specifically in relation to Core Strategy preparation.

 

The Core Strategy demonstrates a close equilibrium between zoned land supply and the housing allocation of the Regional Planning Guidelines. Consequently, the Chief Executive maintains that there is no justification for any additional residential rezoning as part of this Draft County Development Plan process.

 

The Core Strategy (Section 1.2.4.2) states that the “Housing Land Availability Study estimates a zoned land supply capable of supplying in excess of 30,000 residential units. Therefore, there is, in principle, sufficient zoned residential land in the County to meet this housing allocation.”

 

The piecemeal rezoning of additional ‘greenfield’ residentially zoned lands through the Development Plan process can neither be warranted or justified in any objective fashion – particularly in the context of the Woodbrook/Shanganagh/Old Conna areas where some 100 hectares of residential lands, zoned as recently as 2004, remain to be developed.

 

In relation to site-specific issues, the Rathmichael/Ferndale area has an identified groundwater vulnerability issue due to the pattern of one-off housing and attendant domestic effluent systems and in this context, additional rezoning and subsequent development of residential lands in the area could cause a deterioration in water quality, contrary to the Council’s obligation to protect groundwater quality under the Water Framework Directive.

 

Recommendation

Rezone the lands identified as Mapping Amendment No. 64 from Objective ‘A’ (Residential) to Objective ‘GB’ (Green Belt).

 

Following discussion Mr. C. Fulcher, 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

 

?

 

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:

19

15

3

 

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

 

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

i)     “The submission requests the Planning Authority to retain SLO No. 126 and Policy EI23 in the Plan and that the relevant proposed amendments (numbers 63 & 64 on Map 14) to re-zone the High Amenity/Green Belt lands to residential should not be accepted.

ii)    DoECLG again state that they will consider the use of powers available under Section 31 of the Planning and Development Acts where the Planning Authority has ignored or not taken sufficient account of the Minister’s views or where the Plan is not in compliance with the requirements of the Planning Act.

 

Text Box: Refer also to Part 4(a): • Map 14 (i) • Map 14 (ii)”
 

 

 

 

 


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

 

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

 

Site Number 63

The lands in question were previously zoned Objective ‘G’ High Amenity and comprise a 2.4ha. (6 acre) site located to the rear of farm buildings on Quarry Road, Rathmichael. The lands are unserviced, remote from public transport and located generally above the 80m contour line.

 

The ‘Core Strategy’ of the Draft County Development Plan has been prepared according to the provisions of the Planning and Development Act 2010. The drafting of the Core Strategy involved undertaking an analysis of the adequacy of zoned residential land in the County (the ‘Housing Land Availability Study’) and comparing this land supply with housing demand, as measured by the Regional Planning Guidelines housing allocation for the County.

 

The Core Strategy (Section 1.2.4.2) states that the “Housing Land Availability Study estimates a zoned land supply capable of supplying in excess of 30,000 residential units. Therefore, there is, in principle, sufficient zoned residential land in the County to meet this housing allocation.”

 

The Core Strategy must demonstrate an equilibrium between zoned land supply and the housing allocation of the Regional Planning Guidelines. It is noted that both the Department of the Environment and the Regional Planning Guidelines Office have endorsed the Core Strategy of the Draft Plan. Consequently, the Chief Executive is satisfied that there is no justification for any additional residential rezoning as part of this Draft County Development Plan process.

 

Recommendation

Rezone the lands identified as Mapping Amendment no. 63 from Objective ‘A’ (Residential) to Objective ‘G’ (High Amenity).

 

Site Number 64

The lands in question are located at Ferndale Road, Rathmichael and are approximately 3 hectares (12.5 acres) in area. The lands were zoned Objective ‘GB’ Greenbelt in successive County Development Plans and lie within the Rathmichael Ground and

The Chief Executive agrees with the contents of the submissions.

 

Site Number 63

The lands in question were previously zoned Objective ‘G’ High Amenity and comprise a 2.4ha. (6 acre) site located to the rear of farm buildings on Quarry Road, Rathmichael. The lands are unserviced, remote from public transport and located generally above the 80m contour line.

 

The ‘Core Strategy’ of the Draft County Development Plan has been prepared according to the provisions of the Planning and Development Act 2010. The drafting of the Core Strategy involved undertaking an analysis of the adequacy of zoned residential land in the County (the ‘Housing Land Availability Study’) and comparing this land supply with housing demand, as measured by the Regional Planning Guidelines housing allocation for the County.

 

The Core Strategy (Section 1.2.4.2) states that the “Housing Land Availability Study estimates a zoned land supply capable of supplying in excess of 30,000 residential units. Therefore, there is, in principle, sufficient zoned residential land in the County to meet this housing allocation.”

 

The Core Strategy must demonstrate an equilibrium between zoned land supply and the housing allocation of the Regional Planning Guidelines. It is noted that both the Department of the Environment and the Regional Planning Guidelines Office have endorsed the Core Strategy of the Draft Plan. Consequently, the Chief Executive is satisfied that there is no justification for any additional residential rezoning as part of this Draft County Development Plan process.

 

Recommendation

Rezone the lands identified as Mapping Amendment no. 63 from Objective ‘A’ (Residential) to Objective ‘G’ (High Amenity).

 

Site Number 64

The lands in question are located at Ferndale Road, Rathmichael and are approximately 3 hectares (12.5 acres) in area. The lands were zoned Objective ‘GB’ Greenbelt in successive County Development Plans and lie within the Rathmichael Ground and Surface Water Protection area. There is no foul water drainage infrastructure in the area and adjacent dwellings are served by private wastewater treatment systems.

 

The submission on the Draft Plan requesting rezoning of the lands (reference B0359) made the case essentially for rezoning on the basis of proximity of the then Greenbelt lands to existing residential zoned lands and that the rezoning of the subject site would represent a logical ‘extension’ of the residential zone. The same case could have been be made for every parcel of agricultural/greenbelt/high amenity lands that adjoin development-zoned lands in the County and the Chief Executive maintains that this rationale is completely spurious and contrary to the strategic approach to land management advocated in Government Guidelines, specifically in relation to Core Strategy preparation.

 

The Core Strategy demonstrates a close equilibrium between zoned land supply and the housing allocation of the Regional Planning Guidelines. Consequently, the Chief Executive maintains  that there is no justification for any additional residential rezoning as part of this Draft County Development Plan process.

 

The Core Strategy (Section 1.2.4.2) states that the “Housing Land Availability Study estimates a zoned land supply capable of supplying in excess of 30,000 residential units. Therefore, there is, in principle, sufficient zoned residential land in the County to meet this housing allocation.”

 

The piecemeal rezoning of additional ‘greenfield’ residentially zoned lands through the Development Plan process can neither be warranted or justified in any objective fashion – particularly in the context of the Woodbrook/Shanganagh/Old Conna areas where some 100 hectares of residential lands, zoned as recently as 2004, remain to be developed.

 

In relation to site-specific issues, the Rathmichael/Ferndale area has an identified groundwater vulnerability issue due to the pattern of one-off housing and attendant domestic effluent systems and in this context, additional rezoning and subsequent development of residential lands in the area could cause a deterioration in water quality, contrary to the Council’s obligation to protect groundwater quality under the Water Framework Directive.

 

Recommendation

Rezone the lands identified as Mapping Amendment no. 64 from Objective ‘A’ (Residential) to Objective ‘GB’ (Green Belt)”.

 

The above recommendation on Pages 19 and 20 of the Chief Executive’s Report and Motion Nos. 3 & 4 were AGREED.

 

 

Part 3 - Submission by the National Transport Authority

9.

Page 23 3(a) Sustainable Communities Strategy i)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 23 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 23 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

10.

Page 23 3(a) Sustainable Communities Strategy ii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

i)”The Authority requests that all references to the “Draft Transport Strategy 2011-20130” are removed and replaced with “Draft Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2016-2035””. 

 

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

 

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

 

It is acknowledged that this submission refers to material or subject matter that was not included in either the 'Proposed Amendments' document or the 'Mapping Changes' that were placed on public display between 24th November 2015 and 22nd December 2015. 

 

However, given the submission relates solely to updating and improving the policy context contained within the CDP, the Chief Executive recommends incorporating said changes.

 

Recommendation

Amend throughout the Draft Plan as follows:

 

Replace all references to the “Draft Transport Strategy 2011-2030” with “Draft Transport Strategy 2016-2035””.

 

The above recommendation on Page 23 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

11.

Page 23 3(b) Sustainable Travel and Transport - Development Management i)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 23 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 23 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

12.

Page 24 - 3 (c) Specific Local Objectives i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

i)     “The Authority supports Transport Infrastructure Irelands (TII) submission relating to SLO No. 6 and to a number of potential short-term uses of the Dublin Eastern Bypass (DEB) Corridor.

Text Box: Refer also to Sections: • 2.2.8 Policy ST13: Bus Rapid Transit (i), • 2.2.10 Policy ST25: Roads • 9 - Map 1 (i) • 9 - Map 2 (i) • 9 - Map 5 (i) • 9 - Map 6 (i)”
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission.

 

As the submission from the NTA simply supports the TII’s submission and does not raise any additional issues, the Chief Executive’s has detailed a comprehensive response to the TII’s submission within both Section 2.2.8 and Section 9 of this Chief Executive’s Report.

 

Recommendation

See recommendation in relation to Section 2.2.8 Policy ST13: Bus Rapid Transit (i), Policy ST25: Roads (i) and Section 9 Map 1 (i), Map 2 (i), Map 5 (i), and Map 6 (i)”.

 

The above recommendation on Page 24 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

13.

Page 24 & 25 3(c): Specific Local Objectives ii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

ii)”The Authority is willing to co-operate with Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council in relation to SLO No. 148 – Traffic Management Study for UCD and Environs – but seeks amendments to the wording of SLO No. 148, as follows:

 

To facilitate the on-going process of Mobility          Management planning for UCD, involving the University and the NTA, in order to achieve more sustainable travel patterns to and from the University, and to contribute to address car parking issues within the area””.

 

Refer also to Sections:

 

·         9 - Map 1 (ii)

·         9 - Map 2 (ii)”

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission.

 

SLO No. 148 currently states,

 

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

 

The Chief Executive welcomes the NTA’s continued commitment to work with the Council and, indeed, UCD to identify and address car parking issues within and surrounding the Campus.

 

The Chief Executive acknowledges that the on-going Mobility Management process will help facilitate the achievement of more sustainable travel patterns, which will  contribute towards the development of a Campus Travel Plan and, in particular, address the on-going car parking issues within and surrounding the Campus. 

 

Recommendation

Amend SLO NO. 148 to read, as follows:

 

To identify and address the on-going car parking issues within and surrounding UCDCampus. In particular, the Council will support and facilitate the on-going process of Mobility Management Planning for UCD, involving the University and the NTA, in order to achieve more sustainable travel patterns to and from the University and to work towards the development of a Campus Travel Plan””.

 

The above recommendation on Pages 24 & 25 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

14.

Page 25 & 26 Non-Amendment Related Submissions

The Non-Amendment Related Submissions on Pages 25 and 26 were NOTED.

 

 

Part 4 Page 27 & 28 Summary of Submissions and Chief Executive's Response and Recommendation

Page 29 1. Strategic Overview

15.

Page 31 1.1 Introduction and Context

No Submissions received in relation to Proposed Amendments.

 

NOTED

 

 

16.

Page 33 1.2 Core Strategy

No Submissions received in relation to Proposed Amendments.

 

NOTED

 

 

Page 35 1.3 Development Areas and Regeneration

Page 35 1.3.4: Local Area Plans in Dun Laoghiare-Rathdown

17.

Page 35 1.3.4.2 Kilternan-Glenamuck i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

i)”Submission seeks that the commitment to reviewing the Kiltiernan/Glernamuck LAP be strengthened.  The submission states that the LAP was adopted in 2013 which means it will expire in 2018 and not 2017 as stated.  Submission also makes reference to the need to review the Section 49 levy scheme”.

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission. 

 

It is considered that the Council are committed to meeting all objectives relating to the preparation of new Local Area Plans and also review of existing plans.  Therefore there is no need to state this commitment specifically for one individual review.  Review of LAPs will be subject to resources. 

 

Recommendation

Amend Section 1.3.4.3 Kiltiernan-Glenamuck as follows:

 

From:

The Plan is due for review in 2017 and it is recommended that the review be carried out during the lifetime of this County Development Plan

 

To:

The Plan is due for review in 2018 and it is recommended that the review be carried out during the lifetime of this County Development Plan”

 

The above recommendation on Page 35 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

18.

Page 35 1.3.4.10 Dundrum i)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 35 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 35 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

19.

Motion No. 1 from the Floor - Page 36 & 37 1.3.4.13 Clonskeagh/UCD i)

It was AGREED to take Motion No. 1 from the floor in conjunction with this item.

 

Motion No. 1 from the floor

 

Motion No 1  from the floor in the name of Councillor B., Saul. It  was proposed by Councillor B. Saul and seconded by Councillors L.  Dockery, J Madigan, S. O’Neill and D. Donnelly. 

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 11 (5)(c) of the Planning & Development Act 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Chief Executive's  Draft Development Plan as follows:-

 

" To reject the amended text from the C.E regarding a local area plan for Clonskeagh/UCD and to reinstate the original text as unanimously passed by council at a meeting 10/02/2015.

 

 Clonskeagh/UCD – New Local Area Plan to be prepared

 

The following report was CONSIDERED:-

 

“The Chief Executive does not agree with this motion

 

It should be noted that page 24 of the CE Report relates to SLO 148 where it is recommended that SLO 148 read as follows

 

“To identify and address the on-going car parking issues within and surrounding UCD Campus. In particular, the Council will support and facilitate the on-going process of Mobility Management Planning for UCD, involving the University and the NTA, in order to achieve more sustainable travel patterns to and from the University and to work towards the development of a Campus Travel Plan”.

 

The executive are strongly of the view that the SLO above will deal with the traffic and transportation issues which have been raised during this review process.  The NTA are also supportive of this approach.

 

UCD campus is subject to it its own non-statutory Campus Development Plan (2010 – 2015) which accords with the provisions of the County Development Plan and which is currently being reviewed.  The Chief Executive considers that there is no need for a specific Local Area Plan including Clonskeagh.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Given new requirements including Appropriate Assessment and Strategic Flood Risk Assessment the lead-in time to any LAP process has become progressively more time consuming.  Continuing to add additional areas to the list of statutory LAPS to be undertaken during the lifetime of the 2016 – 2022 Development Plan, where it is considered there is no obvious objective requirement for a Local Area Plan – based on the criteria set out in the DoECLG Guidance Documents – would be poor use of constrained Council resources.

 

Recommendation

No change to Proposed Amendment to Draft Plan.”

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 36 & 37  of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

“Submission supports the amendment to remove the commitment to prepare a Local Area Plan for Clonskeagh/UCD.  Submission argues that there is no need for a Local Areas Plan as UCD are currently preparing their own Masterplan.  It is argued that and LAP could hinder development if it is overly prescriptive and not aligned or cognizant of the requirement of the University over the ten years.  The submission supports the proposed amendment to insert an SLO to resolve the various traffic and transport issues both in and around the periphery of the Campus.”

 

The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission. 

 

UCD campus is subject to it its own non-statutory Campus Development Plan (2010 – 2015) which accords with the provisions of the County Development Plan and which is currently being reviewed.  On balance the Chief Executive would agree with the argument being advanced by UCD that there is no need for a specific Local Area Plan including Clonskeagh.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Given new requirements including Appropriate Assessment and Strategic Flood Risk Assessment the lead-in time to any LAP process has become progressively more time consuming.  Continuing to add additional areas to the list of statutory LAPS to be undertaken during the lifetime of the 2016 – 2022 Development Plan, where it is considered there is no obvious objective requirement for a Local Area Plan – based on the criteria set out in the DoECLG Guidance Documents – would be poor use of constrained Council resources.

 

Recommendation

No change to Proposed Amendment to Draft Plan.”

 

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

 

Motion No. 1 from the floor was AGREED.   The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on Pages 36 & 37 was REJECTED.

 

 

Pages 39 2. Sustainable community Strategy

Page 41 2.1 Residential Development

Pages 41 2.1.2: Housing Strategy

20.

Pages 41 2.1.2: Housing Strategy i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

i)” DoECLG request that a review of the Housing Strategy be undertaken as part of the statutory two year review of the Plan taking into account of the new Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy (RSES) which will replace the RPGs in terms of future population and housing allocation for the constituent local authorities in the region.  The DoECLG request that this requirement be included in the Plan.”

 

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

 

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

 

Recommendation

Reinstate the word “Interim” in second sentence section 2.1.2.

Reinstate the word “Interim” in section 2.1.3.2 RES2: implementation of Housing Strategy.

Reinstate the word “Interim” in Section 2.1.3.8 Policy RES8: Provision of Social Housing.

 

Section 2.1.3.2. RES 2: Implementation of Housing Strategy.  Insert the following after “In accordance with the Planning and Development Act 200 (as amended) and the Urban Regeneration and Housing Act 2015”

 

“The Interim Housing Strategy will be reviewed and updated as part of the mandatory 2 year report of progress under Section 15 (2) of the Act taking account of future population and housing allocations outlined in any new Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy (RSES)”.”

 

The above recommendation on Page 41 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

21.

Page 41 Non-Amendment Related Submissions

The Non-Amendment Related Submissions on Page 41  were  NOTED.

 

 

Page 43 2.2: Sustainable travel and Transportation

22.

Page 43 2.2.2: Policy Context i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

“Submission from Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) requesting that all references to the National Roads Authority (NRA) and the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) are amended to reflect their recent merger.”

 

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

 

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

 

It is acknowledged that this submission refers to material or subject matter that was not included in either the 'Proposed Amendments' document or the 'Mapping Changes' that were placed on public display between 24th November 2015 and 22nd December 2015. 

 

However, given the submission relates solely to up-dating the title of a State body, and that the change are not considered material, the Chief Executive recommends incorporating said changes.

 

Recommendation

Amend throughout the Draft Plan as follows:

 

Replace all references to both the ‘National Roads Authority’ and the ‘Railway Procurement Agency’ with ‘Transport Infrastructure Ireland’

 

Replace the acronyms ‘NRA’ and ‘RPA’ with ‘TII’

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 43 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

Page 43 2.2.8: Public Transport

Pages 43 Policy ST13: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

23.

Motions No. 7 from the floor & Pages 43, 44 & 45

 

It was AGREED to take Motion No. 7 from the floor in conjunction with this item.

 

Motion No. 7 from the floor

 

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

 

“That this Planning Authority pursuant to Section 11 (5)(c) of the Planning & Development Act 2000 (as amended) resolves to amend the Chief Executive's  Draft Development Plan as follows:-

 

“To delete reference  “by the TII“ in the Chief Executive’s Report on pages, 45, 47, 49, 50, 127, 129, 137 &143

 

To read; “Should the proposals for the Dublin Eastern Bypass be progressed at some point in the long term, a full assessment of the potential ecological impacts associated with the proposals will be required to be carried out, to include the appropriate research and survey work necessary in order to inform a robust Environmental Impact Assessment and Appropriate Assessment of the potential impacts associated with the proposed works”.

 

The following report of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:-

 

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

 

For the purposes of clarity, Pages 45, 47, 49, 50, 127, 129, 137 and 143 of the Chief Executive’s Report recommends attaching a caveat to Table 2.2.6 Long Term Road Objectives, and specifically, the “Dublin Eastern Bypass (as identified in the Dublin Eastern Bypass Corridor Protection Study, NRA 2011)” to reflect the concerns raised within the Natura Impact Report, and specifically, Table 5.3 Specific Mitigation Recommendation, for inclusion in the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan, which states,

 

“Should the proposals for the Dublin Eastern Bypass be progressed, a full assessment of the potential ecological impacts associated with the proposals will be required to be carried out by the TII, to include the appropriate research and survey work necessary in order to inform a robust Environmental Impact Assessment and Appropriate Assessment of the potential impacts associated with the proposed works”.

 

The Chief Executive acknowledges that Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) may be the future applicant/developer if the Dublin Eastern Bypass was – at any stage - to be progressed. Therefore the assessment of any potential ecological impacts associated with the proposal would be statutorily the responsibility of the TII.

 

However, the Chief Executive also recognises that the NTA’s recently published Draft Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2016 – 2035 explicitly states:

 

“While a Section of the route from the Dublin Port Tunnel to the South Port area is included for delivery in this Strategy, the remainder of the route is not proposed for development during the Strategy period”.

 

Therefore the Chief Executive accepts that the title of the guiding applicant/developer could potentially change prior to any future application being lodged for the Dublin Eastern Bypass.

 

Recommendation

Delete reference to the ‘TII’ within the Proposed Amendment within Section 2.2.10 Policy ST25: Roads.

 

Attach an asterisk demarcating the following caveat to Table 2.2.6 Long Term Road Objectives, and specifically, the “Dublin Eastern Bypass (as identified in the Dublin Eastern Bypass Corridor Protection Study, NRA 2011)”

 

Should the proposals for the Dublin Eastern Bypass be progressed at some point in the longer term, a full assessment of the potential ecological impacts associated with the proposals will be required to be carried out to include the appropriate research and survey work necessary in order to inform a robust Environmental Impact Assessment and Appropriate Assessment of the potential impacts associated with the proposed works”.

 

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

 

 

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

i)     “Submission from Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) raises concerns relating to a number of potential short-term uses of the Dublin Eastern Bypass (DEB) Corridor, which it considers could prejudice the eventual deliverability of the scheme at some point in the future. 

 

In terms of specific future interim uses, the TII supports, in principle, the establishment of the corridor for transport services, subject to the promoters of any such proposals demonstrating various commitments to the TII’s satisfaction.

 

These include: (i) a clear commitment to the DEB and potential necessary adjustments to the proposed Greenway / Cycleway / Walkway/ Public Transport Services both during and after construction, (ii) a fully developed infrastructural design for the Greenway / Cycleway / Walkway / Public Transport Services scheme both during and after construction, (iii) a fully developed plan for the diversion of the Greenway/Cycleway/Walkway during the construction phase of the Eastern Bypass, (iv) a fully developed service plan for the public transport service during the construction phase of the DEB.

 

The submission states that the TII does not support the use of the corridor for either biodiversity projects or recreational opportunities (inclusive of playing pitches) as both uses are considered likely to create a significant obstacle to the eventual deliverability of the DEB. In particular, it is considered that the development of biodiversity projects could create significant constraints due to the potential presence of species and habitats protected under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives, in terms of both EIA and AA.

 

The TII also notes that the majority of lands are not within public ownership and requests that any persons/agencies promoting projects within the corridor should liaise with both the Planning Authority and TII to establish certain safeguards to ensure the future availability of said lands for the DEB as and when Bypass is eventually delivered.

 

The submission recommends rewording SLO NO. 6 as follows:

 

“To explore, in conjunction with the Transport Infrastructure Ireland, potential interim uses of the Dublin Eastern Bypass reservation corridor, such as an amenity walking/cycling route, recreation or other interim transport infrastructure or service provision, pending a decision from the Transport Infrastructure Ireland/Central Government in relation to the future status of the Bypass”.

Text Box: Refer also to Sections: • Part 3(c) (i) • 2.2.10 Policy ST25: Roads • 9 - Map 1 (i) • 9 - Map 2 (i) • 9 - Map 5 (i) • 9 - Map 6 (i)
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of the submission.

 

For the purposes of clarity, SLO No. 6 currently reads:

 

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

 

The Chief Executive acknowledges the concerns raised by TII, however, it should be noted that the NTA’s recently published Draft Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2016 – 2035 explicitly states:

 

“While a Section of the route from the Dublin Port Tunnel to the South Port area is included for delivery in this Strategy, the remainder of the route is not proposed for development during the Strategy period”.

 

The Dublin Eastern Bypass is a Long-Term Roads Objective within the Draft Plan and - in this instance - it is considered reasonable and appropriate to examine other potential short-term uses along the reservation corridor.  It is also recognised, that any additional interim uses would be subject to appropriate engineering and environmental studies being carried out - in accordance with the relevant EU Directives.

 

The Chief Executive does not see any merit in rewording either Policy ST13: Bus Rapid Transit or SLO NO. 6 as both explicitly state:

 

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

 

In this regard, Policy ST13: Bus Rapid Transit and SLO No. 6 clearly detail that the central, and ultimately, conclusive decision makers - in terms of any potential future interim uses of the Corridor – will be Central Government, the TII and the NTA.

 

The issue of private land ownership is acknowledged, as are the many safeguards which would be required to ensure the future availability of said lands for the proposed Dublin Eastern Bypass scheme.

 

The Chief Executive does not recommend rewording the Proposed Amendment to Policy ST13 and/or SLO No. 6.  The Chief Executive is, however, recommending an amendment to Policy ST25: Roads and specifically the Dublin Eastern Bypass as detailed within Table 2.2.6 Long Term Roads Objectives.

 

In this regard, Chief Executive considers it appropriate to attach a caveat to Table 2.2.6 Long Term Road Objectives, and specifically, the “Dublin Eastern Bypass (as identified in the Dublin Eastern Bypass Corridor Protection Study, NRA 2011)” to reflect the concerns raised within the Natura Impact Report, and specifically, Table 5.3 Specific Mitigation Recommendation, for inclusion in the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan, which states,

 

“Should the proposals for the Dublin Eastern Bypass be progressed, a full assessment of the potential ecological impacts associated with the proposals will be required to be carried out by the TII, to include the appropriate research and survey work necessary in order to inform a robust Environmental Impact Assessment and Appropriate Assessment of the potential impacts associated with the proposed works”.

 

Recommendation

No change to Proposed Amendments Policy ST13: Bus Rapid Transit and SLO No. 6.

 

Amend Section 2.2.10 Policy ST25: Roads, as follows:

 

Attach an asterisk demarcating the following caveat to Table 2.2.6 Long Term Road Objectives, and specifically, the “Dublin Eastern Bypass (as identified in the Dublin Eastern Bypass Corridor Protection Study, NRA 2011)”

 

Should the proposals for the Dublin Eastern Bypass be progressed at some point in the longer term, a full assessment of the potential ecological impacts associated with the proposals will be required to be carried out by the TII, to include the appropriate research and survey work necessary in order to inform a robust Environmental Impact Assessment and Appropriate Assessment of the potential impacts associated with the proposed works”.

 

The above recommendation on Pages 43 – 45 of the Chief Executive’s Report and the Recommendation on Motion No. 7  from the floor were  AGREED

 

 

Pages 45 2.2.9: Travel Demand Management

24.

Policy ST24: Control of On-Street Parking i)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 45 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 45 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

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

 

 

Page 45 2.2.10: Roads

25.

Pages 45 - 47 Policy ST25: Roads i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

i)”Submission from Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) raises concerns relating to a number of potential short- term uses of the Dublin Eastern Bypass (DEB) Corridor, which it considers could prejudice the eventual deliverability of the scheme at some point in the future. 

 

In terms of specific future interim uses, the TII Supports, in principle, the establishment of the corridor for transport services, subject to the promoters of any such proposals demonstrating various commitments to the TII’s satisfaction.

 

These include: (i) a clear commitment to the DEB and potential necessary adjustments to the proposed Greenway / Cycleway / Walkway/ Public Transport Services both during and after construction, (ii) a fully developed infrastructural design for the Greenway / Cycleway/Walkway/Public Transport Services scheme both during and after construction, (iii) a fully developed plan for the diversion of the Greenway/Cycleway/Walkway during the construction phase of the Eastern Bypass, (iv) a fully developed service plan for the public transport service during the construction phase of the DEB.

 

The submission states that the TII does not support the use of the corridor for either biodiversity projects or recreational opportunities (inclusive of playing pitches) as both uses are considered likely to create a significant obstacle to the eventual deliverability of the DEB. In particular, it is considered that the development of biodiversity projects could create significant constraints due to the potential presence of species and habitats protected under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives, in terms of both EIA and AA.

 

 

The TII also notes that the majority of lands are not within public ownership and requests that any persons/agencies promoting projects within the corridor should liaise with both the Planning Authority and TII to establish certain safeguards to ensure the future availability of said lands for the DEB as and when Bypass is eventually delivered.

 

The submission recommends rewording SLO NO. 6 as follows:

 

“To explore, in conjunction with the Transport Infrastructure Ireland, potential interim uses of the Dublin Eastern Bypass reservation corridor, such as an amenity walking/cycling route, recreation or other interim transport infrastructure or service provision, pending a decision from the Transport Infrastructure Ireland/Central Government in relation to the future status of the Bypass”.

 

Text Box: This item has already been dealt with under Section 2.2.8 Policy ST13 (i)
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


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

 

The Chief Executive notes the contents of the submission.

 

For the purposes of clarity, SLO No. 6 currently reads:

 

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

 

The Chief Executive acknowledges the concerns raised by TII, however, it should be noted that the NTA’s recently published Draft Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2016 – 2035 explicitly states:

 

“While a Section of the route from the Dublin Port Tunnel to the South Port area is included for delivery in this Strategy, the remainder of the route is not proposed for development during the Strategy period”.

 

The Dublin Eastern Bypass is a Long-Term Roads Objective within the Draft Plan and - in this instance - it is considered reasonable and appropriate to examine other potential short-term uses along the reservation corridor.  It is also recognised, that any additional interim uses would be subject to appropriate engineering and environmental studies being carried out - in accordance with the relevant EU Directives.

 

The Chief Executive does not see any merit in rewording either Policy ST13: Bus Rapid Transit or SLO NO. 6 as both explicitly state:

 

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

 

In this regard, Policy ST13: Bus Rapid Transit and SLO No. 6 clearly detail that the central, and ultimately, conclusive decision makers - in terms of any potential future interim uses of the Corridor – will be Central Government, the TII and the NTA.

 

The issue of private land ownership is acknowledged, as are the many safeguards which would be required to ensure the future availability of said lands for the proposed Dublin Eastern Bypass scheme.

 

The Chief Executive does not recommend rewording the Proposed Amendment to Policy ST13 and/or SLO No. 6.  The Chief Executive is, however, recommending an amendment to Policy ST25: Roads and specifically the Dublin Eastern Bypass as detailed within Table 2.2.6 Long Term Roads Objectives.

 

In this regard, Chief Executive considers it appropriate to attach a caveat to Table 2.2.6 Long Term Road Objectives, and specifically, the “Dublin Eastern Bypass (as identified in the Dublin Eastern Bypass Corridor Protection Study, NRA 2011)” to reflect the concerns raised within the Natura Impact Report, and specifically, Table 5.3 Specific Mitigation Recommendation, for inclusion in the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan, which states,

 

“Should the proposals for the Dublin Eastern Bypass be progressed, a full assessment of the potential ecological impacts associated with the proposals will be required to be carried out by the TII, to include the appropriate research and survey work necessary in order to inform a robust Environmental Impact Assessment and Appropriate Assessment of the potential impacts associated with the proposed works”.

 

Recommendation

No change to Proposed Amendments Policy ST13: Bus Rapid Transit and SLO No. 6.

 

Amend Section 2.2.10 Policy ST25: Roads, as follows:

 

Attach an asterisk demarcating the following caveat to Table 2.2.6 Long Term Road Objectives, and specifically, the “Dublin Eastern Bypass (as identified in the Dublin Eastern Bypass Corridor Protection Study, NRA 2011)”

 

Should the proposals for the Dublin Eastern Bypass be progressed at some point in the longer term, a full assessment of the potential ecological impacts associated with the proposals will be required to be carried out by the TII, to include the appropriate research and survey work necessary in order to inform a robust Environmental Impact Assessment and Appropriate Assessment of the potential impacts associated with the proposed works”.

 

 

The above recommendation on Pages 45 – 47  of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED with earlier.

 

 

26.

Pages 47 - 49 Policy ST25: Roads ii) - iv)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 47 – 49  of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 47 – 49  of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

27.

Pages 49 Policy ST25: Roads v)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

v)” Submission from the EPA requesting that any amendment to SLO No. 6 – relating to the Dublin Eastern Bypass – should include a commitment that the proposed Bypass is subject to EIA assessment.”

 

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

 

The Chief Executive agrees with the contents of this submission. 

 

It is considered appropriate to attach a caveat to Table 2.2.6 Long Term Road Objectives, and specifically, the “Dublin Eastern Bypass (as identified in the Dublin Eastern Bypass Corridor Protection Study, NRA 2011)” to reflect the concerns raised.

 

Recommendation

Amend Section 2.2.10 Policy ST25: Roads, as follows:

 

Attach an asterisk demarcating the following caveat to Table 2.2.6 Long Term Road Objectives, and specifically, the “Dublin Eastern Bypass (as identified in the Dublin Eastern Bypass Corridor Protection Study, NRA 2011)”

 

Should the proposals for the Dublin Eastern Bypass be progressed at some point in the longer term, a full assessment of the potential ecological impacts associated with the proposals will be required to be carried out by the TII, to include the appropriate research and survey work necessary in order to inform a robust Environmental Impact Assessment and Appropriate Assessment of the potential impacts associated with the proposed works”.

 

The above recommendation on Page 49 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED.

 

 

28.

Pages 50 Policy ST25: Roads vi)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

vi) “Change recommended within the Natura Impact Report, and specifically, Table 5.3 Specific Mitigation Recommendation for inclusion in the Draft Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan, which states,

 

“Should the proposals for the Dublin Eastern Bypass be progressed, a full assessment of the potential ecological impacts associated with the proposals will be required to be carried out by the TII, to include the appropriate research and survey work necessary in order to inform a robust Environmental Impact Assessment and Appropriate Assessment of the potential impacts associated with the proposed works”.

 

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive agrees with the contents of the Natura Impact Report.

 

It is considered appropriate to attach a caveat to Table 2.2.6 Long Term Road Objectives, and specifically, the “Dublin Eastern Bypass (as identified in the Dublin Eastern Bypass Corridor Protection Study, NRA 2011)” to reflect the concerns raised.

 

Recommendation

Amend Section 2.2.10 Policy ST25: Roads, as follows:

 

Attach an asterisk demarcating the following caveat to Table 2.2.6 Long Term Road Objectives, and specifically, the “Dublin Eastern Bypass (as identified in the Dublin Eastern Bypass Corridor Protection Study, NRA 2011)”

 

Should the proposals for the Dublin Eastern Bypass be progressed at some point in the longer term, a full assessment of the potential ecological impacts associated with the proposals will be required to be carried out by the TII, to include the appropriate research and survey work necessary in order to inform a robust Environmental Impact Assessment and Appropriate Assessment of the potential impacts associated with the proposed works”.

 

The above recommendation on Page 50  of the Chief Executive’s Report was already AGREED.

 

 

29.

Pages 50 - 52 Non-Amendment Related Submissions i) -xi)

The Non-Amendment Related Submissions on Pages 50 –52 were NOTED.

 

 

Page 53 3. Enterprise and Employment Strategy

Page 55 3.1 Enterprise and Employment

Page 55 3.1.2: Strategy, Policies and Objectives

30.

Pages 55 - 56 Policy E14: Tourism and Recreation i) - iv)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 55 – 56 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 55 – 56 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

 

3.2 Retail and Major Town Centres

31.

Pages 57 Non Amendment Related Submissions

The Non-Amendment Related Submission  on Page 57  was  NOTED.

 

 

Pages 59 4 Green County Strategy

Page 61 4.1 Landscape, Heritage and Biodiversity

32.

Pages 61 Policy LHB3: Seascape i)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 61 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 61 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

33.

Pages 61 Policy LHB5: Historic Landscape Character Areas i)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 61 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 61 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

34.

Motion No. 6 from the floor & Pages 61 - 62 Policy LHB11: Dublin Bay Biosphere Reserve i)

It was AGREED to take Motion No 6  from the floor  in conjunction with this item

 

Motion No. 6 from the floor

 

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

 

“Dublin Bay Biosphere Reserve – Policy LHB11 Ref: 61 & 62 of Chief Executive’s Report

 

Retain the following…‘and local community groups and NGO’s “,

 

The following report of the Chief Executive was CONSIDERED:-

 

“The Chief Executive does not agree with the motion.

 

Motion proposes not accepting the amendment replacing

 

“The Biosphere is managed by the Dublin Bay Biosphere Partnership which includes Fingal County Council, Dublin City Council, Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, Dublin Port, National Parks and Wildlife Service and local community groups and NGO’s”

 

With

 

“The Biosphere is managed by the Dublin Bay Biosphere Partnership which includes Fingal County Council, Dublin City Council, Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, Dublin Port, National Parks and Wildlife Services”

 

The modification wording proposed in the CE Report came about on foot of a submission from the Biosphere Coordinator Dr Jenni Roche who stated in her submission that “While Dublin Bay Biosphere Partnership works with community groups, NGOs, local businesses and schools, these organisations are not members of Dublin Bay Biosphere Partnership.” 

 

Therefore to state that they are members of the Partnership would be factually incorrect.  It is however recognised that whilst community groups and NGO’s may not be part of the management partnership for the Biosphere they do form a vital part of the Biosphere and indeed An Taisce, Bird Watch Ireland and the Irish Wildlife Trust are all part of the Conservation Working Group on the Bisophere. 

 

In order to acknowledge their involvement, it is recommended that the following modification be made to the proposed amendment which inserts Policy LHB11: Dublin Bay Biosphere.

 

Reccommendation.

 

Insert an additional sentence at the end of the policy as follows;

 

“The Partnership works with local community groups and NGOs and a number of NGO’s are valued members of the Biosphere Conservation Working Group”.

 

Following a discussion, Ms. L. McGauran Executive Planner responded to Member’s queries.

 

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

i)     Submission from the Dublin Bay Biosphere Partnership supports the inclusion of Policy LHB11 but requests that the policy is amended as follows:

·         Omit the word ‘Reserve’ from the title

·         Amend ‘Dublin Port’ to ‘Dublin Port Company’

·         Insert ‘ of the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht’ after ‘National Parks and Wildlife Service’

Remove ‘and local community groups and NGO’s’.

 

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

 

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

 

Recommendation

Amend Section 4.1.2.10 LHB 11 as follows:

·         Omit the word ‘Reserve’ from the title

·         Amend ‘Dublin Port’ to Dublin Port Company’

·         Insert ‘ of the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht’ after ‘National Parks and Wildlife Service’

·         Remove ‘and local community groups and NGO’s’,

 

The above recommendation on Pages 61 & 62 of the Chief Executive’s Report and the Chief Executive Recommendation on Motions No. 6 from the floor were  AGREED.

 

 

35.

Pages 62 Policy LHB11: Dublin Bay Biosphere Reserve ii)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 62 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 62  of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

36.

Pages 62 Policy LHB12: Coastal Area Feasibility Study i)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 62 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 62 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

37.

Pages 62 Policy LHB14: Public Rights-of-Way i)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 62 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 62 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

4.1.3: Biodiversity

38.

Pages 62 - 63 Policy LHB25: Rivers and Waterways

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages  62 – 63 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 62 – 63 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

39.

Pages 63 Policy LHB27: Geological Sites i)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 63 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 63 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

4.1.4: Heritage

40.

Pages 63 - 64 Policy LHB30: Heritage Plan i), ii) iii)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages  63 – 64  of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages  63 – 64  of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

41.

Pages 64 - 65 Non-Amendment Related Submissions

The Non-Amendment Related Submissions on Pages 64 – 65 were NOTED.

 

 

Page 67 4.2 Open Space and Recreation

42.

Page 67 Policy ORS4: Future Improvements i) & ii)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 67  of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

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

 

 

43.

Pages 67 - 69 Policy OSR11: Protection of Sports Grounds/Facilities i), ii) & iii)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 67 – 69  of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 67 – 69  of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

44.

Page 69 Policy OSR12: Water-Based Sports i)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 69  of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 69 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

45.

Motion No 5 & Pages 69 - 71 Policy OSR13: To Protect Dun Laoghaire as an Outstanding Recreational Harbour and Sporting Amenity of National Significance i)

It was AGREED to take Motion No.  5  in conjunction with this Item.

 

Motion No. 5

 

It was proposed by Councillor D. Kingston 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 amend newpolicy OSR13(Chapter 4)to read:

 

"Toprotect DunLaoghaire asan outstandingrecreational harbourand sportingamenity ofnational significance.

 

Itis the policyof theCouncilto protectand enhancethe waterbased recreationalamenity ofDun LaoghaireHarbour andits abilityto hostnational andinternational competitions.

 

However,all commercialshipping proposalswithin theharbour willbe consideredin thecontext ofensuring thelong-term commercialviability ofthe harbour.This willbe donein conjunctionwith recognisingthe importanceOf thewater basedactivities ofthe harbour”.

 

Following a discussion, Mr. L. Walsh, Senior Executive Planner responded to Member’s queries.

 

Councillor D. Kingston  AGREED to WITHDRAW Motion No. 5

 

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

i)”Submissions support additional Policy OSR13: To Protect Dún Laoghaire as an Outstanding Recreational Harbour and Sporting Amenity of National Significance.

 

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

 

The Chief Executive notes the contents of the submissions but considers that the addition of a new Policy OSR13 is completely unnecessary and unwarranted.

 

It is considered that the intention of this Policy is already more than adequately provided for in the Draft County Development Plan.

 

Policy OSR12: Water-Based Sports, provides specific policy guidance for the support and encouragement of water-based sports and maritime leisure activities along the coast.

 

The Policy states in part that:

 

“It is Council policy to support and encourage water-based sports and maritime leisure activities along the coast subject to Council Bye-Laws…….

 

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

 

This Policy clearly indicates unequivocal support for the enhancement of the water-based recreational amenity of Dún Laoghaire Harbour.

 

Having regard to the second part of the new Policy, it is considered that the Draft County Development Plan, in Policy E14: Tourism and Recreation, and including the Dún Laoghaire UFP (Appendix 12), acknowledges that cruise berth infrastructure could form a component part of the overall development of the Harbour estate. The National Ports Policy 2013 (Section 2.7.2) has identified that Dún Laoghaire Harbour’s long term future will be in terms of marine leisure, marine tourism, cultural amenity and urban regeneration.

 

The proposed Cruise Berth Facility has been determined by An Bord Pleanala to be Strategic Infrastructure Development. The planning application for same, lodged by the Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company, is presently being determined by the Bord. Accordingly the role of the Planning Authority is limited to the extent outlined in Section 37E(4) to Section 37E(8) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended).

 

In that respect, the potential impact of any commercial shipping proposals within the Harbour will, in this instance, be examined by An Bord Pleanala, during their assessment of the Strategic Infrastructure Development planning application in the coming months.

 

Recommendation:

Delete entire Section 4.2.2.12 Policy OSR13: “To protect Dún Laoghaire as an Outstanding Recreational Harbour and Sporting Amenity of National Significance

 

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

 

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

 

The recommendation on Pages 69 – 71 of the Chief Executive’s Report was DEFEATED.

 

 

46.

Page 71 Policy OSR13: To Protect Dun Laoghaire as an Outstanding Recreational Harbour and Sporting Amenity of National Significance ii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

i)” Submission requests that Policy OSR13 be further amended to include reference to ‘local competitions’ such as Water Wag racing which takes place within the Harbour.

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of the submissions but considers that the new Policy OSR13, as stated above, is not necessary nor warranted and, therefore, any amendment to it is not required.

 

It is considered that the proposed amendment to the new Policy is already more than adequately provided for in the Draft County Development Plan in Policy OSR12: Water-Based Sports. This Policy provides specific guidance for the support and encouragement of water-based sports and maritime leisure activities along the coast, which would also include, inter alia, local competitions and Dún Laoghaire Harbour.

 

Recommendation

Delete entire Section 4.2.2.12 Policy OSR13: “To protect Dún Laoghaire as an Outstanding Recreational Harbour and Sporting Amenity of National Significance

 

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

 

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

 

The above recommendation on Page 71  of the Chief Executive’s Report was DEFEATED.

 

 

47.

Page 71 - 72 Policy OSR13: To Protect Dun Laoghaire as an Outstanding Recreational Harbour and Sporting Amenity of National Significance iii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

iii)”Submission requests that the Harbour be used for water-based activities and not a major berth for super liners and no structural works to be constructed that could damage the existing harbour walls.”

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the content of this submission.

 

The Harbour has and is being used for water based activities and these activities are fully supported by the Draft Plan in Policies OSR12, LHB9 and in Section 3.2 of the UFP.

 

The Draft County Development Plan, including the Dún Laoghaire Urban Framework Plan, clearly states that cruise berth infrastructure could form part of the overall development of the Harbour estate.

 

The proposed Cruise Berth Facility has been determined by An Bord Pleanala to be Strategic Infrastructure Development. The planning application for same, lodged by the Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company, is presently being determined by the Bord. Accordingly the role of the Planning Authority is limited to the extent outlined in Section 37E(4) to Section 37E(8) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended).  

 

Recommendation

Delete entire Section 4.2.2.12 Policy OSR13: “To protect Dún Laoghaire as an Outstanding Recreational Harbour and Sporting Amenity of National Significance

 

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

 

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

 

The above recommendation on Pages 71 – 72   f the Chief Executive’s Report was DEFEATED.  

 

 

48.

Page 72 - 73 Policy OSR13: To Protect Dun Laoghaire as an Outstanding Recreational Harbour and Sporting Amenity of National Significance iv)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

iv)”Submission raises concerns regarding new policy OSR13 and its implications for commercial operations within the Harbour. The submission adds that it is vital that commercial shipping within the Harbour is not compromised by becoming secondary to recreational sailing through the introduction of this proposed Policy.

 

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

 

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

 

It is considered that the intention of this Policy is already more than adequately provided for in the Draft County Development Plan.

 

Policy OSR12: Water-Based Sports, provides specific policy guidance for the support and encouragement of water-based sports and maritime leisure activities along the coast.

 

The Policy states in part that:

 

It is Council policy to support and encourage water-based sports and maritime leisure activities along the coast subject to Council Bye-Laws…….

 

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

 

This Policy clearly indicates unequivocal support for the enhancement of the water-based recreational amenity of Dún Laoghaire Harbour.

 

Having regard to the second part of the new Policy, it is considered that the Draft County Development Plan, in Policy E14: Tourism and Recreation and including

theDún Laoghaire UFP (Appendix 12), acknowledges that cruise berth infrastructure could form a component part of the overall development of the Harbour estate. The National Ports Policy 2013 (Section 2.7.2) has identified that Dún Laoghaire Harbour’s long term future will be in terms of marine leisure, marine tourism, cultural amenity and urban regeneration.

 

The proposed Cruise Berth Facility has been determined by An Bord Pleanala to be Strategic Infrastructure Development. The planning application for same, lodged by the Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company, is presently being determined by the Bord. Accordingly the role of the Planning Authority is limited to the extent outlined in Section 37E(4) to Section 37E(8) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended).

 

In that respect, the potential impact of any commercial shipping proposals within the Harbour will be examined, in this instance, by An Bord Pleanala, during their assessment of the Strategic Infrastructure Development planning application in the coming months.

 

Recommendation

Delete entire Section 4.2.2.12 Policy OSR13: “To protect Dún Laoghaire as an Outstanding Recreational Harbour and Sporting Amenity of National Significance

 

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

 

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

 

The above recommendation on Pages 72 – 73   of the Chief Executive’s Report was DEFEATED.

 

 

49.

Page 73 OSR15: Sandycove Harbour and Bullock Harbour Masterplans i)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 73 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 73 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

50.

Page 74 Non-Amendment Related Submissions i) - v)

The Non-Amendment Related Submissions on Page 74 were NOTED.

 

 

Pages 75 - 76 5. Physical Infrastructure Strategy

51.

Motion No. 8 from the floor

It was proposed by Councillor M. Halpin and seconded by Councillor M. Merrigan, Councillor B. Ward and Councillor K.Gill.

 

“Policy OSR 13

 

Retain OSR13 as was put out to public consultation”.

 

Following discussion Motion No. 8 from the floor was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

52.

Page 77 - 84 5.1.3 Pollution Policy E123: Rathmichael Ground and Surface Water (SLO No. 126) i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

i)     “Submission from Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI) which stresses that in areas where wastewater treatment facilities necessary for development do not exist then planning permission should either be refused on the grounds that such development is premature or the developer should be constrained by an appropriate condition requiring that connections to sewer will not be permitted until sewage works upgrading is complete and operational. The submission also states that in certain locations a developer could be required to install a package treatment plant capable of providing secondary treatment for a proposed development until such a time as the Council’s sewage works upgrading and expansion is completed and operational.

 

The IFI also strongly support the recommendation of the Natura Impact Report that requests the re-instatement of Policy E123.

 

The submission states that prior to any development preceding - in the area - it is imperative that existing conditions improve and are in compliance with the European Communities Environmental Objectives for Surface Water Regulations 2009 and Groundwater Regulations 2010.

 

The submission highlights the unacceptable risk of associated significant environmental effects resulting from local development.  The submission states drinking water source/river abstraction schemes should be environmentally sound and sustainable and should not compromise objectives as set out in Fisheries and Water Framework Directive legislation.

 

Text Box: This item has already been dealt with under Part 2(a) (i)”
 

 

 

 


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

 

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

 

The Chief Executive wishes to add some context to the issue raised within the submission and, indeed, the origins of SLO No. 126.

 

The purpose of SLO No. 126 is to ensure there is no further degradation of groundwater and surface water quality within the Rathmichael/Ferndale area and to requirements on the Council to meet its obligations under the Water Framework Directive. In this regard, SLO No. 126 states:

 

To refuse planning permission for any new developments which include on-site wastewater treatment facilities within this catchment, until the groundwater issues in the area are resolved or ameliorated.”

 

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) applies to rivers, lakes, groundwater and coastal waters and requires a co-ordinated approach to water management, which in Ireland is being undertaken in hydrological units termed River Basin Districts (RBDs). 

 

The principal objective of the Directive is the achievement of “good status”, for all waters by 2015. The WFD was transposed into Irish law by the European Communities (Water Policy) Regulations 2003 (S.I. 722 of 2003) in December 2003. 

 

The objectives set out for groundwater within the WFD, are as follows:

 

Ø  “To achieve ‘good status’ for all groundwater by 2015.  Good groundwater status is the status achieved by a groundwater body when both its quantitative status and its chemical status are at least ‘good’.

Ø  To reverse any significant and sustained upward trend in concentration of any pollutant resulting from the impact of human activity”.

 

The EC Groundwater Directive is a ‘Daughter Directive’ of the WFD and provides for the protection of groundwater against pollution.  It includes criteria for good groundwater chemical status.

 

The WFD…. is concerned, inter alia, with the protection of the aquatic ecosystem per se or, where necessary, its restoration, to achieve conditions (good status) in all waters which are only slightly degraded from those of the natural or reference state.  The definition of ‘good status’ in the case of surface waters is based on both ecological status, i.e. the composition of the faunal and floral communities and the natural chemical and physical characteristics, and on chemical status which, in the context of the Directive, refers to a number of specified toxic and/or bioaccumulative substances.  In the case of groundwaters ‘good status’ relates to the natural chemical composition of the water and to these same chemical substances as well as to quantitative status (i.e. the extent to which reserves are depleted by abstraction)” (EPA, 2005).

 

The Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council functional area falls within the Eastern RBD. The Final Characterisation Report for the ERBD Project was published in September 2005 and provides information on surface water and groundwater bodies. 

 

The functional area of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council falls within the Eastern RBD catchment. The Final Characterisation Report for the ERBD Project was published in September 2005 and provides information on surface water and groundwater bodies.  The River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) and Program of Measures (POM) associated with the WFD were adopted by this Council in October 2009.

 

The main objective of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EC) is to achieve ‘good status’ in all our waters by 2015. The River Basin Management Plan and Program of Measures (POM) associated with the WFD were adopted by this County Council in October 2009. A critical element in the POM is the proper management of septic tank discharges.

 

In May 2008 Groundwater, Hydrological & Environmental Consultants (Eugene Daly and Associates) were requested to undertake a feasibility study for the scope of investigations required to determine the potential impact of proposed un-sewered housing development on groundwater and surface water quality in the Rathmichael/Ferndale area. The Consultants reported on their initial findings in November 2008.

 

Following a further period of water sampling and analyses, the Consultant issued a ‘Final Interim Report’ in May 2010, which recommended a course of action for dealing with future planning applications in the general Rathmichael/Ferndale area and in the Crinken Stream catchment.

 

Circular Letter PSSP 1/10 (DoEHLG) dated 5th January 2010 advised Local Authorities of arrangements with regards to their assessment obligations in respect of on-site wastewater disposal systems for single houses and referenced the EPA Code of Practice on Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems serving Single Houses (October 2009).

 

The Circular highlighted three key requirements of the Code of Practice that Planning Authorities must take on board in discharging their functions under planning legislation. Of relevance to the Crinken catchment is the need to effect:

 

“A thorough site assessment, in accordance with the Code of practice, in the case of every relevant development proposal considered by planning authorities, taking account of not only conditions specific to the proposed site as reported by the applicant in a site suitability assessment but also the planning authority’s wider experience and knowledge of the area in relation to patterns of development, experience with existing on-site systems in the area and the provisions of the Development Plan.”

 

In relation to this particular requirement the Circular states that:

 

“Planning Authorities should ensure that: …all sites for development in unsewered areas will be rigorously assessed in compliance with the EPA Code of Practice and taking account of the cumulative effects of multiple developments in such areas.”

 

The Circular also goes on to state:

 

In assessing relevant planning applications, notwithstanding the fact that a given site may be in a position to comply with the Code of Practice, it is also a matter for the planning authority to take into account in its assessment and decision-making as to whether or not to consider wider planning and water quality issues which have not been addressed adequately in the information submitted with the planning application. Such wider planning issues may, inter alia, include the concentration of on-site wastewater treatment systems in an area, the availability or otherwise of public water supplies, reliance on wells, the likelihood of the area being serviced by municipal wastewater collection and treatment systems in the near future and the risk of the deterioration of surface and/or groundwater quality due to vulnerability of such waters. Planning authorities should adopt a precautionary approach and not approve any development where concerns in relation to the matters above have not been adequately addressed.”

 

Since October 2010, and in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Council Commissioned Eugene Daly Report and the contents of Circular Letter PSSP 1/10, it has been the policy of the Council’s Water Services Department to issue recommendations of refusal for any new development proposals which include an on-site wastewater treatment facility within the Crinken Stream catchment west of the M11. Proposals for change of use of, or alteration to or extension of, existing approved developments within these areas involving on-site wastewater treatment facilities are assessed in the context of there being no further potential deterioration of ground or surface waters.

 

The above position was reviewed internally within the Council’s Water Services in July 2014 and a decision was made to continue with this policy pending a further review.

 

In June 2015 Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council appointed Aqua GeoServices to  review the Eugene Daly Associates report (2010), to scope the extent of work and/or further studies that would be required to enable Water Services to complete the evolution of current policy in determining the potential impact of proposed developments on the receiving waters (surface water and groundwater) in relation to new applications for un-sewered development in the Rathmichael (Crinken Stream Catchment) area.

 

Aqua GeoServices submitted a comprehensive report in November 2015.

 

The Report concluded that:

 

“The Rathmichael area lies between the Shanganagh Water Body and the Dargle Water Body.  Both the Shanganagh Water Body and the Dargle River Body are classified as being “at risk of not achieving good status” from diffuse sources of pollution. The Rathmichael stream is ranked as ‘unassigned’ as it is not currently being monitored by the EPA. Being situated between two River bodies currently at risk, the Rathmichael/Crinken stream is also likely to be at risk itself.

 

The results of the surface water monitoring carried out to date by Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council shows that the surface water is generally of moderate quality.  Some of the key physico-chemical parameters (Ammonia, BOD and Orthophosphate) of the Rathmichael/Crinken stream (and its tributaries) would fail to achieve “Good status” as per the WFD requirements along most of its course.

 

Ammonium and Orthophosphates (Molybdate Reactive Phosphorous) are two of the key pollution indicators for surface water bodies. In particular, Orthophosphate is regarded as the key limiting nutrient that causes eutrophication in rivers. Their elevated levels associated with elevated averaged Nitrites values indicate that an organic/nutrient enrichment takes place in the water. The microbiological results also showed high levels of Total Coliforms and E.Coli. This suggests that there is a widespread issue across the catchment area draining AREAS Ib, II and III of the Rathmichael/Crinken stream, which could be due to a number of factors such as:

 

·         Local land use (grazed land, forestry, golf course etc.).

·         Impact from residential development (poorly sited, designed and/or constructed wastewater treatment systems but also misconnections from dishwasher/washing machines).

 

This may also be exacerbated by a combination of:

 

1.    A higher density of unsewered residences in the aforementioned AREAs.

2.    The presence of outcropping/subcropping tight bedrock with steep slopes to the west of the catchment area, thus limiting percolation and favouring surface water runoff.

3.    The presence of well-drained soils overlying low permeability Irish Sea-Derived Till to the east of the catchment area, again favouring surface water runoff.

 

Information regarding the water quality of the bedrock aquifers underlying the study area is almost non-existent. No groundwater quality monitoring is currently taking place within the study area. The status of the underlying Groundwater Body does not rely on in-situ data for the area either.

 

Except for Quarry Road, drinking water supply is provided locally by water mains. Residents living on the upper ground of Quarry Road all rely on their own domestic water supplies. Given that the aquifer vulnerability is ranked from High to X (bedrock at or near surface) within most of AREA Ib, AREA II & AREA III, there is a high potential for the contaminants highlighted in the surface water monitoring to adversely impact the groundwater quality in these AREAs.

 

Based on the results of AGS’s desk study and the analytical results of the surface water quality monitoring undertaken to date, AGS concur with the conclusions provided in the EDA interim report (E09-03B dated 25/05/2010) as they relate to AREAs Ib, II and III.

 

As a precautionary measure to protect water and human health and avoid any further deterioration of the surface water quality, AGS recommend that any prohibition of un-sewered development should be limited to AREAs Ib, II and III as delineated in the present report (Cf. Figure 3) and should remain in force until and unless the results of the recommended investigations determine otherwise.

 

Regarding AREA Ia and AREA IV, there is currently insufficient evidence to warrant an outright prohibition of un-sewered developments on groundwater or surface water grounds. However, further investigations will be warranted to substantiate any potential impact on groundwater and/or surface water grounds. Any proposal within these two areas shall be subject to rigorous site investigations that are conducted in line with the EPA (2009) Code of Practice for any new planning applications for single houses.”

 

The contents and recommendations of the  Aqua GeoServices (AGS)  report “Assessment of potential impacts of new developments on receiving waters in the upper catchment area of the Rathmichael/Crinken Stream” dated 4th November 2015, have been considered and accepted by Municipal Services Section and, in accordance with those  recommendations, it is now the policy of the water Services Section to issue  recommendations of refusals for any new development proposals  which include an on-site wastewater treatment facility within the Rathmichael/Crinken Stream catchment area in areas Ib, II, and III detailed in the AGS report and shown on Drawing No.DLR-WS-11-01-15.

 

Proposals for change of use of, or alteration to or extension of, existing approved developments within these areas involving on-site wastewater treatment facilities will be assessed in the context of there being no further potential deterioration of ground or surface waters.

 

In areas Ia and IV, detailed in the AGS report, and shown Drawing No. DLR-WS-11-01-15 there is is currently insufficient evidence to warrant an outright prohibition of un-sewered developments, on groundwater or surface water grounds. However, further investigations will be warranted to substantiate any potential impact on groundwater and/or surface water grounds. Any proposal within these two areas shall be subject to rigorous site investigations that are conducted in line with the EPA (2009) Code of Practice for Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems Serving Single Houses.

 

A comprehensive assessment of groundwater quality within the catchment requires an understanding of the whole groundwater system within the catchment and it is through development of the understanding of the overall groundwater system that progress towards sustainable management of the groundwater resource can be achieved. In conjunction with on-going monitoring of surface water quality it is therefore of critical importance that groundwater quality is monitored within the catchment

 

Aqua GeoServices’s report has identified the most suitable locations for groundwater monitoring however most of such locations are located in private lands. Therefore, assistance from private landowners in allowing monitoring boreholes to be drilled within their property (or to provide such boreholes themselves) will be key to developing the proper understanding of the overall groundwater system in the catchment.

 

Having regard to:

 

·         The Council’s legal obligations under the EC Water Framework Directive

·         The evidence and recommendations presented in the initial hydrological consultant’s report (May 2010)

·         The Circular letter PSSP 1/10 advising a precautionary approach to additional development in areas of groundwater vulnerability

·         The evidence and recommendations presented in the follow-up hydrological consultant’s report (November 2015), specifically indicating high levels of total coliforms and e.coli at surface water test sites

·         The presence of domestic water supplies at risk from contamination

·         The reassessment of the analytical results within the various AREAs of the study  

 

The Chief Executive recommends that, pending the outcome of further water quality investigations, including the necessary Groundwater monitoring, and in accordance with the precautionary approach, that SLO No. 126 and associated Policy EI23 be reinstated. However, the geographical extent of the area should also be amended to incorporate the findings of the Aqua GeoServices’s Report, in restricting development to AREAS Ib, II, and III detailed in the AGS report and shown on Drawing No.DLR-WS-11-01-15 (Please see Drawing No. PL-16-007 contained within Section 4 (d) of the Chief Executive’s Report), and that the amended SLO be reinstated on Maps 10, 13 and 14 of the Draft Plan.

 

It should be noted that the overall area covered by the red line boundary will be reduced as a result of these proposed amendments”.

 

Recommendation

Reinstate SLO No. 126 within Section 9: Specific Local Objectives, to read as follows:

 

To refuse planning permission for any new developments which include on-site wastewater treatment facilities within this catchment, until the groundwater issues in the area are resolved or ameliorated.”

 

Amend Proposed Mapping Change No. 57 by reinstating the newly amended boundary of SLO No. 126 - on Maps 10, 13 and 14 - in accordance with the findings of the Aqua GeoServices Report to Areas Ib, II and III detailed in the AGS Report and shown on Drawing No. PL-16-007 contained within Section 4(d) of the Chief Executive’s Report.

 

Reinstate Policy EI23: Rathmichael Ground and Surface Water Protection to read as follows:

 

“Policy EI23: Rathmichael Ground and Surface Water Protection

It is Council policy to refuse planning permission for any new developments which include an on-site wastewater treatment facility within the Rathmichael area until the groundwater issues in the area are resolved or ameliorated (See SLO No. 126 Maps 10, 13 and 14).

 

This policy will be implemented through the Development Management process through the refusal of planning permission for any new developments - which include an on-site wastewater treatment facility – within the Rathmichael area (See SLO No. 126 Maps 10, 13 and 14 for the boundary of this area). This policy is necessitated due to the potential impact of un-sewered developments on groundwater and surface water quality and also on the ability of the Council to meet its obligations under the Water

Framework Directive.

 

Proposals for change of use, or alteration to, or extension of, existing approved developments within these areas involving on-site wastewater treatment facilities will be assessed in the context of there being no potential deterioration of ground or surface waters”.

 

The above recommendation on Pages 77 - 84 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED 

 

 

53.

Page 84 -91 5.1.3 Pollution Policy E123: Rathmichael Ground and Surface Water (SLO No. 126) ii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

ii) “Submissions urge the re-instatement of Policy EI23 and SLO No. 126 relating to the protection of ground and surface water in Rathmichael. The submissions strongly urge the reinstatement of said policy/objective for a number of reasons including:

 

·         The reasons set out in the Chief Executive’s Report on the Draft Plan.

·         The potential negative impact of unsewered developments on groundwater and surface water quality due to the existing high density of on-site wastewater treatment facilities in the area

·         The Council’s requirements to meet its obligations under the Water Framework Directive.

·         The potential negative impact on water quality, local biodiversity and its environment.

·         The removal of the Policy is not in accordance with the ‘precautionary principle’ pending the outcome of further ground/surface water investigations and monitoring.

·         The omission of the Policy and SLO would have the effect of altering the basis of the Draft Plan for this area.

·         The motives underpinning the decisions of Councillor’s against all the objective evidence presented by the Chief Executive and others does not stand up to scrutiny.

·         The decision is in favour of individual landowners as opposed to the ‘greater good’”.

Text Box: This item has already been dealt with under Part 2(a) (i)
 

 

 

 


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

 

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

 

The Chief Executive wishes to add some context to the issue raised within the submission and, indeed, the origins of SLO No. 126.

 

The purpose of SLO No. 126 is to ensure there is no further degradation of groundwater and surface water quality within the Rathmichael/Ferndale area and to requirements on the Council to meet its obligations under the Water Framework Directive. In this regard, SLO No. 126 states:

 

To refuse planning permission for any new developments which include on-site wastewater treatment facilities within this catchment, until the groundwater issues in the area are resolved or ameliorated.”

 

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) applies to rivers, lakes, groundwater and coastal waters and requires a co-ordinated approach to water management, which in Ireland is being undertaken in hydrological units termed River Basin Districts (RBDs). 

 

The principal objective of the Directive is the achievement of “good status”, for all waters by 2015. The WFD was transposed into Irish law by the European Communities (Water Policy) Regulations 2003 (S.I. 722 of 2003) in December 2003. 

 

The objectives set out for groundwater within the WFD, are as follows:

 

Ø  “To achieve ‘good status’ for all groundwater by 2015.  Good groundwater status is the status achieved by a groundwater body when both its quantitative status and its chemical status are at least ‘good’.

Ø  To reverse any significant and sustained upward trend in concentration of any pollutant resulting from the impact of human activity”.

 

The EC Groundwater Directive is a ‘Daughter Directive’ of the WFD and provides for the protection of groundwater against pollution.  It includes criteria for good groundwater chemical status.

 

The WFD…. is concerned, inter alia, with the protection of the aquatic ecosystem per se or, where necessary, its restoration, to achieve conditions (good status) in all waters which are only slightly degraded from those of the natural or reference state.  The definition of ‘good status’ in the case of surface waters is based on both ecological status, i.e. the composition of the faunal and floral communities and the natural chemical and physical characteristics, and on chemical status which, in the context of the Directive, refers to a number of specified toxic and/or bioaccumulative substances.  In the case of groundwaters ‘good status’ relates to the natural chemical composition of the water and to these same chemical substances as well as to quantitative status (i.e. the extent to which reserves are depleted by abstraction)” (EPA, 2005).

 

The Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council functional area falls within the Eastern RBD. The Final Characterisation Report for the ERBD Project was published in September 2005 and provides information on surface water and groundwater bodies. 

 

The functional area of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council falls within the Eastern RBD catchment. The Final Characterisation Report for the ERBD Project was published in September 2005 and provides information on surface water and groundwater bodies.  The River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) and Program of Measures (POM) associated with the WFD were adopted by this Council in October 2009.

 

The main objective of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EC) is to achieve ‘good status’ in all our waters by 2015. The River Basin Management Plan and Program of Measures (POM) associated with the WFD were adopted by this County Council in October 2009. A critical element in the POM is the proper management of septic tank discharges.

 

In May 2008 Groundwater, Hydrological & Environmental Consultants (Eugene Daly and Associates) were requested to undertake a feasibility study for the scope of investigations required to determine the potential impact of proposed un-sewered housing development on groundwater and surface water quality in the Rathmichael/Ferndale area. The Consultants reported on their initial findings in November 2008.

 

Following a further period of water sampling and analyses, the Consultant issued a ‘Final Interim Report’ in May 2010, which recommended a course of action for dealing with future planning applications in the general Rathmichael/Ferndale area and in the Crinken Stream catchment.

 

Circular Letter PSSP 1/10 (DoEHLG) dated 5th January 2010 advised Local Authorities of arrangements with regards to their assessment obligations in respect of on-site wastewater disposal systems for single houses and referenced the EPA Code of Practice on Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems serving Single Houses (October 2009).

 

The Circular highlighted three key requirements of the Code of Practice that Planning Authorities must take on board in discharging their functions under planning legislation. Of relevance to the Crinken catchment is the need to effect:

 

“A thorough site assessment, in accordance with the Code of practice, in the case of every relevant development proposal considered by planning authorities, taking account of not only conditions specific to the proposed site as reported by the applicant in a site suitability assessment but also the planning authority’s wider experience and knowledge of the area in relation to patterns of development, experience with existing on-site systems in the area and the provisions of the Development Plan.”

 

In relation to this particular requirement the Circular states that:

 

“Planning Authorities should ensure that: …all sites for development in unsewered areas will be rigorously assessed in compliance with the EPA Code of Practice and taking account of the cumulative effects of multiple developments in such areas.”

 

The Circular also goes on to state:

 

In assessing relevant planning applications, notwithstanding the fact that a given site may be in a position to comply with the Code of Practice, it is also a matter for the planning authority to take into account in its assessment and decision-making as to whether or not to consider wider planning and water quality issues which have not been addressed adequately in the information submitted with the planning application. Such wider planning issues may, inter alia, include the concentration of on-site wastewater treatment systems in an area, the availability or otherwise of public water supplies, reliance on wells, the likelihood of the area being serviced by municipal wastewater collection and treatment systems in the near future and the risk of the deterioration of surface and/or groundwater quality due to vulnerability of such waters. Planning authorities should adopt a precautionary approach and not approve any development where concerns in relation to the matters above have not been adequately addressed.”

 

Since October 2010, and in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Council Commissioned Eugene Daly Report and the contents of Circular Letter PSSP 1/10, it has been the policy of the Council’s Water Services Department to issue recommendations of refusal for any new development proposals which include an on-site wastewater treatment facility within the Crinken Stream catchment west of the M11. Proposals for change of use of, or alteration to or extension of, existing approved developments within these areas involving on-site wastewater treatment facilities are assessed in the context of there being no further potential deterioration of ground or surface waters.

 

The above position was reviewed internally within the Council’s Water Services in July 2014 and a decision was made to continue with this policy pending a further review.

 

In June 2015 Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council appointed Aqua GeoServices to  review the Eugene Daly Associates report (2010), to scope the extent of work and/or further studies that would be required to enable Water Services to complete the evolution of current policy in determining the potential impact of proposed developments on the receiving waters (surface water and groundwater) in relation to new applications for un-sewered development in the Rathmichael (Crinken Stream Catchment) area.

 

Aqua GeoServices submitted a comprehensive report in November 2015.

 

The Report concluded that:

 

“The Rathmichael area lies between the Shanganagh Water Body and the Dargle Water Body.  Both the Shanganagh Water Body and the Dargle River Body are classified as being “at risk of not achieving good status” from diffuse sources of pollution. The Rathmichael stream is ranked as ‘unassigned’ as it is not currently being monitored by the EPA. Being situated between two River bodies currently at risk, the Rathmichael/Crinken stream is also likely to be at risk itself.

 

The results of the surface water monitoring carried out to date by Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council shows that the surface water is generally of moderate quality.  Some of the key physico-chemical parameters (Ammonia, BOD and Orthophosphate) of the Rathmichael/Crinken stream (and its tributaries) would fail to achieve “Good status” as per the WFD requirements along most of its course.

 

Ammonium and Orthophosphates (Molybdate Reactive Phosphorous) are two of the key pollution indicators for surface water bodies. In particular, Orthophosphate is regarded as the key limiting nutrient that causes eutrophication in rivers. Their elevated levels associated with elevated averaged Nitrites values indicate that an organic/nutrient enrichment takes place in the water. The microbiological results also showed high levels of Total Coliforms and E.Coli. This suggests that there is a widespread issue across the catchment area draining AREAS Ib, II and III of the Rathmichael/Crinken stream, which could be due to a number of factors such as:

 

·         Local land use (grazed land, forestry, golf course etc.).

·         Impact from residential development (poorly sited, designed and/or constructed wastewater treatment systems but also misconnections from dishwasher/washing machines).

 

This may also be exacerbated by a combination of:

 

1.    A higher density of unsewered residences in the aforementioned AREAs.

2.    The presence of outcropping/subcropping tight bedrock with steep slopes to the west of the catchment area, thus limiting percolation and favouring surface water runoff.

3.    The presence of well-drained soils overlying low permeability Irish Sea-Derived Till to the east of the catchment area, again favouring surface water runoff.

 

Information regarding the water quality of the bedrock aquifers underlying the study area is almost non-existent. No groundwater quality monitoring is currently taking place within the study area. The status of the underlying Groundwater Body does not rely on in-situ data for the area either.

 

Except for Quarry Road, drinking water supply is provided locally by water mains. Residents living on the upper ground of Quarry Road all rely on their own domestic water supplies. Given that the aquifer vulnerability is ranked from High to X (bedrock at or near surface) within most of AREA Ib, AREA II & AREA III, there is a high potential for the contaminants highlighted in the surface water monitoring to adversely impact the groundwater quality in these AREAs.

 

Based on the results of AGS’s desk study and the analytical results of the surface water quality monitoring undertaken to date, AGS concur with the conclusions provided in the EDA interim report (E09-03B dated 25/05/2010) as they relate to AREAs Ib, II and III.

 

As a precautionary measure to protect water and human health and avoid any further deterioration of the surface water quality, AGS recommend that any prohibition of un-sewered development should be limited to AREAs Ib, II and III as delineated in the present report (Cf. Figure 3) and should remain in force until and unless the results of the recommended investigations determine otherwise.

 

Regarding AREA Ia and AREA IV, there is currently insufficient evidence to warrant an outright prohibition of un-sewered developments on groundwater or surface water grounds. However, further investigations will be warranted to substantiate any potential impact on groundwater and/or surface water grounds. Any proposal within these two areas shall be subject to rigorous site investigations that are conducted in line with the EPA (2009) Code of Practice for any new planning applications for single houses.”

 

The contents and recommendations of the  Aqua GeoServices (AGS)  report “Assessment of potential impacts of new developments on receiving waters in the upper catchment area of the Rathmichael/Crinken Stream” dated 4th November 2015, have been considered and accepted by Municipal Services Section and, in accordance with those  recommendations, it is now the policy of the water Services Section to issue  recommendations of refusals for any new development proposals  which include an on-site wastewater treatment facility within the Rathmichael/Crinken Stream catchment area in areas Ib, II, and III detailed in the AGS report and shown on Drawing No.DLR-WS-11-01-15.

 

Proposals for change of use of, or alteration to or extension of, existing approved developments within these areas involving on-site wastewater treatment facilities will be assessed in the context of there being no further potential deterioration of ground or surface waters.

 

In areas Ia and IV, detailed in the AGS report, and shown Drawing No. DLR-WS-11-01-15 there is is currently insufficient evidence to warrant an outright prohibition of un-sewered developments, on groundwater or surface water grounds. However, further investigations will be warranted to substantiate any potential impact on groundwater and/or surface water grounds. Any proposal within these two areas shall be subject to rigorous site investigations that are conducted in line with the EPA (2009) Code of Practice for Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems Serving Single Houses.

 

A comprehensive assessment of groundwater quality within the catchment requires an understanding of the whole groundwater system within the catchment and it is through development of the understanding of the overall groundwater system that progress towards sustainable management of the groundwater resource can be achieved. In conjunction with on-going monitoring of surface water quality it is therefore of critical importance that groundwater quality is monitored within the catchment

 

Aqua GeoServices’s report has identified the most suitable locations for groundwater monitoring however most of such locations are located in private lands. Therefore, assistance from private landowners in allowing monitoring boreholes to be drilled within their property (or to provide such boreholes themselves) will be key to developing the proper understanding of the overall groundwater system in the catchment.

 

Having regard to:

 

·         The Council’s legal obligations under the EC Water Framework Directive

·         The evidence and recommendations presented in the initial hydrological consultant’s report (May 2010)

·         The Circular letter PSSP 1/10 advising a precautionary approach to additional development in areas of groundwater vulnerability

·         The evidence and recommendations presented in the follow-up hydrological consultant’s report (November 2015), specifically indicating high levels of total coliforms and e.coli at surface water test sites

·         The presence of domestic water supplies at risk from contamination

·         The reassessment of the analytical results within the various AREAs of the study  

 

The Chief Executive recommends that, pending the outcome of further water quality investigations, including the necessary Groundwater monitoring, and in accordance with the precautionary approach, that SLO No. 126 and associated Policy EI23 be reinstated. However, the geographical extent of the area should also be amended to incorporate the findings of the Aqua GeoServices’s Report, in restricting development to AREAS Ib, II, and III detailed in the AGS report and shown on Drawing No.DLR-WS-11-01-15 (Please see Drawing No. PL-16-007 contained within Section 4 (d) of the Chief Executive’s Report), and that the amended SLO be reinstated on Maps 10, 13 and 14 of the Draft Plan.

 

It should be noted that the overall area covered by the red line boundary will be reduced as a result of these proposed amendments.

 

Recommendation

Reinstate SLO No. 126 within Section 9: Specific Local Objectives, to read as follows:

 

To refuse planning permission for any new developments which include on-site wastewater treatment facilities within this catchment, until the groundwater issues in the area are resolved or ameliorated.”

 

Amend Proposed Mapping Change No. 57 by reinstating the newly amended boundary of SLO No. 126 - on Maps 10, 13 and 14 - in accordance with the findings of the Aqua GeoServices Report to Areas Ib, II and III detailed in the AGS Report and shown on Drawing No. PL-16-007 contained within Section 4(d) of the Chief Executive’s Report.

 

Reinstate Policy EI23: Rathmichael Ground and Surface Water Protection to read as follows:

 

“Policy EI23: Rathmichael Ground and Surface Water Protection

It is Council policy to refuse planning permission for any new developments which include an on-site wastewater treatment facility within the Rathmichael area until the groundwater issues in the area are resolved or ameliorated (See SLO No. 126 Maps 10, 13 and 14).

 

This policy will be implemented through the Development Management process through the refusal of planning permission for any new developments - which include an on-site wastewater treatment facility – within the Rathmichael area (See SLO No. 126 Maps 10, 13 and 14 for the boundary of this area). This policy is necessitated due to the potential impact of un-sewered developments on groundwater and surface water quality and also on the ability of the Council to meet its obligations under the Water

Framework Directive.

 

Proposals for change of use, or alteration to, or extension of, existing approved developments within these areas involving on-site wastewater treatment facilities will be assessed in the context of there being no potential deterioration of ground or surface waters””.

 

The above recommendation on Pages 84 - 91 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

5.2 Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Flooding

54.

Page 93 5.2.3: Energy Efficient Design - Policy CC6: Energy Performance in Existing Buildings i)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 93 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 93 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

55.

Page 93- 95 5.2.3: Energy Efficient Design - Policy CC7: Energy Performance in New Buildings i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

 

i)     “Submission raises the following issues:

 

·        Minimum standard setting is the role of the DoECLG and not the role of the Planning Authority.

·        Passive House Standard is supported by a non-statutory body, the Passive House Institute which is a private German based independent institute.  The standard supported by the Passive House Institute is a voluntary marketing standard which is not supported by the EU Directive on Energy Efficiency.

·        Submission supports the view of the DoECLG and does not agree that the passive house standard or any equivalent which exceeds national standards should be required in the new Development Plan.

·        Submission argues that there is no guarantee that Passive House Standard would deliver low carbon development.

·        Submission argues that the approach as put forward in Policy CC7 is unreasonable and excessive.

·        Submission from the Department of Education and Skills sates that they have built two passive house standard schools and are also at a detailed stage in relation to two new school extensions which met NZEB.  Both requirements are similar but the Passive House standard is a commercialised standard developed by a non-statutory body whilst the NZEB is an EU Directive developed under a regulatory basis with which all new buildings owned occupied by public authorities after December 2018 must comply. 

·        Submission argues that PH Standard requires the purchase of specific software, training and qualification (run by a private entity) and verification by a private entity.

·        Submission argues that there is a catalogue of PH certified materials referenced in PHPP which show clear bias towards named products over others.  This could be considered a breach of competition law.

·        Department of Education and skills contend that their own experience has indicated that passive house standard brings its own significant design and construction challenges which will have an impact of the costs of capital programmes.

Text Box: This item has already been dealt with under Part 2(b) Policy CC7 (i)”
 

 

 

 


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

 

“A number of submissions including one from the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government raise concerns about the amendment to Policy CC7 Energy Performance in New Buildings which states that “All new Buildings will be required to meet the passive house standard or equivalent, where reasonably practicable”.

 

It is noted that the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government again state that they will consider the use of powers available under Section 31 of the Planning and Development Acts to issue a direction where the Planning Authority has ignored or not taken sufficient account of the Ministers views or where the Plan is not in compliance with the requirements of the Planning Act.

 

Concerns are raised relating to the fact that the Passive House standard is a voluntary private sector standard and that a mandatory requirement to accord with such a standard could be anti-competitive.

 

The executive would concur with many of the views put forward in the submissions received. 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The insertion of the phrase “where reasonably practicable” will create ambiguity and would not provide the certainly and clarity that are required from a County Development Plan as it would allow each applicant put forward their own arguments as to why they should or should not accord with the PH standard.  Who would adjudicate?  How would it be decided particularly when it relates to a code separate to the planning code.  What methodology would be used? How would it be enforced? 

 

In conclusion, elements of the proposed amendment to Policy CC7 in the Draft Plan are not in accordance with current central Government policy and what will in the near future be the norm in the entire Country (NZEB).

 

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

 

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

 

Recommendation

Delete the amended text from Policy CC7:

 

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

 

By equivalent we mean approaches supported by robust evidence (such as monitoring studies) to demonstrate their efficacy, with particular regard to indoor air quality, energy performance, comfort, and the prevention of surface/interstitial condensation. Buildings specifically exempted from BER ratings as set out in S.I No 666 of 2006 are also exempted from the requirements of CC7.

 

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

 

The above recommendation on Pages 93 -95 of the Chief Executive’s Report was DEFEATED.

 

 

56.

Page 95 5.2.5: Flood Risk - Policy CC15: Flood Risk Management i)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 95 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 95 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

57.

Pages 96 - 97 Non-Amendment Related Submissions i) - xi)

The Non-Amendment Related Submissions on Page 96 - 97  were NOTED.

 

 

Page 99 6 Built Heritage Strategy

Page 101 - 6.1 Archaeological and Architectural Heritage

58.

Page 101 - 6.1.2: Archaeological Heritage i)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 101 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 101 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

59.

Page 101 - 6.1.2: Archaeological Heritage - Policy AH4: Carrickmines Castle i) & ii)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 101 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 101 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

60.

Page 101 - 6.1.3: Archaeological Heritage - Policy AH10: Protection of Coastline Heritage i)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 101 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 101 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

61.

Page 102 Non-Amendment Related Submissions i) - ii)

The Non-Amendment Related Submissions on Page 102 were NOTED.

 

 

Page 103 7. Community Strategy

62.

Page 105 7.1 Social Infrastructure and Community Development

It was  NOTED there were no submissions received in relation to Proposed Amendments.

 

 

Page 107 8. Principles of Development

63.

Page 109 8.1 Urban Design

It was NOTED there were no amendments proposed under this heading.

 

 

Page 111 8.2 Development Management

64.

Page 111 8.2 Development Management i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

i)”Submission received stating that Tusla is now the body responsible for childcare regulations and not the Department of Health and Children”.

 

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

 

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

 

It is acknowledged that this submission does not refer to material or subject matter included in either the 'Proposed Amendments' document or the 'Mapping Changes' that were placed on public display between 24th November 2015 and 22nd December 2015. 

 

However, given that the submission relates solely to up-dating the title of a State body, and that the change are not considered material, the Chief Executive recommends incorporating said changes.

 

Recommendation

Amend throughout the Draft Plan as follows:

 

Replace all references the ‘Department of Health and Children’ with ‘Tusla’”.

 

Following a discussion it was AGREED to add the word “relevant” in the Chief Executive’s Recommendation  before the word “references”. 

 

The above amended recommendation on Page 111 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

65.

Page 111 8.2.3.3 Apartment Development i) & ii)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 111 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

It was NOTED this item was addressed at County Council Meeting held on 8th February, 2016 and not 15th February, 2016.

 

The Chief Executive’s Reponse and Recommendation was NOTED.

 

 

Page 112 8.2.4: Sustainable Travel and Transport

66.

Page 112 8.2.4.12 Electrically Operated Vehicles i)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 112 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 112 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

Page 112 8.2.7: Landscape, Heritage and Biodiversity

67.

Page 112 8.2.7.3 High Amenity Landscapes, View and Prospects i)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 112 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 112 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

Page 112 8.2.10: Climate Change Adaption and Energy

68.

Page 112 - 113 8.2.10.3 Energy Efficiency and Climate Change Adaption i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

i)     “Submission welcomes omission of text relating to passive house but raises concerns about the replacement text “Where possible, building materials with low embodied carbon should be used”.  Submission argues that the above statement may have an unreasonable impact on the delivery of housing. 

 

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

 

The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission.

 

The Chief Executive would share the concerns raised by the submission as it is not considered that the Strategic County Development Plan has a role in specifying the form of building materials to be employed or specified in construction projects. In accordance with the Planning and Development Act the purpose of a Development Plan “sets out an overall strategy for the proper planning and sustainable development of the area of the Development Plan”.

 

To specify what form of building material is used in a building project is considered to represent a level of detail not appropriate to a Development Plan. It also raises serious issues in relation to enforcement and monitoring which are well beyond the remit required of a Development Plan or the Planning code.

 

Recommendation

Delete the following text from Section 8.2.12.3:

 

“Where possible, building materials with low embodied carbon should be used”.

 

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

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation was DEFEATED. 

 

 

Page 113 8.2.11: Archaeological and Architectural Heritage

69.

Page 113 8.2.11.1 Archaeological Heritage i) & ii)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 113 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 113 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

Page 115 8.3 Land Use Zoning Objectives

70.

Motions No. 6 & Pages 115 - 119 Zoning Objective Tables i)

It was AGREED to take Motion No. 6 in conjunction with this item.

 

Motion No. 6

 

It was proposed by Councillor  N. Richmond and AGREED to WITHDRAW   Motion No. 6 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:-

 

The Council resolves to retain the following proposed amendments to the Draft Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Development Plan 2016-2022:

 

  1. SLO No. 162: To provide for a crematorium on lands zoned for agricultural purposes at Ballycorus Road. (See map extract below)

 

  1. The inclusion of crematorium use as a “permitted in principle” use in Table 8.3.5 of the Draft County Development Plan on lands zoned for agricultural purposes and subject to SLO 162 at Ballycorus Road.

 

ZONING OBJECTIVE ‘B’

 

‘To protect and improve rural amenity and to provide for the development of agriculture’.

 

Permitted In Principle

 

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

 

*Crematorium use is only permitted in principle on lands zoned for agricultural purposes and subject to SLO 162 at Ballycorus Road.’

 

Motion relates to: Map 9 of Draft Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Development Plan 2016-2022 and the inclusion of SLO 162 within Chapter 9.

 

REASONS

 

It is considered that the above proposed amendment to the Draft Development Plan is necessary due to the complete lack of a crematorium facility in the County and the urgent need for a crematorium. It is considered that this is an important issue for the forthcoming Development Plan to address to ensure that the Plan meets the needs of its citizens through the delivery of the necessary range of social and community services and facilities.

 

There is a growing need for crematoria in the County & in Ireland going forward. At present 40% of all funerals in the country take place in a crematorium and there are only four crematoria operating in the Republic of Ireland, with none in DLR County. This percentage is likely to continue to increase in accordance with national and international trends.

 

Three of the crematoria are located in Dublin at Glasnevin, Newlands Cross and Mount Jerome (primarily serving Dublin City centre, west and north Dublin) with the fourth located on The Island, Ringaskiddy, Co Cork. A crematorium has recently been approved by Fingal County Council at Dardistown Cemetery in Fingal. There is no crematorium in Dun Laoghaire Rathdown or the southern part of the County. Ireland lags well behind its European counterparts in terms of the numbers of Crematoria per head of population.

 

Cremation is increasingly preferred for a number of reasons including that cremation is much more affordable than traditional burials. This Objective would provide for a facility to be built during this Plan period, which would offer DLR residents choice and a far more affordable funeral option than anything currently available. It will also save residents from having to travel for miles outside of this Council area, to avail of this service in other already overcrowded facilities, elsewhere in Dublin.

 

At present a cemetery is nearing completion at Ballycorus Road as permitted under Register Reference D13A/0193, PL06D.242619. A crematorium would be entirely complimentary to the permitted cemetery at this location and would be suitable in principle having regard to the location, layout and landscaped setting of the site. Crematoriums should be located/permitted within existing Cemeteries, as is the case in other Council areas, such as Glasnevin and Newlands Cross, and the permitted facility at Dardistown.

 

Under Register Reference D11A/0314, PL06D.239578 planning permission was refused for the development of a crematorium on the site at Ballycorus Road solely on the grounds that the proposed crematorium use would materially contravene the ‘B’ land use zoning objective, as it was not listed as a use which is “permitted in principle” or “open for consideration” under the agricultural zoning objective pertaining to the site. No issues were raised by the Board or DLRCC in respect to visual impact, traffic or other planning or environmental concerns, in their reasons for refusal.

 

There is a good road network already in place in the area of this site, with little traffic and there are plans for significant road improvements in the area on foot of the Glenamuck/Kilternan LAP and a specific, reserved plan for a road widening scheme for Ballycorus Road, if it ever becomes necessary.

 

The inclusion of a specific local objective on the site would allow a future application for the development of a crematorium on the site to be assessed by Dún- Laoghaire Rathdown County Council on its merits and in accordance with the appropriate development management criteria.

 

A more proactive approach to delivery of such facilities in the new Development Plan would result in associated economic benefits and local employment being retained within the County.

 

It would be a major failure of this Council were it not to provide for such facilities during this Plan period, as if not, it could be up to 7 years before such an urgently needed facility becomes available for the people of Dún- Laoghaire Rathdown.”

 

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

i)     “Submissions object to changes to the zoning table that would allow a crematorium use to be ‘Permitted in Principle’ exclusively in the ‘B’ zoning objective at a specific site at Ballycorus.  Objections relate to the following:

 

  • Submission states that crematorium use was never envisaged on this land zoning.
  • Submission believes that tabling a motion from the floor is undemocratic as it did not allow the local community the opportunity to express opposition to the proposal.
  • Submission argues that the debate on the motion did not result in a well thought out and sustainable planning decision.
  • Submission states that local residents are puzzled as to why such an unsuitable site deserves a site specific amendment.
  • Submission was not on the agenda which thwarted the debate and also public participation in the plan process.
  • Submission contends that the elected members who voted on this motion were not afforded the opportunity to inform themselves on the issue due to lack of notice.
  • Submission requests that in the interests of public confidence and transparency that the issue be revisited.
  • Submission argues that the scenario being enacted on the Ballycorus Valley is opportunistic.
  • Submission questions entire process surrounding the submission of motion in relation to the crematorium and voting on same.
  • Crematorium use has already been refused on the site.
  • Submission raises the point that there is an SLO for a crematoria at Shanganagh and that the County does not need two facilities.
  • Submission argues that the approach being taken is an attempt to retrofit a crematorium which was already refused into an existing development and this this ad hoc type planning should be rejected.
  • Submission calls on the elected members to review their decisions in light of opposition from the DLRCC planners, the Chief Executive and local residents.
  • Lack of parking and congestion that will result from the crematorium use.
  • Issue of emissions and smell from any crematoria.
  • Issue of large businesses moving into agricultural area.
  • Submission claims that the developers in question have not been compliant with guidelines and have breached existing planning permission.
  • Submission states that the developers (of the cemetery) have knocked down trees which is contrary to the planning permission.
  • Submission requests Councillors to vote against proposal for a crematorium taking into account impact on the local community.
  • Crematorium use would be detrimental to the environment and to the Ballycorus Valley.
  • The crematorium would be too close to existing houses. Although no legislation exists in Ireland, UK legislation requires an exclusion zone of 183m.
  • Lack of public transport serving the crematorium.
  • Crematorium use has already been refused on the site.
  • Submission questions the statement in the motion passed that currently 40% of all funerals in the Country take place in a crematorium.  Submission states that nationally the percentage is only 14% and 35% in Dublin.  Submission states that according to the operator of one crematorium in Dublin there is currently 10 – 15 years capacity within the three Dublin crematoria.
  • Submission states that there is no demand for a crematorium on this site.
  • Submission raises concerns in relation to the fairness and balance in the decision making process between the Executive and the Elected Members.
  • The motion was only carried by 1 vote.
  • Submission argues that the debate on the motion did not result in a well thought out and sustainable planning decision.
  • Submission argues that a crematorium use would conflict with the rural setting of the valley and change the character of the valley.
  • Submission argues that the crematorium use would undermine the integrity of the lead mines heritage area and surrounding landscape.
  • Submission states that there is no regulatory oversight for crematoria and considers that self-regulation by the developers is not acceptable.
  • Submission states that the crematorium is a precursor for significant development in the wider area.
  • Submission seeks assurances from the Planning Authority that there is no risk to human health through noxious air emissions and contaminated ground water.
  • Submission states that there is unanimous opposition in the local community to a crematorium at this location.
  • Submission states that there is a lack of adequate parking and there would be a significant increase of traffic. The road network is not suitable nor has the capacity to cater for increased traffic volumes.

·         Submission raises concerns in relation to increased crime on the site – there is no passive surveillance.

  • Submission raises the issue of there being no engagement or consultation with the local community.
  • Submission states that the motion did not include a reasoned or substantial justification to demonstrate need for a crematorium at this location. Typically such a facility has a wider regional / sub-regional context and not a local need. The fact that Dún Laoghaire does not currently have such a facility should not, of itself, be used to justify the current proposal.
  • Submission states that there is a lack of services on the site – there is no main sewer.
  • Submission argues that a suitable site has already been identified for a crematorium at Shanganagh, hence there is no need for rezoning at Ballycorus.
  • There is a significant water logging issue on the site and recent flooding within the graveyard.
  • Local residents were not consulted by their local representatives.
  • Impact of run-off into the local river.
  • Submission questions how the public interest has been served.
  • Submission makes reference to the UK Crematorium legislation which was recently amended retaining an exclusion zone of 200 yards from any house unless written permission of the householder has been obtained.
  • Submission expresses concern due to proximity of site to a valuable salmonoid river.
  • Submission expresses concern in relation to traffic given that there is already congestion due to the rugby ground on Ballycorus Road.
  • Development would compromise integrity of Mine Hill area.
  • Submission states that DLR County Council recently sought Counsel opinion on conflict of interest legislation.  The submission then goes on to provide some detail from this legal opinion.

Text Box: Refer also to Sections: • 8.3 (ii) • 8.3 (iii) • 9 – Map 9 (ii) • 9 – Map 9 (iii) • 9 – Map 9 (iv)
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


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

 

“The Chief Executive fully agrees with the contents of these submissions.

 

The proposed amendments, voted for by the Elected Members in October 2015 against a very robust recommendation by the Chief Executive, promotes the insertion of a Specific Local Objective (No.162) on Map 9 and in the narrative of the Draft Written Statement which reads “To provide for a Crematorium on lands zoned for agricultural purposes at Ballycorus Road”. The proposed amendments also promotes radical changes to the Zoning Objective ‘B’ (“To protect and improve rural amenity and to provide for the development of agriculture”) Land Use Matrix in Table 8.3.5 by including ‘Crematorium’ as a ‘Permitted in Principle’ use but solely and exclusively on the SLO No.162 site at Ballycorus. The Land Use Matrix now states: “*Crematorium use is only permitted in principle on lands zoned for agricultural purposes and subject to SLO No.162 at Ballycorus Road”.

 

The Chief Executive fundamentally disagrees with the principle of attaching a SLO and manipulating the Land Use Matrix to the extent that would allow and facilitate a ‘bespoke’ use on this one specific site at Ballycorus but that would not be universally available or ‘applicable’ to all other such ‘B’ zoned sites across the County. To artificially introduce a new ‘Permitted in Principle’ Crematorium land use onto a single, exclusive site – where hitherto that use had not ever been even ‘Open for Consideration’ – is patently inequitable and completely undermines the fundamental premise and rationale behind the very purpose of having a suite of tailored and targeted land use zoning objectives across the different and varied parts of the County.

 

In the current County Development Plan Crematoria are ‘Open for Consideration’ in the ‘F’ zoning - “To preserve and provide for open space with ancillary active recreational amenities”. This is currently the only land use zoning in the County where crematoria are ‘Open for Consideration’.

 

The Chief Executive disagrees fundamentally with the argument that crematoria should be ‘Permitted in Principle’ in the ‘B’ zone as uses that are ‘Permitted in Principle’ are deemed to be generally acceptable. It is considered that in the ‘B’ land use zoning– “To protect and improve rural amenity and to provide for the development of agriculture” – crematoria use may not always be generally acceptable. It was argued at the last stage in the process that individual applications of this nature should, instead, be considered on a case-by-case basis which would allow the types of issues raised in the submissions – parking, traffic, environmental impact, noise etc. – to be objectively assessed. The executive proposed the principle of the promotion of a crematorium as ‘Open for Consideration’ for the entire ‘B’ zone across the County.

 

Uses shown as ‘Open for Consideration ‘are uses which may be permitted where the Planning Authority is satisfied that the proposed development would be compatible with the overall policies and  objectives for the zone, would not have undesirable effects, and would otherwise be consistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

 

However while this was proposed during the Councillors consideration of the submissions received on the Draft Plan at a meeting on 15th October 2015, this can no longer be proposed as in accordance with section 12(10)(C) of the Act a further modification to the Plan must be “minor in nature and therefore not likely to have significant effects on the environment or adversely affect the integrity of a European site”.  It is considered that a change from ‘Permitted in Principle’ on only one exclusive site in the ‘B’ zone to ‘Open for Consideration’ throughout the entire ‘B’ zone could not be deemed to be minor in nature.

 

It should be noted that a planning application register reference D11A/0314 for a burial ground and crematorium park was refused permission by An Bord Pleanala.  The inspector in her report included four reasons for refusal including that fact that the proposed development would endanger public safety by reason of a traffic hazard, insufficient parking and risk of environmental damage taking into account the rural nature of the site, its topography and flooding.  A subsequent application for the burial ground element only was granted by An Bord Pleanala under register reference D13A/0193.

 

In relation to demand for crematoria, analysis indicates that there is indeed a need for a crematorium in the County. To this end Specific Local Objective No.61 on Map 14 seeks “To encourage the development of a crematorium at Shanganagh Cemetery”. It should be noted that design work on the crematorium for Shanganagh is very well advanced and a Part 8 for the crematorium project at Shanganagh is to be brought to the February Council meeting for the consideration of the Elected Members.

 

Recommendation

Amend Table 8.3.5 on page 227 of the Draft Plan as follows:

 

Delete “Crematorium*” from “permitted in principle”

 

Delete “*Crematorium use is only permitted in principle on lands zoned for agricultural purposes and subject to SLO 162 at Ballycorus Road”.

 

Delete SLO 162 “To provide for a crematorium on lands zoned for agricultural purposes at Ballycorus Road”

 

Following discussion Councillor N. Richmond read the following from a letter dated 17th February, 2016 from   John Spain Associates, to Ms. P. Poole, Chief Executive  

 

“Proposed amendment SLO 162 is introduced to ‘provide for a crematorium on lands zoned for agricultural purposes at Ballycorus Road’.  In order to be able to implement this site specific local objective it is necessary to include crematorium use as a permitted in principle use in the zoning matrix for land use zoning objective ‘B’.  This has been done with suffix clarifying that this particular use on ‘B’ zoned land only relates to lands subject to SLO 162.  The amendment to the zoning matrix for Zoning Objective B is required to ensure that SLO 162 is not overridden by the zoning objective.

 

We note that Specific Local Objectives ,such as SLO 162, are a well-accepted practice by the Executive of DLRCC in delivering on site specific objectives within the County.  The current and proposed Development Plan contains in excess of 160 no. site specific local objectives.

 

More importantly we note that there are a number of examples where the Development Plan includes individual uses within the zoning matrix of a zoning objective, which allows a use category to only be permitted on one individual site.”

 

AnCathaoirleach Councillor B. Saul advised the Members that the letter will be circulated.

 

The above recommendation on Pages 115 – 119 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

71.

Pages 119 - 121 Zoning Objective Tables ii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

i)     “Submission supports the provision of a Crematorium at Ballycorus for the following reasons:

 

·         There is a need for such a facility in the area.

·         Crematoria offer a more economical alternative to burials

·         Local economic benefits

·         Ideally located within a cemetery

·         Would reduce the need for DLR residents to travel outside the county to avail of such facilities.

·         The site is easily accessible from the N11.

Text Box: This item has already been dealt with under Section 8.3 (i)Cremations are becoming more common in Ireland.”

 

 

 

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive does not agree with the contents of these submissions.

 

The proposed amendments, voted for by the Elected Members in October 2015 against a very robust recommendation by the Chief Executive, promotes the insertion of a Specific Local Objective (No.162) on Map 9 and in the narrative of the Draft Written Statement which reads “To provide for a Crematorium on lands zoned for agricultural purposes at Ballycorus Road”. The proposed amendments also promotes radical changes to the Zoning Objective ‘B’ (“To protect and improve rural amenity and to provide for the development of agriculture”) Land Use Matrix in Table 8.3.5 by including ‘Crematorium’ as a ‘Permitted in Principle’ use but solely and exclusively on the SLO No.162 site at Ballycorus. The Land Use Matrix now states: “*Crematorium use is only permitted in principle on lands zoned for agricultural purposes and subject to SLO No.162 at Ballycorus Road”.

 

The Chief Executive fundamentally disagrees with the principle of attaching a SLO and manipulating the Land Use Matrix to the extent that would allow and facilitate a ‘bespoke’ use on this one specific site at Ballycorus but that would not be universally available or ‘applicable’ to all other such ‘B’ zoned sites across the County. To artificially introduce a new ‘Permitted in Principle’ Crematorium land use onto a single, exclusive site – where hitherto that use had not ever been even ‘Open for Consideration’ – is patently inequitable and completely undermines the fundamental premise and rationale behind the very purpose of having a suite of tailored and targeted land use zoning objectives across the different and varied parts of the County.

 

In the current County Development Plan Crematoria are ‘Open for Consideration’ in the ‘F’ zoning - “To preserve and provide for open space with ancillary active recreational amenities”. This is currently the only land use zoning in the County where crematoria are ‘Open for Consideration’.

 

The Chief Executive disagrees fundamentally with the argument that crematoria should be ‘Permitted in Principle’ in the ‘B’ zone as uses that are ‘Permitted in Principle’ are deemed to be generally acceptable. It is considered that in the ‘B’ land use zoning– “To protect and improve rural amenity and to provide for the development of agriculture” – crematoria use may not always be generally acceptable. It was argued at the last stage in the process that individual applications of this nature should, instead, be considered on a case-by-case basis which would allow the types of issues raised in the submissions – parking, traffic, environmental impact, noise etc. – to be objectively assessed. The executive proposed the principle of the promotion of a crematorium as ‘Open for Consideration’ for the entire ‘B’ zone across the County.

 

Uses shown as ‘Open for Consideration ‘are uses which may be permitted where the Planning Authority is satisfied that the proposed development would be compatible with the overall policies and  objectives for the zone, would not have undesirable effects, and would otherwise be consistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

 

However while this was proposed during the Councillors consideration of the submissions received on the Draft Plan at a meeting on 15th October 2015, this can no longer be proposed as in accordance with section 12(10)(C) of the Act a further modification to the Plan must be “minor in nature and therefore not likely to have significant effects on the environment or adversely affect the integrity of a European site”.  It is considered that a change from ‘Permitted in Principle’ on only one exclusive site in the ‘B’ zone to ‘Open for Consideration’ throughout the entire ‘B’ zone could not be deemed to be minor in nature.

 

It should be noted that a planning application register reference D11A/0314 for a burial ground and crematorium park was refused permission by An Bord Pleanala.  The inspector in her report included four reasons for refusal including that fact that the proposed development would endanger public safety by reason of a traffic hazard,

insufficient parking and risk of environmental damage taking into account the rural nature of the site, its topography and flooding.  A subsequent application for the burial ground element only was granted by An Bord Pleanala under register reference D13A/0193.

 

In relation to demand for crematoria, analysis indicates that there is indeed a need for a crematorium in the County. To this end Specific Local Objective No.61 on Map 14 seeks “To encourage the development of a crematorium at Shanganagh Cemetery”. It should be noted that design work on the crematorium for Shanganagh is very well advanced and a Part 8 for the crematorium project at Shanganagh is to be brought to the February Council meeting for the consideration of the Elected Members.

 

Recommendation

Amend Table 8.3.5 on page 227 of the Draft Plan as follows:

 

Delete “Crematorium*” from “permitted in principle”

 

Delete “*Crematorium use is only permitted in principle on lands zoned for agricultural purposes and subject to SLO 162 at Ballycorus Road”.

 

Delete SLO 162 “To provide for a crematorium on lands zoned for agricultural purposes at Ballycorus Road”

 

The above recommendation on Pages 119 – 121   of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

72.

Page - 121 Zoning Objective Tables iii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

iii)“Submission states only the subject matter - the crematorium at Ballycorus. The submission neither accepts nor rejects the proposed amendment to the draft plan and therefore remains neutral on the topic.

Text Box: This item has already been dealt with under Section 8.3 (i)
 

 

 

 


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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of the submission.

 

Recommendation

Delete “Crematorium*” from “permitted in principle”

 

Delete “*Crematorium use is only permitted in principle on lands zoned for agricultural purposes and subject to SLO 162 at Ballycorus Road”.

 

Delete SLO 162 “To provide for a crematorium on lands zoned for agricultural purposes at Ballycorus Road”

 

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

 

 

73.

Page 122 8.3.12: Definition of Use Classes i)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 122 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 122 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

Page 123 9. SPECIFIC LOCAL OBJECTIVES

74.

Page 125 - 127 Map 1 i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

i)     “Submission from Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) raises concerns relating to a number of potential short-term uses of the Dublin Eastern Bypass (DEB) Corridor, which it considers could prejudice the eventual deliverability of the scheme at some point in the future. 

 

In terms of specific future interim uses, the TII

Supports, in principle, the establishment of the corridor for transport services, subject to the promoters of any such proposals demonstrating various commitments to the TII’s satisfaction.

 

These include: (i) a clear commitment to the DEB and potential necessary adjustments to the proposed Greenway/Cycleway/Walkway/ Public Transport Services both during and after construction, (ii) a fully developed infrastructural design for the Greenway / Cycleway / Walkway/ Public Transport Services scheme both during and after construction, (iii) a fully developed plan for the diversion of the Greenway/Cycleway/Walkway during the construction phase of the Eastern Bypass, (iv) a fully developed service plan for the public transport service during the construction phase of the DEB.

 

The submission states that the TII does not support the use of the corridor for either biodiversity projects or recreational opportunities (inclusive of playing pitches) as both uses are considered likely to create a significant obstacle to the eventual deliverability of the DEB. In particular, it is considered that the development of biodiversity projects could create significant constraints due to the potential presence of species and habitats protected under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives, in terms of both EIA and AA.

 

The TII also notes that the majority of lands are not within public ownership and requests that any persons/agencies promoting projects within the corridor should liaise with both the Planning Authority and TII to establish certain safeguards to ensure the future availability of said lands for the DEB as and when Bypass is eventually delivered.

 

The submission recommends rewording SLO NO. 6 as follows:

 

“To explore, in conjunction with the Transport Infrastructure Ireland, potential interim uses of the Dublin Eastern Bypass reservation corridor, such as an amenity walking/cycling route, recreation or other interim transport infrastructure or service provision, pending a decision from the Transport Infrastructure Ireland/Central Government in relation to the future status of the Bypass”.

 

Text Box: This item has already been dealt with under Section 2.2.8 Policy ST13 (i)”
 

 

 

 


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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of the submission.

 

For the purposes of clarity, SLO No. 6 currently reads:

 

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

 

The Chief Executive acknowledges the concerns raised by TII, however, it should be noted that the NTA’s recently published Draft Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2016 – 2035 explicitly states:

 

“While a Section of the route from the Dublin Port Tunnel to the South Port area is included for delivery in this Strategy, the remainder of the route is not proposed for development during the Strategy period”.

 

The Dublin Eastern Bypass is a Long-Term Roads Objective within the Draft Plan and - in this instance - it is considered reasonable and appropriate to examine other potential short-term uses along the reservation corridor.  It is also recognised, that any additional interim uses would be subject to appropriate engineering and environmental studies being carried out - in accordance with the relevant EU Directives.

 

The Chief Executive does not see any merit in rewording either Policy ST13: Bus Rapid Transit or SLO NO. 6 as both explicitly state:

 

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

 

In this regard, Policy ST13: Bus Rapid Transit and SLO No. 6 clearly detail that the central, and ultimately, conclusive decision makers - in terms of any potential future interim uses of the Corridor – will be Central Government, the TII and the NTA.

 

The issue of private land ownership is acknowledged, as are the many safeguards which would be required to ensure the future availability of said lands for the proposed Dublin Eastern Bypass scheme.

 

The Chief Executive does not recommend rewording the Proposed Amendment to Policy ST13 and/or SLO No. 6.  The Chief Executive is, however, recommending an amendment to Policy ST25: Roads and specifically the Dublin Eastern Bypass as detailed within Table 2.2.6 Long Term Roads Objectives.

 

In this regard, Chief Executive considers it appropriate to attach a caveat to Table 2.2.6 Long Term Road Objectives, and specifically, the “Dublin Eastern Bypass (as identified in the Dublin Eastern Bypass Corridor Protection Study, NRA 2011)” to reflect the concerns raised within the Natura Impact Report, and specifically, Table 5.3 Specific Mitigation Recommendation, for inclusion in the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan, which states,

 

“Should the proposals for the Dublin Eastern Bypass be progressed, a full assessment of the potential ecological impacts associated with the proposals will be required to be carried out by the TII, to include the appropriate research and survey work necessary in order to inform a robust Environmental Impact Assessment and Appropriate Assessment of the potential impacts associated with the proposed works”.

 

Recommendation

No change to Proposed Amendments Policy ST13: Bus Rapid Transit and SLO No. 6.

 

Amend Section 2.2.10 Policy ST25: Roads, as follows:

 

Attach an asterisk demarcating the following caveat to Table 2.2.6 Long Term Road Objectives, and specifically, the “Dublin Eastern Bypass (as identified in the Dublin Eastern Bypass Corridor Protection Study, NRA 2011)”

 

Should the proposals for the Dublin Eastern Bypass be progressed at some point in the longer term, a full assessment of the potential ecological impacts associated with the proposals will be required to be carried out by the TII, to include the appropriate research and survey work necessary in order to inform a robust Environmental Impact Assessment and Appropriate Assessment of the potential impacts associated with the proposed works”.

 

The above recommendation on Pages 125 - 127 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

75.

Page 127 Map 1 ii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

ii)    “The Authority is willing to co-operate with Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council in relation to SLO No. 148 – Traffic Management Study for UCD and Environs – but seeks amendments to the wording of SLO No. 148, as follows:

 

To facilitate the on-going process of Mobility          Management planning for UCD, involving the University and the NTA, in order to achieve more sustainable travel patterns to and from the University, and to contribute to address car parking issues within the area”.

 

Text Box: This item has already been dealt with under Part 3(c) (ii)”
 

 

 


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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission.

 

SLO No. 148 currently states,

 

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

 

The Chief Executive welcomes the NTA’s continued commitment to work with the Council and, indeed, UCD to identify and address car parking issues within and surrounding the Campus.

 

The Chief Executive acknowledges that the on-going Mobility Management process will help facilitate the achievement of more sustainable travel patterns, which will  contribute towards the development of a Campus Travel Plan and, in particular, address the on-going car parking issues within and surrounding the Campus. 

 

Recommendation

Amend SLO NO. 148 to read, as follows:

 

To identify and address the on-going car parking issues within and surrounding UCD Campus. In particular, the Council will support and facilitate the on-going process of Mobility Management Planning for UCD, involving the University and the NTA, in order to achieve more sustainable travel patterns to and from the University and to work towards the development of a Campus Travel Plan””.

 

The above recommendation on Page 127 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

76.

Page 127 - 129 Map 2 i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

i)     Submission from Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) raises concerns relating to a number of potential short-term uses of the Dublin Eastern Bypass (DEB) Corridor, which it considers could prejudice the eventual deliverability of the scheme at some point in the future. 

 

In terms of specific future interim uses, the TII

Supports, in principle, the establishment of the corridor for transport services, subject to the promoters of any such proposals demonstrating various commitments to the TII’s satisfaction.

 

These include: (i) a clear commitment to the DEB and potential necessary adjustments to the proposed Greenway/Cycleway/Walkway/ Public Transport Services both during and after construction, (ii) a fully developed infrastructural design for the Greenway / Cycleway /Walkway/ Public Transport Services scheme both during and after construction, (iii) a fully developed plan for the diversion of the Greenway/Cycleway/Walkway during the construction phase of the Eastern Bypass, (iv) a fully developed service plan for the public transport service during the construction phase of the DEB.

 

The submission states that the TII does not support the use of the corridor for either biodiversity projects or recreational opportunities (inclusive of playing pitches) as both uses are considered likely to create a significant obstacle to the eventual deliverability of the DEB. In particular, it is considered that the development of biodiversity projects could create significant constraints due to the potential presence of species and habitats protected under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives, in terms of both EIA and AA.

 

The TII also notes that the majority of lands are not within public ownership and requests that any persons/agencies promoting projects within the corridor should liaise with both the Planning Authority and TII to establish certain safeguards to ensure the future availability of said lands for the DEB as and when Bypass is eventually delivered.

 

The submission recommends rewording SLO NO. 6 as follows:

 

“To explore, in conjunction with the Transport Infrastructure Ireland, potential interim uses of the Dublin Eastern Bypass reservation corridor, such as an amenity walking/cycling route, recreation or other interim transport infrastructure or service provision, pending a decision from the Transport Infrastructure Ireland/Central Government in relation to the future status of the Bypass”.

 

Text Box: This item has already been dealt with under Section 2.2.8 Policy ST13 (i)” 

 

 

 


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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of the submission.

 

For the purposes of clarity, SLO No. 6 currently reads:

 

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

 

The Chief Executive acknowledges the concerns raised by TII, however, it should be noted that the NTA’s recently published Draft Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2016 – 2035 explicitly states:

 

“While a Section of the route from the Dublin Port Tunnel to the South Port area is included for delivery in this Strategy, the remainder of the route is not proposed for development during the Strategy period”.

 

The Dublin Eastern Bypass is a Long-Term Roads Objective within the Draft Plan and - in this instance - it is considered reasonable and appropriate to examine other potential short-term uses along the reservation corridor.  It is also recognised, that any additional interim uses would be subject to appropriate engineering and environmental studies being carried out - in accordance with the relevant EU Directives.

 

The Chief Executive does not see any merit in rewording either Policy ST13: Bus Rapid Transit or SLO NO. 6 as both explicitly state:

 

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

 

In this regard, Policy ST13: Bus Rapid Transit and SLO No. 6 clearly detail that the central, and ultimately, conclusive decision makers - in terms of any potential future interim uses of the Corridor – will be Central Government, the TII and the NTA.

 

The issue of private land ownership is acknowledged, as are the many safeguards which would be required to ensure the future availability of said lands for the proposed Dublin Eastern Bypass scheme.

 

The Chief Executive does not recommend rewording the Proposed Amendment to Policy ST13 and/or SLO No. 6.  The Chief Executive is, however, recommending an amendment to Policy ST25: Roads and specifically the Dublin Eastern Bypass as detailed within Table 2.2.6 Long Term Roads Objectives.

 

In this regard, Chief Executive considers it appropriate to attach a caveat to Table 2.2.6 Long Term Road Objectives, and specifically, the “Dublin Eastern Bypass (as identified in the Dublin Eastern Bypass Corridor Protection Study, NRA 2011)” to reflect the concerns raised within the Natura Impact Report, and specifically, Table 5.3 Specific Mitigation Recommendation, for inclusion in the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan, which states,

 

“Should the proposals for the Dublin Eastern Bypass be progressed, a full assessment of the potential ecological impacts associated with the proposals will be required to be carried out by the TII, to include the appropriate research and survey work necessary in order to inform a robust Environmental Impact Assessment and Appropriate Assessment of the potential impacts associated with the proposed works”.

 

Recommendation

No change to Proposed Amendments Policy ST13: Bus Rapid Transit and SLO No. 6.

 

Amend Section 2.2.10 Policy ST25: Roads, as follows:

 

Attach an asterisk demarcating the following caveat to Table 2.2.6 Long Term Road Objectives, and specifically, the “Dublin Eastern Bypass (as identified in the Dublin Eastern Bypass Corridor Protection Study, NRA 2011)”

 

Should the proposals for the Dublin Eastern Bypass be progressed at some point in the longer term, a full assessment of the potential ecological impacts associated with the proposals will be required to be carried out by the TII, to include the appropriate research and survey work necessary in order to inform a robust Environmental Impact Assessment and Appropriate Assessment of the potential impacts associated with the proposed works””.

 

The above recommendation on Pages 127 – 129 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

77.

Page 129 - 130 Map 2 ii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

ii)    “The Authority is willing to co-operate with Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council in relation to SLO No. 148 – Traffic Management Study for UCD and Environs – but seeks amendments to the wording of SLO No. 148, as follows:

 

To facilitate the on-going process of Mobility Management planning for UCD, involving the University and the NTA, in order to achieve more sustainable travel patterns to and from the University, and to contribute to address car parking issues within the area”.

Text Box: This item has already been dealt with under Part 3(c) (ii)”
 

 

 

 


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

 

The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission.

 

SLO No. 148 currently states,

 

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

 

The Chief Executive welcomes the NTA’s continued commitment to work with the Council and, indeed, UCD to identify and address car parking issues within and surrounding the Campus.

 

The Chief Executive acknowledges that the on-going Mobility Management process will help facilitate the achievement of more sustainable travel patterns, which will  contribute towards the development of a Campus Travel Plan and, in particular, address the on-going car parking issues within and surrounding the Campus. 

 

Recommendation

Amend SLO NO. 148 to read, as follows:

 

To identify and address the on-going car parking issues within and surrounding UCD Campus. In particular, the Council will support and facilitate the on-going process of Mobility Management Planning for UCD, involving the University and the NTA, in order to achieve more sustainable travel patterns to and from the University and to work towards the development of a Campus Travel Plan””.

 

The above recommendation on Pages 129 – 130 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

78.

Page 130 - 131 Map 2 iii)

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

 

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

 

 

79.

Pages 131 - 132 Map 3 i)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 131 – 132 of the Chief Executive’s Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 131 - 132 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

80.

Motion No 7 and Motion No 2 from the floor & Page 132 - 134 Map 3 ii) & iii) pdf icon PDF 51 KB

It was AGREED to take Motion No. 7 and Motion No. 2 from the floor in conjunction with this Item.

 

Motion No. 7

 

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

 

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

 

That Council resolves to retain the amendment to Section 9: SPECIFIC LOCAL OBJECTIVES to insert additional SLO No. 156 as follows:

 

“In accordance with the National Ports Policy the Council shall, within the relevant planning frameworks, formulate and implement, where appropriate and applicable, a plan for the future development of Dún Laoghaire Harbour and its curtilage as determined by the Third Schedule of the Harbours Act, 1996”

Reason

  1. It is clear from the public consultation on the proposed amendments that there is overwhelming public support for this amendment.
  2. The reason for the Council deciding to propose this amendment to the draft plan in October 2015 remain fully applicable.”

 

Motion No. 2 from the floor amends Motion No. 7

 

It was proposed by Councillors J. Bailey, M. Halpin, M. Merrigan, V. Boyhan  and seconded by Councillor K. Gill

 

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

That Council resolves to retain the amendment to Section 9: Specific Local Objectives to insert additional SLO No. 156 as follows:

“In accordance with the National Ports Policy the Council shall, within the relevant planning frameworks, formulate and implement, where appropriate and applicable, a plan for the future development of Dún Laoghaire Harbour and its curtilage as determined by the Third Schedule of the Harbours Act, 1996”

 

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

ii) “Submission requests that SLO No.156 is omitted from the Plan. The National Ports Policy should not determine the future of the Harbour

 

A Local Area Plan is considered to be the appropriate mechanism for formulating a plan for and future of the harbour”.

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive notes and welcomes the submission.

 

It is considered that the provision of this SLO is not necessary as the Draft Plan already contains more than adequate guidance for the Harbour area and also sets out a clear planning framework for the provision of a plan for the Harbour.

 

In the Draft Plan, both Section 1.3.4.12 Dún Laoghaire and Environs and Specific Local Objective No. 77 on Maps 3 & 4, indicate that it is the intention of the Council to prepare a Local Area Plan (LAP) for the Dún Laoghaire and Environs area during the lifetime of the 2016-2022 County Development Plan. It is intended that the proposed Dún Laoghaire LAP will include the Harbour area.

 

In advance of the preparation of that LAP, the Draft Development Plan already includes the Dún Laoghaire UFP as Appendix 12. The UFP contains ample guidance regarding the importance and potential of the Harbour area. It would be expected that the relevant elements of the UFP will in turn form an important component part of the proposed LAP for Dún Laoghaire.

 

Recommendation:

Delete SLO No. 156 “In accordance with the National Ports Policy the Council shall, within the relevant planning frameworks, formulate and implement, where appropriate and applicable, a plan for the future development of Dún Laoghaire Harbour and its curtilage as determined by Part 1, subsection 6 of the Third Schedule of the Harbours Act, 1996.”from:

 

·         Section 9 of the Draft County Development Plan 2016-2022 and

·         Map 3 of the Draft County Development Plan 2016-2022”.

 

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

iii) “Submissions support the new SLO No. 156 in relation to the formulation of a plan for the future development of Dún Laoghaire Harbour”.

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the submission.

 

It is considered that the provision of this SLO is not necessary as the Draft Plan already contains more than adequate guidance for the Harbour area and also sets out a clear planning framework for the provision of a plan for the Harbour.

 

In the Draft Plan, both Section 1.3.4.12 Dún Laoghaire and Environs and Specific Local Objective No. 77 on Maps 3 & 4, indicate that it is the intention of the Council to prepare a Local Area Plan (LAP) for the Dún Laoghaire and Environs area during the lifetime of the 2016-2022 County Development Plan. It is intended that the proposed Dún Laoghaire LAP will include the Harbour area.

 

In advance of the preparation of that LAP, the Draft Development Plan already includes the Dún Laoghaire UFP as Appendix 12. The UFP contains ample guidance regarding the importance and potential of the Harbour area. It would be expected that the relevant elements of the UFP will in turn form an important component part of the proposed LAP for Dún Laoghaire.

 

Recommendation:

Delete SLO No. 156 “In accordance with the National Ports Policy the Council shall, within the relevant planning frameworks, formulate and implement, where appropriate and applicable, a plan for the future development of Dún Laoghaire Harbour and its curtilage as determined by Part 1, subsection 6 of the Third Schedule of the Harbours Act, 1996.”from:

 

·         Section 9 of the Draft County Development Plan 2016-2022 and

·         Map 3 of the Draft County Development Plan 2016-2022”.

 

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

 

Motion No. 2 from the floor which amended Motion No. 7 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:

27

9

0

 

AnCathaoirleach, Councillor B. Saul, declared Motion No 2 from the floor CARRIED.

 

The above recommendation on Page 132 – 134  of the Chief Executive’s Report was DEFEATED.

 

 

81.

Page 134 - 135 Map 3 iv) & v)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 134 – 135 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 134 – 135 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

82.

Page 136 - 137 Map 5 i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

i)     “Submission from Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) raises concerns relating to a number of potential short-term uses of the Dublin Eastern Bypass (DEB) Corridor, which it considers could prejudice the eventual deliverability of the scheme at some point in the future. 

 

In terms of specific future interim uses, the TII

Supports, in principle, the establishment of the corridor for transport services, subject to the promoters of any such proposals demonstrating various commitments to the TII’s satisfaction.

 

These include: (i) a clear commitment to the DEB and potential necessary adjustments to the proposed Greenway / Cycleway / Walkway / Public Transport Services both during and after construction, (ii) a fully developed infrastructural design for the Greenway / Cycleway / Walkway / Public Transport Services scheme both during and after construction, (iii) a fully developed plan for the diversion of the Greenway/Cycleway/Walkway during the construction phase of the Eastern Bypass, (iv) a fully developed service plan for the public transport service during the construction phase of the DEB.

 

The submission states that the TII does not support the use of the corridor for either biodiversity projects or recreational opportunities (inclusive of playing pitches) as both uses are considered likely to create a significant obstacle to the eventual deliverability of the DEB. In particular, it is considered that the development of biodiversity projects could create significant constraints due to the potential presence of species and habitats protected under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives, in terms of both EIA and AA.

 

The TII also notes that the majority of lands are not within public ownership and requests that any persons/agencies promoting projects within the corridor should liaise with both the Planning Authority and TII to establish certain safeguards to ensure the future availability of said lands for the DEB as and when Bypass is eventually delivered.

 

The submission recommends rewording SLO NO. 6 as follows:

 

“To explore, in conjunction with the Transport Infrastructure Ireland, potential interim uses of the Dublin Eastern Bypass reservation corridor, such as an amenity walking/cycling route, recreation or other interim transport infrastructure or service provision, pending a decision from the Transport Infrastructure Ireland/Central Government in relation to the future status of the Bypass”.

 

Text Box: This item has already been dealt with under Section 2.2.8 Policy ST13 (i)”
 

 

 

 

 


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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of the submission.

 

For the purposes of clarity, SLO No. 6 currently reads:

 

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

 

The Chief Executive acknowledges the concerns raised by TII, however, it should be noted that the NTA’s recently published Draft Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2016 – 2035 explicitly states:

 

“While a Section of the route from the Dublin Port Tunnel to the South Port area is included for delivery in this Strategy, the remainder of the route is not proposed for development during the Strategy period”.

 

The Dublin Eastern Bypass is a Long-Term Roads Objective within the Draft Plan and - in this instance - it is considered reasonable and appropriate to examine other potential short-term uses along the reservation corridor.  It is also recognised, that any additional interim uses would be subject to appropriate engineering and environmental studies being carried out - in accordance with the relevant EU Directives.

 

The Chief Executive does not see any merit in rewording either Policy ST13: Bus Rapid Transit or SLO NO. 6 as both explicitly state:

 

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

 

In this regard, Policy ST13: Bus Rapid Transit and SLO No. 6 clearly detail that the central, and ultimately, conclusive decision makers - in terms of any potential future interim uses of the Corridor – will be Central Government, the TII and the NTA.

 

The issue of private land ownership is acknowledged, as are the many safeguards which would be required to ensure the future availability of said lands for the proposed Dublin Eastern Bypass scheme.

 

The Chief Executive does not recommend rewording the Proposed Amendment to Policy ST13 and/or SLO No. 6.  The Chief Executive is, however, recommending an amendment to Policy ST25: Roads and specifically the Dublin Eastern Bypass as detailed within Table 2.2.6 Long Term Roads Objectives.

 

In this regard, Chief Executive considers it appropriate to attach a caveat to Table 2.2.6 Long Term Road Objectives, and specifically, the “Dublin Eastern Bypass (as identified in the Dublin Eastern Bypass Corridor Protection Study, NRA 2011)” to reflect the concerns raised within the Natura Impact Report, and specifically, Table 5.3 Specific Mitigation Recommendation, for inclusion in the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan, which states,

 

“Should the proposals for the Dublin Eastern Bypass be progressed, a full assessment of the potential ecological impacts associated with the proposals will be required to be carried out by the TII, to include the appropriate research and survey work necessary in order to inform a robust Environmental Impact Assessment and Appropriate Assessment of the potential impacts associated with the proposed works”.

 

Recommendation

No change to Proposed Amendments Policy ST13: Bus Rapid Transit and SLO No. 6.

 

Amend Section 2.2.10 Policy ST25: Roads, as follows:

 

Attach an asterisk demarcating the following caveat to Table 2.2.6 Long Term Road Objectives, and specifically, the “Dublin Eastern Bypass (as identified in the Dublin Eastern Bypass Corridor Protection Study, NRA 2011)”

 

Should the proposals for the Dublin Eastern Bypass be progressed at some point in the longer term, a full assessment of the potential ecological impacts associated with the proposals will be required to be carried out by the TII, to include the appropriate research and survey work necessary in order to inform a robust Environmental Impact Assessment and Appropriate Assessment of the potential impacts associated with the proposed works””.

 

The above recommendation on Pages 136 – 137 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED.

 

 

83.

Adjournment of Meeting

It was AGREED to ADJOURN the meeting.

 

The meeting ADJOURNED  at 7.00 p.m.

 

 

84.

Reconvening of Meeting

The meeting  RECONVENED at 7.25p.m.

 

 

85.

Page 138 - 141 Map 5 ii) & iii)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 138 – 141 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 138 - 141 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

86.

Page 141 - 143 Map 6 i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

i)     “Submission from Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) raises concerns relating to a number of potential short-term uses of the Dublin Eastern Bypass (DEB) Corridor, which it considers could prejudice the eventual deliverability of the scheme at some point in the future. 

 

In terms of specific future interim uses, the TII

Supports, in principle, the establishment of the corridor for transport services, subject to the promoters of any such proposals demonstrating various commitments to the TII’s satisfaction.

 

These include: (i) a clear commitment to the DEB and potential necessary adjustments to the proposed Greenway/Cycleway/Walkway/ Public Transport Services both during and after construction, (ii) a fully developed infrastructural design for the Greenway / Cycleway / Walkway / Public Transport Services scheme both during and after construction, (iii) a fully developed plan for the diversion of the Greenway/Cycleway/Walkway during the construction phase of the Eastern Bypass, (iv) a fully developed service plan for the public transport service during the construction phase of the DEB.

 

The submission states that the TII does not support the use of the corridor for either biodiversity projects or recreational opportunities (inclusive of playing pitches) as both uses are considered likely to create a significant obstacle to the eventual deliverability of the DEB. In particular, it is considered that the development of biodiversity projects could create significant constraints due to the potential presence of species and habitats protected under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives, in terms of both EIA and AA.

 

The TII also notes that the majority of lands are not within public ownership and requests that any persons/agencies promoting projects within the corridor should liaise with both the Planning Authority and TII to establish certain safeguards to ensure the future availability of said lands for the DEB as and when Bypass is eventually delivered.

 

The submission recommends rewording SLO NO. 6 as follows:

 

“To explore, in conjunction with the Transport Infrastructure Ireland, potential interim uses of the Dublin Eastern Bypass reservation corridor, such as an amenity walking/cycling route, recreation or other interim transport infrastructure or service provision, pending a decision from the Transport Infrastructure Ireland/Central Government in relation to the future status of the Bypass””.

Text Box: This item has already been dealt with under Section 2.2.8 Policy ST13 (i)
 

 

 

 

 


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

 

The Chief Executive notes the contents of the submission.

 

For the purposes of clarity, SLO No. 6 currently reads:

 

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

 

The Chief Executive acknowledges the concerns raised by TII, however, it should be noted that the NTA’s recently published Draft Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2016 – 2035 explicitly states:

 

“While a Section of the route from the Dublin Port Tunnel to the South Port area is included for delivery in this Strategy, the remainder of the route is not proposed for development during the Strategy period”.

 

The Dublin Eastern Bypass is a Long-Term Roads Objective within the Draft Plan and - in this instance - it is considered reasonable and appropriate to examine other potential short-term uses along the reservation corridor.  It is also recognised, that any additional interim uses would be subject to appropriate engineering and environmental studies being carried out - in accordance with the relevant EU Directives.

 

The Chief Executive does not see any merit in rewording either Policy ST13: Bus Rapid Transit or SLO NO. 6 as both explicitly state:

 

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

 

In this regard, Policy ST13: Bus Rapid Transit and SLO No. 6 clearly detail that the central, and ultimately, conclusive decision makers - in terms of any potential future interim uses of the Corridor – will be Central Government, the TII and the NTA.

 

The issue of private land ownership is acknowledged, as are the many safeguards which would be required to ensure the future availability of said lands for the proposed Dublin Eastern Bypass scheme.

 

The Chief Executive does not recommend rewording the Proposed Amendment to Policy ST13 and/or SLO No. 6.  The Chief Executive is, however, recommending an amendment to Policy ST25: Roads and specifically the Dublin Eastern Bypass as detailed within Table 2.2.6 Long Term Roads Objectives.

 

In this regard, Chief Executive considers it appropriate to attach a caveat to Table 2.2.6 Long Term Road Objectives, and specifically, the “Dublin Eastern Bypass (as identified in the Dublin Eastern Bypass Corridor Protection Study, NRA 2011)” to reflect the concerns raised within the Natura Impact Report, and specifically, Table 5.3 Specific Mitigation Recommendation, for inclusion in the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan, which states,

 

“Should the proposals for the Dublin Eastern Bypass be progressed, a full assessment of the potential ecological impacts associated with the proposals will be required to be carried out by the TII, to include the appropriate research and survey work necessary in order to inform a robust Environmental Impact Assessment and Appropriate Assessment of the potential impacts associated with the proposed works”.

 

Recommendation

No change to Proposed Amendments Policy ST13: Bus Rapid Transit and SLO No. 6.

 

Amend Section 2.2.10 Policy ST25: Roads, as follows:

 

Attach an asterisk demarcating the following caveat to Table 2.2.6 Long Term Road Objectives, and specifically, the “Dublin Eastern Bypass (as identified in the Dublin Eastern Bypass Corridor Protection Study, NRA 2011)”

 

Should the proposals for the Dublin Eastern Bypass be progressed at some point in the longer term, a full assessment of the potential ecological impacts associated with the proposals will be required to be carried out by the TII, to include the appropriate research and survey work necessary in order to inform a robust Environmental Impact Assessment and Appropriate Assessment of the potential impacts associated with the proposed works””.

 

The above recommendation on Pages 141 - 143 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

87.

Page 143 - 144 Map 6 ii) & iii)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 143 – 144 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 143 – 144 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

88.

Motion No. 5 from the floor

Motion No 5  from the floor in the names of Councillors C. Curran, S. NiCormaic, L. McGovern, K. Daly and N. Richmond  was WITHDRAWN.

 

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

 

To insert a SLO on Map 6 “To ensure the appropriate provision of social and community infrastructure to serve the needs of citizens, incorporating Sandyford Village, Kilcross, Balally, Beacon South Quarter, Clonard and Moreen/Blackthorn Estate”.”

 

 

89.

Page 144 - 146 Map 7 i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

i)     “Submissions support new SLO No. 160 and specifically the retention of the Graduate and Sallynoggin roundabouts. Submissions suggest that the existing roundabouts offer the best traffic management solution for the area

 

One submission suggests that the roundabout should be covered in bark and bally lusk shingles due to expected construction traffic next year.

 

One submission requests that access into Glenageary Wood from Glenageary Road should be retained from the roundabout”.

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive disagrees with the content of these submissions.

SLO No. 160 states:

 

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

 

It should be noted, that the design of traffic management measures for all junction types, including roundabouts, forms part of national traffic management guidelines, including:

 

·         National Traffic Management Guidelines,

·         National Cycle Manual,

·         National Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB),

·         National Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets (DMURS).

 

It is recognised that the Graduate and Sallynoggin Roundabouts both cater for significant traffic flows with wide entry approaches for vehicular traffic.

 

Current National/Central Government Design Guidance would preclude such a design – with wide entry approaches - in an urban setting due to movement difficulties in facilitating vulnerable road users crossing junction legs at the roundabout - in particular young and elderly pedestrians. In addition, limited cycle provision exists, at or through, either of the roundabouts with the route listed as a secondary route in the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan Route 13G (Dún Laoghaire to Cherrywood).

 

Any future upgrade of the roundabouts would incorporate the design guidance included within the aforementioned National Guidance.  In addition, any future upgrade would require a comprehensive assessment on how road users would safely use the junction and a recommendation on the best junction type to achieve this.

 

It should also be noted that the inclusion of this SLO may also curtail future  upgrade options “to facilitate, support and enhance the development of the area,”  and specifically, to improve and enhance the Sallyglen Road, which is listed as an integral component of:

 

·         The Cherrywood to Blackrock Proposed Bus Priority Scheme as detailed within Table 2.2.3 Proposed Bus Priority Schemes,

·         The Cherrywood to Dún Laoghaire Strategic Route (R118, Wyatville Road to Glenageary Roundabout) Six Year Roads Objective as detailed within Table 2.2.5 Six-Year Roads Objective

·         The Cherrywood to Dún Laoghaire Primary Orbital Cycle Route as detailed within Policy ST6: County Cycle Network of the Draft Plana and the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Cycle Network Plan.

It is an objective of the phasing of the Cherrywood Planning Scheme to improve/extend bus routes from Cherrywood to Dún Laoghaire.

 

The Sallyglen Road and indeed both roundabouts are considered to be important components of key links from Dún Laoghaire to Cherrywood in terms of provision for all sustainable travel modes.

 

The Chief Executive considers that this SLO:

 

i)     Will not facilitate, support and enhance the development of the surrounding area but limit development options within the local area

ii)    Is contrary to National/Central Government Design Standards and will not improve safety conditions for vulnerable road users.

iii)   Is contrary to the specific polices relating to the development of the Sallyglen Road within Sections ST6: Walking and Cycling, ST11: Quality Bus Network, specifically Table 2.2.3 Proposed Bus Priority Schemes, and Policy ST24: Roads, specifically Table 2.2.5 Six Year Roads Objectives.

iv)  Is contrary to the general policy provisions contained within Policies: ST1: Integration of Land-Use and Transportation Policies, ST3: Accessibility, ST4: Walking and Cycling, ST5: Footways and Pedestrian Routes, Policy, ST6: County Cycle Network, ST10: Public Transport Improvements, ST11: Quality Bus Network, ST24: Roads, ST28: Road Safety and ST29: Traffic Management.

 

In this regard, the Chief Executive considers SLO. No. 160 is neither warranted nor necessary.

 

Recommendation:

Delete SLO No. 160 “To facilitate, support and enhance the development of the area, both roundabouts at Killiney Shopping Centre (Graduate roundabout) and at Glenageary, be retained to ensure proper traffic management of the area.” from:

 

·         Section 9 of the Draft County Development Plan 2016-2022.

·         Map 7 of the Draft County Development Plan 2016-2022”.

 

Following a discussion, Ms. M. Henchy, Director of Services, Mr. C. Clarke, Assistant Planner and  Ms. A. Devine, Senior Engineer responded to Member’s queries.

 

The Chief Executive’s Recommendation on Pages 144 – 146 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:

16

21

0

 

The above recommendation on Pages 144 – 146 of the Chief Executive’s Report was  DEFEATED.

 

 

 

90.

Page 146 Map 8 i)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 146 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 146 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

91.

Page 147 Map 9 i)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 147 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

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

 

 

92.

Page 147 - 151 Map 9 ii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

ii) “Submissions object to changes to the zoning table that would allow a crematorium use to be ‘Permitted in Principle’ exclusively in the ‘B’ zoning objective at a specific site at Ballycorus.  Objections relate to the following:

 

  • Submission states that crematorium use was never envisaged on this land zoning.
  • Submission believes that tabling a motion from the floor is undemocratic as it did not allow the local community the opportunity to express opposition to the proposal.
  • Submission argues that the debate on the motion did not result in a well thought out and sustainable planning decision.
  • Submission states that local residents are puzzled as to why such an unsuitable site deserves a site specific amendment.
  • Submission was not on the agenda which thwarted the debate and also public participation in the plan process.
  • Submission contends that the elected members who voted on this motion were not afforded the opportunity to inform themselves on the issue due to lack of notice.
  • Submission requests that in the interests of public confidence and transparency that the issue be revisited.
  • Submission argues that the scenario being enacted on the Ballycorus Valley is opportunistic.
  • Submission questions entire process surrounding the submission of motion in relation to the crematorium and voting on same.
  • Crematorium use has already been refused on the site.
  • Submission raises the point that there is an SLO for a crematoria at Shanganagh and that the County does not need two facilities.
  • Submission argues that the approach being taken is an attempt to retrofit a crematorium which was already refused into an existing development and this this ad hoc type planning should be rejected.
  • Submission calls on the elected members to review their decisions in light of opposition from the DLRCC planners, the Chief Executive and local residents.
  • Lack of parking and congestion that will result from the crematorium use.
  • Issue of emissions and smell from any crematoria.
  • Issue of large businesses moving into agricultural area.
  • Submission claims that the developers in question have not been compliant with guidelines and have breached existing planning permission.
  • Submission states that the developers (of the cemetery) have knocked down trees which is contrary to the planning permission.
  • Submission requests Councillors to vote against proposal for a crematorium taking into account impact on the local community.
  • Crematorium use would be detrimental to the environment and to the Ballycorus Valley.
  • The crematorium would be too close to existing houses. Although no legislation exists in Ireland, UK legislation requires an exclusion zone of 183m.
  • Lack of public transport serving the crematorium.
  • Crematorium use has already been refused on the site.
  • Submission questions the statement in the motion passed that currently 40% of all funerals in the Country take place in a crematorium.  Submission states that nationally the percentage is only 14% and 35% in Dublin.  Submission states that according to the operator of one crematorium in Dublin there is currently 10 – 15 years capacity within the three Dublin crematoria.
  • Submission states that there is no demand for a crematorium on this site.
  • Submission raises concerns in relation to the fairness and balance in the decision making process between the Executive and the Elected Members.
  • The motion was only carried by 1 vote.
  • Submission argues that the debate on the motion did not result in a well thought out and sustainable planning decision.
  • Submission argues that a crematorium use would conflict with the rural setting of the valley and change the character of the valley.
  • Submission argues that the crematorium use would undermine the integrity of the lead mines heritage area and surrounding landscape.
  • Submission states that there is no regulatory oversight for crematoria and considers that self-regulation by the developers is not acceptable.
  • Submission states that the crematorium is a precursor for significant development in the wider area.
  • Submission seeks assurances from the Planning Authority that there is no risk to human health through noxious air emissions and contaminated ground water.
  • Submission states that there is unanimous opposition in the local community to a crematorium at this location.
  • Submission states that there is a lack of adequate parking and there would be a significant increase of traffic. The road network is not suitable nor has the capacity to cater for increased traffic volumes.

·         Submission raises concerns in relation to increased crime on the site – there is no passive surveillance.

  • Submission raises the issue of there being no engagement or consultation with the local community.
  • Submission states that the motion did not include a reasoned or substantial justification to demonstrate need for a crematorium at this location. Typically such a facility has a wider regional / sub-regional context and not a local need. The fact that Dún Laoghaire does not currently have such a facility should not, of itself, be used to justify the current proposal.
  • Submission states that there is a lack of services on the site – there is no main sewer.
  • Submission argues that a suitable site has already been identified for a crematorium at Shanganagh, hence there is no need for rezoning at Ballycorus.
  • There is a significant water logging issue on the site and recent flooding within the graveyard.
  • Local residents were not consulted by their local representatives.
  • Impact of run-off into the local river.
  • Submission questions how the public interest has been served.
  • Submission makes reference to the UK Crematorium legislation which was recently amended retaining an exclusion zone of 200 yards from any house unless written permission of the householder has been obtained.
  • Submission expresses concern due to proximity of site to a valuable salmonoid river.
  • Submission expresses concern in relation to traffic given that there is already congestion due to the rugby ground on Ballycorus Road.
  • Development would compromise integrity of Mine Hill area.
  • Submission states that DLR County Council recently sought Counsel opinion on conflict of interest legislation.  The submission then goes on to provide some detail from this legal opinion.

 

Text Box: This item has already been dealt with under Section 8.3 (i)”
 

 

 

 


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

 

“The Chief Executive fully agrees with the contents of these submissions.

 

The proposed amendments, voted for by the Elected Members in October 2015 against a very robust recommendation by the Chief Executive, promotes the insertion of a Specific Local Objective (No.162) on Map 9 and in the narrative of the Draft Written Statement which reads “To provide for a Crematorium on lands zoned for agricultural purposes at Ballycorus Road”. The proposed amendments also promotes radical changes to the Zoning Objective ‘B’ (“To protect and improve rural amenity and to provide for the development of agriculture”) Land Use Matrix in Table 8.3.5 by including ‘Crematorium’ as a ‘Permitted in Principle’ use but solely and exclusively on the SLO No.162 site at Ballycorus. The Land Use Matrix now states: “*Crematorium use is only permitted in principle on lands zoned for agricultural purposes and subject to SLO No.162 at Ballycorus Road”.

 

The Chief Executive fundamentally disagrees with the principle of attaching a SLO and manipulating the Land Use Matrix to the extent that would allow and facilitate a ‘bespoke’ use on this one specific site at Ballycorus but that would not be universally available or ‘applicable’ to all other such ‘B’ zoned sites across the County. To artificially introduce a new ‘Permitted in Principle’ Crematorium land use onto a single, exclusive site – where hitherto that use had not ever been even ‘Open for Consideration’ – is patently inequitable and completely undermines the fundamental premise and rationale behind the very purpose of having a suite of tailored and targeted land use zoning objectives across the different and varied parts of the County.

 

In the current County Development Plan Crematoria are ‘Open for Consideration’ in the ‘F’ zoning - “To preserve and provide for open space with ancillary active recreational amenities”. This is currently the only land use zoning in the County where crematoria are ‘Open for Consideration’.

 

The Chief Executive disagrees fundamentally with the argument that crematoria should be ‘Permitted in Principle’ in the ‘B’ zone as uses that are ‘Permitted in Principle’ are deemed to be generally acceptable. It is considered that in the ‘B’ land use zoning– “To protect and improve rural amenity and to provide for the development of agriculture” – crematoria use may not always be generally acceptable. It was argued at the last stage in the process that individual applications of this nature should, instead, be considered on a case-by-case basis which would allow the types of issues raised in the submissions – parking, traffic, environmental impact, noise etc. – to be objectively assessed. The executive proposed the principle of the promotion of a crematorium as ‘Open for Consideration’ for the entire ‘B’ zone across the County.

 

Uses shown as ‘Open for Consideration ‘are uses which may be permitted where the Planning Authority is satisfied that the proposed development would be compatible with the overall policies and  objectives for the zone, would not have undesirable effects, and would otherwise be consistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

 

However while this was proposed during the Councillors consideration of the submissions received on the Draft Plan at a meeting on 15th October 2015, this can no longer be proposed as in accordance with section 12(10)(C) of the Act a further modification to the Plan must be “minor in nature and therefore not likely to have significant effects on the environment or adversely affect the integrity of a European site”.  It is considered that a change from ‘Permitted in Principle’ on only one exclusive site in the ‘B’ zone to ‘Open for Consideration’ throughout the entire ‘B’ zone could not be deemed to be minor in nature.

 

It should be noted that a planning application register reference D11A/0314 for a burial ground and crematorium park was refused permission by An Bord Pleanala.  The inspector in her report included four reasons for refusal including that fact that the proposed development would endanger public safety by reason of a traffic hazard, insufficient parking and risk of environmental damage taking into account the rural nature of the site, its topography and flooding.  A subsequent application for the burial ground element only was granted by An Bord Pleanala under register reference D13A/0193.

 

In relation to demand for crematoria, analysis indicates that there is indeed a need for a crematorium in the County. To this end Specific Local Objective No.61 on Map 14 seeks “To encourage the development of a crematorium at Shanganagh Cemetery”. It should be noted that design work on the crematorium for Shanganagh is very well advanced and a Part 8 for the crematorium project at Shanganagh is to be brought to the February Council meeting for the consideration of the Elected Members.

 

Recommendation

Amend Table 8.3.5 on page 227 of the Draft Plan as follows:

 

Delete “Crematorium*” from “permitted in principle”

 

Delete “*Crematorium use is only permitted in principle on lands zoned for agricultural purposes and subject to SLO 162 at Ballycorus Road”.

 

Delete SLO 162 “To provide for a crematorium on lands zoned for agricultural purposes at Ballycorus Road””

 

The above recommendation on Pages 147 - 151 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

93.

Page 151 - 153 Map 9 iii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

iii) “Submission supports the provision of a Crematorium at Ballycorus for the following reasons:

 

·         There is a need for such a facility in the area.

·         Crematoria offer a more economical alternative to burials

·         Local economic benefits

·         Ideally located within a cemetery

·         Would reduce the need for DLR residents to travel outside the county to avail of such facilities.

·         The site is easily accessible from the N11.

·         Cremations are becoming more common in Ireland.

Text Box: This item has already been dealt with under Section 8.3 (i)”
 

 

 

 

 


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

 

“The Chief Executive does not agree with the contents of these submissions.

 

The proposed amendments, voted for by the Elected Members in October 2015 against a very robust recommendation by the Chief Executive, promotes the insertion of a Specific Local Objective (No.162) on Map 9 and in the narrative of the Draft Written Statement which reads “To provide for a Crematorium on lands zoned for agricultural purposes at Ballycorus Road”. The proposed amendments also promotes radical changes to the Zoning Objective ‘B’ (“To protect and improve rural amenity and to provide for the development of agriculture”) Land Use Matrix in Table 8.3.5 by including ‘Crematorium’ as a ‘Permitted in Principle’ use but solely and exclusively on the SLO No.162 site at Ballycorus. The Land Use Matrix now states: “*Crematorium use is only permitted in principle on lands zoned for agricultural purposes and subject to SLO No.162 at Ballycorus Road”.

 

The Chief Executive fundamentally disagrees with the principle of attaching a SLO and manipulating the Land Use Matrix to the extent that would allow and facilitate a ‘bespoke’ use on this one specific site at Ballycorus but that would not be universally available or ‘applicable’ to all other such ‘B’ zoned sites across the County. To artificially introduce a new ‘Permitted in Principle’ Crematorium land use onto a single, exclusive site – where hitherto that use had not ever been even ‘Open for Consideration’ – is patently inequitable and completely undermines the fundamental premise and rationale behind the very purpose of having a suite of tailored and targeted land use zoning objectives across the different and varied parts of the County.

This item has already been dealt with under Section 8.3 (i)

 
 

In the current County Development Plan Crematoria are ‘Open for Consideration’ in the ‘F’ zoning - “To preserve and provide for open space with ancillary active recreational amenities”. This is currently the only land use zoning in the County where crematoria are ‘Open for Consideration’.

 

The Chief Executive disagrees fundamentally with the argument that crematoria should be ‘Permitted in Principle’ in the ‘B’ zone as uses that are ‘Permitted in Principle’ are deemed to be generally acceptable. It is considered that in the ‘B’ land use zoning– “To protect and improve rural amenity and to provide for the development of agriculture” – crematoria use may not always be generally acceptable. It was argued at the last stage in the process that individual applications of this nature should, instead, be considered on a case-by-case basis which would allow the types of issues raised in the submissions – parking, traffic, environmental impact, noise etc. – to be objectively assessed. The executive proposed the principle of the promotion of a crematorium as ‘Open for Consideration’ for the entire ‘B’ zone across the County.

 

Uses shown as ‘Open for Consideration ‘are uses which may be permitted where the Planning Authority is satisfied that the proposed development would be compatible with the overall policies and  objectives for the zone, would not have undesirable effects, and would otherwise be consistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

 

However while this was proposed during the Councillors consideration of the submissions received on the Draft Plan at a meeting on 15th October 2015, this can no longer be proposed as in accordance with section 12(10)(C) of the Act a further modification to the Plan must be “minor in nature and therefore not likely to have significant effects on the environment or adversely affect the integrity of a European site”.  It is considered that a change from ‘Permitted in Principle’ on only one exclusive site in the ‘B’ zone to ‘Open for Consideration’ throughout the entire ‘B’ zone could not be deemed to be minor in nature.

 

It should be noted that a planning application register reference D11A/0314 for a burial ground and crematorium park was refused permission by An Bord Pleanala.  The inspector in her report included four reasons for refusal including that fact that the proposed development would endanger public safety by reason of a traffic hazard, insufficient parking and risk of environmental damage taking into account the rural nature of the site, its topography and flooding.  A subsequent application for the burial ground element only was granted by An Bord Pleanala under register reference D13A/0193.

 

In relation to demand for crematoria, analysis indicates that there is indeed a need for a crematorium in the County. To this end Specific Local Objective No.61 on Map 14 seeks “To encourage the development of a crematorium at Shanganagh Cemetery”. It should be noted that design work on the crematorium for Shanganagh is very well advanced and a Part 8 for the crematorium project at Shanganagh is to be brought to the February Council meeting for the consideration of the Elected Members.

 

Recommendation

Amend Table 8.3.5 on page 227 of the Draft Plan as follows:

 

Delete “Crematorium*” from “permitted in principle”

 

Delete “*Crematorium use is only permitted in principle on lands zoned for agricultural purposes and subject to SLO 162 at Ballycorus Road”.

 

Delete SLO 162 “To provide for a crematorium on lands zoned for agricultural purposes at Ballycorus Road””

 

The above recommendation on Page 151 - 153 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

94.

Page 153 Map 9 iv)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

iv)”Submission states only the subject matter - the crematorium at Ballycorus. The submission neither accepts nor rejects the proposed amendment to the Draft Plan and therefore remains neutral on the topic.

 

Text Box: This item has already been dealt with under Section 8.3 (i)”
 

 

 

 


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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission.

 

Recommendation

Amend Table 8.3.5 on page 227 of the Draft Plan as follows:

 

Delete “Crematorium*” from “permitted in principle”

 

Delete “*Crematorium use is only permitted in principle on lands zoned for agricultural purposes and subject to SLO 162 at Ballycorus Road”.

 

Delete SLO 162 “To provide for a crematorium on lands zoned for agricultural purposes at Ballycorus Road””

 

The above recommendation on Page 153 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

95.

Page 154 Map 9 v)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 154 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on page 154 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

96.

Page 154 - 161 Map 10 i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

i)     “Submissions urge the re-instatement of Policy EI23 and SLO No. 126 relating to the protection of ground and surface water in Rathmichael. The submissions strongly urge the reinstatement of said policy/objective for a number of reasons including:

 

·         The reasons set out in the Chief Executive’s Report on the Draft Plan.

·         The potential negative impact of unsewered developments on groundwater and surface water quality due to the existing high density of on-site wastewater treatment facilities in the area

·         The Council’s requirements to meet its obligations under the Water Framework Directive.

·         The potential negative impact on water quality, local biodiversity and its environment.

·         The removal of the Policy is not in accordance with the ‘precautionary principle’ pending the outcome of further ground/surface water investigations and monitoring.

·         The omission of the Policy and SLO would have the effect of altering the basis of the Draft Plan for this area.

·         The motives underpinning the decisions of Councillor’s against all the objective evidence presented by the Chief Executive and others does not stand up to scrutiny.

·         The decision is in favour of individual landowners as opposed to the ‘greater good’.

 

Text Box: This item has already been dealt with under Part 2(a) (i)”
 

 

 

 

 


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

 

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

 

The Chief Executive wishes to add some context to the issue raised within the submission and, indeed, the origins of SLO No. 126.

 

The purpose of SLO No. 126 is to ensure there is no further degradation of groundwater and surface water quality within the Rathmichael/Ferndale area and to requirements on the Council to meet its obligations under the Water Framework Directive. In this regard, SLO No. 126 states:

 

To refuse planning permission for any new developments which include on-site wastewater treatment facilities within this catchment, until the groundwater issues in the area are resolved or ameliorated.”

 

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) applies to rivers, lakes, groundwater and coastal waters and requires a co-ordinated approach to water management, which in Ireland is being undertaken in hydrological units termed River Basin Districts (RBDs). 

 

The principal objective of the Directive is the achievement of “good status”, for all waters by 2015. The WFD was transposed into Irish law by the European Communities (Water Policy) Regulations 2003 (S.I. 722 of 2003) in December 2003. 

 

The objectives set out for groundwater within the WFD, are as follows:

 

Ø  “To achieve ‘good status’ for all groundwater by 2015.  Good groundwater status is the status achieved by a groundwater body when both its quantitative status and its chemical status are at least ‘good’.

Ø  To reverse any significant and sustained upward trend in concentration of any pollutant resulting from the impact of human activity”.

 

The EC Groundwater Directive is a ‘Daughter Directive’ of the WFD and provides for the protection of groundwater against pollution.  It includes criteria for good groundwater chemical status.

This item has already been dealt with under Part 2(a) (i)

 
 

The WFD…. is concerned, inter alia, with the protection of the aquatic ecosystem per se or, where necessary, its restoration, to achieve conditions (good status) in all waters which are only slightly degraded from those of the natural or reference state.  The definition of ‘good status’ in the case of surface waters is based on both ecological status, i.e. the composition of the faunal and floral communities and the natural chemical and physical characteristics, and on chemical status which, in the context of the Directive, refers to a number of specified toxic and/or bioaccumulative substances.  In the case of groundwaters ‘good status’ relates to the natural chemical composition of the water and to these same chemical substances as well as to quantitative status (i.e. the extent to which reserves are depleted by abstraction)” (EPA, 2005).

 

The Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council functional area falls within the Eastern RBD. The Final Characterisation Report for the ERBD Project was published in September 2005 and provides information on surface water and groundwater bodies. 

 

The functional area of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council falls within the Eastern RBD catchment. The Final Characterisation Report for the ERBD Project was published in September 2005 and provides information on surface water and groundwater bodies.  The River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) and Program of Measures (POM) associated with the WFD were adopted by this Council in October 2009.

 

The main objective of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EC) is to achieve ‘good status’ in all our waters by 2015. The River Basin Management Plan and Program of Measures (POM) associated with the WFD were adopted by this County Council in October 2009. A critical element in the POM is the proper management of septic tank discharges.

 

In May 2008 Groundwater, Hydrological & Environmental Consultants (Eugene Daly and Associates) were requested to undertake a feasibility study for the scope of investigations required to determine the potential impact of proposed un-sewered housing development on groundwater and surface water quality in the Rathmichael/Ferndale area. The Consultants reported on their initial findings in November 2008.

 

Following a further period of water sampling and analyses, the Consultant issued a ‘Final Interim Report’ in May 2010, which recommended a course of action for dealing with future planning applications in the general Rathmichael/Ferndale area and in the Crinken Stream catchment.

 

Circular Letter PSSP 1/10 (DoEHLG) dated 5th January 2010 advised Local Authorities of arrangements with regards to their assessment obligations in respect of on-site wastewater disposal systems for single houses and referenced the EPA Code of Practice on Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems serving Single Houses (October 2009).

 

The Circular highlighted three key requirements of the Code of Practice that Planning Authorities must take on board in discharging their functions under planning legislation. Of relevance to the Crinken catchment is the need to effect:

 

“A thorough site assessment, in accordance with the Code of practice, in the case of every relevant development proposal considered by planning authorities, taking account of not only conditions specific to the proposed site as reported by the applicant in a site suitability assessment but also the planning authority’s wider experience and knowledge of the area in relation to patterns of development, experience with existing on-site systems in the area and the provisions of the Development Plan.”

 

In relation to this particular requirement the Circular states that:

 

“Planning Authorities should ensure that: …all sites for development in unsewered areas will be rigorously assessed in compliance with the EPA Code of Practice and taking account of the cumulative effects of multiple developments in such areas.”

 

The Circular also goes on to state:

 

In assessing relevant planning applications, notwithstanding the fact that a given site may be in a position to comply with the Code of Practice, it is also a matter for the planning authority to take into account in its assessment and decision-making as to whether or not to consider wider planning and water quality issues which have not been addressed adequately in the information submitted with the planning application. Such wider planning issues may, inter alia, include the concentration of on-site wastewater treatment systems in an area, the availability or otherwise of public water supplies, reliance on wells, the likelihood of the area being serviced by municipal wastewater collection and treatment systems in the near future and the risk of the deterioration of surface and/or groundwater quality due to vulnerability of such waters. Planning authorities should adopt a precautionary approach and not approve any development where concerns in relation to the matters above have not been adequately addressed.”

 

Since October 2010, and in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Council Commissioned Eugene Daly Report and the contents of Circular Letter PSSP 1/10, it has been the policy of the Council’s Water Services Department to issue recommendations of refusal for any new development proposals which include an on-site wastewater treatment facility within the Crinken Stream catchment west of the M11. Proposals for change of use of, or alteration to or extension of, existing approved developments within these areas involving on-site wastewater treatment facilities are assessed in the context of there being no further potential deterioration of ground or surface waters.

 

The above position was reviewed internally within the Council’s Water Services in July 2014 and a decision was made to continue with this policy pending a further review.

 

In June 2015 Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council appointed Aqua GeoServices to  review the Eugene Daly Associates report (2010), to scope the extent of work and/or further studies that would be required to enable Water Services to complete the evolution of current policy in determining the potential impact of proposed developments on the receiving waters (surface water and groundwater) in relation to new applications for un-sewered development in the Rathmichael (Crinken Stream Catchment) area.

 

Aqua GeoServices submitted a comprehensive report in November 2015.

 

The Report concluded that:

 

“The Rathmichael area lies between the Shanganagh Water Body and the Dargle Water Body.  Both the Shanganagh Water Body and the Dargle River Body are classified as being “at risk of not achieving good status” from diffuse sources of pollution. The Rathmichael stream is ranked as ‘unassigned’ as it is not currently being monitored by the EPA. Being situated between two River bodies currently at risk, the Rathmichael/Crinken stream is also likely to be at risk itself.

 

The results of the surface water monitoring carried out to date by Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council shows that the surface water is generally of moderate quality.  Some of the key physico-chemical parameters (Ammonia, BOD and Orthophosphate) of the Rathmichael/Crinken stream (and its tributaries) would fail to achieve “Good status” as per the WFD requirements along most of its course.

 

Ammonium and Orthophosphates (Molybdate Reactive Phosphorous) are two of the key pollution indicators for surface water bodies. In particular, Orthophosphate is regarded as the key limiting nutrient that causes eutrophication in rivers. Their elevated levels associated with elevated averaged Nitrites values indicate that an organic/nutrient enrichment takes place in the water. The microbiological results also showed high levels of Total Coliforms and E.Coli. This suggests that there is a widespread issue across the catchment area draining AREAS Ib, II and III of the Rathmichael/Crinken stream, which could be due to a number of factors such as:

 

·         Local land use (grazed land, forestry, golf course etc.).

·         Impact from residential development (poorly sited, designed and/or constructed wastewater treatment systems but also misconnections from dishwasher/washing machines).

 

This may also be exacerbated by a combination of:

 

1.    A higher density of unsewered residences in the aforementioned AREAs.

2.    The presence of outcropping/subcropping tight bedrock with steep slopes to the west of the catchment area, thus limiting percolation and favouring surface water runoff.

3.    The presence of well-drained soils overlying low permeability Irish Sea-Derived Till to the east of the catchment area, again favouring surface water runoff.

 

Information regarding the water quality of the bedrock aquifers underlying the study area is almost non-existent. No groundwater quality monitoring is currently taking place within the study area. The status of the underlying Groundwater Body does not rely on in-situ data for the area either.

 

Except for Quarry Road, drinking water supply is provided locally by water mains. Residents living on the upper ground of Quarry Road all rely on their own domestic water supplies. Given that the aquifer vulnerability is ranked from High to X (bedrock at or near surface) within most of AREA Ib, AREA II & AREA III, there is a high potential for the contaminants highlighted in the surface water monitoring to adversely impact the groundwater quality in these AREAs.

 

Based on the results of AGS’s desk study and the analytical results of the surface water quality monitoring undertaken to date, AGS concur with the conclusions provided in the EDA interim report (E09-03B dated 25/05/2010) as they relate to AREAs Ib, II and III.

 

As a precautionary measure to protect water and human health and avoid any further deterioration of the surface water quality, AGS recommend that any prohibition of un-sewered development should be limited to AREAs Ib, II and III as delineated in the present report (Cf. Figure 3) and should remain in force until and unless the results of the recommended investigations determine otherwise.

 

Regarding AREA Ia and AREA IV, there is currently insufficient evidence to warrant an outright prohibition of un-sewered developments on groundwater or surface water grounds. However, further investigations will be warranted to substantiate any potential impact on groundwater and/or surface water grounds. Any proposal within these two areas shall be subject to rigorous site investigations that are conducted in line with the EPA (2009) Code of Practice for any new planning applications for single houses.”

 

The contents and recommendations of the  Aqua GeoServices (AGS)  report “Assessment of potential impacts of new developments on receiving waters in the upper catchment area of the Rathmichael/Crinken Stream” dated 4th November 2015, have been considered and accepted by Municipal Services Section and, in accordance with those  recommendations, it is now the policy of the water Services Section to issue  recommendations of refusals for any new development proposals  which include an on-site wastewater treatment facility within the Rathmichael/Crinken Stream catchment area in areas Ib, II, and III detailed in the AGS report and shown on Drawing No.DLR-WS-11-01-15.

 

Proposals for change of use of, or alteration to or extension of, existing approved developments within these areas involving on-site wastewater treatment facilities will be assessed in the context of there being no further potential deterioration of ground or surface waters.

 

In areas Ia and IV, detailed in the AGS report, and shown Drawing No. DLR-WS-11-01-15 there is is currently insufficient evidence to warrant an outright prohibition of un-sewered developments, on groundwater or surface water grounds. However, further investigations will be warranted to substantiate any potential impact on groundwater and/or surface water grounds. Any proposal within these two areas shall be subject to rigorous site investigations that are conducted in line with the EPA (2009) Code of Practice for Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems Serving Single Houses.

 

A comprehensive assessment of groundwater quality within the catchment requires an understanding of the whole groundwater system within the catchment and it is through development of the understanding of the overall groundwater system that progress towards sustainable management of the groundwater resource can be achieved. In conjunction with on-going monitoring of surface water quality it is therefore of critical importance that groundwater quality is monitored within the catchment

 

Aqua GeoServices’s report has identified the most suitable locations for groundwater monitoring however most of such locations are located in private lands. Therefore, assistance from private landowners in allowing monitoring boreholes to be drilled within their property (or to provide such boreholes themselves) will be key to developing the proper understanding of the overall groundwater system in the catchment.

 

Having regard to:

 

·         The Council’s legal obligations under the EC Water Framework Directive

·         The evidence and recommendations presented in the initial hydrological consultant’s report (May 2010)

·         The Circular letter PSSP 1/10 advising a precautionary approach to additional development in areas of groundwater vulnerability

·         The evidence and recommendations presented in the follow-up hydrological consultant’s report (November 2015), specifically indicating high levels of total coliforms and e.coli at surface water test sites

·         The presence of domestic water supplies at risk from contamination

·         The reassessment of the analytical results within the various AREAs of the study  

 

The Chief Executive recommends that, pending the outcome of further water quality investigations, including the necessary Groundwater monitoring, and in accordance with the precautionary approach, that SLO No. 126 and associated Policy EI23 be reinstated. However, the geographical extent of the area should also be amended to incorporate the findings of the Aqua GeoServices’s Report, in restricting development to AREAS Ib, II, and III detailed in the AGS report and shown on Drawing No.DLR-WS-11-01-15 (Please see Drawing No. PL-16-007 contained within Section 4 (d) of the Chief Executive’s Report), and that the amended SLO be reinstated on Maps 10, 13 and 14 of the Draft Plan.

 

It should be noted that the overall area covered by the red line boundary will be reduced as a result of these proposed amendments.

 

Recommendation

Reinstate SLO No. 126 within Section 9: Specific Local Objectives, to read as follows:

 

To refuse planning permission for any new developments which include on-site wastewater treatment facilities within this catchment, until the groundwater issues in the area are resolved or ameliorated.”

 

Amend Proposed Mapping Change No. 57 by reinstating the newly amended boundary of SLO No. 126 - on Maps 10, 13 and 14 - in accordance with the findings of the Aqua GeoServices Report to Areas Ib, II and III detailed in the AGS Report and shown on Drawing No. PL-16-007 contained within Section 4(d) of the Chief Executive’s Report.

 

Reinstate Policy EI23: Rathmichael Ground and Surface Water Protection to read as follows:

 

“Policy EI23: Rathmichael Ground and Surface Water Protection

It is Council policy to refuse planning permission for any new developments which include an on-site wastewater treatment facility within the Rathmichael area until the groundwater issues in the area are resolved or ameliorated (See SLO No. 126 Maps 10, 13 and 14).

 

This policy will be implemented through the Development Management process through the refusal of planning permission for any new developments - which include an on-site wastewater treatment facility – within the Rathmichael area (See SLO No. 126 Maps 10, 13 and 14 for the boundary of this area). This policy is necessitated due to the potential impact of un-sewered developments on groundwater and surface water quality and also on the ability of the Council to meet its obligations under the Water

Framework Directive.

 

Proposals for change of use, or alteration to, or extension of, existing approved developments within these areas involving on-site wastewater treatment facilities will be assessed in the context of there being no potential deterioration of ground or surface waters””.

 

The above recommendation on Page 154 - 161 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

97.

Page 161 - 169 Map 13 i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

i)     Submissions urge the re-instatement of Policy EI23 and SLO No. 126 relating to the protection of ground and surface water in Rathmichael. The submissions strongly urge the reinstatement of said policy/objective for a number of reasons including:

 

·         The reasons set out in the Chief Executive’s Report on the Draft Plan.

·         The potential negative impact of unsewered developments on groundwater and surface water quality due to the existing high density of on-site wastewater treatment facilities in the area

·         The Council’s requirements to meet its obligations under the Water Framework Directive.

·         The potential negative impact on water quality, local biodiversity and its environment.

·         The removal of the Policy is not in accordance with the ‘precautionary principle’ pending the outcome of further ground/surface water investigations and monitoring.

·         The omission of the Policy and SLO would have the effect of altering the basis of the Draft Plan for this area.

·         The motives underpinning the decisions of Councillor’s against all the objective evidence presented by the Chief Executive and others does not stand up to scrutiny.

·         The decision is in favour of individual landowners as opposed to the ‘greater good’.

 

Text Box: This item has already been dealt with under Part 2(a) (i)”
 

 

 

 


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

 

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

 

The Chief Executive wishes to add some context to the issue raised within the submission and, indeed, the origins of SLO No. 126.

 

The purpose of SLO No. 126 is to ensure there is no further degradation of groundwater and surface water quality within the Rathmichael/Ferndale area and to requirements on the Council to meet its obligations under the Water Framework Directive. In this regard, SLO No. 126 states:

 

To refuse planning permission for any new developments which include on-site wastewater treatment facilities within this catchment, until the groundwater issues in the area are resolved or ameliorated.”

 

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) applies to rivers, lakes, groundwater and coastal waters and requires a co-ordinated approach to water management, which in Ireland is being undertaken in hydrological units termed River Basin Districts (RBDs). 

 

The principal objective of the Directive is the achievement of “good status”, for all waters by 2015. The WFD was transposed into Irish law by the European Communities (Water Policy) Regulations 2003 (S.I. 722 of 2003) in December 2003. 

 

The objectives set out for groundwater within the WFD, are as follows:

 

Ø  “To achieve ‘good status’ for all groundwater by 2015.  Good groundwater status is the status achieved by a groundwater body when both its quantitative status and its chemical status are at least ‘good’.

Ø  To reverse any significant and sustained upward trend in concentration of any pollutant resulting from the impact of human activity”.

 

The EC Groundwater Directive is a ‘Daughter Directive’ of the WFD and provides for the protection of groundwater against pollution.  It includes criteria for good groundwater chemical status.

 

The WFD…. is concerned, inter alia, with the protection of the aquatic ecosystem per se or, where necessary, its restoration, to achieve conditions (good status) in all waters which are only slightly degraded from those of the natural or reference state.  The definition of ‘good status’ in the case of surface waters is based on both ecological status, i.e. the composition of the faunal and floral communities and the natural chemical and physical characteristics, and on chemical status which, in the context of the Directive, refers to a number of specified toxic and/or bioaccumulative substances.  In the case of groundwaters ‘good status’ relates to the natural chemical composition of the water and to these same chemical substances as well as to quantitative status (i.e. the extent to which reserves are depleted by abstraction)” (EPA, 2005).

 

The Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council functional area falls within the Eastern RBD. The Final Characterisation Report for the ERBD Project was published in September 2005 and provides information on surface water and groundwater bodies. 

 

The functional area of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council falls within the Eastern RBD catchment. The Final Characterisation Report for the ERBD Project was published in September 2005 and provides information on surface water and groundwater bodies.  The River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) and Program of Measures (POM) associated with the WFD were adopted by this Council in October 2009.

 

The main objective of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EC) is to achieve ‘good status’ in all our waters by 2015. The River Basin Management Plan and Program of Measures (POM) associated with the WFD were adopted by this County Council in October 2009. A critical element in the POM is the proper management of septic tank discharges.

 

In May 2008 Groundwater, Hydrological & Environmental Consultants (Eugene Daly and Associates) were requested to undertake a feasibility study for the scope of investigations required to determine the potential impact of proposed un-sewered housing development on groundwater and surface water quality in the Rathmichael/Ferndale area. The Consultants reported on their initial findings in November 2008.

 

Following a further period of water sampling and analyses, the Consultant issued a ‘Final Interim Report’ in May 2010, which recommended a course of action for dealing with future planning applications in the general Rathmichael/Ferndale area and in the Crinken Stream catchment.

 

Circular Letter PSSP 1/10 (DoEHLG) dated 5th January 2010 advised Local Authorities of arrangements with regards to their assessment obligations in respect of on-site wastewater disposal systems for single houses and referenced the EPA Code of Practice on Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems serving Single Houses (October 2009).

 

The Circular highlighted three key requirements of the Code of Practice that Planning Authorities must take on board in discharging their functions under planning legislation. Of relevance to the Crinken catchment is the need to effect:

 

“A thorough site assessment, in accordance with the Code of practice, in the case of every relevant development proposal considered by planning authorities, taking account of not only conditions specific to the proposed site as reported by the applicant in a site suitability assessment but also the planning authority’s wider experience and knowledge of the area in relation to patterns of development, experience with existing on-site systems in the area and the provisions of the Development Plan.”

 

In relation to this particular requirement the Circular states that:

 

“Planning Authorities should ensure that: …all sites for development in unsewered areas will be rigorously assessed in compliance with the EPA Code of Practice and taking account of the cumulative effects of multiple developments in such areas.”

 

The Circular also goes on to state:

 

In assessing relevant planning applications, notwithstanding the fact that a given site may be in a position to comply with the Code of Practice, it is also a matter for the planning authority to take into account in its assessment and decision-making as to whether or not to consider wider planning and water quality issues which have not been addressed adequately in the information submitted with the planning application. Such wider planning issues may, inter alia, include the concentration of on-site wastewater treatment systems in an area, the availability or otherwise of public water supplies, reliance on wells, the likelihood of the area being serviced by municipal wastewater collection and treatment systems in the near future and the risk of the deterioration of surface and/or groundwater quality due to vulnerability of such waters. Planning authorities should adopt a precautionary approach and not approve any development where concerns in relation to the matters above have not been adequately addressed.”

 

Since October 2010, and in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Council Commissioned Eugene Daly Report and the contents of Circular Letter PSSP 1/10, it has been the policy of the Council’s Water Services Department to issue recommendations of refusal for any new development proposals which include an on-site wastewater treatment facility within the Crinken Stream catchment west of the M11. Proposals for change of use of, or alteration to or extension of, existing approved developments within these areas involving on-site wastewater treatment facilities are assessed in the context of there being no further potential deterioration of ground or surface waters.

 

The above position was reviewed internally within the Council’s Water Services in July 2014 and a decision was made to continue with this policy pending a further review.

 

In June 2015 Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council appointed Aqua GeoServices to  review the Eugene Daly Associates report (2010), to scope the extent of work and/or further studies that would be required to enable Water Services to complete the evolution of current policy in determining the potential impact of proposed developments on the receiving waters (surface water and groundwater) in relation to new applications for un-sewered development in the Rathmichael (Crinken Stream Catchment) area.

 

Aqua GeoServices submitted a comprehensive report in November 2015.

 

The Report concluded that:

 

“The Rathmichael area lies between the Shanganagh Water Body and the Dargle Water Body.  Both the Shanganagh Water Body and the Dargle River Body are classified as being “at risk of not achieving good status” from diffuse sources of pollution. The Rathmichael stream is ranked as ‘unassigned’ as it is not currently being monitored by the EPA. Being situated between two River bodies currently at risk, the Rathmichael/Crinken stream is also likely to be at risk itself.

 

The results of the surface water monitoring carried out to date by Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council shows that the surface water is generally of moderate quality.  Some of the key physico-chemical parameters (Ammonia, BOD and Orthophosphate) of the Rathmichael/Crinken stream (and its tributaries) would fail to achieve “Good status” as per the WFD requirements along most of its course.

 

Ammonium and Orthophosphates (Molybdate Reactive Phosphorous) are two of the key pollution indicators for surface water bodies. In particular, Orthophosphate is regarded as the key limiting nutrient that causes eutrophication in rivers. Their elevated levels associated with elevated averaged Nitrites values indicate that an organic/nutrient enrichment takes place in the water. The microbiological results also showed high levels of Total Coliforms and E.Coli. This suggests that there is a widespread issue across the catchment area draining AREAS Ib, II and III of the Rathmichael/Crinken stream, which could be due to a number of factors such as:

 

·         Local land use (grazed land, forestry, golf course etc.).

·         Impact from residential development (poorly sited, designed and/or constructed wastewater treatment systems but also misconnections from dishwasher/washing machines).

 

This may also be exacerbated by a combination of:

 

1.    A higher density of unsewered residences in the aforementioned AREAs.

2.    The presence of outcropping/subcropping tight bedrock with steep slopes to the west of the catchment area, thus limiting percolation and favouring surface water runoff.

3.    The presence of well-drained soils overlying low permeability Irish Sea-Derived Till to the east of the catchment area, again favouring surface water runoff.

 

Information regarding the water quality of the bedrock aquifers underlying the study area is almost non-existent. No groundwater quality monitoring is currently taking place within the study area. The status of the underlying Groundwater Body does not rely on in-situ data for the area either.

 

Except for Quarry Road, drinking water supply is provided locally by water mains. Residents living on the upper ground of Quarry Road all rely on their own domestic water supplies. Given that the aquifer vulnerability is ranked from High to X (bedrock at or near surface) within most of AREA Ib, AREA II & AREA III, there is a high potential for the contaminants highlighted in the surface water monitoring to adversely impact the groundwater quality in these AREAs.

 

Based on the results of AGS’s desk study and the analytical results of the surface water quality monitoring undertaken to date, AGS concur with the conclusions provided in the EDA interim report (E09-03B dated 25/05/2010) as they relate to AREAs Ib, II and III.

 

As a precautionary measure to protect water and human health and avoid any further deterioration of the surface water quality, AGS recommend that any prohibition of un-sewered development should be limited to AREAs Ib, II and III as delineated in the present report (Cf. Figure 3) and should remain in force until and unless the results of the recommended investigations determine otherwise.

 

Regarding AREA Ia and AREA IV, there is currently insufficient evidence to warrant an outright prohibition of un-sewered developments on groundwater or surface water grounds. However, further investigations will be warranted to substantiate any potential impact on groundwater and/or surface water grounds. Any proposal within these two areas shall be subject to rigorous site investigations that are conducted in line with the EPA (2009) Code of Practice for any new planning applications for single houses.”

 

The contents and recommendations of the  Aqua GeoServices (AGS)  report “Assessment of potential impacts of new developments on receiving waters in the upper catchment area of the Rathmichael/Crinken Stream” dated 4th November 2015, have been considered and accepted by Municipal Services Section and, in accordance with those  recommendations, it is now the policy of the water Services Section to issue  recommendations of refusals for any new development proposals  which include an on-site wastewater treatment facility within the Rathmichael/Crinken Stream catchment area in areas Ib, II, and III detailed in the AGS report and shown on Drawing No.DLR-WS-11-01-15.

 

Proposals for change of use of, or alteration to or extension of, existing approved developments within these areas involving on-site wastewater treatment facilities will be assessed in the context of there being no further potential deterioration of ground or surface waters.

 

In areas Ia and IV, detailed in the AGS report, and shown Drawing No. DLR-WS-11-01-15 there is is currently insufficient evidence to warrant an outright prohibition of un-sewered developments, on groundwater or surface water grounds. However, further investigations will be warranted to substantiate any potential impact on groundwater and/or surface water grounds. Any proposal within these two areas shall be subject to rigorous site investigations that are conducted in line with the EPA (2009) Code of Practice for Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems Serving Single Houses.

 

A comprehensive assessment of groundwater quality within the catchment requires an understanding of the whole groundwater system within the catchment and it is through development of the understanding of the overall groundwater system that progress towards sustainable management of the groundwater resource can be achieved. In conjunction with on-going monitoring of surface water quality it is therefore of critical importance that groundwater quality is monitored within the catchment

 

Aqua GeoServices’s report has identified the most suitable locations for groundwater monitoring however most of such locations are located in private lands. Therefore, assistance from private landowners in allowing monitoring boreholes to be drilled within their property (or to provide such boreholes themselves) will be key to developing the proper understanding of the overall groundwater system in the catchment.

 

Having regard to:

 

·         The Council’s legal obligations under the EC Water Framework Directive

·         The evidence and recommendations presented in the initial hydrological consultant’s report (May 2010)

·         The Circular letter PSSP 1/10 advising a precautionary approach to additional development in areas of groundwater vulnerability

·         The evidence and recommendations presented in the follow-up hydrological consultant’s report (November 2015), specifically indicating high levels of total coliforms and e.coli at surface water test sites

·         The presence of domestic water supplies at risk from contamination

·         The reassessment of the analytical results within the various AREAs of the study  

 

The Chief Executive recommends that, pending the outcome of further water quality investigations, including the necessary Groundwater monitoring, and in accordance with the precautionary approach, that SLO No. 126 and associated Policy EI23 be reinstated. However, the geographical extent of the area should also be amended to incorporate the findings of the Aqua GeoServices’s Report, in restricting development to AREAS Ib, II, and III detailed in the AGS report and shown on Drawing No.DLR-WS-11-01-15 (Please see Drawing No. PL-16-007 contained within Section 4 (d) of the Chief Executive’s Report), and that the amended SLO be reinstated on Maps 10, 13 and 14 of the Draft Plan.

 

It should be noted that the overall area covered by the red line boundary will be reduced as a result of these proposed amendments.

 

Recommendation

Reinstate SLO No. 126 within Section 9: Specific Local Objectives, to read as follows:

 

To refuse planning permission for any new developments which include on-site wastewater treatment facilities within this catchment, until the groundwater issues in the area are resolved or ameliorated.”

 

Amend Proposed Mapping Change No. 57 by reinstating the newly amended boundary of SLO No. 126 - on Maps 10, 13 and 14 - in accordance with the findings of the Aqua GeoServices Report to Areas Ib, II and III detailed in the AGS Report and shown on Drawing No. PL-16-007 contained within Section 4(d) of the Chief Executive’s Report.

 

Reinstate Policy EI23: Rathmichael Ground and Surface Water Protection to read as follows:

 

“Policy EI23: Rathmichael Ground and Surface Water Protection

It is Council policy to refuse planning permission for any new developments which include an on-site wastewater treatment facility within the Rathmichael area until the groundwater issues in the area are resolved or ameliorated (See SLO No. 126 Maps 10, 13 and 14).

 

This policy will be implemented through the Development Management process through the refusal of planning permission for any new developments - which include an on-site wastewater treatment facility – within the Rathmichael area (See SLO No. 126 Maps 10, 13 and 14 for the boundary of this area). This policy is necessitated due to the potential impact of un-sewered developments on groundwater and surface water quality and also on the ability of the Council to meet its obligations under the Water

Framework Directive.

 

Proposals for change of use, or alteration to, or extension of, existing approved developments within these areas involving on-site wastewater treatment facilities will be assessed in the context of there being no potential deterioration of ground or surface waters””.

 

The above recommendation on Pages 161 - 169 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

98.

Page 169 - 170 Map 14 i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

i)”Submission from Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) stating that the inclusion of SLO. No 163 – relating to the provision of a pedestrian corridor connecting Cois Cairn to the Dublin Road - has the potential to adversely impact on the operation of the National road network and is premature pending the adoption of the amended SLO. No. 56”.

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of the submissions.

 

To offer some context, SLO No. 163 states,

 

“To facilitate the provision of a pedestrian corridor connecting Cois Cairn to the Dublin Road, in conjunction with the development of the Council owned ‘E’ zoned lands and the upgrading of the Wilford Interchange”.

 

SLO No. 56 states,

 

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

 

The Chief Executive recognises the importance of both the potential upgrading of the Wilford Interchange, and the provision of a pedestrian corridor linking Cois Cairn to the Dublin Road.

 

The Chief Executive agrees with TII, that the provision of a pedestrian link - as proposed within SLO No. 163 - cannot have a negative impact on the potential upgrading of the Wilford Interchange, which is considered vital in terms of ensuring the safety and carrying capacity of the National road network is protected.

 

In this regard, it is considered that the wording of SLO No. 163 should be amended and strengthened to ensure the provision of a pedestrian corridor from Cois Cairn to the Dublin Road is informed by the outcome of the NRA’s on-going Corridor Studies.

 

Recommendation

Amend SLO No. 163 to read as follows

From:

 

SLO No. 163:

“To facilitate the provision of a pedestrian corridor connecting Cois Cairn to the Dublin Road, in conjunction with the development of the Council owned ‘E’ zoned lands and the upgrading of the Wilford Interchange”.

 

To:

SLO No. 163:

To facilitate the provision of a pedestrian corridor connecting Cois Cairn to the Dublin Road, in conjunction with the development of the Council owned ‘E’ zoned lands and the upgrading of the Wilford Interchange, with any such improvements to be informed by the outcome of the TII’s on-going Corridor Studies””

 

The above recommendation on Pages 169 – 170 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

99.

Page 170 - 178 Map 14 ii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

i)     Submissions urge the re-instatement of Policy EI23 and SLO No. 126 relating to the protection of ground and surface water in Rathmichael. The submissions strongly urge the reinstatement of said policy/objective for a number of reasons including:

 

·         The reasons set out in the Chief Executive’s Report on the Draft Plan.

·         The potential negative impact of unsewered developments on groundwater and surface water quality due to the existing high density of on-site wastewater treatment facilities in the area

·         The Council’s requirements to meet its obligations under the Water Framework Directive.

·         The potential negative impact on water quality, local biodiversity and its environment.

·         The removal of the Policy is not in accordance with the ‘precautionary principle’ pending the outcome of further ground/surface water investigations and monitoring.

·         The omission of the Policy and SLO would have the effect of altering the basis of the Draft Plan for this area.

·         The motives underpinning the decisions of Councillor’s against all the objective evidence presented by the Chief Executive and others does not stand up to scrutiny.

·         The decision is in favour of individual landowners as opposed to the ‘greater good’.

Text Box: This item has already been dealt with under Part 2(a) (i)”
 

 

 

 

 

 


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

 

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

 

The Chief Executive wishes to add some context to the issue raised within the submission and, indeed, the origins of SLO No. 126.

 

The purpose of SLO No. 126 is to ensure there is no further degradation of groundwater and surface water quality within the Rathmichael/Ferndale area and to requirements on the Council to meet its obligations under the Water Framework Directive. In this regard, SLO No. 126 states:

 

To refuse planning permission for any new developments which include on-site wastewater treatment facilities within this catchment, until the groundwater issues in the area are resolved or ameliorated.”

 

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) applies to rivers, lakes, groundwater and coastal waters and requires a co-ordinated approach to water management, which in Ireland is being undertaken in hydrological units termed River Basin Districts (RBDs). 

 

The principal objective of the Directive is the achievement of “good status”, for all waters by 2015. The WFD was transposed into Irish law by the European Communities (Water Policy) Regulations 2003 (S.I. 722 of 2003) in December 2003. 

 

The objectives set out for groundwater within the WFD, are as follows:

 

Ø  “To achieve ‘good status’ for all groundwater by 2015.  Good groundwater status is the status achieved by a groundwater body when both its quantitative status and its chemical status are at least ‘good’.

Ø  To reverse any significant and sustained upward trend in concentration of any pollutant resulting from the impact of human activity”.

 

The EC Groundwater Directive is a ‘Daughter Directive’ of the WFD and provides for the protection of groundwater against pollution.  It includes criteria for good groundwater chemical status.

 

The WFD…. is concerned, inter alia, with the protection of the aquatic ecosystem per se or, where necessary, its restoration, to achieve conditions (good status) in all waters which are only slightly degraded from those of the natural or reference state.  The definition of ‘good status’ in the case of surface waters is based on both ecological status, i.e. the composition of the faunal and floral communities and the natural chemical and physical characteristics, and on chemical status which, in the context of the Directive, refers to a number of specified toxic and/or bioaccumulative substances.  In the case of groundwaters ‘good status’ relates to the natural chemical composition of the water and to these same chemical substances as well as to quantitative status (i.e. the extent to which reserves are depleted by abstraction)” (EPA, 2005).

 

The Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council functional area falls within the Eastern RBD. The Final Characterisation Report for the ERBD Project was published in September 2005 and provides information on surface water and groundwater bodies. 

 

The functional area of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council falls within the Eastern RBD catchment. The Final Characterisation Report for the ERBD Project was published in September 2005 and provides information on surface water and groundwater bodies.  The River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) and Program of Measures (POM) associated with the WFD were adopted by this Council in October 2009.

 

The main objective of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EC) is to achieve ‘good status’ in all our waters by 2015. The River Basin Management Plan and Program of Measures (POM) associated with the WFD were adopted by this County Council in October 2009. A critical element in the POM is the proper management of septic tank discharges.

 

In May 2008 Groundwater, Hydrological & Environmental Consultants (Eugene Daly and Associates) were requested to undertake a feasibility study for the scope of investigations required to determine the potential impact of proposed un-sewered housing development on groundwater and surface water quality in the Rathmichael/Ferndale area. The Consultants reported on their initial findings in November 2008.

 

Following a further period of water sampling and analyses, the Consultant issued a ‘Final Interim Report’ in May 2010, which recommended a course of action for dealing with future planning applications in the general Rathmichael/Ferndale area and in the Crinken Stream catchment.

 

Circular Letter PSSP 1/10 (DoEHLG) dated 5th January 2010 advised Local Authorities of arrangements with regards to their assessment obligations in respect of on-site wastewater disposal systems for single houses and referenced the EPA Code of Practice on Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems serving Single Houses (October 2009).

 

The Circular highlighted three key requirements of the Code of Practice that Planning Authorities must take on board in discharging their functions under planning legislation. Of relevance to the Crinken catchment is the need to effect:

 

“A thorough site assessment, in accordance with the Code of practice, in the case of every relevant development proposal considered by planning authorities, taking account of not only conditions specific to the proposed site as reported by the applicant in a site suitability assessment but also the planning authority’s wider experience and knowledge of the area in relation to patterns of development, experience with existing on-site systems in the area and the provisions of the Development Plan.”

 

In relation to this particular requirement the Circular states that:

 

“Planning Authorities should ensure that: …all sites for development in unsewered areas will be rigorously assessed in compliance with the EPA Code of Practice and taking account of the cumulative effects of multiple developments in such areas.”

 

The Circular also goes on to state:

 

In assessing relevant planning applications, notwithstanding the fact that a given site may be in a position to comply with the Code of Practice, it is also a matter for the planning authority to take into account in its assessment and decision-making as to whether or not to consider wider planning and water quality issues which have not been addressed adequately in the information submitted with the planning application. Such wider planning issues may, inter alia, include the concentration of on-site wastewater treatment systems in an area, the availability or otherwise of public water supplies, reliance on wells, the likelihood of the area being serviced by municipal wastewater collection and treatment systems in the near future and the risk of the deterioration of surface and/or groundwater quality due to vulnerability of such waters. Planning authorities should adopt a precautionary approach and not approve any development where concerns in relation to the matters above have not been adequately addressed.”

 

Since October 2010, and in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Council Commissioned Eugene Daly Report and the contents of Circular Letter PSSP 1/10, it has been the policy of the Council’s Water Services Department to issue recommendations of refusal for any new development proposals which include an on-site wastewater treatment facility within the Crinken Stream catchment west of the M11. Proposals for change of use of, or alteration to or extension of, existing approved developments within these areas involving on-site wastewater treatment facilities are assessed in the context of there being no further potential deterioration of ground or surface waters.

 

The above position was reviewed internally within the Council’s Water Services in July 2014 and a decision was made to continue with this policy pending a further review.

 

In June 2015 Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council appointed Aqua GeoServices to  review the Eugene Daly Associates report (2010), to scope the extent of work and/or further studies that would be required to enable Water Services to complete the evolution of current policy in determining the potential impact of proposed developments on the receiving waters (surface water and groundwater) in relation to new applications for un-sewered development in the Rathmichael (Crinken Stream Catchment) area.

 

Aqua GeoServices submitted a comprehensive report in November 2015.

 

The Report concluded that:

 

“The Rathmichael area lies between the Shanganagh Water Body and the Dargle Water Body.  Both the Shanganagh Water Body and the Dargle River Body are classified as being “at risk of not achieving good status” from diffuse sources of pollution. The Rathmichael stream is ranked as ‘unassigned’ as it is not currently being monitored by the EPA. Being situated between two River bodies currently at risk, the Rathmichael/Crinken stream is also likely to be at risk itself.

 

The results of the surface water monitoring carried out to date by Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council shows that the surface water is generally of moderate quality.  Some of the key physico-chemical parameters (Ammonia, BOD and Orthophosphate) of the Rathmichael/Crinken stream (and its tributaries) would fail to achieve “Good status” as per the WFD requirements along most of its course.

 

Ammonium and Orthophosphates (Molybdate Reactive Phosphorous) are two of the key pollution indicators for surface water bodies. In particular, Orthophosphate is regarded as the key limiting nutrient that causes eutrophication in rivers. Their elevated levels associated with elevated averaged Nitrites values indicate that an organic/nutrient enrichment takes place in the water. The microbiological results also showed high levels of Total Coliforms and E.Coli. This suggests that there is a widespread issue across the catchment area draining AREAS Ib, II and III of the Rathmichael/Crinken stream, which could be due to a number of factors such as:

 

·         Local land use (grazed land, forestry, golf course etc.).

·         Impact from residential development (poorly sited, designed and/or constructed wastewater treatment systems but also misconnections from dishwasher/washing machines).

 

This may also be exacerbated by a combination of:

 

1.    A higher density of unsewered residences in the aforementioned AREAs.

2.    The presence of outcropping/subcropping tight bedrock with steep slopes to the west of the catchment area, thus limiting percolation and favouring surface water runoff.

3.    The presence of well-drained soils overlying low permeability Irish Sea-Derived Till to the east of the catchment area, again favouring surface water runoff.

 

Information regarding the water quality of the bedrock aquifers underlying the study area is almost non-existent. No groundwater quality monitoring is currently taking place within the study area. The status of the underlying Groundwater Body does not rely on in-situ data for the area either.

 

Except for Quarry Road, drinking water supply is provided locally by water mains. Residents living on the upper ground of Quarry Road all rely on their own domestic water supplies. Given that the aquifer vulnerability is ranked from High to X (bedrock at or near surface) within most of AREA Ib, AREA II & AREA III, there is a high potential for the contaminants highlighted in the surface water monitoring to adversely impact the groundwater quality in these AREAs.

 

Based on the results of AGS’s desk study and the analytical results of the surface water quality monitoring undertaken to date, AGS concur with the conclusions provided in the EDA interim report (E09-03B dated 25/05/2010) as they relate to AREAs Ib, II and III.

 

As a precautionary measure to protect water and human health and avoid any further deterioration of the surface water quality, AGS recommend that any prohibition of un-sewered development should be limited to AREAs Ib, II and III as delineated in the present report (Cf. Figure 3) and should remain in force until and unless the results of the recommended investigations determine otherwise.

 

Regarding AREA Ia and AREA IV, there is currently insufficient evidence to warrant an outright prohibition of un-sewered developments on groundwater or surface water grounds. However, further investigations will be warranted to substantiate any potential impact on groundwater and/or surface water grounds. Any proposal within these two areas shall be subject to rigorous site investigations that are conducted in line with the EPA (2009) Code of Practice for any new planning applications for single houses.”

 

The contents and recommendations of the  Aqua GeoServices (AGS)  report “Assessment of potential impacts of new developments on receiving waters in the upper catchment area of the Rathmichael/Crinken Stream” dated 4th November 2015, have been considered and accepted by Municipal Services Section and, in accordance with those  recommendations, it is now the policy of the water Services Section to issue  recommendations of refusals for any new development proposals  which include an on-site wastewater treatment facility within the Rathmichael/Crinken Stream catchment area in areas Ib, II, and III detailed in the AGS report and shown on Drawing No.DLR-WS-11-01-15.

 

Proposals for change of use of, or alteration to or extension of, existing approved developments within these areas involving on-site wastewater treatment facilities will be assessed in the context of there being no further potential deterioration of ground or surface waters.

 

In areas Ia and IV, detailed in the AGS report, and shown Drawing No. DLR-WS-11-01-15 there is is currently insufficient evidence to warrant an outright prohibition of un-sewered developments, on groundwater or surface water grounds. However, further investigations will be warranted to substantiate any potential impact on groundwater and/or surface water grounds. Any proposal within these two areas shall be subject to rigorous site investigations that are conducted in line with the EPA (2009) Code of Practice for Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems Serving Single Houses.

 

A comprehensive assessment of groundwater quality within the catchment requires an understanding of the whole groundwater system within the catchment and it is through development of the understanding of the overall groundwater system that progress towards sustainable management of the groundwater resource can be achieved. In conjunction with on-going monitoring of surface water quality it is therefore of critical importance that groundwater quality is monitored within the catchment

 

Aqua GeoServices’s report has identified the most suitable locations for groundwater monitoring however most of such locations are located in private lands. Therefore, assistance from private landowners in allowing monitoring boreholes to be drilled within their property (or to provide such boreholes themselves) will be key to developing the proper understanding of the overall groundwater system in the catchment.

 

Having regard to:

 

·         The Council’s legal obligations under the EC Water Framework Directive

·         The evidence and recommendations presented in the initial hydrological consultant’s report (May 2010)

·         The Circular letter PSSP 1/10 advising a precautionary approach to additional development in areas of groundwater vulnerability

·         The evidence and recommendations presented in the follow-up hydrological consultant’s report (November 2015), specifically indicating high levels of total coliforms and e.coli at surface water test sites

·         The presence of domestic water supplies at risk from contamination

·         The reassessment of the analytical results within the various AREAs of the study  

 

The Chief Executive recommends that, pending the outcome of further water quality investigations, including the necessary Groundwater monitoring, and in accordance with the precautionary approach, that SLO No. 126 and associated Policy EI23 be reinstated. However, the geographical extent of the area should also be amended to incorporate the findings of the Aqua GeoServices’s Report, in restricting development to AREAS Ib, II, and III detailed in the AGS report and shown on Drawing No.DLR-WS-11-01-15 (Please see Drawing No. PL-16-007 contained within Section 4 (d) of the Chief Executive’s Report), and that the amended SLO be reinstated on Maps 10, 13 and 14 of the Draft Plan.

 

It should be noted that the overall area covered by the red line boundary will be reduced as a result of these proposed amendments.

 

Recommendation

Reinstate SLO No. 126 within Section 9: Specific Local Objectives, to read as follows:

 

To refuse planning permission for any new developments which include on-site wastewater treatment facilities within this catchment, until the groundwater issues in the area are resolved or ameliorated.”

 

Amend Proposed Mapping Change No. 57 by reinstating the newly amended boundary of SLO No. 126 - on Maps 10, 13 and 14 - in accordance with the findings of the Aqua GeoServices Report to Areas Ib, II and III detailed in the AGS Report and shown on Drawing No. PL-16-007 contained within Section 4(d) of the Chief Executive’s Report.

 

Reinstate Policy EI23: Rathmichael Ground and Surface Water Protection to read as follows:

 

“Policy EI23: Rathmichael Ground and Surface Water Protection

It is Council policy to refuse planning permission for any new developments which include an on-site wastewater treatment facility within the Rathmichael area until the groundwater issues in the area are resolved or ameliorated (See SLO No. 126 Maps 10, 13 and 14).

 

This policy will be implemented through the Development Management process through the refusal of planning permission for any new developments - which include an on-site wastewater treatment facility – within the Rathmichael area (See SLO No. 126 Maps 10, 13 and 14 for the boundary of this area). This policy is necessitated due to the potential impact of un-sewered developments on groundwater and surface water quality and also on the ability of the Council to meet its obligations under the Water

Framework Directive.

 

Proposals for change of use, or alteration to, or extension of, existing approved developments within these areas involving on-site wastewater treatment facilities will be assessed in the context of there being no potential deterioration of ground or surface waters”.

 

The above recommendation on Pages 170 - 178 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

100.

Page 178 Non-amendment related submissions i) - iii)

The Non-Amendment Related Submissions on Page 178 were NOTED.

 

 

Page 179 10 Strategic Environmental Assessment and Appropriate Assessment

101.

Page 181 10.1 Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

It was NOTED there were no amendments proposed under this heading.

 

 

102.

Page 183 - 184 10.2 Appropriate Assessment

It was NOTED there were no amendments proposed under this heading.

 

 

Pages 185 Appendices

103.

Pages 187 Appendix 2: Interim Housing Strategy i) & ii)

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 187 - 188 of the Chief Executives Report was CONSIDERED.

 

The Chief Executive’s Response & Recommendation on pages 187 - 188 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

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

104.

Motion No. 4 from the floor

It was proposed by Councillor C. Curran  and Councillor S.  Nic Cormaic  and AGREED to WITHDRAW Motion No.4 from the floor.

 

“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 building known as Countess Markievicz Cottage be afforded protection under Policy AR1: Record of Protected Structures”

 

 

105.

Pages 189 - 190 Recommendations for the addition of New Structures onto the Record of Protected Structures (RPS) i)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

i)”Submission states that the proposed addition of Harrow House to the Record of Protected Structures be rejected as a statutory notice period required under the provisions of Section 12(3) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended) has not been afforded to the owners of the property”.

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission.

 

The submission identifies and effectively ‘uncovers’ a heretofore unrecognised inconsistency and incompatibility between two interrelated sections of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 (as amended) in relation to:

 

(i) Section 12(3) which sets out, inter alia, statutory timeframes for the ratification of proposed additions to the Record of Protected Structures, and

(ii) Section 12(7) which sets out the statutory timeframes associated with the material alterations phase of the County Development Plan-making process.

 

Section 12(3) of the Act states:

 

“(a) Where the draft includes any provision relating to any addition to or deletion from the record of protected structures, the planning authority shall serve on each person who is the owner or occupier of the proposed protected structure or the protected structure, as the case may be, a notice of the proposed addition or deletion, including the particulars.

“(b) A notice under paragraph (a) shall state—

(i) that a copy of the proposed addition or deletion may be inspected at a stated place or places and at stated times during a stated period of not less than 10 weeks (and the copy shall be kept available for inspection accordingly)…”

 

Section 12(3) as quoted above was adhered to when the Draft Plan was prepared and initially went on display for the weeks between the 2nd March and the May 11th, 2015. A number of structures were proposed to be added to the RPS at that time and each of the owners/occupiers in question were duly notified.

 

Section 12(7) of the Act in relation to the statutory timeframes for subsequent material alterations phase states, inter alia:

 

“(a) A notice under paragraph (a) or (ac) (inserted by Section 9 of the Act (2010)) shall state that—

(i)   a copy of the proposed amendment of the draft development plan may be inspected at a stated place and at stated times during a stated period of not less than 4 weeks (and the copy shall be kept available for inspection accordingly), and

(ii)  written submissions or observations with respect to the proposed amendment of the draft made to the planning authority within the stated (4 weeks) period shall be taken into consideration before the making of any amendment.

 

The submission makes the argument that given the incompatibility of the two different timeframes above, the owners/occupiers of the property in question were not afforded the full time required as set out in Section 12(3) to make a submission in respect of the proposed additions to the RPS.

 

The unintended consequence of the incompatibility and inconsistency of the timeframes outlined above would suggest that additions to the RPS during the Development Plan process can only be properly incorporated at the first Draft Plan phase.

 

Having sought a legal opinion on this matter, the Law Agent is of the opinion that owners/occupiers of properties proposed for inclusion in the RPS must not only receive  the statutory notice for the planning authority but must also be afforded the 10 week period as prescribed in Section 12(3).  An addition not carried out strictly in accordance with Section 12(3) would not be lawful in the opinion of the Law Agent.  On foot of that opinion, the Chief Executive has no alternative but to remove the structure in question from the RPS.

 

Notwithstanding, as the building in question is considered worthy of inclusion onto the RPS the Planning Authority may seek, post-adoption of the County Plan, its addition to the RPS under the provisions of Section 54 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended).

 

Recommendation

Remove the following building from the record of protected Structures:

 

  • Harrow House, Church Road, Killiney

 

The above recommendation on Pages 189 - 190  of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

106.

Pages 190 - 192 Recommendations for the addition of New Structures onto the Record of Protected Structures (RPS) ii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

ii)“Submissions object to the following structures being included on the Record of Protected Structures:

 

a)    Eglinton House, (No.2) Eglinton Terrace, Dundrum

b)    Overton, Upper Kilmacud Road, Dundrum

c)    Eglinton Lodge, Eglinton Terrace, Dundrum

d)    Battery House, Sandycove Point

e)    Ivy Grove, (No.1) Eglinton Terrace, Dundrum

f)    The former Church of Ireland, School and Masters House at Eglinton/Taney Hall, Dundrum

g)    The Ramblers Rest Pub, Ballybrack

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

 

“The Chief Executive notes the contents of this submission.

 

The submission identifies and effectively ‘uncovers’ a heretofore unrecognised inconsistency and incompatibility between two interrelated sections of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 (as amended) in relation to:

 

(i) Section 12(3) which sets out, inter alia, statutory timeframes for the ratification of proposed additions to the Record of Protected Structures, and

(ii) Section 12(7) which sets out the statutory timeframes associated with the material alterations phase of the County Development Plan-making process.

 

Section 12(3) of the Act states:

 

“(a) Where the draft includes any provision relating to any addition to or deletion from the record of protected structures, the planning authority shall serve on each person who is the owner or occupier of the proposed protected structure or the protected structure, as the case may be, a notice of the proposed addition or deletion, including the particulars.

“(b) A notice under paragraph (a) shall state—

(i) that a copy of the proposed addition or deletion may be inspected at a stated place or places and at stated times during a stated period of not less than 10 weeks (and the copy shall be kept available for inspection accordingly)…”

 

Section 12(3) as quoted above was adhered to when the Draft Plan was prepared and initially went on display for the weeks between the 2nd March and the May 11th, 2015. A number of structures were proposed to be added to the RPS at that time and each of the owners/occupiers in question were duly notified.

 

Section 12(7) of the Act in relation to the statutory timeframes for subsequent material alterations phase states, inter alia:

 

“(a) A notice under paragraph (a) or (ac) (inserted by Section 9 of the Act (2010)) shall state that—

(i)   a copy of the proposed amendment of the draft development plan may be inspected at a stated place and at stated times during a stated period of not less than 4 weeks (and the copy shall be kept available for inspection accordingly), and

(ii)  written submissions or observations with respect to the proposed amendment of the draft made to the planning authority within the stated (4 weeks) period shall be taken into consideration before the making of any amendment.

 

The submission makes the argument that given the incompatibility of the two different timeframes above, the owners/occupiers of the property in question were not afforded the full time required as set out in Section 12(3) to make a submission in respect of the proposed additions to the RPS.

 

 The unintended consequence of the incompatibility and inconsistency of the timeframes outlined above would suggest that additions to the RPS during the Development Plan process can only be properly incorporated at the first Draft Plan phase.

 

Having sought a legal opinion on this matter, the Law Agent is of the opinion that owners/occupiers of properties proposed for inclusion in the RPS must not only receive  the statutory notice for the planning authority but must also be afforded the 10 week period as prescribed in Section 12(3).  An addition not carried out strictly in accordance with Section 12(3) would not be lawful in the opinion of the Law Agent.  On foot of that opinion, the Chief Executive has no alternative but to remove the structure in question from the RPS.

 

Notwithstanding, as the buildings in question are considered worthy of inclusion onto the RPS the Planning Authority may seek, post-adoption of the County Plan, their addition to the RPS under the provisions of Section 54 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended).

 

Recommendation

Remove the following buildings from the record of Protected Structures:

 

  • Eglinton House, (No.2) Eglinton Terrace, Dundrum
  • Overton, Upper Kilmacud Road, Dundrum
  • Herberton, Upper Kilmacud Road, Dundrum
  • Eglinton Lodge, Eglinton Terrace, Dundrum
  • Battery House, Sandycove Point
  • Ivy Grove, (No.1) Eglinton Terrace, Dundrum
  • Eglinton House (No.2) Eglinton Terrace
  • The former Church of Ireland, Eglinton/Taney Hall, Dundrum
  • School and Masters House at Eglinton/Taney Hall, Dundrum
  • The Ramblers Rest Pub, Ballybrack
  • Holy Cross Church Parochial House, Dundrum
  • 1 & 2 Syndenham Place, Upper Kilmacud Road
  • Arcadia, Knock-na-cree Road, Dalkey

·         The Battery, Sandycove Point”

 

The above recommendation on Pages 190 – 192 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

107.

Motion Nos 8, 9 & 10 and Pages 192 - 193 Recommendations for Architectural Conservation Areas (ACA) Designation i) pdf icon PDF 361 KB

It was AGREED to take Motion Nos. 8, 9 and 10  in conjunction with this Item.

 

Motion No. 8

 

It was proposed by Councillor T. Murphy  and seconded by Councillor J. Bailey

 

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

 

That the proposed ACA covering the Rathmicheal area, as delineated in maps 10 and 14 be removed in its entirety.”

 

Motion No. 9

 

It was proposed by Councillor C. Smyth  and Councillor D. O’ Callaghan and AGREED to WITHDRAW   Motion No. 9.

 

“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 Council reaffirm the designation of Rathmichael as an ACA.”

 

Motion No. 10

 

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

 

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

 

That the proposed cACA covering the Rathmichael area, be amended to exclude the sites outlined in solid red on the attached map (Amendment to Zoning Map No 14).”

 

Report:

 

The Chief Executive does not agree with this Motion.

 

The Chief Executive continues to hold the position as set out in the Proposed Amendments Chief Executive’s Report on Submissions Received (pages 192-200),  and response to Agenda Item 76 (Motion 13) during the consideration of the Draft Plan in October 2015.

 

The Chief Executive remains fully of the opinion that the Rathmichael / Ferndale Road area in question does not meet the parameters, or fulfil the requisite conditions, for designation as an ACA as outlined in the ‘Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities’, 2004 (re-issued 2011). The legislation governing ACAs is specifically aimed at protecting the following:

 

·         Groups of structures of distinctiveness or visual richness or historical importance.

·         The setting and external appearance of structures that are of special interest, but the interiors do not merit special protection.

·         Designed landscapes where these contain groups of structures as in, for example, urban parks, and the former demesne of country houses and groupings of archaeological or industrial remains.

·         Groups of structures which form a dispersed but unified entity but which are not within the curtilage of a dominant Protected Structure.

 

Rathmichael, however, has a very dispersed settlement pattern with no identifiable concentration or cluster of structures of architectural heritage significance which would warrant designation as a cACA. Those buildings of architectural heritage interest in Rathmichael, such as the Church of Ireland and the large detached country houses such as Ellerslie, Chantilly and Cornerstone, are already Protected Structures, while the majority of the remaining structures in the Rathmichael/Ferndale Road area are mid-to-late 20th Century domestic buildings of no particular note or special interest.

 

The character of the landscape in the Rathmichael/Ferndale Road area has already been recognised through the identification of six specific sites where there is an objective to protect the trees and woodland.

 

There are no Recorded Monuments or Archaeological Sites within the entire proposed cACA boundary.

 

The Chief Executive does not agree with a reduction in the size of the boundary of the proposed cACA or the omission of a particular parcel of land but does support the removal of the proposed cACA in its entirety.

 

Rathmichael does not meet any of the prescribed criteria for designation as an ACA. Consequently the Chief Executive would again re-iterate that to designate this area as an ACA would be a misuse of the provisions of Section 81 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 and would completely undermine the specific and targeted purpose of the ACA process.

 

 

Recommendation

 

Delete the entire cACA designation from the Rathmichael/Ferndale Road area.

 

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

i)”Submission seeks removal in its entirety of the proposed candidate ACA for Rathmichael / Ferndale Road or, alternatively, the lands associated with Ellerslie, Ballybride Road should be excluded from the cACA boundary.

 

Submission supports the view of the Chief Executive that the Protected Structure status afforded to key buildings in the area – such as Ellerslie – is more than sufficient.

 

The submission includes a critical appraisal of the cACA and a comparison with designated ACAs such as Foxrock and concludes that that area does not fulfil the requisite conditions for designation as an ACA as outlined in the Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities, 2004 (re-issued 2011). 

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive agrees with this submission.

 

The Chief Executive continues to hold the position as set out in the Chief Executive’s Report on the Draft Plan (page 457),  and response to Agenda Item 76 (Motion 13) during the consideration of the Draft Plan in October 2015. 

 

The Chief Executive agrees with the submission that the Rathmichael / Ferndale Road area in question does not fulfil the requisite conditions for designation as an ACA as outlined in the ‘Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities’, 2004 (re-issued 2011).  The legislation governing ACAs is used to protect the following:

 

·         Groups of structures of distinctiveness or visual richness or historical importance.

·         The setting and external appearance of structures that are of special interest, but the interiors do not merit special protection.

·         Designed landscapes where these contain groups of structures as in, for example, urban parks, and the former demesne of country houses and groupings of archaeological or industrial remains.

·         Groups of structures which form a dispersed but unified entities but which are not within the curtilage of a dominant protected structure.

 

Rathmichael has a dispersed settlement pattern with no concentration of structures of architectural heritage significance which would warrant designation as a cACA. Those buildings of architectural heritage interest in Rathmichael, such as the Church of Ireland and large detached country houses such as Ellerslie, Chantilly and Cornerstone, are already Protected Structures, while the majority of the remaining structures are of mid-to-late 20th century origin.

 

The character of the landscape has also been also recognised through the identification of six sites where there is an objective to protect the trees and woodland.

 

There are no recorded monuments or archaeological sites within the entire proposed cACA boundary. 

 

Rathmichael does not meet any of the prescribed criteria for designation as an ACA and the Chief Executive re-iterates that to designate the area as an ACA would be a misuse of the provisions of Section 81 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) and would completely undermine the specific and targeted purpose of an ACA designation.

 

Recommendation

Delete the cACA designation from Rathmichael

 

The Chief Executive’s Response and recommendation on Pages 192 – 193 of the Chief Executive’s Report and Motion No. 8 was AGREED unanimously. Motion No. 10 FELL.

 

 

108.

Pages 193 - 194 Recommendations for Architectural Conservation Areas (ACA) Designation ii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

ii)“Submission seeks removal in its entirety of the proposed candidate ACA for Rathmichael / Ferndale Road or, alternatively, the lands associated with The Fairways, Ballybride Road should be excluded from the cACA boundary.

 

The submission includes a critical appraisal of the cACA and a comparison with designated ACAs such as Foxrock and concludes that that area does not fulfil the requisite conditions for designation as an ACA as outlined in the Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities, 2004 (re-issued 2011)”.

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive continues to hold the position as set out in the Chief Executive’s Report on the Draft Plan (page 457),  and response to Agenda Item 76 (Motion 13) during the consideration of the Draft Plan in October 2015. 

 

The Chief Executive agrees with the submission that the Rathmichael / Ferndale Road area in question does not fulfil the requisite conditions for designation as an ACA as outlined in the ‘Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities’, 2004 (re-issued 2011).  The legislation governing ACAs is used to protect the following:

 

·         Groups of structures of distinctiveness or visual richness or historical importance.

·         The setting and external appearance of structures that are of special interest, but the interiors do not merit special protection.

·         Designed landscapes where these contain groups of structures as in, for example, urban parks, and the former demesne of country houses and groupings of archaeological or industrial remains.

·         Groups of structures which form a dispersed but unified entities but which are not within the curtilage of a dominant protected structure.

 

Rathmichael has a dispersed settlement pattern with no concentration of structures of architectural heritage significance which would warrant designation as a cACA. Those buildings of architectural heritage interest in Rathmichael, such as the Church of Ireland and large detached country houses such as Ellerslie, Chantilly and Cornerstone, are already Protected Structures, while the majority of the remaining structures are of mid-to-late 20th century origin.

 

The character of the landscape has also been also recognised through the identification of six sites where there is an objective to protect the trees and woodland.

 

There are no recorded monuments or archaeological sites within the entire proposed cACA boundary. 

 

Rathmichael does not meet any of the prescribed criteria for designation as an ACA and the Chief Executive re-iterates that to designate the area as an ACA would be a misuse of the provisions of Section 81 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) and would completely undermine the specific and targeted purpose of an ACA designation.

 

Recommendation

Delete the cACA designation from Rathmichael”.

 

The above recommendation on Pages 193 - 194 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

109.

Pages 195 - 196 Recommendations for Architectural Conservation Areas (ACA) Designation iii)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

iii)”Submission seeks removal in its entirety of the proposed candidate ACA for Rathmichael / Ferndale Road or, alternatively, the lands associated with Kilshannig, Ballybride Road should be excluded from the cACA boundary.

 

The submission includes a critical appraisal of the cACA and a comparison with designated ACAs such as Foxrock and concludes that that area does not fulfil the requisite conditions for designation as an ACA as outlined in the Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities, 2004 (re-issued 2011)”. 

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive agrees with this submission.

 

The Chief Executive continues to hold the position as set out in the Chief Executive’s Report on the Draft Plan (page 457),  and response to Agenda Item 76 (Motion 13) during the consideration of the Draft Plan in October 2015. 

 

The Chief Executive agrees with the submission that the Rathmichael / Ferndale Road area in question does not fulfil the requisite conditions for designation as an ACA as outlined in the ‘Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities’, 2004 (re-issued 2011).  The legislation governing ACAs is used to protect the following:

 

·         Groups of structures of distinctiveness or visual richness or historical importance.

·         The setting and external appearance of structures that are of special interest, but the interiors do not merit special protection.

·         Designed landscapes where these contain groups of structures as in, for example, urban parks, and the former demesne of country houses and groupings of archaeological or industrial remains.

·         Groups of structures which form a dispersed but unified entities but which are not within the curtilage of a dominant protected structure.

 

Rathmichael has a dispersed settlement pattern with no concentration of structures of architectural heritage significance which would warrant designation as a cACA. Those buildings of architectural heritage interest in Rathmichael, such as the Church of Ireland and large detached country houses such as Ellerslie, Chantilly and Cornerstone, are already Protected Structures, while the majority of the remaining structures are of mid-to-late 20th century origin.

 

The character of the landscape has also been also recognised through the identification of six sites where there is an objective to protect the trees and woodland.

 

There are no recorded monuments or archaeological sites within the entire proposed cACA boundary. 

 

Rathmichael does not meet any of the prescribed criteria for designation as an ACA and the Chief Executive re-iterates that to designate the area as an ACA would be a misuse of the provisions of Section 81 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) and would completely undermine the specific and targeted purpose of an ACA designation.

 

Recommendation

 

Delete the cACA designation from Rathmichael”.

 

The above recommendation on Pages 195 - 196 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

110.

Pages 196 - 197 Recommendations for Architectural Conservation Areas (ACA) Designation iv)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

iv)”Submission seeks removal in its entirety of the proposed candidate ACA for Rathmichael / Ferndale Road or, alternatively, the lands associated with Cloverhill, Ballybride Road should be excluded from the cACA boundary.

 

The submission includes a critical appraisal of the cACA and a comparison with designated ACAs such as Foxrock and concludes that that area does not fulfil the requisite conditions for designation as an ACA as outlined in the Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities, 2004, re-issued 2011”. 

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive agrees with this submission.

 

The Chief Executive continues to hold the position as set out in the Chief Executive’s Report on the Draft Plan (page 457),  and response to Agenda Item 76 (Motion 13) during the consideration of the Draft Plan in October 2015. 

 

The Chief Executive agrees with the submission that the Rathmichael / Ferndale Road area in question does not fulfil the requisite conditions for designation as an ACA as outlined in the ‘Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities’, 2004 (re-issued 2011).  The legislation governing ACAs is used to protect the following:

 

·         Groups of structures of distinctiveness or visual richness or historical importance.

·         The setting and external appearance of structures that are of special interest, but the interiors do not merit special protection.

·         Designed landscapes where these contain groups of structures as in, for example, urban parks, and the former demesne of country houses and groupings of archaeological or industrial remains.

·         Groups of structures which form a dispersed but unified entities but which are not within the curtilage of a dominant protected structure.

 

Rathmichael has a dispersed settlement pattern with no concentration of structures of architectural heritage significance which would warrant designation as a cACA. Those buildings of architectural heritage interest in Rathmichael, such as the Church of Ireland and large detached country houses such as Ellerslie, Chantilly and Cornerstone, are already Protected Structures, while the majority of the remaining structures are of mid-to-late 20th century origin.

 

The character of the landscape has also been also recognised through the identification of six sites where there is an objective to protect the trees and woodland.

 

There are no recorded monuments or archaeological sites within the entire proposed cACA boundary. 

 

Rathmichael does not meet any of the prescribed criteria for designation as an ACA and the Chief Executive re-iterates that to designate the area as an ACA would be a misuse of the provisions of Section 81 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 (as amended) and would completely undermine the specific and targeted purpose of an ACA designation.

 

Recommendation

Delete the cACA designation from Rathmichael”.

 

The above recommendation on Pages 196 - 197 of the Chief Executive’s Report was AGREED unanimously.

 

 

111.

Pages 197 - 198 Recommendations for Architectural Conservation Areas (ACA) Designation v)

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:-

 

v)”Submission supports the cACA designation for Rathmichael / Ferndale Road in order to protect its unique character, built heritage and semi-rural nature”.

 

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

 

“The Chief Executive does not agree with this submission.

 

The Chief Executive continues to hold the position as set out in the Chief Executive’s Report on the Draft Plan (page 457), and response to Agenda Item 76 (Motion 13) during the consideration of the Draft Plan in October 2015.

 

Rathmichael has a dispersed settlement pattern with no concentration of structures of architectural heritage significance which would warrant designation as a cACA. Those buildings of architectural heritage interest in Rathmichael, such as the Church of Ireland and large detached country houses such as Ellerslie, Chantilly and Cornerstone, are already Protected Structures, while the majority of the remaining structures are of mid-to-late 20th century origin.

 

In support of the proposed cACA reference has been made to the character and semi-rural nature of the area. In recognition of the character of the area Rathmichael is included in Landscape Character Area No.10 as set out in Appendix 7 of the Draft Plan which includes the following ‘Sensitivity/Strategy’ for the area:

 

·         “Maintenance of natural ambiance

·         Protection of deciduous tree belts

·         To have regard to the recommendations and findings of the Historic Landscape Character Assessment for Rathmicheal.

·         The Rathmichael Goundwater Protection Study contains a policy in relation to the Crinken catchment and has deemed that certain parts of this area are not suitable for further development due to the cumulative effect of septic tanks on ground water”.

 

Furthermore there is an objective to protect the trees and woodland on a number of sites within the proposed cACA boundary. There are, in addition, a raft of other policies and objectives in the Draft Plan which would adequately protect the character and setting of the Rathmichael area and guide appropriate development. Such policies and objectives would include:

 

·         RES4: Existing Housing Stock and Densification which states: “In certain specific circumstances the Council will encourage the retention of existing houses that, while not Protected Structures or located within an ACA, do have their own merit and/or contribute beneficially to the area in terms of visual amenity, character or accommodation type…

·         LHB24: Hedgerows which states: “It is Council policy to protect hedgerows in the County from development, which would impact adversely upon them. It is Council policy to promote the County’s hedgerows by increasing coverage, where possible, using locally native species and to develop an appropriate code of practice for road hedgerow maintenance.”

·         AR5: Buildings of Heritage Interest which states: “It is Council policy to:

i. 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…”

·         AR8: Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Buildings, Estates and Features which states: “It is Council policy to:

i. Encourage the appropriate development of exemplar nineteenth and twentieth century buildings and estates to ensure their character is not compromised.

ii. Encourage the retention of features that contribute to the character of exemplar nineteenth and twentieth  century  buildings  and  estates   such as roofscapes, boundary treatments and other features considered worthy of retention”.

·         Section 8.2.3.1 Quality Residential Design sets out a number of objectives that aim to “create and foster high quality, secure and attractive areas for living” taking account of a number of criteria including: Context – having regard to the setting of a site and the surrounding character and streetscape”.