Agenda item

Pages 32 and 33: 5 (x) Residential Development and Built Form

The following summary of submission received was CONSIDERED:

 

“Submission welcomes the recognition of the Park, Carrickmines as an appropriate location for higher buildings, and for the development of residential development and Build-to-Rent accommodation. Notwithstanding, the submission recommends amendment of several provisions and policies within the Draft Plan including, inter alia:

 

• Increased minimum residential density at The Park;

• There should be no restriction on the provision of residential uses at ground floor level. Proposals for residential use should be considered on a case by case basis.

• Policy BELAP Res4 should be amended as it is considered to be contradictory to provisions included elsewhere in the Plan, notably Policy BELAP RET16 – Residential Uses and Policy BELAP RES8 – Build to Rent.

 

The following Response and Recommendation of the Executive was CONSIDERED:

 

“A significant component of the submission’s case for a more flexible approach towards residential development at The Park, Carrickmines would appear to be grounded in an inference that SLO Objective 131 has a degree of primacy over the ‘E’ Zoning Objective at the lands. Statements such as ‘…the SLO for a mixed use neighbourhood centre on these lands qualifies the interpretation of the E Zoning Objective for the wider area’ and, ‘…having regard to the fact that the ‘E’ Zoning of the lands at The Park is interpreted in the context of SLO 131 for a mixed use neighbourhood centre…’ fails to appropriately recognise the primacy of the land use zoning objective for the lands as Objective E ‘To provide for economic development and employment’. Employment zoned lands are identified in the County Development Plan - and Specific Local Objective 131, that relates to the provision of a Neighbourhood Centre and leisure facilities at these lands - is specific to these ‘E’ zoned lands only. The Objective provides for land uses that would normally only be ‘Open for Consideration’ and does not extend to any more than that.

 

Employment zoned lands at Carrickmines are of strategic importance to the County for the delivery of high intensity employment. The relative quantum of employment zoned lands in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown is low in the context of the other Dublin Authorities. There is a total of almost 300 hectares of employment lands within the County – only c. 60 hectares of which is greenfield, undeveloped land. Fingal County Council, by comparison, has a total of almost 2,700 hectares of employment land and South Dublin County Council has over 1,000 hectares of enterprise and employment zoned land. There is thus a degree of scarcity to employment zoned lands within the County, and a heightened need to protect these lands for employment uses in line with their zoning objective. The County Development Plan and Local Area Plan focus on safeguarding and delivering this objective. Any proposals for residential development at The Park will be considered in the context of its ‘E’ zoning objective, SLO 131 and associated policies contained in the LAP. It is thus not considered necessary nor appropriate to amend residential density standards contained in the Draft LAP.

 

In specific reference to residential uses at The Park, Policy BELAP RET16 – Residential Uses, states ‘To encourage residential use above ground floor level within this Neighbourhood Centre to maintain and improve the area’s vibrancy and vitality, providing that the Neighbourhood Centre’s prime land use objectives are complemented and not undermined.’. The provision of active ground floor uses, with residential above, is considered an important component of successful Neighbourhood Centres, that improve an area’s vibrancy and vitality, as evident in other Neighbourhood Centres in the County such as nearby Stepaside. It is thus not considered appropriate to amend

Policy BELAP RET16 to remove this requirement.

 

Policy BELAP RES4 – Locations for Higher Buildings of the Draft Plan states that, ‘The locations identified as ‘RES4’ in Glencairn North, Kilgobbin South, Mimosa-Levmoss, Racecourse South, The Park Carrickmines, and Old Glenamuck Road are considered as suitable locations for higher buildings within the BELAP area (see Figure 11.1). It is anticipated that all of these locations would be suitable for residential buildings, consistent with the prevailing zoning objective, save for The Park Carrickmines which is subject to ‘E’ zoning.’

 

The rationale for inclusion of the second part of the above stated policy, is to acknowledge the specific ‘E’ Zoning Objective at the Park, Carrickmines, where residential development is ‘open for consideration’, as distinct to other designated RES4 sites that are zoned ‘Objective A – To protect and/or improve residential amenity’, where residential is ‘permitted in principle’. Notwithstanding it is considered that a further degree of clarity could be provided, and it is thus recommended that the policy be amended to reflect same.

 

Recommendation

Amend the Draft LAP as follows:

 

Amend Section 5.3.4 Policy BELAP RES4 – Locations for Higher Buildings (Page 24) to read:

Policy BELAP RES4 – Locations for Higher Buildings: The locations identified as ‘RES4’ in Glencairn North, Kilgobbin South, Mimosa-Levmoss, Racecourse South, The Park Carrickmines, and Old Glenamuck Road are considered as suitable locations for higher buildings within the BELAP area (see Figure 11.1). It is anticipated that all bar one of

these locations would be suitable for residential buildings, consistent with the prevailing zoning objective., save for The Park Carrickmines which is subject to ‘E’ zoning. The designation at The Park Carrickmines is subject to ‘E’ Zoning Objective, where residential is ‘open for consideration’ under the County Development Plan and as such, any proposed use mix would need to display compliance with this zoning objective.

 

A discussion took place, during which Mr. D. Irvine, Senior Planner, Planning and Human Resources Department responded to Members’ queries.

 

The Executive’s Response and Recommendation on pages 32 and 33 was AGREED.