Chief Executive’s Report on Motions....Andrew Montague 74 2075 Green Party Group 75 2076 Green Party Group 76 2077 Cllr. Nial Ring 77 2078 Cllr. Brendan Carr, Cllr. Nial Ring 78

Draft Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022 May 2016

Chief Executive’s Report on Motions.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Motion

No. Councillor(s) Page No.

2001 Green Party Group 4 2002 Green Party Group 4 2003 Cllr. Mary Freehill 5 2004 Green Party Group 6 2005 Green Party Group 7 2006 Green Party Group 8 2007 Cllr. Dermot Lacey 8 2008 Cllr. Noeleen Reilly 9 2009 Cllr. Mary Freehill 10 2010 Cllr. Dermot Lacey 11

2011 Cllr. Brendan Carr, Cllr. David Costello, Cllr. Vincent Jackson, Deputy Lord Mayor Cieran Perry 12

2012 Cllr. Chris Andrews, Cllr. Patrick Costello, Cllr. Mary Freehill, Cllr. Ruairí McGinley 13

2013 Cllr. Nial Ring 15 2014 Cllr. Ray McAdam 16 2015 Cllr. Ray McAdam 17 2016 Cllr. Nial Ring 18 2017 Deputy Lord Mayor Cieran Perry 19 2018 Green Party Group 20 2019 Cllr. Michael O'Brien 21 2020 Green Party Group 22 2021 Green Party Group 23 2022 Green Party Group 24 2023 Cllr. Brendan Carr 25 2024 Cllr. Nial Ring 26 2025 Cllr. Paul Hand 27 2026 Green Party Group 28 2027 Green Party Group 29 2028 Cllr. Éilis Ryan 30 2029 Cllr. Daithí De Róiste 31 2030 Cllr. Paddy McCarten 32 2031 Cllr. Nial Ring 33 2032 Cllr. Nial Ring 34 2033 Cllr. Brendan Carr 35 2034 Cllr. Nial Ring 37 2035 Cllr. Ray McAdam 37 2036 Cllr. Nial Ring 38 2037 Cllr. Daithí De Róiste 39 2038 Cllr. Ray McAdam 40 2039 Cllr. Paddy McCarten 41 2040 Cllr. Brendan Carr 42 2041 Green Party Group 43

2042 Green Party Group 44 2043 Cllr. Dermot Lacey 45 2044 Cllr. Kieran Binchy 46 2045 Cllr. Nial Ring 47 2046 Cllr. Christy Burke 48 2047 Cllr. Christy Burke 49 2048 People Before Profit Group 49 2049 Cllr. Daithí De Róiste 50 2050 Cllr. Daithí De Róiste 50 2051 Cllr. Nial Ring 51 2052 Cllr. David Costello 52 2053 Green Party Group 55 2054 Cllr. Deirdre Heney 56 2055 Cllr. Andrew Montague 57 2056 Cllr. Andrew Montague 58 2057 Cllr. Christy Burke 59 2058 Cllr. Daithí De Róiste 59 2059 Green Party Group 60 2060 Cllr. Christy Burke 61 2061 Cllr. Noeleen Reilly 61 2062 Cllr. Brendan Carr 62 2063 Cllr. Nial Ring 63 2064 Cllr. Nial Ring 64 2065 Cllr. Brendan Carr 65 2066 Cllr. Claire Byrne, Cllr. Rebecca Moynihan 66 2067 Cllr. Nial Ring 67 2068 Cllr. Paul Hand 68 2069 Cllr. Éilis Ryan 69 2070 Green Party Group 70 2071 Cllr. Daithí De Róiste 71 2072 Green Party Group 72 2073 Cllr. Vincent Jackson, Cllr. Dermot Lacey 73 2074 Cllr. Andrew Montague 74 2075 Green Party Group 75 2076 Green Party Group 76 2077 Cllr. Nial Ring 77 2078 Cllr. Brendan Carr, Cllr. Nial Ring 78 2079 Cllr. Nial Ring 79 2080 Cllr. Vincent Jackson, Deputy Lord Mayor Cieran Perry 80 2081 Green Party Group 81 2082 Cllr. Dermot Lacey 82 2083 Cllr. Dermot Lacey 83 2084 Cllr. Nial Ring 84 2085 Cllr. Nial Ring 85 2086 Cllr. Dermot Lacey 86 2087 Green Party Group 86

2088 Cllr. Vincent Jackson, Cllr. Dermot Lacey 87

2089 Cllr. Vincent Jackson, Cllr. Dermot Lacey, Cllr. Damian O'Farrell, Cllr. Éilis Ryan 87

2090 Cllr. Vincent Jackson, Cllr. Dermot Lacey 88 2091 Green Party Group 89 2092 Green Party Group 90

2093 Cllr. Vincent Jackson, Cllr. Dermot Lacey, Cllr. Damian O'Farrell, Green Party Group 91

2094 Green Party Group 92 2095 Green Party Group 93 2096 Green Party Group 94 2097 Cllr. Vincent Jackson, Cllr. Damian O'Farrell 95 2098 Cllr. Vincent Jackson, Cllr. Dermot Lacey, Cllr. Damian O'Farrell 96 2099 Cllr. Andrew Montague 97 2100 Cllr. Andrew Montague 98 2101 Cllr. Éilis Ryan 99 2102 Cllr. Éilis Ryan 100 2103 Cllr. Brendan Carr 100 2104 Cllr. Nial Ring 101 2105 Cllr. Nial Ring 102 2106 Cllr. Nial Ring 103 2107 Cllr. Nial Ring 104 2108 Green Party Group 105 2109 Cllr. Dermot Lacey 106 2110 Cllr. Dermot Lacey 107 2111 Cllr. Dermot Lacey 108 2112 Cllr. Kieran Binchy 109 2113 Green Party Group 110 2114 Cllr. Christy Burke 110 2115 Cllr. Christy Burke 111 2116 Green Party Group 112 2117 Green Party Group 113 2118 Green Party Group 114 2119 Cllr. Andrew Montague 115 2120 Cllr. Mary Freehill 116 2121 Cllr. Dr. Paddy Smyth 117 2122 Cllr. Vincent Jackson, Cllr. Dermot Lacey, Cllr. Éilis Ryan 118 2123 Green Party Group 119 2124 Green Party Group 120 2125 Green Party Group 121 2126 Green Party Group 122 2127 Cllr. Daithí De Róiste 122 2128 Cllr. Christy Burke 123 2129 Cllr. Dermot Lacey 124 2130 Cllr. Daithí De Róiste 125 2131 Cllr. Chris Andrews, Cllr. Brendan Carr, Cllr. Mary Freehill 126

2132 Cllr. Chris Andrews, Cllr. Brendan Carr, Cllr. Patrick Costello, Cllr. Mary Freehill

128

2133 Cllr. Christy Burke 129 2134 Green Party Group 130 2135 Green Party Group 131 2136 Green Party Group 132 2137 People Before Profit Group 133 2138 Green Party Group 134 2139 Cllr. Dermot Lacey 134 2140 Cllr. Dermot Lacey 135 2141 Cllr. Dermot Lacey 136


2143 Cllr. Brendan Carr, Cllr. David Costello, Cllr. Vincent Jackson, Deputy Lord Mayor Cieran Perry, Green Party Group 140

2144 Cllr. Brendan Carr 141 2145 Cllr. Brendan Carr 142 2146 Deputy Lord Mayor Cieran Perry 142 2147 Cllr. Ray McAdam 143 2148 Cllr. Damian O'Farrell 144 2149 Green Party Group 145 2150 Green Party Group 145 2151 Cllr. Daithí De Róiste 146 2152 Cllr. Daithí De Róiste 146 2153 Cllr. Dermot Lacey 147 2154 Cllr. Dermot Lacey 148 2155 Cllr. Damian O'Farrell 149 2156 Green Party Group 150 2157 Green Party Group 151 2158 Cllr. Christy Burke 152

2159 Cllr. Brendan Carr, Cllr. David Costello, Cllr. Vincent Jackson, Deputy Lord Mayor Cieran Perry, Cllr. Nial Ring, Green Party Group

153

2160 Cllr. Brendan Carr, Cllr. David Costello, Cllr. Vincent Jackson, Cllr. Ray McAdam, Deputy Lord Mayor Cieran Perry, Cllr. Nial Ring, Green Party Group

154

2161 Cllr. Mannix Flynn 155 2162 Cllr. Ray McAdam 156 2163 Green Party Group 157 2164 Green Party Group 158 2165 Green Party Group 158 2166 Green Party Group 159 2167 Green Party Group 160 2168 Cllr. Frank Kennedy 161 2169 Cllr. Nial Ring 162 2170 Cllr. Mary Freehill 163 2171 Cllr. Mary Freehill 164 2172 Cllr. Frank Kennedy 165

2173 Cllr. Paddy McCarten 166 2174 Green Party Group 167 2175 Green Party Group 168 2176 Cllr. Mary Freehill, Green Party Group 169 2177 Green Party Group 170 2178 Cllr. Dermot Lacey 171 2179 Cllr. Nial Ring 173 2180 Cllr. Rebecca Moynihan 173 2181 People Before Profit Group 174 2182 Cllr. Ray McAdam 175 2183 Green Party Group 176 2184 Cllr. Frank Kennedy 177 2185 Cllr. Paddy McCarten 177 2186 Cllr. Nial Ring 178 2187 Cllr. Nial Ring 179

2188 Cllr. Brendan Carr, Cllr. Vincent Jackson, Deputy Lord Mayor Cieran Perry, Cllr. Nial Ring, Green Party Group 181

2189 Cllr. Nial Ring 182 2190 Cllr. Nial Ring 182 2191 Cllr. Nial Ring 183 2192 Cllr. Nial Ring 183 2193 Cllr. Mary Freehill 184 2194 People Before Profit Group 185 2195 Green Party Group 186 2196 Cllr. Claire Byrne, Cllr. Rebecca Moynihan 188 2197 Green Party Group 189 2198 Cllr. Claire Byrne, Cllr. Rebecca Moynihan 190 2199 Cllr. Mannix Flynn 191 2200 Cllr. Mary Freehill, Cllr. Dermot Lacey 192 2201 Cllr. Claire Byrne, Cllr. Rebecca Moynihan 192 2202 Cllr. Dermot Lacey 193 2203 Cllr. Claire Byrne, Cllr. Rebecca Moynihan 193 2204 Cllr. Nial Ring 194 2205 Cllr. Daithí De Róiste 194 2206 Cllr. Claire Byrne, Cllr. Rebecca Moynihan 195 2207 Green Party Group 196 2208 Cllr. Daithí De Róiste 197 2209 Green Party Group 198 2210 Green Party Group 199 2211 Cllr. Daithí De Róiste 200 2212 Cllr. Daithí De Róiste 202 2213 Cllr. Ray McAdam 204

2214 Cllr. Brendan Carr, Cllr. David Costello, Cllr. Vincent Jackson, Deputy Lord Mayor Cieran Perry, Cllr. Nial Ring, Green Party Group

205

2215 Cllr. Nial Ring 206

2216 Cllr. Brendan Carr, Cllr. Vincent Jackson, Cllr. Ray McAdam, Deputy Lord Mayor Cieran Perry, Green Party Group

207

2217 Green Party Group 208

2218 Cllr. Chris Andrews, Cllr. Patrick Costello, Cllr. Mary Freehill, Cllr. Paddy McCarten 209

2219 Cllr. Daithí De Róiste 210


2221 Cllr. Ray McAdam 212 2222 Cllr. Daithí De Róiste 213 2223 Cllr. Daithí De Róiste 214 2224 Paddy McCarten 215 2225 Cllr. Dermot Lacey 216 2226 Cllr. Andrew Montague 217 2227 Paddy McCarten 218 2228 Cllr. Dermot Lacey 219 2229 Cllr. Kieran Binchy 220 2230 Cllr. Nial Ring 221 2231 Cllr. Mary Freehill, Cllr. Dermot Lacey, Green Party Group 222 2232 Cllr. Mary Freehill, Cllr. Dermot Lacey, Green Party Group 224 2233 Cllr. Mary Freehill, Cllr. Dermot Lacey 226 2234 Cllr. Dermot Lacey 227 2235 Cllr. Dermot Lacey 229 2236 Cllr. Brendan Carr 231 2237 Cllr. Nial Ring 232 2238 Deputy Lord Mayor Cieran Perry 234 2239 Green Party Group 236 2240 Green Party Group 237 2241 Cllr. Mary Freehill 238 2242 Deputy Lord Mayor Cieran Perry 239 2243 Cllr. Michael O'Brien 240 2244 Cllr. Ruairí McGinley 241 2245 Cllr. Ruairí McGinley 242 2246 Cllr. Dermot Lacey 242 2247 Cllr. Dermot Lacey 243 2248 Cllr. Dermot Lacey 243 2249 Cllr. Dermot Lacey 244 2250 Cllr. Dermot Lacey 245 2251 Cllr. Brendan Carr, Deputy Lord Mayor Cieran Perry 246 2252 Cllr. Nial Ring 247 2253 Cllr. Vincent Jackson 248 2254 Cllr. David Costello 249 2255 Cllr. Paul Hand 249 2256 Cllr. Paul Hand 250 2257 Cllr. Paul Hand 251 2258 Cllr. Paul Hand 252 2259 Cllr. Paul McAuliffe 253

2260 People Before Profit Group 254

2261 Cllr. Catherine Ardagh, Cllr. Pat Dunne, People Before Profit Group 255

2262 People Before Profit 256 2263 Cllr. Vincent Jackson 257 2264 Cllr. Ray McAdam 257 2265 Cllr. Ray McAdam 258 2266 Cllr. Ray McAdam 259 2267 Cllr. Ray McAdam 260 2268 Cllr. Ray McAdam 260 2269 Cllr. Ray McAdam 261 2270 Cllr. Ray McAdam 261 2271 An tÁrdmheara Críona Ní Dhálaigh 262 2272 Cllr. Andrew Montague 263 2273 Green Party Group 264 2274 Green Party Group 265 2275 Green Party Group 265 2276 Green Party Group 266 2277 Cllr. Greg Kelly 267 2278 Cllr. Greg Kelly 268 2279 Cllr. Greg Kelly 269 2280 Cllr. Greg Kelly 270 2281 Cllr. Greg Kelly 271

2282 Cllr. Chris Andrews, Cllr. Patrick Costello, Cllr. Mary Freehill, Cllr. Ruairí McGinley, Cllr. Claire O'Connor 272

2283 Cllr. Chris Andrews, Cllr. Patrick Costello, Cllr. Mary Freehill, Cllr. Ruairí McGinley, Cllr. Dr. Paddy Smyth 274

2284 Cllr. Chris Andrews, Cllr. Patrick Costello, Cllr. Mary Freehill, Cllr. Ruairí McGinley, Cllr. Dr. Paddy Smyth, Sinn Féin Group 276

2285 Cllr. Chris Andrews, Cllr. Patrick Costello, Cllr. Mary Freehill, Cllr. Ruairí McGinley 279



2288 Cllr. Mary Freehill 282 2289 Cllr. Éilis Ryan 283 2290 Cllr. Daithí De Róiste 283 2291 Cllr. Paddy McCarten 284 2292 Cllr. Brendan Carr 285 2293 Cllr. Frank Kennedy, Cllr. Dermot Lacey, Sinn Féin Group 287 2294 Green Party Group 290 2295 Cllr. Daithí De Róiste 291 2296 Cllr. Mannix Flynn 292 2297 Green Party Group 293 2298 Green Party Group 294 2299 Cllr. Dermot Lacey 295 2300 Cllr. Kieran Binchy 296

2301 Green Party Group 297 2302 Cllr. Daithí De Róiste 298 2303 Green Party Group 299 2304 Cllr. Éilis Ryan 300 2305 Cllr. Éilis Ryan 301

2306 Cllr. Pat Dunne, Cllr. Tina MacVeigh, Cllr. Rebecca Moynihan, An tÁrdmheara Críona Ní Dhálaigh 302



2309 Cllr. Noeleen Reilly 305 2310 Cllr. Noeleen Reilly 306 2311 Cllr. Noeleen Reilly 307 2312 Cllr. Noeleen Reilly 308 2313 Cllr. Noeleen Reilly 309 2314 Cllr. Andrew Montague 310 2315 Cllr. Mary Freehill 311 2316 Cllr. Mary Freehill 312 2317 Cllr. Mary Freehill 313 2318 Cllr. Mary Freehill 314 2319 Cllr. Paddy McCarten 315 2320 Cllr. Mary Freehill 316 2321 Cllr. Mary Freehill 317

2322 Cllr. Daithí De Róiste, Cllr. Paul Hand, Cllr. Vincent Jackson, Cllr. Rebecca Moynihan, People Before Profit Group 318

2323 Cllr. Vincent Jackson 319 2324 Deputy Lord Mayor Cieran Perry 320 2325 Deputy Lord Mayor Cieran Perry 321 2326 Cllr. Paddy McCarten 322 2327 Cllr. Dermot Lacey 323 2328 Cllr. Brendan Carr 324 2329 Cllr. Brendan Carr 326

2330 Cllr. Brendan Carr, Cllr. Vincent Jackson, Deputy Lord Mayor Cieran Perry 327

2331 Cllr. Brendan Carr, Cllr. Vincent Jackson 328 2332 Cllr. Daithí De Róiste, Cllr. Pat Dunne, People Before Profit Group 330 2333 Cllr. Nial Ring 331 2334 Cllr. Nial Ring 333 2335 Cllr. Nial Ring 335 2336 Cllr. Mary Freehill 336 2337 Cllr. Vincent Jackson, Deputy Lord Mayor Cieran Perry 337 2338 Cllr. Vincent Jackson 338 2339 Cllr. David Costello, Cllr. Vincent Jackson 339 2340 Cllr. David Costello 340 2341 Cllr. David Costello 341 2342 Cllr. Paul Hand 343 2343 Cllr. Frank Kennedy 344

2344 Cllr. Kieran Binchy 345 2345 Cllr. Damian O'Farrell 346 2346 Cllr. Damian O'Farrell 348 2347 Green Party Group 350 2348 Cllr. Éilis Ryan 351 2349 Green Party Group 352 2350 Cllr. Christy Burke 353 2351 Cllr. Dermot Lacey 353 2352 Cllr. Dermot Lacey 354 2353 Deputy Lord Mayor Cieran Perry 355 2354 Deputy Lord Mayor Cieran Perry 356 2355 Deputy Lord Mayor Cieran Perry 357 2356 Cllr. Paul Hand 358 2357 Cllr. Paul Hand 359 2358 Cllr. Éilis Ryan 360 2359 Deputy Lord Mayor Cieran Perry 361 2360 Cllr. Éilis Ryan 362 2361 Cllr. Éilis Ryan 363 2362 Cllr. Mary Freehill 364 2363 Cllr. Damian O'Farrell 365 2364 Deputy Lord Mayor Cieran Perry 366 2365 Cllr. Dr. Paddy Smyth 367 2366 Cllr. Damian O'Farrell 367 2367 Green Party Group 368 2368 Cllr. Damian O'Farrell 369 2369 Green Party Group 370 2370 Green Party Group 371 2371 Green Party Group 372 2372 Cllr. Daithí De Róiste 373 2373 Cllr. Daithí De Róiste 373 2374 Cllr. Daithí De Róiste 374


2376 Green Party Group 376 2377 Cllr. Dermot Lacey 377 2378 Cllr. Frank Kennedy 378 2379 Cllr. Frank Kennedy 379 2380 Cllr. Nial Ring 380 2381 Cllr. Dermot Lacey 381 2382 Cllr. Dermot Lacey 383 2383 Cllr. Dermot Lacey 385


2385 Green Party Group 387 2386 Green Party Group 389 2387 Green Party Group 391 2388 Green Party Group 393

2389 Green Party Group 395 2390 Green Party Group 397 2391 Green Party Group 399 2392 Cllr. Patrick Costello, Cllr. Mary Freehill, Cllr. Ruairí McGinley 401

Chief Executive’s Report on Motions: Draft Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022

Introduction Section 12 of the Planning Act requires that the members of a planning authority shall consider the draft plan and the report of the Chief Executive on the submissions received. This Report sets out the Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendation to each Motion received on the Submissions on the Draft Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022 and the Chief Executive’s Report on Submissions. In making the Development Plan Members are ‘restricted to considering the proper planning and sustainable development of the area to which the development plan relates, the statutory obligations of any local authority in the area and any relevant policies or objectives for the time being of the Government or any Minister of the Government’ (12 (11) Planning & Development Act 2000 as amended). The layout of this report is similar to the previous Chief Executive’s Reports in that motions are grouped by chapter and each topic is dealt within chapter order for ease of reference. In instances where there are no submissions or Councillor Motions on a particular topic, the corresponding section does not appear in this report. The SEA, SFRA & AA are integrated into the plan-making process. The motion recommendations are grouped into five categories as follows:

1. That Motion is adopted

2. That Motion is adopted as amended (i.e. when Motion is substantially agreed)

3. That Motion is noted

(i.e. matter is already addressed in existing text)

4. That Motion is not adopted (i.e. planning reasons)

5. That Motion is not adopted (i.e. outside scope of Development Plan / out of order)

Minor typographical errors or discrepancies will be amended in the final plan before publication. Similarly where draft plans or policy documents, prepared by other bodies, have been updated or approved during the development plan review process these will be amended accordingly in the final Development Plan. Please Note: Text highlighted in RED: are proposed deletions and texts in GREEN are proposed additions to the Draft Plan.

1

Next Steps At the Special Council on 30th May 2016 Members will consider this Report as well as the previously circulated Chief Executive’s Report on Submissions. The purpose of the meeting is to reach agreement by resolution on amendments to the Draft Plan. Members may make the Development Plan if there are no material alterations to the Draft Plan. However where any proposed amendments would be a material alteration notice of the proposed amendment must be published within 3 weeks of the passing of the resolution. This notice will also indicate if the making of a determination that a strategic environmental assessment or an appropriate assessment or both is required. The proposed material alteration and any determination that an assessment is required will be placed on public display for 4 weeks during which time submissions/observations with respect to the proposed material alteration or assessment can be made. Not later than 8 weeks after the publication of the material alteration notice the Chief Executive will make a report on the submission/observations received and will submit this report to Members for consideration. A Special Council meeting will take place not later than 6 weeks after Members receive the Chief Executive’s report at which Members can make the Plan with or without amendment. Accordingly it is anticipated that the Development Plan will be made by the end of September and will come into effect 4 weeks later. On the basis of above the likely timeline for the completion of the Development Plan is as follows: Approx Dates June 23rd 2nd public display commences for 4 weeks Aug 18th Report on submissions/observations from 2nd public display

circulated to Members Last week Sept Special Council meeting to adopt plan End October 4 weeks after special council meeting plan comes into effect

2

3

2001Councillor(s) Green Party Group

MotionMotion Re Non Statutory Plans Reinstate Appendix of ‘Schedule of Non Statutory Plans'

Reason: The ‘Schedule of Non Statutory Plans’ included in Appendix 1 of the Dublin City Development Plan 2011-17 (listing 19 area plans) is omitted from the Draft Plan 2016-22 and should be reinstated as these plans are in ongoing usage.

Motion

Refers to: Introduction

Chief Executive's ResponseMotion is not the subject of a submission.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is not adopted: Out of order.


MotionPage 4, to add to Section 1.3

“The city council notes with concern that its own ability to set the standards it feels appropriate have been taken away by central government with recent legislation and mandatory guidelines from the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government. Some of the development standards in this plan, including those relating to apartment sizes do not represent the wishes of the majority of elected members of Dublin City Council but rather have been mandated from central government.”

Reason: to provide complete context to the drafting of the plan and full information.

Motion




4

2003Councillor(s) Cllr. Mary Freehill

MotionReinstate Appendix of ‘Schedule of Non Statutory Plans'.

Reason: The ‘Schedule of Non Statutory Plans’ included in Appendix 1 of the Dublin City Development Plan 2011-17 (listing 19 area plans) is omitted from the Draft Plan 2016-22 and should be reinstated as these plans are in ongoing usage.

Motion




5


MotionPage 4, Add at the end of 1.3

“The City Council notes the direction from the National Transport Authority and Transport Infrastructure Ireland to provide an alignment for the proposed Eastern Bypass Corridor within the Plan. The Council notes with concern that this proposal could cost in excess of four billion Euro (4,000,000,000), and effectively sterilises at least fifty hectares (500,000 sq. m) of land that could provide for 2,500 housing units within close proximity of the city centre, and could encourage further car-based commuting to the city.

Reason: to encourage sustainable transport and travel solutions

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseDublin City Council is legally obliged to ensure consistency between the Development Plan and the National Transport Authority’s Strategy 2016-2035. Because the latter (which has been approved by the Minister) includes provision for an eastern by pass alignment, this needs to be included in the plan . (See proposed amendment to MTO27A below).

In relation to the financial costs involved, it is not possible at this stage to have knowledge of these, and the figure of 4 billion euro is unsubstantiated in the motion submitted. A cost estimate would prove difficult to determine at this time give that preliminary design parameters have not been determined to date. Indeed, it is only a notional transport route corridor that is recommended to be retained, with no indication of modes of transport to be included.

In relation to the potential sterilisation of at least fifty hectares (500,000 sq. m) of land that could provide for 2,500 housing units (as asserted in the motion), this would not be the case as the land take in the port/Poolbeg area would be minimised to protect the potential of these development lands for the future. The key principles set out for the Poolbeg West SDRA indicate the variety of uses which can be accommodated on these lands.

The proposed new objective as recommended in the Chief Executive’s report should be modified to accurately reflect the current position (see recommendation below).

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is not adopted; contrary to national policy.

Note in this regard that it is however proposed to modify the proposed new objective MTO27A ( p141 of Chief Executives report)

From:"MTO27A: To protect the route of the proposed eastern by-pass in accordance with Transport Infrastructure Ireland ‘Corridor Protection Study – Sector A – Dublin Port Tunnel to Sandymount Strand’ , and support the provision of a link between Poolbeg and the southern cross/Southeastern motorway via an eastern bypass of the city" .

To:"MTO27A: To protect the route of the proposed eastern by-pass in accordance with Transport Infrastructure Ireland ‘Corridor Protection Study – Sector A – Dublin Port Tunnel to Sandymount

6

Strand’ , and for the longer term to retain a route corridor between Poolbeg and the southern cross/Southeastern motorway via an eastern bypass of the city, in accordance with the National Transport Authority’s Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2016-2035".


MotionVision and Core Strategy, page 5:

To amend the first sentence of paragraph 3:

From:

"Dublin will have an established international reputation as one of Europe’s most sustainable, dynamic and resourceful city regions."

To:

"Dublin will have an established international reputation as one of Europe’s most sustainable, dynamic, resourceful, liveable and healthy city regions."

Reason: in the interests of sustainable development.

Motion

Refers to: Chapter 2 - Vision and Core Strategy

Chief Executive's ResponseThis matter was raised in the content of the Chief Executive’s report in relation to the 3rd paragraph of section 2.1. of the Plan (see 5th line of 2nd last paragraph of Chief Executive’s report page 33).

The content of the vision as set out over the two last paragraphs of section 2.1 (p5), implies a high level of liveability and is already included in the phrase “ a capital city where people will seek to live”.

The vision is already lengthy due to additions ; the most recent being the recommendation to add ”socialise” to the list of activities which people should seek to engage in.

Planning has an indirect role in health through encouraging healthy lifestyles by improving amenities and green infrastructure. Health is of course heavily influenced by individual choices unrelated to urban planning.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is noted (it is largely addressed in the Draft Plan as amended).

7


MotionTo support the Chief Executive’s Recommendation to amend final sentence of 3rd paragraph as follows:

From: "In short, the vision is for a capital city where people will seek to live, work, experience and invest as a matter of choice".

To:"In short, the vision is for a capital city where people will seek to live, work, experience, invest and socialise, as a matter of choice".

Reason: in the interests of sustainable development

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThis was raised in section 2.1 of the Chief Executive’s report (p33) on foot of a similar submission. The recommendation in the report already recommends text as per the motion.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is adopted. (See Chief Executive’s report p 34).

2007Councillor(s) Cllr. Dermot Lacey

MotionTo insert the words “but not determined by” after the words “are guided by” and before “the objectives of the National Transport Authority” in Section 2.2.6 and Section 8.5.3 in the suggested amendment to this section from the Chief Executive and in all other similar references to the National Transport Authority transport strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2016-2035.

Reason: It is absolutely vital that Dublin City Council should determine the appropriate transport strategy for Dublin City and not be bound to accept proposals from the NTA.

Motion




8

2008Councillor(s) Cllr. Noeleen Reilly

MotionThat the Chief Executive includes the areas of Jamestown Road and Whitehall in the schedule for Local Environmental Improvements Plans and sets out a clearly defined time period when all LEIP's might commence.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseWhitehall is already included in the list of LEIPS for consideration in section 2.2.8.1 of the Draft Development Plan. It is assumed that the motion refers to Jamestown Road Finglas, which extends northwards from Finglas Village. In this context, it is noted that Finglas is already on the LEIP list and therefore this area may include part of Jamestown Road if agreed at local area level. Secondly, Jamestown Road is a linear street of housing and industry, whereas LEIPs are generally intended to improve public realm in mixed use or village centre areas where public realm is prominent. Jamestown Road could be included as part of the environs on Finglas Village rather than a separate LEIP area.In relation to the timeline for commencement of LEIPs, this cannot be accurately determined at this point because of commitment to other work with statutory requirements – e.g. LAPs and essential project work. There are 32 LEIPs set out in the Draft Development Plan, and the responsibility is with each Area Committee to prioritise three in their area.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is noted re Whitehall LEIP (already identified for LEIP in the Development Plan)

That motion is not adopted re Jamestown Road LEIP and LEIP commencement dates (for reasons stated).

9


MotionThe River Liffey is the central civic spine of the city and one of its primary pieces of historic townscape. There is a salient need for improvement of the area as a public space.

Reason: The inclusion in section 2.2.8.1 of the Draft Plan of the Quays as one of numerous areas with an objective for preparation of an LEIP is insufficient. More robust policy for the Quays is necessary to appropriately represent its civic and historic importance in the context of the city.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe importance of the Liffey is referred to in para 2.3.8 as part of the Core Strategy:

"Dublin is shaped by its major landscape features – the Phoenix Park, the River Liffey, Dublin Bay, and also the river valleys of the Tolka and Dodder".

The matter of addressing the Liffey Quays by way of LAP or design statement has been examined in section 2.2.8.1 of the report on submissions. An LEIP encompassing other initiatives is considered sufficient. In relation to improving the area as a public space, the Quays receive attention in the Public Realm Strategy and also (in part) in the Draft City Centre Transportation study. Georges Quay LAP and the Liberties LAP cover sections of the Quays on the southside whilst the Docklands SDRA covers some areas on the north. A conservation area designation relates to the entire Quays area. Further improvements may take place on foot of the proposed Liffey Cycle Route and associate landscaping. An LEIP would supplement and co-ordinate the above.

In relation to the Public Realm Strategy, a public realm masterplan is being prepared for the city core, and this includes an analysis/audit of the existing quays. It examines existing street design with a view to detailed recommendations.

On this basis, the provision of further policy for the Quays is not considered necessary given the need to prioritise future forward planning work.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is noted, there is sufficient policy in the Draft plan.

10


MotionRe: River Liffey

Dublin City Council agrees to insert as a Policy in Section 2.2.8 the following sentence.

“The River Liffey is the central civic spine of the city and one of its primary pieces of historic townscape. There is a salient need for improvement of the area as a public space”.

Reason: The inclusion in section 2.2.8.1 of the Draft Plan of the Quays as one of numerous areas with an objective for preparation of an LEIP is insufficient. More robust policy for the Quays is necessary to appropriately represent its civic and historic importance in the context of the city.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe importance of the Liffey is referred to in para 2.3.8 as part of the Core Strategy:

"Dublin is shaped by its major landscape features – the Phoenix Park, the River Liffey, Dublin Bay, and also the river valleys of the Tolka and Dodder".

The matter of addressing the Liffey Quays by way of LAP or design statement has been examined in section 2.2.8.1 of the report on submissions. An LEIP encompassing other initiatives is considered sufficient. In relation to improving the area as a public space, the Quays receive attention in the Public Realm Strategy and also (in part) in the Draft City Centre Transportation study. Georges Quay LAP and the Liberties LAP cover sections of the Quays on the southside whilst the Docklands SDRA covers some areas on the north. A conservation area designation relates to the entire Quays area. Further improvements may take place on foot of the proposed Liffey Cycle Route and associate landscaping. An LEIP would supplement and co-ordinate the above.

In relation to the Public Realm Strategy, a public realm masterplan is being prepared for the city core, and this includes an analysis/audit of the existing quays. It examines existing street design with a view to detailed recommendations.

On this basis, the provision of further policy for the Quays is not considered necessary given the need to prioritise future forward planning work.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is noted, there is sufficient policy in the Draft plan.

11

2011Councillor(s) Cllr. Brendan Carr, Cllr. David Costello, Cllr. Vincent Jackson,

Deputy Lord Mayor Cieran Perry

MotionAs Dublin City Council is now both the planning authority for and, through its acquisition of Dalymount Park, a large landowner in Phibsborough and as the plans it is formulating for developing this site are stated to involve integration with expected redevelopment initiatives by an adjacent landowner (the purchasers of the Phibsborough Shopping Centre), the City Council will give priority to putting in place a strong local planning framework through a Local Area Plan for Phibsborough and also, in relation to its Dalymount Park plans, an inclusive and structured forum for full prior consultation with the local community.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe Phibsborough Local Area Plan was not approved by the City Council in December 2015. At the City Council meeting in January 2016 it was agreed to include Phibsborough in the schedule of LAPs and Local Environmental Improvement Plans, within Section 2.2.8.1. In addressing the request to incorporate the key elements of the 2015 Draft LAP for Phibsborough into the City Development Plan, each of the key development sites identified within the Plan was assessed to determine where new policies and/or objectives will be incorporated into the Draft City Development Plan.

The Planning Department is currently preparing a Local Environmental Improvement Plan (LEIP) for Phibsborough and the draft LEIP will be presented to the council in May. The main aim of the LEIP will focus on the improvement of public realm, examining spaces that can be improved and act as a catalyst for private investment. Actions to engage with individuals/ organisations whose properties face onto the public realm are also included.

Table F recommends the insertion of ‘Phibsborough LAP’ into the list of LAPs in the table (p46 of Chief Executive’s Report) to be prepared. In order to deliver the Core Strategy of the plan, at the February meeting of the city council it was clarified that priority would be given to the Ballymun and Cherry Orchard LAPs.

Given that Dublin City Council owns Dalymount Park, the redevelopment of the site shall be carried out under a Part 8 application process that includes the elected members of Dublin City Council, which will involve public consultation.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is noted, the matter raised is addressed in the Chief Executive Report and recent City Council meetings.

12

2012Councillor(s) Cllr. Chris Andrews, Cllr. Patrick Costello, Cllr. Mary Freehill, Cllr.

Ruairí McGinley

MotionThat Harold’s Cross be listed for a Local Area Plan and not a LEIP as listed on page 46 of CE’s report.

Reason: Harold’s Cross is currently undergoing {very heavy} significant large scale re -development. A further number of sites totalling {and} a further 17.5 acres has been cited for rezoning and possible further development.

It is essential that a proper Spatial planning examination of the area is carried out through a Local Area Plan as requested by Harold’s Cross Village Community Council (HCVCC) in their submission. A Statutory Local Area Plan would provide a coherent framework for considering all of the prospective development sites in the broader context of the development of Harold's Cross as a whole. A statutory area based plan would create the potential for links and synergies across a number of sites and would allow for a democratic means of involving the residents of Harold’s Cross and the Harold’s Cross Village Community Council to ensure sustainable development. Such a Local Area Plan would also allow the consideration of flood risk management and mitigation in the area.

An LAP would be appropriate in this context as the legislation states 'that a local area plan may be prepared in respect of any area, including ….an existing suburb of an urban area…. and, in particular ……..for areas likely to be subject to large scale development in the lifetime of the plan' (Section 19.1 (a) Planning and Development Act, 2000)

A Local Environmental Improvement Plan (LEIP) would not be appropriate in this instance and does not offer the potential of a more comprehensive plan as LEIPs are large envisaged as a vehicle for focusing on public realm and public area improvements.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseHarold’s Cross is not a town requiring an LAP under Section 19 of the Planning Act. In relation to section 19 (1)(a), a local area plan may be prepared in respect of any area, including .. an existing suburb of an urban area, which the planning authority considers suitable and, in particular, for those areas which require economic, physical and social renewal and for areas likely to be subject to large scale development within the lifetime of the plan.

Of the sites available for development within Harold’s Cross many already either have planning permission or are in the planning system already, notably:

The St. Clare’s Convent site is the subject of permission (2186/15) for a residential scheme.The St. Pancras Works, Mount Tallant Avenue was granted Permission (2710/14) for a residential scheme of 63 units.The site fronting Harold’s Cross Road at Our Ladies Hospice has Permission (4783/06) extended until May 2016.The lands at Mount Argus have two Permissions: 1) 3792/13 for change of use of monastery etc to 42 residential units; 2) 2966/10 for 184 dwellings to the front of the grounds.

The Planning Authority does not consider that, notwithstanding site availability, the Harold’s Cross Area can be identified as likely to being subject to ‘ large scale development within the

13

lifetime of the plan’ having regard to the fact that the existing context is a largely built up area with a small number of discreet development sites likely to be delivered over the lifetime of the Plan. It should be noted that although it is indicated that there are c7 Hectares (17.5acres) proposed for rezoning in the Harold’s Cross area, this should be taken in the context of the general Harold’s Cross area being c307 hectares in size (c2% of the overall area).

The Draft Development Plan contains proposals to develop 4 new LAPs (plus an additional LAP and SDZ recommended in this document for Phibsborough and Poolbeg respectively) and upto 15 local environmental improvement plans (3 for each electoral area). Harolds Cross has been included on the list from which these LEIP areas will be selected.

It is an objective of the draft Plan to identify those areas in need of a Local Area Plan with priority given to areas likes to experience significant development within the life of the Plan, and to provide guidance for such. LAPs are considered most suitable for those areas which require economic, physical and social renewal and for areas which are likely to be the subject of large scale development within the lifetime of the plan. Another factor which must be taken account of in prioritising LAPs/SDZs is their lengthy preparation times. On this basis, the selection of areas for which LAPs will be prepared is an important process of prioritisation. Many areas will benefit from LEIPs instead of an LAP.

Resources have already been committed to the Ballymun LAP which has commenced and will be followed by the Park West/Cherry Orchard LAP. Poolbeg West has capacity to provide approx. 2000 homes, and has potential for SDZ designation to help deliver same in a comparatively short timescale. This area is of strategic significance in regard to its housing potential. It is further noted that Stoneybatter, Manor Street and O’Devaney Gardens, Phibsborough and Moore Street and Environs are already on the LAP list in the draft Plan.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted (for planning reasons set out above).

14

2013Councillor(s) Cllr. Nial Ring

MotionThat the resources committed to the implementation of the Phibsborough LAP in anticipation of its approval by the City Council at its meeting in December 2015 be used to ensure that Phibsborough LAP is prioritised in Table F.

Reason: To ensure that a LAP for Phibsborough is prioritised given that the resources are available for this and given the amount of work done on this to date.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe Chief Executive’s report p42-45 sets out the background in relation to the Phibsborough LAP. As requested by the City Council, key elements of the Draft LAP are now proposed for incorporation into the Draft Development Plan. In addition, a draft LEIP (Local Environment Improvement Plan) was recently presented to the City Council meeting.

The insertion of ‘Phibsborough LAP’ into the list of LAPs in Table F has been recommended (p46 of Chief Executive’s report) - to be prepared in order to deliver the core strategy of the plan. At the February meeting of the City Council it was clarified that priority would be given to the Balllymun and Cherry Orchard LAPs.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is noted (already addressed in Chief Executive’s report (pg 42-46) and at monthly meeting of the City Council).

15

2014Councillor(s) Cllr. Ray McAdam

MotionThat TABLE F on P.13 be amended to read:

TABLE F: List of proposed Statutory Local Area Plans to deliver the core strategy. The ordering of the delivery of such LAPs to be determined by City Councillors.

1. Stoneybatter, Manor Street and O’Devaney Gardens2. Phibsborough3. Ballymun4. Park West / Cherry Ochard5. Moore Street & Environs

Reason: That Phibsborough be included on the prioritisation of Local Area Plans to be delivered under the new Development Plan and the order of their delivery to be determined by City Councillors.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseIn terms of the LAP for Phibsborough, this is addressed in the Chief Executives report on submissions, see pages 42- 46 of the CE Report. This includes how matters relating to specific sites have been dealt with in the content of the draft plan.

It should be noted from the report that the 2015 Local Area Plan was not approved by the City Council in December 2015. At the City Council meeting in January 2016 it was agreed to include Phibsborough in the schedule of LAPs and Local Environmental Improvement Plans, within section 2.2.8.1. As part of the CE Recommendation on page 46 of the report, Phibsborough LAP was added to Table F (page 13) as number 5 on the list, and also it was added to the list of LEIPs, in Section 2.2.8.1, as number 27.

In relation to prioritisation of LAPs, resources have already been committed to the Ballymun LAP which has commenced and will be followed by the Park West/Cherry Orchard LAP. At the February meeting of the City Council it was clarified that priority would be given to these LAPs.

The Poolbeg West SDZ scheme, for which designation has been sought, will also be a priority for the City Council.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted.

This matter is addressed in the CE report on submissions, see Section 2.2.8.1 Area Specific Plans, page, 42 – 46

16


MotionThat a new SN17 Policy be included on P.112 which reads:

"Given the City Council’s role as a significant landowner in the Phibsborough district through its purchase of the Dalymount Park site that a secure and inclusive community consultation structure is developed prior to any plans to redevelop the stadium are put in place and this policy is an addition to any possible Local Area Plan that may be developed and implemented for the Phibsborough area".

Reason: To ensure that the community of Phibsborough have a formal input and role into the development of the Dalymount Park site.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseGiven that Dalymount Park is now a City Council owned facility any redevelopment proposals for this site will be managed by the City Council. Consultation on any redevelopment will take place through the statutory Part 8 process. In addition the LEIP will afford Councillors the opportunity for further consultation on the future of this area.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is not adopted as there are established consultation mechanisms already in place.

17


MotionAs Dublin City Council is now both the planning authority for and, through its acquisition of Dalymount Park, a large landowner in Phibsborough, and as the plans it is formulating for developing this site are stated to involve integration with expected redevelopment initiatives by an adjacent landowner (the purchasers of the Phibsborough Shopping Centre), the City Council will give priority to putting in place a strong local planning framework through a Local Area Plan for Phibsborough and also, in relation to its Dalymount Park plans, an inclusive and structured forum for full prior consultation with the local community. Also, to use the resources committed to the implementation of the Phibsborough LAP in anticipation of its approval by the City Council at its meeting in December 2015 be used to ensure that Phibsborough LAP is prioritised in Table F.

Reason: To ensure that a LAP for Phibsborough is prioritised given that the resources are available for this and given the amount of work done on this to date.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseIn terms of the LAP for Phibsborough , this is addressed in the Chief Executives report on submissions, see pages 42- 46 of the CE Report. It should be noted from the report that the 2015 Local Area Plan was not approved by the City Council in December 2015. At the City Council meeting in January 2016 it was agreed to include Phibsborough in the schedule of LAPs and Local Environmental Improvement Plans, within section 2.2.8.1.

As part of the CE Recommendation on page 46 of the report, Phibsborough LAP was added to Table F (page 13) as number 5 on the list, and also it was added to the list of LEIPs, in Section 2.2.8.1, as number 27.

The lists as shown in Table F are not the ordering of priority of the LAPs or SDZ’s. Resources have already been committed to the Ballymun LAP which has commenced and will be followed by the Park West/Cherry Orchard LAP. At the February meeting of the City Council it was clarified that priority would be given to these LAPs.

Section 2.2.8.1 of the draft plan addresses area specific plans, and p42-6 of the Chief Executive’s report relates. The CEs response goes into detail in relation to the Shopping Centre and Dalymount sites. The preparation of any LAP would include public consultation. Given that Dalymount Park is now a City Council-owned facility, any redevelopment proposals for this site will be managed by the City Council. Consultation on any redevelopment will take place through the statutory Part 8 process.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted; matter addressed in CE Report and City Council meetings.

18

2017Councillor(s) Deputy Lord Mayor Cieran Perry

MotionPhibsbourogh Local Area Plan

Given that the Phibsborough LAP which failed to be adopted provides for 90% of the content for a new LAP, a new Phibsborough LAP will be prioritised on adoption of the Development Plan.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe matter of an LAP for Phibsborough was already dealt with in the Chief Executives report on submissions; see pages 42- 46 of the CE Report. This includes how matters relating to specific sites have been dealt with in the content of the draft plan.

It should be noted from the report that the 2015 Local Area Plan was not approved by the City Council in December 2015. At the City Council meeting in January 2016 it was agreed to include Phibsborough in the schedule of LAPs and Local Environmental Improvement Plans, within section 2.2.8.1. As part of the CE Recommendation on page 46 of the report, Phibsborough LAP was added to Table F (page 13), and also it was added to the list of LEIPs, in Section 2.2.8.1.

In relation to prioritisation of LAPs, resources have already been committed to the Ballymun LAP which has commenced and will be followed by the Park West/Cherry Orchard LAP. At the February meeting of the City Council it was clarified that priority would be given to these LAPs.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted; addressed in recent City Council meetings.

19


Motion“That the ‘Lifeline’ proposal for green infrastructure improvements along the corridor of the Luas Cross City line and former Broadstone rail alignment be endorsed as a green corridor and included in the map of green networks contained within the Plan.”

Reason: to provide additional green infrastructure in the city

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe ‘Lifeline’ proposal is located on the disused lands adjacent to the Midland Great Western Railway (MGWR) cutting, Broadstone to Broombridge in northwest central Dublin. The area provides a green infrastructure asset and form part of the green infrastructure network strategy for Dublin City as identified in Fig.14 “City Centre Green Routes”.

The map in Fig.14 is at a high city scale that the details of the green infrastructure areas including the aforementioned location are not visible.

It is a policy of the Draft City Development Plan to develop a green infrastructure network through the city, thereby interconnecting strategic natural and semi-natural areas with other environmental features including green spaces, rivers, canals and other physical features in terrestrial (including coastal) and marine areas (GI1).

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is noted as the matter raised has been addressed in Section 10.5.1 of the Draft City Development Plan.

20

2019Councillor(s) Cllr. Michael O'Brien

MotionPage 54 of the Chief Executive's report he proposes to add text at the start of section 3.3. Challenges (para) (page 17): "The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Strategy.. to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees celsius".

I want a propose that this text not be added the reason being is that it claims as fact that the outcome of the COP 21 conference is a commitment to a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions so as to limit further global warming by to a maximum 2 degrees celsius when the reality is that it is widely contested by many climatologists that even if the commitments from the conference are adhered to the 2 degree target will be exceeded.

Motion

Refers to: Chapter 3 - Addressing Climate Change

Chief Executive's ResponseIt is not considered that it is the City Council’s role to decide on the appropriateness or realism of the United Nations Climate Change Strategy’s global commitments. Section 3.3 of the draft Plan is setting the context and challenges of dealing with climate change over the Plan period and therefore it is considered appropriate to make reference to the commitments made at COP21.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted for the reason set out above.

21


MotionPage 17, Section 3.3 Amend to include the following:

‘And has agreed an even more ambitious target of 40% by 2030 through the EU Mayors Adapt initiative’

Reason: Dublin City Council signed up to these targets in Brussels in November 2015 and therefore should aim to adhere to them in the City Development Plan.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThis motion is viewed in the context of the new targets set up in the EU Mayors Adapt initiative.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is adopted.

Insert new text at section 3.3, first paragraph last line (page 17):

"...and the EU Mayors Adapt initiative has agreed to reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions by at least 40% by 2030".

22


MotionPage 18, To include a new policy: “That the new Climate Change Strategy for Dublin City and the mitigation and adaptation plans and policies and carbon reduction targets set out in that strategy will be included in the Dublin City Development by way of variation when it is finalized.”

Reason: Dublin City requires its own Climate Change Strategy and the current in plan is out of date and a new plan is currently in progress. The Climate Change Strategy for Dublin City will help set out clear path for the City to reach its ambitious yet achievable carbon reduction targets.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs recommended in the Chief Executive’s report, it is proposed to amend objectives CCO1 and CCO2 to read:

CCO1: To implement the ‘National Climate Change Adaptation Framework (2012)’ by adopting a Climate Change Action Plan for Dublin city which will assist towards meeting national and EU targets. This will be adopted by the end of 2018.

CCO2: To support the implementation of the forthcoming ‘Climate Change Strategy for Dublin and Climate Change Action Plan for Dublin City.

It is considered that this will satisfactorily address this issue.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted for the reason set out above

23


MotionPage 18, 3.5.1 amendments to 2nd&3rd Paragraph to include a reference to the carbon reduction targets that will be set out in the New Climate Change Strategy for Dublin City.


Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe issues raised in the motion are addressed in the Chief Executive’s Report and recommendations on pages 57 and 58, relating to changes to the draft Plan to reflect the City Council’s forthcoming ‘Climate Change Strategy for Dublin’ and ‘Climate Change Action Plan for Dublin City’ and a commitment in objective CCO2 to implement same.

The draft Plan also includes objective CCO6 which is to promote carbon-neutral communities and seek to initiate carbon-neutral demonstration projects.

Therefore no further changes are considered necessary.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is noted. The matter is adequately addressed in the Draft Development Plan and changes to the draft Plan recommended in the Chief Executive’s Report addressing these concerns.

24

2023Councillor(s) Cllr. Brendan Carr

MotionThat objective CCO11 requiring passive or the equivalent standards for new building be reinstated.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe rationale for the recommended deletion of Objective CCO11 of the Draft Plan, which sought passive house standards, has been clearly set out in section 3.5.2 of the Chief Executive’s report (see p 61). The Department of Environment, Community and Local Government submission (pg13) is also relevant.

It remains the case that the implementation of new internal energy standards for buildings is not a matter for the Development Plan, but should be implemented via changes to the building regulations at national level. In essence, the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government strongly advises against including the passive house requirements on Planning, Building Control and Competition grounds. The standard is voluntary and there is no planning means of enforcing it. There are concerns also that the initial additional costs will delay house building in Dublin City if only imposed in Dublin, with unsustainable consequences in relation to increased commuting.

The motion is beyond the scope of the Development Plan, but could be pursued with the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government via correspondence from the relevant SPC.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted. Is outside the scope of the Development Plan and out of order.

Refer to SPC to discuss preparation of letter to the Minister regarding possible introduction of appropriate passive House energy standards via the Building Regulations.

25


MotionThat the section demanding passive or the equivalent building standards for all commercial, institutional and residential buildings be reinstated into the Development Plan.

Reason: The rationale behind the removal of this section has never been fully explained or justified and would appear to have been removed by Dublin City Council at the behest of the Minister for the Environment. Given the Minister's lack of action when, for example, Dun Laoghaire reinstated their section on passive development, it would appear that the Department is quite open to reinterpretation of the Ministerial position.

Motion







26

2025Councillor(s) Cllr. Paul Hand

MotionInsert into 16.10.1 and 16.10.2; That new buildings apply the passive house standards or any equivalent evidence based standards in the construction of new build apartments and houses.

Reason: to provide sustainable housing, protect the environment, lower carbon emissions, meet climate change protocols and implement new and innovative designs and standards.

Motion







27


MotionPage 19, Add the wording of Par.16.1.11 from the current Development Plan

“'Sustainable Urban Form': To minimise the waste of embodied energy in existing structures, the re-use of existing buildings should always be considered as a first option in preference to demolition and new-build.”


Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe reference made relates to section 16.1.11 of the current development plan rather than to the draft Plan and submissions received. Related relevant references in the report on submissions however include the following and address the issues raised in the suggested wording:

Section 5.5.3, which relates to sustainable building design; renewable energy, embodied energy, and energy performance in buildings.

Section 16.2.1.2, which relates to ventilation and heat recovery in buildings

Section 9.5.4 which related to SUDS, and section 10.5.3 (policy GI14) which specifically promotes SUDS in public open spaces.

Section 5.5.8; demolition and reuse of housing.

This said the inclusion of the wording as proposed is reasonable and should be inserted into relevant section i.e. 16.2.1.2.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat the motion is adopted as amended.

Add the following text to the beginning of 2nd paragraph of 16.2.1.2 of draft plan:

"To minimise the waste of embodied energy in existing structures, the re-use of existing buildings should always be considered as a first option in preference to demolition and new-build".

28


MotionPage 20, To change the following:

CCO11: All new buildings will be required to meet the passive house standard or equivalent. In this case‘equivalent’ means where there is robust evidenceto support a buildings effi cacy (with particular regard to indoor air quality, energy performance,and prevention of surface/interstitial condensation).The only exceptions shall be buildings specifically exempted from BER ratings by the SEAI.Energy Efficiency and the Built Environment.To“It is Council policy that 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.”

Reason: To assist in reducing carbon emissions, tackling future fuel poverty, to provide long term sustainable housing for the citizens of Dublin, and to be consistent with the Dún laoghaire Rathdown Development Plan.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe rationale for the recommended deletion of Objective CCO11 has been clearly set out in section 3.5.2 of the Chief Executive’s report ( see p 61). The Chief Executive’s response to the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government on p13 is also relevant.


The motion is beyond the scope of the Development Plan process, but could be pursued with the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government via correspondence from the relevant SPC.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted (outside scope of the Development Plan and out of order).

Refer to SPC to discuss preparation of letter to the Minister regarding possible introduction of Passive House energy standards via the Building Regulations.

29

2028Councillor(s) Cllr. Éilis Ryan

MotionThat objective CCO11 in relation to passive housing be retained, but that the specific regulations and standards be detailed in recognition of the need to avoid excessive support for one particular company.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe rationale for the recommended deletion of Objective CCO11 has been clearly set out in section 3.5.2 of the Chief Executive’s report ( see p 61). The Chief Executive’s response to the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government on p13 is also relevant.


The motion is beyond the scope of the Development Plan process, but could be pursued with the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government via correspondence from the relevant SPC.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted (outside scope of the Development Plan and out of order).

Refer to SPC to discuss preparation of letter to the Minister regarding possible introduction of Passive House energy standards via the Building Regulations.

30

2029Councillor(s) Cllr. Daithí De Róiste

MotionThat the City Development Plan will continue seek to reward and incentivise the construction of energy efficient buildings throughout the City. The plan should also make provisions for current housing stock to be made energy efficient. The decarbonisation of our energy system must be at the forefront of all policy going forward. And Dublin City Council should be a leader in this.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe draft Plan supports the use of sustainable energy use under the following objectives:

CCO5: To support and collaborate on initiatives aimed at achieving more sustainable energy use, particularly in relation to the residential, commercial and transport sectors.

And CCO10: To support renewable energy pilot projects which aim to incorporate renewable energy into schemes where feasible.

CCO12: To ensure high standards of energy efficiency in existing and new developments in line with good architectural conservation practice and to promote energy efficiency and conservation in the design and development of all new buildings in the city, encouraging improved environmental performance of building stock.

CCO13: To support and encourage pilot schemes which promote innovative ways to incorporate energy efficiency into new developments.

CCO12: To ensure high standards of energy efficiency in existing and new developments in line with good architectural conservation practice and to promote energy efficiency and conservation in the design and development of all new buildings in the city, encouraging improved environmental performance of building stock.

CCO13: To support and encourage pilot schemes which promote innovative ways to incorporate energy efficiency into new developments.

Policy CC3 also supports the use of renewable energy aswell: To promote energy efficiency, energy conservation, and the increased use of renewable energy in existing and new developments.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is noted. There is adequate current provision in the Draft Plan.

31

2030Councillor(s) Cllr. Paddy McCarten

MotionThat the Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022 include the following policy:

"To ensure that development within or affecting Dublin's Villages protects their special interest and character.”

Reason: Dublin's Villages have a unique contribution to make to the heritage of the city.

Motion

Refers to: Chapter 4 - Shape and Structure of the City

Chief Executive's ResponseThe Draft Plan sets out the spatial structure of Dublin under Section 4.1 (Introduction) and recognises inter alia the urban villages. Dublin villages have a variety of functions and characteristics.

This section also states that “New development will be required to respect the unique character of the city by taking account of the intrinsic character of the built heritage, landscape and natural environment.”

Policy SC9 of the Draft Plan states it is the policy of DCC to develop and support the hierarchy of centres.

“SC9: To develop and support the hierarchy of the suburban centres, ranging from the top tier Key District Centres, to District Centres/Urban Villages and Neighbourhood Centres, in order to support the sustainable consolidation of the city and provide for the essential economic and community support for local neighbourhoods, including post offices and banks, where feasible, and to promote and enhance the distinctive character and sense of place of these areas”.Elsewhere in the Draft plan, Section 2.2.81 (Area Specific Plans) sets out that a number of Local Environmental Improvement Plans or Village Improvement Plans, or other appropriate plans will be prepared in conjunction with the Local Area Committee, insofar as priorities and resources permit, with the objective of preparing up to 3 LEIPs for each area from the list of 30 plus contained in that section.

In addition, there are a range of policies and objectives contained in Chapter 11 (Culture and Heritage) relating to protected structures, architectural conservation areas, and the City Heritage Plan.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat this motion is noted: the matter is addressed in the existing Draft Development Plan.

32


MotionTo include North Wall in Policy SC1.

Reason: To recognise the North Wall community as a distinctive community from Docklands in line with the division of the area in the Docklands SDZ.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponsePolicy SC1 of the Draft plan is to consolidate and enhance the inner city by linking the critical mass of existing and emerging clusters and communities such as Docklands, Heuston Quarter, Grangegorman, Stoneybatter, Digital Hub, Newmarket, Parnell Square, the Ship Street area and Smithfield with each other, and to regeneration areas.

The North Wall in its entirety is included in SDRA 6 (SDZ and Wider Docklands Area), as shown on Map K and in the Written Statement. It would be inconsistent to include a specific reference to the North Wall in Policy SC1, at the exclusion of all other parts of SDRA 6.

The Docklands Area is covered by the Community Oversight Body provided for under the Docklands Dissolution Act.

Furthermore, Section 2.2.8.1 (Area Specific Plans) lists Sheriff Street/North Wall as one of the potential areas for which a LEIP/VIP/other non-statutory plan may be prepared. Accordingly, it is considered that there is sufficient recognition of the North Wall area in the Draft plan.

The Chief Executive’s Report (No. 269/2015) outlined that the Docklands Regeneration Area includes the North Wall in its entirety, and also that it would be inconsistent to include a reference to “and the wider North Wall area” in Policy SC8, at the exclusion of all other parts of the Docklands Regeneration Area which similarly do not come within the North Lotts and Grand Canal Dock SDZ.

Notwithstanding the above, it is recognised that there are distinctive neighbourhoods within the Docklands as in all parts of the city.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat this motion is not adopted, for the planning reasons outlined above.

33


MotionTo add the words "insofar as possible" after the words "close to public transport" to the second bullet point in section 4.4.

Reason: The development Plan has little or no influence over public transport provision and the creation of nurturing and sustainable neighbourhoods and the current wording could restrict development if public transport were not currently close-by.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseSection 13.3.3 (Collaboration and Engagement Mechanisms) recognises that while the City Council will undertake a leadership role to progress and secure the Plan objectives, the successful outcome of a significant number of objectives of the Plan will necessitate ongoing collaboration and a sense of goodwill across a range of agencies and stakeholders. Accordingly, the Draft plan sufficiently recognises that the provision of public transport and other infrastructure is dependent on other agencies.

Furthermore, the Chief Executive’s recommendation is to Amend the second bullet point in Section 4.4 so that the creation and nurturing of sustainable neighbourhoods, which are designed to facilitate walking and cycling, is specifically referenced.

Accordingly, whilst it is considered that the words “insofar as possible” after “close to public transport” may dilute the policy, there is no objection to it.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat this motion is adopted.

Amend 2nd bullet point of section 4.4 (pg24 of Draft Plan) as follows:

"The creation and nurturing of sustainable neighbourhoods, close to public transport insofar as possible, and a range of community infrastructure, in quality, more intensive mixed-use environments".

34


MotionThat this city council welcome the initiative to develop an active land management strategy for the city (Objective SCO3). That the CE agrees to bring to the City Council any land which is to be added under SCO3, with a report for such inclusion. That any banks of land covered by SCO3, which the local area committee propose to be included, are added to the list. Furthermore, that any development plan for identified land under SCO3 be agreed with the local area committee and put out for public consultation prior to it been put to the City Council for adoption.

Reason: To ensure that there is a transparent and democratic process in the inclusion of lands under SCO3 of the development plan and to ensure that any plan to development land under SCO3 go through a process which will allow for the concerns and opinions of both local councilors and the local residents to be heard.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseElected members have already decided this matter in the Draft Plan.

The Chief Executive has recommended that the following amendments be made to the Draft Plan:

Replace text in the second paragraph on p45:“The Government is legislating for a Vacant Land Levy and the City Council will implement such a levy when enacted”

with:

“The Urban Regeneration and Housing Act 2015 provides for a levy on vacant sites and requires the City Council to prepare a Register of Vacant Sites and to make it publicly available including on our website.”

Amend Policy CEE16 (ii):

From:“To implement the Vacant Land Levy and/or Tax when enacted”

To:“(ii) To implement the vacant land levy for all vacant development sites in the city and to prepare and make publicly available a Register of Vacant Sites in the city as set out in the Urban Regeneration and Housing Act 2015.”

The Active Land Management Study was presented to the Planning SPC in April.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat this motion is not adopted

It is further recommended, on foot of guidance from the DECLG, that the wording in para 14.8A of the Chief Executive’s Report (pg 267) be amended as follows:

35

“14.8 Vacant land levy Residential and Regeneration Lands

The Urban Regeneration and Housing Act 2015 sets out two broad categories of vacant land that the levy may apply to:

1. Lands zoned primarily for residential purposes2. Lands in need of regeneration

1. The following lands zoned for residential or primarily residential purposes are included for the purposes as set out in the Urban Regeneration and Housing Act 2015 in relation to the vacant land levy.

Z1 and Z2 residential zoned lands as they have capacity to provide residential accommodation.

Zone Z8 lands which have the Land-Use Zoning Objective: “To protect the existing architectural and civic design character,….” are included as vacant sites are damaging to the great architectural and civic design character of these areas.

Z10 mixed-use zones are included as they offer great potential for the significant supply of housing and employment space, as set out in the Zoning Objective:“To consolidate and facilitate the development of inner city and inner suburban sites for mixed uses, ….. “

Z12 zoned lands (designated in the Plan as having “Future Development Potential”) are included as these are lands where (some/all of) the institutional uses are no longer viable and where development for other uses predominately residential is possible/desirable/appropriate.

Strategic Development and Regeneration Areas (Z14 zone) are included as these are the crucial redevelopment and regeneration areas in the city.

2. The following zoned lands are included as lands with the objective of development and renewal of areas in need of regeneration:

Z3 neighbourhood centre and Z4 district centre zoned lands are included given their critical role for sustainable neighbourhoods and wider communities, and because they are located in highly visible streets.

Z5 or city centre zoned lands are included as there are significant vacant lands in this zone which provide an opportunity for the city, and given the Zoning Objective: “To consolidate and facilitate the development of the central area, and to identify, reinforce, strengthen and protect its civic design character and dignity.”

Z6 Employment/Enterprise zoned lands are included because the Objective is “To provide for the creation and protection of enterprise and facilitate opportunities for employment creation". The primary objective is to facilitate long-term economic development in the city region.” A similar case is relevant for Z7 industrial zoned lands”.

36


MotionTo specifically include a reference to the relocation of DIT to Grangegorman in objective SCO 3.

Reason: To ensure that this major vacating of buildings throughout the city does not have any adverse impact.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe Chief Executive’s Report sets out that any future uses of DIT’s buildings/properties would have to comply with the provisions of the Development Plan, and that accordingly, it is not considered necessary to introduce any new policies specific to buildings vacated by DIT, as there is sufficient strategic guidance on this matter under Objective SCO8 (Section 4.5.1.1) and Policy SC27 (Section 4.5.9 Urban Form and Architecture).

For this reason, no proposed Amendment to SCO3 is contained in the Chief Executive’s Report on Submissions on the Draft plan.

If any sites become vacant in accordance with the criteria in the Urban Regeneration & Housing Act, they will be entered onto the Vacant Site Register.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat this motion is not adopted, for the reasons outlined above.


MotionThat the area upon which it intends to roll out the Living City Initiative to include the proposed statutory based Stoneybatter Local Area Plan.

Reason: This scheme which aims bring families back to living in the city centre and can ultimately bring families back to living in the city centre and to maximize through the restoration of pre -1915 buildings.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe Living City Initiative launched by the Department of Finance in 2015 provides tax incentives for the regeneration of pre-1915 residential buildings for owner-occupation and for the regeneration of commercial buildings in the designated ‘special regeneration area’. The boundaries have been set in 2015 for tax incentive purposes in conjunction with the Revenue Commissioners and on the basis that the area meets set criteria. The area covered already includes some areas in the vicinity of Manor Street, and the full extent of the City Council’s ‘special regeneration area’ is available to view on the City Council’s website.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted, as it is outside the scope of the Development Plan.

37


MotionTo amend the last paragraph to read Tom Clarke Bridge where East Link Bridge is included (and similarly any other references to the East link Bridge should be amended to reflect the new name (e.g. P162, 176, 140 etc)

Reason: To reflect the decision by City Councillors to name the Bridge the Tom Clarke bridge (DCC meeting 7/3/16).

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe motion to name the East Link Bridge as Tom Clarke Bridge was carried at the City Council meeting of 7 March 2016. The re-naming of the bridge to Tom Clarke Bridge shall be incorporated into the Draft Plan.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is adopted. The written text of the Plan shall be amended, whereby East Link Bridge and East Link Toll Bridge shall be substituted with Tom Clarke Bridge in the Draft Plan.

38


MotionThat the City Development Plan will clearly outline how it will support and develop Urban Villages and how essential services can be supported and maintained by the plan.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseChapter 4 contains a number of policies and objectives which support KDCs, District Centres/Urban Villages and neighbourhood centres, such as Policy SC9, Policy SC10 and Objective SCO5.

Elsewhere in the plan Objective RDO1 (Section 7.6.1) recognises the importance of implementing the retail hierarchy contained in the Retail Strategy, and also Policy RD17 outlines the policy to ensure the adequate and appropriate retail provision in the emerging or key developing areas such as Cherry Orchard/Parkwest, North Fringe, Pelletstown and the Docklands.

Also, the Z4 land use zoning (to provide for and improve mixed-services facilities) relates to district centres, which include urban villages. Chapter 16 (Development Standards) also refers to urban villages, for example, in the context of urban design and place-making. Furthermore, Section 16.2 Design Principles and Standards (Chapter 16 - Development Standards) sets out under that all development will be expected to incorporate exemplary standards of high quality sustainable and inclusive urban design and architecture befitting the city’s environment and heritage and its diverse range of locally distinctive neighbourhoods.

The 33 proposed LEIP’s in the Draft Plan include many Urban Villages.

It is considered that there is sufficient recognition of the importance of Dublin’s urban villages throughout the Draft Plan.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is noted: the matter is addressed in the Draft Plan.

39


MotionThat a new SC15 Policy be included on P.31 which states:

"That Phibsborough remains an area for low rise development until a time where a Local Area Plan for the Phibsborough is developed and adopted by the Council."

Reason: To protect the Phibsborough from the possible high rise development until the issue of building heights in Phibsborough is determined by a Statutory Local Area Plan.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs the draft Phibsborough LAP was not adopted, it was agreed by the members to use the draft City Development Plan process to incorporate key policy elements of the key development sites outlined in the draft LAP for inclusion in the new City Development Plan for statutory guidance.

For this reason the Amendments show that Phibsborough is included in the mid-rise category, and it is expressly stated under Section 16.7.2 of the CE’s Report on Submissions that Phibsborough will remain a low rise area, with the exception of allowing for (i) up to maximum height of 19m in the centre of the Smurfit site and immediately adjoining the proposed railway station at Cross Guns Bridge; and (ii) the addition of one additional storey of 4m will be considered in relation to any proposals to reclad the existing ‘tower’ at the Phibsborough Shopping Centre (as per the 2015 Draft Phibsborough LAP). (See pg 396 of Chief Executive’s Report on Submissions).

It was agreed at City Council that Phibsborough is to be included into the list of the draft plan relating to LAPs/SDZs for preparation.

Accordingly, as the members have agreed to incorporate the key policy elements of the fallen draft LAP into the new City Development Plan, it is recommended that this motion is not adopted.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted, for the planning reasons outlined above.

40


MotionDublin City Council agrees to correct an error at Sec.4.5.4.1 (8th paragraph), which states: "Of the 15 specific areas identified for mid-rise (up to 50m) and taller (above 50m) buildings...........11 are in the mid-rise category, of which 6 are in areas already the subject of local area plans and SDZs"

Reason: There are 13 areas (not 15) identified for mid-rise and high-rise buildings. The number in the mid-rise category is incorrect. 9 (not 11) areas are listed in the mid-rise category in the table 'Building Height in Dublin' at Section 16.7.2.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs the amendments show (in Section 16.7.2) that Phibsborough is to be added to the mid-rise category, the text of Section 4.5.4.1 should be amended to reflect the number of areas in the mid-rise category. It should be noted that all numerical changes will be corrected at the end of the process.

Chief Executive's RecommendationAmend Section 4.5.4.1 as follows:

From:"Of the 15 areas specific areas identified for mid-rise (up to 50m) and taller (above 50m) buildings, ………11 are in the mid-rise category, of which 6 are in areas already the subject of local area plans and SDZs".

To:"Of the 14 specific areas identified for mid-rise (up to 50m) and taller (above 50m) buildings, ………10 are in the mid-rise category, of which 4 are in areas already the subject of local area plans and SDZs".

41


MotionIn recognition of the national, historic, social and cultural importance of the Liberty Hall site and its location opposite the Tara Street Station, Georges Quay which provides for higher buildings in the Development Plan, the height limitations set out in the plan may be relaxed in considering a proposal for the redevelopment of the site which will provide for the continuation of its national, historic, social and cultural status. Any such proposal will be considered against the assessment criteria for higher buildings set out at para 16.7.2.

Reason: This motion was already passed by the City Council, Furthermore, the presence of a tall building on this historically and culturally significant site has become an established feature of the Dublin skyline. However, the existing office building is no longer fit for purpose. It is considered that a tall building of architectural excellence and slender proportions at this location would mark the historic nature of the site and provide for the continuation of an established landmark which would complement the taller buildings provided for in the Development Plan at Tara Street Station on the opposite end of the Butt Bridge.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThis motion is a slightly expanded version of the existing text relating to Liberty Hall contained in Section 4.5.4.1 (Approach to Taller Buildings). As the motion does not materially alter the content of Section 4.5.4.1 relating to Liberty Hall, no changes to the existing paragraph in the Draft plan are recommended.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat this motion is noted, as the matters raised in this motion are already agreed under Section 4.5.4.1 of the Plan.

42


MotionPage 31 (Liberty Hall)Delete the paragraph that commences:“In recognition of”

Reason: to protect an iconic Dublin building.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseElected members have already agreed this matter in the Draft Plan. This was previously addressed under Motion 1527 of Special Council Meeting 16th and 17th September 2015.

The paragraph referred to in the motion states:

"In recognition of the national, social and cultural importance of the Liberty Hall site, the height limitations set out in the development plan may be set aside or relaxed in considering a proposal for the redevelopment of the site which will provide for the continuation of its national, historic, social and cultural status. Any such proposal will be considered against the relevant standards set out in the section dealing with the Assessment Criteria for High Buildings".

It is considered the safeguards set out in this paragraph are sufficient to protect adjacent iconic buildings.


43


MotionPage 31, Retain the wording of Par.16.1.4 ' Proportions and Enclosure' from the current Development Plan:

"It is an objective of the Council to promote streets and public spaces which are human-scaled, are memorable as places which have a high standard of amenity. The relationship of Dublin's street facades to the human scale is recognised as a major attraction of the city. It is a policy of Dublin city council that new buildings should be designed and sited with a view to maintaining this important characteristic."

Reason: This is an important provision in relation to maintaining the characteristic human-scale of Dublin which is recognised internationally as intrinsic to its charm.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe matters outlined in Section 16.1.4 (Proportions and Enclosure) of the City Development Plan 2011-2017 are adequately addressed in the Draft plan under Section 16.2 (Design, Principles & Standards).

For example, under Section 16.2.1.1 (Respecting and Enhancing Character and Context) it is outlined that “the City's townscape is characterised by streets, buildings and spaces which have evolved over centuries, with established human scale and high quality of materials, craftsmanship and detail generally. The City Council will seek to ensure that the design of new development respects and enhances these and other elements that contribute positively to the cityscape and urban realm, the settings of protected structures, areas of special interest and important views and that such design incorporates high-quality detail, materials and craftsmanship.” More detailed guidance is also set out under Section 16.2 (Design, Principles & Standards).

Furthermore, policies contained in Chapter 4 (Shape and Structure of the City) emphasise the importance of a well-designed urban environment. For example, Policy SC17 promotes the development of a network of active, attractive and safe streets and public spaces which are memorable, and Policy SC23 promotes high quality urban design, urban form and architecture.

The inclusion of the text outlined in the motion is not considered necessary, as the Draft plan adequately incorporates the matters raised in this motion, both in terms of Development Standards (Chapter 16) and at policy level (Chapter 4).

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted, as this matter is adequately addressed in the draft plan, as outlined above.

44


MotionThis City Council includes as an objective of the Development Plan under Section 4.5.5 The Public Realm the following:

“Dublin City Council will seek to remove a minimum of 50 unused or under used free standing poles from each electoral area of the City in each year of the life of the Development Plan.”

Reason: Unused poles of this sort are a cause of nuisance and annoyance as well as being unsightly. This objective would set a measurable target for the City Council on this issue and would encourage citizens to accept that the Council was meetings its objectives in a measurable way. This is submitted in accordance with a number of submissions seeking a reduction in street clutter.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe matter of auditing existing street furniture, poles and signage in the public realm, and the aim to remove 20% of such redundant elements, is adequately addressed in Objective SCO6 of the Draft plan. (Section 4.5.5 The Public Realm). Accordingly, SCO6 addresses the matter of reducing street clutter in a comprehensive way, rather than seeking the removal of a specified number of free-standing poles from each electoral area, regardless of the nature and extent of the issue in each area.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat this motion is adopted as amended; to read as follows:

"SCO6: To carry out an audit of existing street furniture poles and signage in the public realm, with the aim of removing at least 20% of such redundant elements, in order to reduce street clutter and to seek the multiple use of poles for road and directional signage including butterfly bike locking facilities".

45

2044Councillor(s) Cllr. Kieran Binchy

MotionAmend Objective SCO8 (page 32) to: To prioritise the redevelopment of College Green as a pedestrianised civic space, including the pedestrianisation of Foster Place, and including dedicated cycle lanes.

Reason - to promote the pedestrianisation of the civic space, accompanied by safe cycle lanes to ensure that the area while remaining porous and navigable for cyclists does not do so in a manner that endangers cyclists or pedestrians.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe Amendment to Objective SCO8 contained in the Chief Executive’s Report on the Submissions is “To prioritise the redevelopment of College Green as a civic space, including the pedestrianisation of Foster Place”. (pg 81).

As part of the Dublin City Centre Transport Study a major civic space at College Green is proposed. The public consultation period for this Study has ended, and the CCTS is expected to be adopted soon. The CCTS has resulted in the College Green Traffic Management Measures, on which public consultation commenced on 11 April 2016 and ends on 24 May 2016. It is considered that to further alter Objective SCO8 to specify the inclusion of dedicated cycle lanes is premature, as proposals relating to cycling, as part of much broader proposals for the College Green area, are currently open to public consultation.

It may be noted that this public consultation document outlines that cyclists will have a completely segregated cycle track between the Bank of Ireland and Trinity College, which will mean physical separation of the cyclist from Luas and bus movements.

Accordingly, as the matter of developing College Green as a civic space, in the context of transport provision and movement, is currently subject of a public consultation process, it is considered that no further specific amendments to Objective SCO8 are necessary.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted for the reasons set out above.

46


MotionSC21: To include a line at the end of this objective to include a reference to Dublin City Council as follows:

"Dublin City Council shall lead by example in this objective"

Reason: To reflect the recent High Court judgement on Moore Street which included a reference to an unauthorised banner on the National Monument.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseObjective SC21 states it is Council policy to enforce the removal of unauthorised advertisements, banners etc.

Section 13.3.4 (Compliance with Permission Granted and Enforcement) outlines that where development is carried out without planning permission, enforcement proceedings will be undertaken. With regard to investigating individual planning enforcement cases, this is an operational matter.

It is considered that the City Council’s role regarding enforcement of the planning code is adequately addressed in the Draft plan, and that the inclusion of additional wording is unnecessary.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is noted, as this matter is already addressed in existing text (Section 13.3.4) in the draft plan, and the Planning Acts.

47

2046Councillor(s) Cllr. Christy Burke

MotionThat the City Development Plan provides senior citizen housing units in all developments in Dublin City.

Motion

Refers to: Chapter 5 - Quality Housing

Chief Executive's ResponseProviding a blanket requirement for all housing developments to provide senior citizen housing, while admirable is not considered an appropriate response to what is a recognised housing issue for the city. All housing must be Part M compliant and it could be argued that all units are therefore suitable for senior citizen housing. However providing dedicated senior citizen housing must address other issues including rights of sale/ purchase, rent, management, including the appropriate scale of the scheme and the provision of accessible and suitable services. The Part V process under the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended), allows the City Council to seek housing for senior citizens having regard to identified local need, the size of the scheme and appropriate management arrangements to be put in place.

As inserted into the Draft Plan following the public submissions, it is also recognised that “as a general rule step-down housing for the elderly should be located in close proximity to existing village centres/ amenities, to enable people to continue to interact with their local communities ”. Not all housing schemes will however be suitably located for senior citizen housing.

The Draft Development Plan includes an objective QH02 to instigate the design of a prototype block of age-friendly apartments for older people based on age-friendly design principles in conjunction with other bodies, as appropriate, in order to inform a model of good practice. This process has stated and the outcome of this study may in the future lead to the adoption of specific development standards for the elderly.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is not adopted. Issue to be examined under Objective QHO2.

48


MotionThat the City Development Plan seeks to provide low cost childcare from government for families in Dublin City.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseExisting policy SN17 within the Draft Plan states:It is the Policy of Dublin City Council to facilitate the provision in suitable locations of sustainable, fit-for-purpose childcare facilities in residential, employment, and educational settings, taking into account the existing provision of childcare facilities and emerging demographic trends in an area.

In addition Appendix 13 provides Guidelines for Childcare Facilities in line with the guidance issued by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government (June 2001), entitled Childcare Facilities Guidelines for Planning Authorities. The Department’s Guidance deals with issues of appropriate locations, sizes etc for crèche facilities, and the need to address childcare provision for large residential schemes, i.e. land use planning issues relating to childcare.

It is considered that the plan adequately addresses the need to facilitate appropriately located and suitable childcare provision. The provision however of low-cost childcare is not a matter for the Development Plan.

The Dublin City Local Economic and Community Plan 2016-2021 includes as one of its high level goals the promotion of access to a range of educational, training and development opportunities, starting in early childhood, leading to a culture of lifelong learning.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is not adopted. Outside scope of the Development Plan.

2048Councillor(s) People Before Profit Group

MotionThat development’s in the inner-city area expressly include a % of 3 and 4 bed units.

Reason: So as to create sustainable urban neighbourhoods suitable for residents at all life stages.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe development standards for new residential apartments, set out in section 16.10.1 of the Draft Plan, requires new schemes to provide a minimum of 15% three- or more bedroom units.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is noted, matter is already addressed under Section 16.10.1 of the Draft Plan.

49


MotionThat the City Development Plan, recognising the current housing crisis, commits DCC to have all vacant housing stock allocated within a 4 week period of them taking ownership of the property. No derelict properties or housing units should remain empty for a period longer than 4 weeks.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe allocation of housing stock is an operational matter for the City Council.

The Housing Executive is committed to refurbishing and allocating housing units as quickly as possible whilst ensuring that all units are brought up to today’s standards. It is not possible to give a standard turnabout time period for all properties given the age and condition of many units within the existing stock.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion not adopted: Operational Matter. Please refer to Housing SPC.


MotionThat the City Development Plan prioritises a buy back scheme whereby Dublin City Council will commit to purchasing all 2 and 3 bedroom homes once offered to the Council.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseDublin City Council is actively pursuing the acquisition of properties throughout the City. The purchase and acquisition of new or second hand dwellings is one of the 7 methods identified in the Housing Strategy to aid the delivery of social housing within the City. The operation of the “buy-back” scheme is however an operational matter managed by the Housing Executive, and subject to agreed criteria and limitations, including tenure mix and affordability as outlined in Dublin City Council’s current policy in relation to the purchase of second hand houses. Any changes sought to this scheme should be addressed via the Housing SPC.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion not adopted: Operational Matter. Please refer to Housing SPC.

50


MotionPolicy QH3: To further amend this policy to include a prohibition on any financial or off -site deals to circumvent to 10% social housing requirement within a development unless the financial amount is received and ring fenced to purchase identified similar quality properties or the offsite properties are of similar quality, ready for occupation and ownership transferred in advance of development commencement.

Reason: To prevent such situations where deals were done but fell through later resulting in no financial contribution and/or no social housing such as happened at Ossory Road (Crosbie's Yard).

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseSection 33 of the Urban Regeneration and Housing Act 2015 amends section 96 of the Act of 2000 with the objective to maximise the transfer of ownership of completed social housing units to planning authorities or to persons nominated by the authority in accordance with Part V. The 2015 Act removes the option of providing cash payment in lieu of social housing and the option of providing sites or land elsewhere. What it does make provision for is the transfer of completed units on other land, thus keeping the focus on the delivery of housing. Furthermore, Section 33 paragraph 1(a) explicitly requires that a Part V agreement has to be made with the planning authority before the developer lodges a commencement notice within the meaning of Part II of the Building Control Regulations 1997. In certain circumstances in the past, Part V agreements were not finalised between parties before construction commenced. This amendment which came into effect on the 1st September 2015 will ensure that there is clarity about the social housing dividend early in the planning/ construction process.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion not adopted. Prohibiting off-site deals would be contrary to national policy set out under the Urban Regeneration and Housing Act 2015 which covers this matter.

51

2052Councillor(s) Cllr. David Costello

MotionThat this Council considers the addition of the following text (in red) to the Chief Executive’s recommended amendment in Section 5.5.1.

QH3(i) To secure the implementation of the Dublin City Council Housing Strategy. In this regard, 10% of units in residential developments shall be reserved for the provision of social housing in order to promote tenure diversity and socially inclusive City.

(ii) To further ensure tenure diversity and socially inclusivity and without prejudice to Part V. The percentage of public/social houses shall be limited to 30% in developments greater than 40 houses/units which are located in socially deprived areas. Exceptions shall include: development less than 100 units which allow tenant purchase scheme in the first 10 years and the development of affordable housing, old folks accommodation, Traveller accommodation or assisted living facilities.

(iii) To engage in active land management…… as per Chief Executive’s Report.

Reason: Following on from concerns raised in the submission from the HSE in Section: 5.5.2 of the Chief Executive’s Report on submissions in which the HSE raised concerns in relation to social mix of new developments in areas of social deprivation.

Social deprivation could be defined using the Pobal HP Deprivation Index. Using Census data this index grades deprivation into the following categories which could aid appropriate planning:

Pobal HP Deprivation Indexextremely affluentvery affluentaffluentmarginally above averagemarginally below averagedisadvantagedvery disadvantagedextremely disadvantaged

In areas of disadvantage social services are stretched and the private sector and business community struggle to maintain a sustainable presence due to small disposable incomes and other factors. This is most notable in recent studies carried out in Ballymun. A social mix is important as highlighted by research carried out during the Ballymun regeneration process. This Motion aims to place an upper limit on the percentage of new social housing units built in large developments (>40 units). The lower legal limit is 10% at present. This motion aims to strengthen the call for “variety of housing types and tenures” in QH6 of the draft plan. At present planning permission is given for private housing developments that can be purchased in their entirety by a voluntary housing agency or other bodies and used for 100% social housing. This is contrary to good planning and contradicts QH6. This motion aims to have social mix as a condition of planning permission in large developments (>40 units) to prevent this situation from occurring without planning consideration.

The motion is not meant to discourage the building of special developments such as old folks,

Motion


52

traveller or assisted living facilities.

Chief Executive's ResponseThe Housing Strategy and Chapter 5 (Policies QH3 and QH6) seek to counteract undue segregation in housing between persons of different social backgrounds. However the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended) states in relation to the Housing Strategy and the City Development Plan (Section 95(2)), that nothing in subsection (1) shall prevent any land being developed exclusively for housing referred to in section 94(a)(i) or (ii), i.e. for social or affordable housing. This particular provision would over-ride any policy in the City Development Plan that sought to strictly limit in percentage terms, the amount of social housing provided in a scheme.

The Planning Act deals with the Housing Strategy and the Development Plan under Sections 94 and 95. Section 94(4)(c) requires housing strategies to provide as a general policy, a specified percentage not being more than 10% of the land zoned for residential or mixed uses, to be reserved for social or affordable housing. To help counteract undue segregation Section 95 (c) &(d), allows for this 10% to be either reduced or not required at all in certain areas and provides that this requirement shall not operate to prevent any person (including a local authority) from using more than 10% of land zoned for residential use or a mixture of uses for the provision of social and/or affordable housing. In the current City Development Plan 2011-2016 the Housing Strategy exempted Ballymun from the requirement to provide what was 20% social and/or affordable housing. This was in recognition of the skewed tenure mix towards social housing in Ballymun. This exemption was not carried forward into the new Draft City Development Plan, in recognition of the high waiting lists for social housing in the locality, and that the provision of 10% social housing in new developments would help to ease this pressure.

It is however recognised that the laudable aspirations of the proposed motion seeks to apply a quantitative means of achieving tenure mix as aspired to in the Plan outside the confines of Part V. As noted above Section 95(2) of the Act states that the Housing Strategy cannot prevent any scheme from being developed exclusively for social housing. However consideration can be given to the provision of sustainable neighbourhoods. To help achieve this it is proposed to insert a new paragraph into the Housing Strategy, Section 2.1.7 of Appendix 2a, in relation to the means of delivering the social housing strategy to combat undue social segregation.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion not adopted as contrary to the Planning and Development Act.

However it is proposed to insert the following paragraph into the Housing Strategy, Section 2.1.7 (page 9 of appendix 2): as follows:

“This section concludes by noting the options available to Dublin city to deliver social housing over the lifetime of the development plan and housing strategy. These are:A. The construction of new dwellings (including regeneration schemes, renovation and renewalof unoccupied or vacant public housing stock)B. The provision of new dwellings for social housing under Part V arrangements;C. The purchase and acquisition of new or second hand dwellings;D. Casual vacancies arising from within existing Dublin city social housing stock;E. The leasing of dwellings under the CALF (Capital Advance Leasing Facility ) schemeF. The Rental Accommodation Scheme; andG. The Housing Assistance Payment Scheme.

In delivering on the above schemes regard will be had to the need to achieve tenure mix and counteract undue social segregation within an area. In areas which are identified as ‘Very’ or ‘Extremely Disadvantaged’ under the Pobal HP Deprivation Index, the City Council will seek to balance the tenure mix within the area by limiting the percentage of social housing allowable in any one scheme where appropriate and/or by limiting the size

53

of schemes designed for the delivery of exclusive social housing.

Full details on the operation of each of these options is available elsewhere on www.environ.ieand on www. dublincity.ie"

54


MotionPage 36 Motion - To amend the QH3 to read - (i) to secure the implementation of the Dublin City Council Housing Strategy . In this regard, 20% of the units in a residential development shall be reserved for the provision of Social Housing in order to promote tenure diversity and a socially inclusive city.

Reason: To provide sufficient level of social housing. The original Part V of the Planning Act required 10 percent, which was recently reduced to 10 percent. Dublin City Council in the face of the significant housing waiting lists seek to set a higher standard to meet the significant level of demand.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseSection 31, paragraph (b) of the Urban Regeneration and Housing Act 2015 amends section 94(4)(c) of the Act of 2000 by changing to 10%, from 20%, the maximum percentage of the land zoned for residential use, or for a mixture of residential and other uses, required to be reserved for social and affordable housing provision, as a general policy within the Housing Strategy. The Act also states (Section 94(4)(d), as amended), that this general policy shall not operate to prevent any person (including a local authority) from using more than 10% of land zoned for residential use, or for a mixture of residential or other uses, for the provision of social and affordable housing. Therefore the general policy must refer to no more than 10%, but this does not preclude a higher percentage being delivered. As such the motion is addressed under the Planning Acts (as amended).

In reviewing this policy it is however considered that Policy QH3 as set out in the Draft Plan, should be reworded slightly to align closer with the wording of the Planning Acts to avoid any legal challenges/ misinterpretation, by replacing the requirement for 10% of housing units to 10% of the land zoned. This does not in any way change the focus of the 2015 Act or the housing strategy which seeks the provision of housing units as the preferential method of delivering housing under Part V.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion not adopted.

Contrary to national policy set out in the Urban Regeneration and Housing Act 2015.

Amend Policy QH3: "To secure the implementation of the Dublin City Council Housing Strategy. In this regard, 10% of the units in residential development land zoned for residential use, or for a mixture of residential and other uses, shall be reserved for the provision of social and/or affordablehousing in order to promote tenure diversity and a socially inclusive city".

Amend the Housing Strategy 2a (page 13 of appendix 2), Section 2.3.3, A; as follows:

"A. Require developers to provide up to 10 percent of their housing units the land zoned for residential use, or for a mixture of residential and other uses, for social and affordable housing and will removes the ability of developers to account for their social housing commitments through cash payments to local authorities, or through providing sites or land elsewhere".

55

Updating the first paragraph in relation to the Planning and Development Bill with the Urban Regeneration and Housing Act 2015 will be done as part of the technical updating of the Plan between the time of first Draft and that of publication.

2054Councillor(s) Cllr. Deirdre Heney

MotionThat this Council agrees to amend the Managers recommendation in section 5.5.1. as follows;-(in red)

“QH3 (i) To secure the implementation of the Dublin City Council Housing Strategy. In this regard, 10% of units in residential developments shall be reserved for the provision of social housing in order to promote tenure diversity and socially inclusive City.

(ii) Any planned acquisition by a state agency of more than 20% of a housing development for social housing purposes, shall be made known as part of the planning process in order to further secure the implementation of the Dublin City Council Housing Strategy and in order to promote tenure diversity and a socially inclusive City.

(iii) To engage in active land management including the implementation of the vacant land levy on vacant residential and regeneration lands as set out in the Urban Regeneration and Housing Act 2015.”

Reason: To secure the implementation of the Dublin City Council Housing Strategy and to promote tenure diversity and a socially inclusive City.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseUnder the Urban Regeneration and Housing Act 2015, Section 33 paragraph 1(a) explicitly requires that a Part V agreement has to be made with the planning authority before the developer lodges a commencement notice within the meaning of Part II of the Building Control Regulations 1997. This amendment which came into effect on the 1st September 2015 will ensure that there is clarity about the social housing dividend early in the planning/ construction process.

The subsequent acquisition of houses by any state agency is outside the scope of the Development Plan. However the Housing department has committed to informing public representatives of the acquisition of residential properties by Approved Housing bodies when funding is approved.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion not adopted. Outside scope of the Development Plan.

56

2055Councillor(s) Cllr. Andrew Montague

MotionTo support the Navan Road Community Council’s submission and Green Design Build’s submission on section 5.5.2 to allow an extra floor on existing buildings if the buildings stay within the allowed height for that area

Reason: to increase sustainable densities in suburbs.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe submission from the Navan Road Community Council and Green Design Build, was for a densification of the suburbs and to give consideration to allowing an extra floor on existing buildings to accommodate such. With the majority of the lower-density suburbs comprising of 2-storey residential dwellings this would involve a policy supporting the conversion of a 2-storey existing house to a 3-storey house. Such a proposal also has the potential to significantly impact upon streetscape and issues of privacy, adequate open space etc. The CE report on submission drew attention to Objective QH01 of the Draft Plan which states that “ [i]t is an Objective of Dublin City Council to undertaken a study to examine the potential for existing low to medium density residential development to accommodate additional residential development in a manner which optimises residential density whilst respecting residential amenities.” This study can examine the proposal of additional height in the traditional two-storey suburbs, in addition to seeking to improve densities and mix at neighbourhood centres. Prior to the findings of this study it is considered premature to include a statement of support for additional height to existing houses.

Having said that, all applications for additional floors are assessed on their merits having regard to achieving a balance between the need to increase the population in the suburbs and local amenity considerations. If for example a group of houses were to submit a combined application for additional height, then the impacts on streetscape and amenity could be ameliorated.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion not adopted.

Issue to be examined as part of Objective QHO1.

57


MotionTo change the wording of QH7 as follows:

From:"It is policy of Dublin City Council to encourage and support alternatives to on-street parking with a view to limiting this approach to parking so as to support family-friendly communities.”

To:

"It is policy of Dublin City Council to encourage and support alternatives to on-street parking and curtilage car-parking by providing community multi-storey car parking with a view to support more family-friendly communities.”

Reason: To promote less car-dependent, family friendly communities.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe Chief Executive’s Report on submissions (page 90) addressed this policy following a number of submissions which felt that there was confusion as to what was being sought. The CE report stated:

It is accepted that this policy is confusing. …. With the nature of residential provision varying widely based on where it is located, in an urban, neighbourhood or suburban context, house or apartment, the manner in which car parking is provided will also vary considerably. Car parking is addressed in greater detail within Chapter 8 on Movement and Transport and Chapter 16 on Development Standards. Car parking is also addressed in the DMURS manual (section 4.4.9), and it is considered that the combined approach advocated in these sections of the Plan and supporting documentation are best placed to inform applications regarding car parking provision in the City. As such it is recommended that policy QH7 is deleted from this section of the Plan.

The motion put clarifies the thinking behind the original policy in seeking to remove parking from the street or outside houses to community multi-storey car parking. This is an issue which would require some consideration as it poses other planning issues including design and streetscape and location and safety. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the approach proposed by the combined Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, in the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets (DMURS) should be the guiding document for considering car parking in residential streets.

Furthermore, the consideration of community multi-storey car parking can be considered under existing policies MT16 and MT17, which read as follows:

MT16: To provide for sustainable levels of car parking and car storage in residential schemes in accordance with Development Plan car parking standards (section 16.38) so as to promote city centre living and reduce the requirement for car parking.

MT17: To encourage new ways of addressing the parking needs of residents (such as car clubs) to reduce the requirement for car parking.

In order to avoid confusion and to aid clarity within the Plan, it is recommended that policy QH7 be deleted from the housing chapter as recommended by the CE report on submissions. Chapter

58

8 on Movement and Transport provides sufficient guidance on this matter.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion not adopted. Issue is addressed within Chapter 8 Movement and Transport.


MotionThat the City Development Plan seeks powers from government to address the ongoing dumping by private residents in landlord units.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThis is not a matter for the Development Plan.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion not adopted: Outside scope of the Development Plan.


MotionThat the City Development Plan conducts a full audit of all flat complexes such as Tyrone Place Inchicore, and Bernard Curtis House in Bluebell. Due to age and condition, many of these units have fallen into disrepair and have significant problems of damp etc. The plan must provide for such units to be brought up to a liveable standard or provide for alternative properties.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe maintenance and upgrading of existing Dublin City Council housing stock is an operational matter for the City Council, subject to an on-going rolling programme.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion not adopted. This is an operational matter. Please refer to Housing SPC.

59


MotionPage 40, To amend QH29 on traveller accommodation to add a second sentence reading “This accommodation will be built to the highest standards of development, including Health, safety, building standards, and disability planning and with full consultation with travellers regarding the suitability of proposed accommodation during design phase.”

Reason – to promote inclusive and sustainable development for all citizens of Dublin.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponsePolicy QH29, as amended by the Chief Executive’s report reads as follows:

“QH29: It is the Policy of Dublin City Council to provide a range of accommodation options for Travellers who normally reside in the Dublin city area and who wish to have such accommodation in accordance with the Dublin City Council Traveller Accommodation Programme 2014 – 2018 and as updated during the life of the Plan.”

The Housing Strategy, Section 2.7.5.2 clearly states that “Dublin City Council is committed to the provision of quality Traveller accommodation, where possible in accordance with the aspirations and desires of the majority of Traveller families indentified in the annual assessment of needs….. Dublin City intends to identify Traveller-specific accommodation in each of its five administrative areas and to ensure the needs of Traveller households are considered as part of any new development”.

All new residential schemes, be it for travellers, the elderly, public housing, private housing, must be constructed to current building regulation standards and in keeping with the core strategy and vision for the City set out within the Development Plan. It is therefore not considered necessary to add the proposed additional sentence to this motion.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion noted. The provision of quality housing is fully addressed within existing policies and objectives of the Development Plan.

60


MotionThat this City Development Plan ensure that all efforts are made to end the use of B & B and hotel accommodation to house homeless families and where families are having to use this accommodation that Dublin City Council carry out weekly inspections.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThis is an operational matter for the City Council.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is not adopted: Operational Matter for the City Council.


MotionThat the Development Plan looks at Industrial land owned by Dublin City Council but within the Fingal boundary and carries out a survey on the best potential use of this land and to then put a plan in place to develop it in the lifetime of the development plan.

Motion

Refers to: Chapter 6 - City Economy and Enterprise

Chief Executive's ResponsePolicy CEE16 of the Draft Plan sets out the following:

(i)To engage in the ‘active land management’ of vacant sites as set out in the Governments Planning Policy Statement 2015; to engage proactively with land owners, potential developers and investors with the objective of encouraging the early and high quality redevelopment of such vacant sites.

Objective CEEO4 sets out the following: To carry out a targeted survey of those industrial estates with likely redevelopment potential, and to make recommendations on how that redevelopment potential might be best achieved.

A Local Area Plan for Ballymun is currently being prepared in accordance with the Development Plan Core Strategy and this plan will consider transboundary lands owned by DCC.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat the Motion is noted and referred to the Planning SPC.

61


MotionThat the objective of the City Council be to ensure that any jobs and that these jobs provide workers with a standard of living and quality of life, that allows them to play a full economic role in the development of the city.

Reason: This Motion was already passed at the City Council and to ensure that the citizens employed in the city can contribute to the future development and prosperity of the city.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseGoal 7 of the Local Economic and Community Plan refers to growing ‘quality’ employment, and the issues raised in the Motion could be referred to the Local Community Development Committee.

Policy CE4 (iii) of the Draft Plan sets out the following:

“To promote jobs which provide quality of life and allow workers to play a full social and economic role in the development of the city”

The Employment and Enterprise Strategy (Section 2.2.4) sets out the following:

“The ultimate purpose of the development plan is social, providing for people’s needs in all aspects of their lives and across their life cycle in areas such as housing, employment, recreation, social and commercial services, in a sustainable manner. This is reflected in the three principles of the core strategy and in every chapter of the Development Plan. The social purpose of the Development Plan is complemented by the Local Economic & Community Plan.”

It is considered that the Draft Plan has sufficient policy context to address the concerns expressed in the Motion and that the matter could be referred to the Local Community Development Committee.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat Motion is noted as there is sufficient policy in the Draft Plan to address the matter. Refer to the Local Community Development Committee.

62


MotionSection 6.5.3:

To correct the statement on page 108 of the Chief Executive's Report which states that "There are no limits to the number of Concerts that can be held in any location" to reflect the agreement between Croke Park and Local Residents. Reason: To reflect the local agreement.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseEvent licences are dealt with in Part XVI of the Planning and Development Act. Dublin City Council is not party to the agreement referred to. The Chief Executive report referred to can be clarified by adding; the adding the term “statutory” and also “although there may be local agreements between event organisers and local residents such as the one between Croke Park and local residents”.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion adopted as amended to read:

"There are no statutory limits to the number of Concerts that can be held in any location although there may be local agreements between event organisers and local residents such as the one between Croke Park and local residents”.

63


MotionPolicy CEE 12: To remove the specific reference to the Convention Centre in this policy.

Reason: The Development Plan 2011-2017 (RE31) set out a list of visitor attractions and specifically referred to the Convention Centre Dublin area a "major business, tourism, hotel and leisure destination of international standards..." The Plan should either list all major destinations rather than any one privately run/operated facility.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseCEE12: To promote and facilitate tourism as one of the key economic pillars of the city’s economy and a major generator of employment and to support the provision of necessary significant increase in facilities such as hotels, aparthotels, tourist hostels, cafes and restaurants, visitor attractions, including those for children.

A submission was received to the Draft Plan that recommended reinstating of the policy (RE31) in the current Plan referring to the Convention Centre Dublin. The Chief Executive report on submissions recommended adding to Draft Plan policy CEE12 the following:

CEE12(iii)

“To promote and facilitate the optimum benefits (including the international marketing benefits) to the city of the Convention Centre Dublin, as well as all other major existing and future visitor attractions". (CEE12(iii))

The Convention Centre Dublin was developed as a public private partnership. The building itself is owned by the OPW. In 2015 the operating business of the Convention Centre Dublin was sold to the state Irish Infrastructure Fund.

It is considered that having regard to the public sector nature of the Convention Centre Dublin, its strategic benefits to the city and country, and the inclusive wording of the proposed added policy CEE12(ii); that the intentions of the Motion are sufficiently addressed and that policy CEE12(ii) be added.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat the Motion is not adopted and the following Policy be added to the Draft Plan (CEE12 (iii)):

"CEE12 (iii): To promote and facilitate the optimum benefits (including the international marketing benefits) to the city of the Convention Centre Dublin, as well as all other major existing and future visitor attractions".

64


MotionThat the City Council carries out a survey on all Industrial Estates in the City with the view of establishing which estates are under-utilized. Furthermore, that any estate deemed to be under-utilized but has potential to attract future employment be developed and promoted using the services of the IDA and Enterprise Ireland. Furthermore, that any estate which is deemed to be unviable be re-zoned to allow for the development of housing.

Reason: This Motion has already been passed by the City Council. Furthermore, to ensure that every effort is made in areas where there is a ready made facility to allow for creation of employment. Furthermore, rather than leaving industrial estates which will never be used as employment hubs but instead remain derelict sites, this motion allows for the rezoning to allow for much needed housing.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseDraft plan objective CEEO4 relates (p 48 of draft plan). It states “ to carry out a targeted survey of those industrial estates with likely redevelopment potential , and to make recommendations on how that redevelopment potential might be best achieved”. This is referred to in both section 14.8.6 and also in section 6.3 of CEs report on submissions ( page 104 of same). The latter, section 6.3, has recommended amendment of CEEO4 to include the following .. “(ii) to carry out a study of the potential of lands zoned for enterprise and employment space, the adequacy of such potential supply, and the issue of underutilised/vacant lands”.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is noted (addressed in Draft Plan & in Chief Executives report).

65

2066Councillor(s) Cllr. Claire Byrne, Cllr. Rebecca Moynihan

MotionIt is the policy of Dublin City Council that a portion of funds raised from the vacant sites levy will be put towards the provision of cultural and artistic infrastructure in the city.

Reason: Development plan commitment to fund the hard infrastructure committed to in this plan.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseSection 23 of the Urban Regeneration and Housing Act 2015 sets out the following:

“(1) Any money received by a planning authority pursuant to section 15 shall be spent by it—(a) where the vacant site comprises residential land, on the provision of housing on residential land in the vicinity of the site, and (b) where the vacant site comprises regeneration land, on the development and renewal of regeneration land in the vicinity of the site.

(2) Money referred to in subsection (1) may, in particular, be used—(a) for the payment of any costs, up to a total of 10 per cent of the total money received by the authority pursuant to section 15, incurred by the planning authority in giving effect to this Part, and (b) where the vacant site comprises regeneration land, for—(i) the preservation and protection of structures, or parts of structures, which are of special architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, cultural, scientific, social or technical interest,(ii) the provision, or facilitation of the provision, of services and facilities for the local community, including education, training, childcare, recreational, leisure, artistic and cultural facilities and the renovation and extension of existing services and facilities, (iii) the preservation, improvement and extension of amenities and recreational amenities in or on the land, (iv) civic improvements, and (v) projects, services and works for the benefit of streets in urban areas, including the improvement of streets or footpaths in local shopping streets and business areas and the removal of graffiti.”

The allocation of funds is not a matter for the Development Plan. The Motion could be referred to the Finance SPC

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat the motion is not adopted: outside the scope of the Development Plan.

66


MotionTo add the following to Policy CEE 18 (iv). ", and also having regard to the implications of the recent High Court Judgment relating to the Moore Street National Monument, battlefield site and wider area. (Justice Barrett - 18th March 2016 - High court).

Reason: To ensure compliance with high court judgement and its implications for planning matters and the Development Plan.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseCurrent Policy CEE18(vi) in the Draft Plan states:

“To recognise the unique importance of Moore Street Market to the history and culture of the city and to ensure its protection, renewal and enhancement, in co-operation with the traders as advocated by the Moore Street Advisory Committee Recommendation relating thereto.”

This is considered sufficient policy context to address the issue raised in the Motion.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat Motion is noted as there is sufficient policy context in the Draft Plan as outlined above to address the matter.

67


MotionThat policy CEE17 remain a part of the City Development Plan and to add the following text to that policy as follows- "to promote social labour clauses for Dublin City Council developments" and change it to "to promote social labour clauses and living wage employment for Dublin City Council developments".

Reason: to promote sustainable jobs, enterprise and employment.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseDraft Plan Policy CEE17 states it is the policy of Dublin City Council:

“To promote social labour clauses for Dublin City Council developments".

Policy CE4 (iii) of the Draft Plan sets out the following:

“To promote jobs which provide quality of life and allow workers to play a full social and economic role in the development of the city”

The control of wages is not a development plan matter. It is not provided for in the Planning Acts and is not enforceable through the planning process.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat Motion is not adopted as it is outside the scope of the Development Plan and out of order.

68


MotionIn relation to public submissions which call for Dublin City Council to implement a living wage policy, to insert the following sentence into section 6.5.5 Employment, Enterprise and Economic Development Sectors:

“That Dublin City Council recognises the role which planning plays in encouraging and discouraging particular business activities in the city, the dependence of the city centre on retail and hospitality jobs, and the low pay associated with these sectors. In order to encourage a higher proportion of decent wage employment in Dublin, all large corporations (employing above 250 people) submitting commercial planning applications will be required to submit a review of company wage structures and trade union recognition, along with environmental and other reviews, as part of their planning application.”

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponsePolicy CE4 (iii) of the Draft Plan sets out the following:

“To promote jobs which provide quality of life and allow workers to play a full social and economic role in the development of the city”.

Under the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 most employees are entitled to a minimum wage. There are sub-minimum rates for some people such as those aged under 18 . There are other minimum rates of pay for employees in certain sectors. In some sectors they are set out in Employment Regulation Orders (EROs) made by Joint Labour Committees. Issues in relation to Trade Union recognition are governed by national legislation.

Goal 7 of the Local Economic and Community Plan (LECP) refers to growing ‘quality’ employment, and the issue of a ‘decent wage’ could be pursued through the Local Community Development Committee.

It is considered that the current policy CE4(iii) set out above is as far as the Draft Plan can go within planning legislation.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat Motion is not adopted as it goes beyond the scope of the Development Plan and is out of order and should be referred to the Local Community Development Committee.

69


MotionPage 52, Add after RD8

“RD9 To safeguard the health of young people that no further fast food outlets shall be permitted within 500m of primary and secondary school.”

Reason: in the interests of human health

Motion

Refers to: Chapter 7 - Retailing

Chief Executive's ResponseSection 16.25 ‘Takeaways’ sets out objectives that will ensure the proliferation of such establishments is managed. Amongst those objectives is one that requires the collation of the number and frequency of existing takeaways in an area when a new one is proposed, particularly in close proximity to schools. The 1km radius is regarded as an appropriate distance for this purpose.

Many schools are located within 0.5km of district centres/shopping parades and the consequence of the policy would be a ban on further fast food outlets in such areas. It should also be borne in mind that that planning policy may not be used to restrict competition.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is not adopted for the reasons stated.

70


MotionThat the Number 1 Priority of the City Development Plan should be the support of our Urban Villages and Towns, such as Ballyfermot Main Street, Inchicore Village, Walkinstown / Drimnagh. These Villages are the lifeblood of our communities, through social, economic and cultural activity and need urgent support through prioritisation in the City Development Plan. The focus needs to shift from big shopping centres to supporting local retailers. Otherwise such areas will die a slow death, to the detriment of our community and our city.

Motion

Refers to: Chapter 7 - Retailing

Chief Executive's ResponseIt is agreed that urban villages are a vital component of the city’s structure. The development plan sets out the regulatory and planning context for future development in the city. Chapter 2 ‘Vision and Core Strategy’, articulates the housing, settlement and retail strategies for the city and the overarching national and regional context. Development therefore is framed hierarchically from the key district centre to the local neighbourhood centre with each level, from the shopping centre in the KDC to the local shop in the neighbourhood centre fulfilling a role and each inter -dependent upon the other.

The settlement strategy dovetails with the retail strategy as set out in Chapter 7 ‘Retailing’ and Appendix 3 ‘Retail Strategy’ which outlines the hierarchy of retail development in the city from the city centre retail core to the local neighbourhood (Figure 6).

More specifically Section 2.2.8.1 ‘Area-Specific Plans’ details areas scheduled for Local Environmental Improvement Plan (LEIP) preparation such as Ballyfermot, Inchicore, Walkinstown and Drimnagh. This is also articulated through Objective SCO5 and such plans will be prepared in conjunction with the relevant area committee.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is noted; the matter is addressed in the core strategy of the development plan.

71


MotionPage 57, Add at the end of paragraph 8.1

“A crucial factor in the discussion of movement and transport is the challenge of tackling climate change. The Council shall use its powers to manage transport and transport related spaces in the city so as to reduce transport related-emissions in the city area by at least 3% per year over the lifetime of the Plan.”

Reason: to tackle climate change and reduce emissions.

Motion

Refers to: Chapter 8 - Movement and Transport

Chief Executive's ResponseClimate change matters are addressed in chapter 3 of the Draft Plan. Objectives CCO2, CCO4 and CCO6 are relevant as they relate to meeting national/EU targets, supporting the implementation of national level energy actions plans (NREAP and NEEAP), and supporting carbon neutral projects.

The "strategic approach" to Movement and Transport, at para 8.4, states that achieving a reduction in pollution and greenhouse gas generation, to help mitigate climate change is a key principle.

It is indeed the case that transport-related emissions need to be tackled. This said a 3% reduction in transport emissions over the 6 year lifespan of the plan has not been justified by way of relevant supporting references. Policies and objectives contained in chapter 3 are considered appropriate at present and are informed by up-to-date national policy.

Other policies objectives in the plan promote modal change and active travel (Policy MT2 section 8.5.2), public transport use (see 8.5.3), and objectives specifically encouraging active travel , cycling and walking are detailed in section 8.5.4 ( MT7-11, and MTO7-MTO18 inclusive) . These are aimed at improving the environment for walking and cycling though improvements in the cycle/pedestrian network, enhanced permeability, improved cycle parking facilities, amended speed limits, and enhanced public realm. In combination, these aim to make cycling, walking and public transport use more attractive.

In addition to the above, City Performance Indicators set out in Appendix 20 include indicators relating to both air quality and carbon reductions. Biennial reports will be produced and therefore progress can be gauged.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted (for planning reason set out above).

72

2073Councillor(s) Cllr. Vincent Jackson, Cllr. Dermot Lacey

MotionRe: CE report, page 127-128, sustainable transport targets. We oppose the CE’s recommendation in regard to replacing the final bullet point (para 8.3) in the existing draft plan with a new one.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseIn the recommendation by the CE the following text was changed. (pg 136).

From:"increasing percentage share of sustainable transport modes through raising public transport from 48% of journeys in 2014 to 53% of journeys in 2022, to raise walking from 10% to 15% and to raise cycling from 5% to 12% and to reduce private transport from 36% to 20%, figures based on Canal cordon count statistics".

To: "The NTA Transport Strategy 2016-2035 sets mode share targets for the region which include 30% for active modes, i.e. walking and cycling. In addition, the Draft City Centre Transport Study sets out mode share targets for trips crossing the canal cordon. A key challenge is to meet or exceed these targets".

Mode share targets in the Draft Plan are considered ambitious in the context of the lifespan of the Development Plan (6 years). Longer term mode share targets are now set out in the National Transport Authority’s strategy for the region for the period 2016-2035.It is considered appropriate that these should now be incorporated into the plan so as to align the Development Plan with the National Transport Authority’s strategic objectives.

The City Centre Transport Study sets out more specific mode share targets for people crossing the canal cordon. These targets reflect the proposed investment in infrastructure in the city centre for the period up to 2023.


73


MotionTo alter the final bullet point at paragraph 8.3 as follows:

From:"The NTA Transport Strategy 2016-2035 sets mode share targets for the region which include 30% for active modes, i.e. walking and cycling. In addition, the Draft City Centre Transport Study sets out mode share targets for trips crossing the canal cordon. A key challenge is to meet or exceed these targets”.

To:

“In order to meet the NTA Transport Strategy 2016-2035 mode share targets for the region which include 30% for active modes, i.e. walking and cycling, Dublin City will have to exceed these targets. Our target should be to increase cycling to 10% mode share crossing the canal during the life time of the plan, and increase walking mode share by 50%”

Reason: In order to meet regional targets for walking and cycling, Dublin city will have to exceed the regional targets.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThis was changed on foot of submissions and was covered in the CE report on page 127-128. It was considered that the mode share targets included in the draft plan were considered ambitious in the context of the 6 year lifespan of the development plan. Longer term mode share targets for the region are now set out in the NTA Transport Strategy 2016-2035, which were incorporated into the revised text. The City Centre Transport Study set out more specific mode share targets for people crossing the canal cordon, and reflect the proposed investment in infrastructure in the city centre for the period up to 20223.

It is considered sufficient that the text above refers to the point that a ‘key challenge is to meet or exceed these targets’ rather than specifying targets which may be difficult to achieve during the lifetime of the plan.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted, for reasons outlined above.

74


MotionPage 58, 8.3, To reject the Chief Executive's amendment of 8.3 and to retrain the wording currently in the draft development plan.

Reason: To promote higher standards of sustainable transport.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThis is dealt with in Section 8.3 of the CE report on Submissions, see page 127 & 128 of the Report. The mode share targets included in the draft plan are considered to be ambitious in the context of the 6 year lifespan of the development plan. Longer term mode share targets for the region are now set out in the NTA Transport Strategy 2016-2035. These should be incorporated into the draft plan so as to align the development plan to the longer term strategic objectives of the NTA Strategy.

The City Centre Transport Study sets out more specific mode share targets for people crossing the canal cordon. These targets reflect the proposed investment in infrastructure in the city centre for the period up to 2023.

The section on cycling and walking (8.5.4) should also be updated to reflect the NTA mode share targets of 30% for active modes for all trips by 2035.

In the recommendation by the CE the following text was changed on foot of the above.

From:"increasing percentage share of sustainable transport modes through raising public transport from 48% of journeys in 2014 to 53% of journeys in 2022, to raise walking from 10% to 15% and to raise cycling from 5% to 12% and to reduce private transport from 36% to 20%, figures based on Canal cordon count statistics".

To: "The NTA Transport Strategy 2016-2035 sets mode share targets for the region which include 30% for active modes, i.e. walking and cycling. In addition, the Draft City Centre Transport Study sets out mode share targets for trips crossing the canal cordon. A key challenge is to meet or exceed these targets".

Chief Executive's RecommendationThis motion is not adopted.

It is recommended that the text be retained as proposed as this is proposed on foot of National Policy, in relation to the National Transport Strategy 2016-2035 who set mode share targets.

75


MotionPage 58, add as a bullet point at the end of 8.4

‘To ensure that all Movement and Transport objectives reflect the vision of Dublin as a sustainable, dynamic, resourceful, liveable and healthy city’

Reason: to promote sustainable mobility solutions

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe vision set out in chapter 2 need not be repeated in every chapter. The bullet points in section 8.4 are broad principles which aim to make the city more sustainable, liveable and they also encourage healthy lifestyles. The additional point is considered unnecessary in this context, given the need to keep the Plan short and reader-friendly.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is noted (already addressed in Plan text).

76


MotionThat the Development Plan includes, where appropriate at section 8, an objective to promote the delivery by the NTA/CIE/Irish Rail of rail stations on the Irish Rail network at Croke Park, Cross Guns Bridge, Cabra and Infirmary Road.

Reason: In the Arups Report it stated that a station should be kept under review at Cabra, yet Irish Rail seem to have ignored this. The Draft Phibsborough LAP notes that the NTA do not agree with a rail station at Cross Guns Bridge - while separately the rail station at Croke Park was not built.

These vital pieces of national and city infrastructure should be reviewed and implemented and their inclusion as objectives in the Development plan would greatly assist in bringing the necessity of these stations back on the national agenda and help achieve the mode share targets detailed in the Development plan.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseDublin City Council will aim to work with Iarnód Éireann, the NTA ,TII and other operators to progress a co-ordinated approach to improving the rail network; in this regard policy MT6 of the draft Plan states ; It is the policy of Dublin City Council “ to work with Iarnród Eireann, the NTA , The RPA, and other operators to progress a coordinated approach to improving the rail network, integrated with other public transport modes to ensure maximum public benefit and promoting sustainable transport and improved connectivity”.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is noted. Matter already included in the Draft Plan.

77

2078Councillor(s) Cllr. Brendan Carr, Cllr. Nial Ring

MotionTo insert into the City Development Plan, where appropriate, PS7 of the Draft Phibsborough Local Area Plan 2015 – “New streets and public places on the Smurfit Printworks site shall be designed within the principles set out in the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets, with priority given to the pedestrian.”

Reason: To ensure the proper planning of the Smurfit Printworks site and to create a place in the Phibsborough area where the rights of pedestrians might be properly respected.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe principles of DMURS apply to all new development (rather than to specific regeneration sites alone) and therefore an objective for this site alone is unwarranted. As set out in the Chief Executive’s report on p144, text within section 8.5.9 and objectives MTO37 and MTO38 are considered sufficient in this regard. MTO38 includes reference to DMURS being mandatory and that the focus is on placemaking and permeability…”in order to create street layouts that are suited to all users, including pedestrians and cyclists” (p67 of draft plan)

In relation to the making of sustainable neighbourhoods, Policy SN4 in chapter 12 of the draft plan states the need to have regard to DMURS in conjunction with other guidelines including ( inter alia) the permeability best practice guide, and Guidelines on Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas.

Prioritising pedestrians specifically, as suggested in the motion is in appropriate, as the required emphasis is a balanced approach, drawing on a range of guidance and best practice.Other sections of the Chief Executive’s report also relate. See page 130 re section 8.5.2 (Modal change), page 133 re s.8.5.4 (active travel), and p143 re 8.5.9 (road safety).

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is noted (as the matter is addressed in policies/objectives above).

78


MotionTo remove the reference to the Dublin City Centre Transport Study from MT1.

Reason: This is a consultation document only and has not got a similar status to the other five documents referred to at MT1. It also pre-empts the final version of the document and its recommendations by citing it here.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponsePolicy MT1 is set out in section 8.5.1 of the Draft Plan. The City Centre Transport Study is one of a number of documents listed. These documents vary significantly in their level of application and detail, and it is the sustainability principles of these that the policy supports, rather than any precise details. In the case of the City Centre Transport Study, the eventual document and any draft versions include objectives based on principles such as pedestrianisation, re-orientation of traffic at junctions, and other measures which encourage more sustainable transport. It is also understood that the final document will be adopted soon, given that the public consultation stage has ended some time ago. On this basis it is recommended that the policy remain unchanged.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted (the inclusion of reference to the study in the Draft Plan supports a sustainable approach to policy).

79

2080Councillor(s) Cllr. Vincent Jackson, Deputy Lord Mayor Cieran Perry

MotionTo insert into the City Development Plan Objective PS7 of the Draft Phibsborough Local Area Plan 2015– “New streets and public places [on the Smurfit Printworks site] shall be designed within the principles set out in the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets, with priority given to the pedestrian.”

Reason: To ensure the proper planning of the Smurfit Printworks site and to create a place in the Phibsborough area where the rights of pedestrians might be properly respected.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe principles of DMURS apply to all new development (rather than to specific regeneration sites alone) and therefore an objective for this site alone is unwarranted. As set out n the Chief Executive’s report on p144, text within section 8.5.9 and objectives MTO37 and MTO38 are considered sufficient in this regard. MTO38 includes reference to DMURS being mandatory and that the focus is on placemaking and permeability…”in order to create street layouts that are suited to all users, including pedestrians and cyclists” ( p67 of draft plan).

In relation to the making of sustainable neighbourhoods, Policy SN4 in chapter 12 of the draft plan states the need to have regard to DMURS in conjunction with other guidelines including ( inter alia) the Permeability best practice guide, and Guidelines on Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas.

Prioritising pedestrians alone, as suggested in the motion is inappropriate, as the required emphasis is a balanced approach, drawing on a range of guidance and best practice..

Other sections of the Chief Executive’s report also relate. See page 130 re section 8.5.2 (Modal change), page 133 re s.8.5.4 (active travel), and p143 re 8.5.9 (road safety).


80


MotionPage 36, To insert into the City Development Plan Objective PS7 of the Draft Phibsborough Local Area Plan 2015 “New streets and public places [on the Smurfit Printworks site] shall be designed within the principles set out in the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets, with priority given to the pedestrian.”

Reason: to ensure the proper planning of the Smurfit Printworks site and to create a place in the Phibsborough area where the rights of pedestrians might be properly respected

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThere are no references to DMURS on p36 and it is likely the intention was to state “page 136” of the Chief Executive’s report which relates to section 8.5.4 – Active Travel. This page gives the Chief Executive’s response on points raised relating to pedestrian needs and walking.

The principles of DMURS apply to all new development (rather than to specific regeneration sites alone) and therefore an objective for this site alone is unwarranted. As set out n the Chief Executive’s report on p144, text in s8.5.9 and objectives MTO37 and MTO38 are considered sufficient . MTO38 includes reference to DMURS being mandatory and that the focus is on placemaking and permeability…”in order to create street layouts that are suited to all users, including pedestrians and cyclists” ( p67 of draft plan).

In relation to making sustainable neighbourhoods, Policy SN4, chapter 12 of the draft plan states the need to have regard to DMURS in conjunction with other guidelines including ( inter alia) the permeability best practice guide, and Guidelines on Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas.

Prioritising pedestrians specifically, as suggested in the motion is in appropriate, as the required emphasis is a balanced approach, drawing on a range of guidance and best practice.

Other sections of the Chief Executive’s report also relate. See page 130 re section 8.5.2 (Modal change), page 133 re s.8.5.4 (active travel), and p143 re 8.5.9 (road safety).


81


MotionThis City Council agrees that any development of the S2S project will not compromise the safety and security of residents on the sea side of Strand Road from Merrion Gates northwards and will design the route at that point in line with this.

Reason: Residents along this short stretch of the potential S2S are fearful of the impact that a route to the rear of their homes would have and while not wishing to hinder the project are anxious that their security needs be referenced in the Development Plan.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe ‘S2S’ route relates to the coastal area between Sutton and Sandycove. Submissions in relation to the route were made under section 2.3.6 and 8.5.4. of the Draft Plan.

The impact of any potential cycle route on the safety and security of residents in the area will be taken into account in the assessment of detailed design proposals for the route, including the section from Strand Road to Merrion Gates. The various sections of the route are normally subject to Part 8 procedures which include public notices and consideration by the City Council.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is noted (design stage matter).

82


MotionThis Council to include in Chapter 8 (Movement and Transport) the Objective:

“To ensure that any Greenway development along the Dodder River as part of the NTAs Cycle Network Plan protects and conserves the existing landscape, habitat and heritage of the river and its environs and does not negatively impact on existing amenity uses, in order to promote its attractiveness for potential users in the catchment area and tourists”

Reason: The National Transportation Authority (NTA) Greater Dublin Cycle Network Plan proposes a ‘Dodder Greenway’ for a ‘mix of amenity and commuter cycling’.

The Dodder River is an important amenity and wildlife corridor bringing a rural environment and character to the heart of the urban city. Its diverse landscapes, habitat and heritage are presently enjoyed by people of all ages and ability, walkers and runners, commuting and leisure cyclists, anglers and tourists. It has the potential to become a major attraction in Ireland and abroad.However, its unique character as a natural river requires a unique design. Any Greenway proposal should adapt to the existing Dodder, as it would be entirely counter -productive to introduce a cycle highway that diminishes the environment for existing users as well as those potential users it seeks to attract.

It may be argued that new policies GI15 and GIO16 will address these issues, but it is submitted they would only address them in part; they will not address their integrated effects in the context of a specific but extensive proposal such as this Dodder Greenway. Nor will they address the particular point of this Objective, that it is the unique aspects of the Dodder that must be protected because they are precisely what will ensure its attractiveness and success as a Greenway to be proud of.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe need to balance recreational and ecological objectives is acknowledged. Any greenway development would be subject to normal planning assessment and this includes both consideration of zoning and objectives and also the mitigation of any negative impacts through normal procedures. The subject of the motion relates largely to potential site-specific impacts at local level, which may impact negatively on both those not cycling on the greenway ( but accessing the Dodder Valley for amenity purposes) and on the natural environment..

The needs and interactions of all users will be taken into account and assessed at planning stage, and this also includes assessment of impacts on the natural environment. The respective policies can also be cross-referenced.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is adopted as amended.

Additional text to be added to the end of MT7:

From:"To improve the city’s environment for walking and cycling through the implementation of improvements to thoroughfares and junctions and also through the development of new and safe routes, including the provision of foot and cycle bridges. Routes within the network will be planned in conjunction with Green Infrastructure objectives and on foot of (inter alia) the NTAs

83

Cycle Network Plan for the Greater Dublin Area, and the National Cycle Manual".

To:"To improve the city’s environment for walking and cycling through the implementation of improvements to thoroughfares and junctions and also through the development of new and safe routes, including the provision of foot and cycle bridges. Routes within the network will be planned in conjunction with Green Infrastructure objectives and on foot of ( inter alia) the NTAs Cycle Network Plan for the Greater Dublin Area, and the National Cycle Manual , having regard to policy GI15 and objective GIO16".


MotionTo omit the proposed additional text in 8.5.4 (bottom of page 61).

Reason: Duplication (already proposed to be inserted in final bullet point para 8.3. At Draft motion stage several motions I submitted were rejected on the basis that they duplicated objectives/policies etc. (eg 1157). Consistency should be adhered to.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThis relates to p 136 of the Chief Executive’s report which recommends the inclusion of 30% target for active mode share within section 8.5.4. of the plan. Because this is already covered by the proposed amendment to 8.3 (p128 of report), it is recommended the motion is accepted.


Omit proposed first insertion into section 8.5.4 as set out in the Chief Executive’s report p136 i.e. Omit the following:

“The NTA has set mode share target of 30% for active modes (i.e. walking and cycling) for all trips by 2035.”

84


MotionEither delete part (ii) of proposed new objective MTO12 or MT10.

Reason: Duplication - not allowed at members' motion stage so why now?

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThis relates to page 61/62 of the draft plan. Both MT10 and MO12 relate to implementation of 30 kph speed limits.

Submissions seek that the 30kph proposed for all the 52 neighbourhoods shown in chapter 12 should be extended to the whole city. The map on p109 of Chapter 12 is solely to demonstrate the variety of neighbourhoods in the city however - and is not a transport policy map. It is recommended that MT10 should be removed and replaced with MTO12.

MTO12 (as proposed for amendment) relates specifically to the expansion of 30kph areas for cycling purposes to help implement the NTAs Cycle Network Plan (see s 8.5.4.1 of Chief Executive’s report). It should be retained as amended.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is adopted with amendment to delete MT10 for reasons stated.

85


MotionRe: MT8, page 61 of draft plan which reads:

“MT8: To work with initiatives by relevant agencies and stakeholders such as An Taisce’s ‘Green Schools’ initiative and the NTA’s ‘Smarter Travel’, to promote active travel in schools and communities, recognising the health and social benefits of walking and cycling as well as the environmental benefits.”

In line with above Policy MT8 we propose the addition of a new Objective MTO as follows: To actively promote the adoption of Green Schools travel flags by all schools in Dublin City.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseWhilst the promotion of active travel and related initiatives is appropriate policy for the Development Plan, providing a new objective relating specifically to one aspect of the Green Schools initiative, i.e. travel flags, is considered unnecessary as it relates to detailed operational aspects of the project . Schools involved in the project work towards achieving Green Flag status by successfully meeting predetermined targets. This is beyond the Scope of the Development Plan.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted (operational matter).


MotionTo amend MT8, page 61 of draft plan to read:

“MT8: To work with, and actively promote, initiatives by relevant agencies and stakeholders such as An Taisce’s ‘Green Schools’ initiative and the NTA’s ‘Smarter Travel’, to promote active travel in schools and communities, recognising the health and social benefits of walking and cycling as well as the environmental benefits.”

Reason – to promote sustainable transport for Dublin city.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseMotion agreed.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is agreed (already addressed in the Draft Plan)

86


MotionThis was in the submission of Dublin Cycling Campaign in Dec 2015 but it was completely ignored in the CE report:

“Review level of available private off street car parking in city centre, between canals, and consider the introduction of a private parking levy with a view to increasing the use of sustainable modes.”

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe matter of introducing a private parking levy was addressed in Chief Executive’s report p138 and responded to on p 139. It states “The idea of levying car parking spaces would require comprehensive study and significant time to prepare. This is beyond the time available given statutory requirements”. Any such study would necessarily include a review of the level of private parking available. In addition, and more significantly, the introduction of a private parking levy would be a matter for national government and legislation.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted (outside scope of the development plan).

2089Councillor(s) Cllr. Vincent Jackson, Cllr. Dermot Lacey, Cllr. Damian O'Farrell,

Cllr. Éilis Ryan

MotionThe following motion was in the submission of Dublin Cycling Campaign in Dec 2015 but the point regarding the publishing of audits was completely ignored in the CE report:

“All road safety audit reports shall be made publicly available on the City Council website.”

This is crucial so that the public can easily see if and how schemes have been properly assessed from a safety perspective, especially for vulnerable road users.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe subject of road safety audits was raised in sections 16.2.2.1 ( re large scale development) and also 8.5.7 ( road and bridge improvements) of the Chief Executive’s Report.

The availability of Road Safety Audits is not a matter for the Development Plan. Notwithstanding, any Road Safety Audits that have been prepared as part of the planning application process are a matter of public record and available for inspection.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted (not a matter for the Development Plan. Could be referred to traffic SPC)

87


MotionRe: CE Recommendation which reads:

"MTO27A: To protect the route of the proposed eastern by-pass in accordance with Transport Infrastructure Irelands ‘Corridor protection study – Sector A – Dublin Port Tunnel to Sandymount Strand’, and support the provision of a link between Poolbeg and the Southern Cross/Southeastern Motorway via an eastern bypass of the city".

We do not support “the provision of a link between Poolbeg and the Southern Cross/Southeastern Motorway via an eastern bypass of the city” because of (i) the inevitable induced demand / growth in private car travel arising from its construction, (ii) the consequent increased CO2 emissions and (iii) the absorption of great shares of the capital transport budgets at the expense of sustainable transport investment.

We oppose the City Manager's recommendations.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseSince the preparation of the Chief Executive’s report on submissions, the National Transport Authority’s ‘Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2016-2035’ has been approved by the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport. It contains reference to the bypass;

“…, in the case of the Eastern Bypass, while the 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. However, the retention of a route corridor for this scheme is recommended, to facilitate the possible future use of the corridor for transport provision.” (p81).

Dublin City Council must be consistent with the above, particularly since such consistency is a legal requirement under section 9 of the Planning and Development Act (as updated). It is also relevant that Transport Infrastructure Ireland also supports the route.

The route corridor south of the south port area should be retained for the future, i.e. beyond the NTA strategy period. The wording of the proposed new objective (as per CE's report) should be modified to reflect the now approved strategy.

It is not the case that the retention of a route corridor is at odds with the development of alternative sustainable transport possibilities. In this respect it is noted that the National Transport Authority strategy refers to the route corridor and is not restricted to car -based movement.

In relation to costs, it is too early to determine these.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted as contrary to both national policy and the Planning Acts.

Modify the proposed new objective MTO27A (p141 of Chief Executives report).

From ;"MTO27A: To protect the route of the proposed eastern by-pass in accordance with Transport

88

Infrastructure Ireland ‘Corridor Protection Study – Sector A – Dublin Port Tunnel to Sandymount Strand’ , and support the provision of a link between Poolbeg and the southern cross/Southeastern motorway via n eastern bypass of the city" .

To:"MTO27A ; To protect the route of the proposed eastern by-pass in accordance with Transport Infrastructure Ireland ‘Corridor Protection Study – Sector A – Dublin Port Tunnel to Sandymount Strand’ , and for the longer term to retain a route corridor between Poolbeg and the southern cross/Southeastern motorway via an eastern bypass of the city, in accordance with the National Transport Authority’s Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2016-2035".


MotionPage 61, In Section 8.5.4 Promoting Active Travel; Cycling & Walking to add the following:

“The benefits of lower (30kph) speed limit zones in relation to active travel have been thoroughly documented and recognised, including;

encouraging active travel, providing safer and easier mobility for all ages,improving health including mental health, accident reduction, better air quality, noise reduction,economic advantages, more ‘liveable’ cities with greater social interaction”

Reason: To promote sustainable mobility

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseSection 8.5.4 of the Chief Executive’s report already addresses the matters raised. It is considered that MTO12 (including recommended changes in the Chief Executive’s report) in conjunction with other Development Plan provisions are adequate to address the point raised.

For the sake of clarity MTO12 (with proposed amendments) is:

"MTO12: In accordance with cycle routes identified in the National Transport Authority’sGreater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan:

(i) To improve permeability for cyclists by exploring the potential to provide contraflow cycling on 1 way streets.

(ii) To improve the traffic environment for cycling by reducing traffic speeds through the introduction or expansion of 30kph zones in compliance with the Department of Transport, Tourism & Sport document ‘Guidelines for Setting and Managing Speed Limits in Ireland’.”

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is noted as already addressed in section 8.5.4.

89


MotionPage 61, To replace MT10 which reads:

“ To provide 30kph speed limits and traffic calmed areas in each of the neighbourhoods shown in map “A City Neighbourhoods” in chapter 12.”

With

“To provide 30kph speed limits and traffic calmed areas throughout the city and in each of the neighbourhoods shown in map “A City Neighbourhoods” in chapter 12.”

Reason: to promote sustainable mobility.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe motion effectively seeks to include “throughout the city” in MT10, thereby extending the extent of the 30kph zone. The ‘city of neighbourhoods’ map on p 109 of Chapter 12 is however solely to demonstrate the variety of neighbourhoods in the city however - and is not a transport policy map. As explained in the Chief Executive’s report on p 134-135 ( re s. 8.5.4) the Council cannot commit to putting 30kph limits throughout the city as this would be premature pending the outcome of work with the DTTAS in relation to the possible expansion of the 30kph zone.

It is recommended that MT10 should be removed and replaced with MTO12 (as proposed for amendment in the Chief Executive’s report) . This relates specifically to the expansion of 30kph areas for cycling purposes to help implement the NTAs Cycle Network Plan (see s 8.5.4.1 of Chief Executive’s report, p137).

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted (for planning reasons above). Delete MT10 for reasons stated.

See recommendation MTO36A:

"MTO36A: To support the implementation of appropriate speed limits throughout the City in accordance with guidelines published by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport".

90

2093Councillor(s) Cllr. Vincent Jackson, Cllr. Dermot Lacey, Cllr. Damian O'Farrell,

Green Party Group

MotionThat Objective MTO9 (page 62 of the Draft Plan) be reworded as follows:

“To improve existing cycleways and bicycle priority measures throughout the city in the short term, by implementing immediate improvements to thoroughfares and junctions, and to create guarded cycle lanes, where appropriate and feasible.”

Reason: to promote modal shift required by the plan and to promote sustainable transport

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThis is addressed on page 132 and 134 of the CE report on submissions, wherein it was noted that MTO9 cannot be modified to facilitate immediate improvements as funding and other resources may not be available at short notice. Objective MTO9 states “To improve existing cycleway sand bicycle priority measures throughout the city, and to create guarded cycle lanes, where appropriate and feasible”. This is considered sufficient to allow for implementation throughout the 6 year life of the Plan.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThis motion is not adopted for reasons outlined above.

91


MotionPage 62, To amend MTO7 to include at the end “City Centre Cycle Parking Strategy”

Reason – to ensure development plan has regard to all relevant documents

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe ‘Dublin City Centre Cycle Parking Strategy Report’ relates to the ‘feasibility study for the provision of city centre high density cycle parking’ (October 2015) by Dublin City Council in conjunction with the NTA and Halcrow Barry.

It is agreed that specific reference to the study is appropriate and MTO7 should be modified accordingly.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is adopted as amended

Amend MTO7:

From:"To promote and facilitate, in cooperation with key agents and stakeholders, the provision of high -density cycle parking facilities at appropriate locations, taking into consideration ( inter alia) the NTA's Cycle Network Plan and Dublin City Council’s Public Realm Strategy".

To:"To promote and facilitate, in cooperation with key agents and stakeholders, the provision of high -density cycle parking facilities at appropriate locations, taking into consideration ( inter alia) the NTA's Cycle Network Plan, Dublin City Centre Cycle Parking Strategy, and Dublin City Council’s Public Realm Strategy".

92


MotionPage 62, Replace:

“MTO10: To review the 30kph speed limit that applies within the city centre (i.e. area between the canals)”.

With

“Dublin City, and that any higher speed limits, such as 40 kph, 50kph or greater, only be introduced after a full environmental and risk assessment.”

Reason: to promote sustainable mobility.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAmendments sought to MTO10 in submissions, and documented in the Chief Executive’s report (p132) sought full environmental and risk assessment for speed limits of 50kph or greater. The current motion is similar but seeks a lower-limit threshold. In this regard, Dublin City Council must be guided by the statutory document “Guidelines for Setting and Managing Speed Limits in Ireland” (DTTAS 2015). The Council is currently exploring the potential to expand the 30km per hour speed limit outside the city centre.

Risk assessments are carried out where an increase in speed limit is proposed.

The CE's Report on Submissions (pg 143) recommends a new objective in 8.5.8:

"MTO36A: To support the implementation of appropriate speed limits throughout the City in accordance with guidelines published by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport"

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted, for the reasons outlined above.

93


MotionPage 62 ,To amend MTO13 to include “in line with the City Centre Cycle Parking Strategy”

Reason: to ensure development plan has regard to all relevant documents

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe ‘Dublin City Centre Cycle Parking Strategy Report’ relates to the ‘feasibility study for the provision of city centre high density cycle parking’ (October 2015) by Dublin City Council in conjunction with the NTA and Halcrow Barry.

MTO13 relates to neighbourhood centres. Because these are located throughout the city and not just in the city centre, amending MTO13 is not considered an appropriate change.

It is however appropriate that reference to the study be included in the plan. It has been recommended elsewhere in this report that MTO7 be modified to include specific reference to the City Centre Cycle Parking Strategy.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is adopted as amended by adding to MTO7. i.e.

Amend MTO7:



94

2097Councillor(s) Cllr. Vincent Jackson, Cllr. Damian O'Farrell

MotionRe: MT8, page 61 of draft plan which reads:

“MT8: To work with initiatives by relevant agencies and stakeholders such as An Taisce’s ‘Green Schools’ initiative and the NTA’s ‘Smarter Travel’, to promote active travel in schools and communities, recognising the health and social benefits of walking and cycling as well as the environmental benefits.”

In line with above Policy MT8 we propose the addition of a new Objective MTO as follows: To actively promote the adoption of Green Schools travel flags by all schools in Dublin City.

Reason: To increase awareness and education of the benefits of cycling and walking.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseIt is considered that policy MT8 covers the Green Schools initiative by An Taisce, and its commitment to promoting active travel in schools and communities. The Green Flag initiative is only one part of this scheme and would be covered under this policy.

This was covered in the CE report, and was brought up in submission (see page 132 of the CE report). In relation to the Green Schools programme Dublin City Council currently works to the best of its available resources with An Taisce on their green schools programme throughout the city.

A number of submissions were also received which looked for new schools to be located so as to encourage cycling and walking and to minimise travel by car. This was covered on pages 232/233 of the CE report. There are several policies and guidance statements within the Plan in relation to encouraging walking and cycling provision within Section 8.5.4 of the Draft Plan, ‘Promoting Active Travel: Cycling and Walking’. This section includes polices for improving the City’s environment for walking and cycling (MT7) and to work with An Taisce in the ‘Green Schools’ Initiative and the NTA’s Smarter Travel , to promote active travel in schools and communities (MT8).


This matter is already covered under Policy MT8 of the draft plan, and in the CE report on page 132-233.

95

2098Councillor(s) Cllr. Vincent Jackson, Cllr. Dermot Lacey, Cllr. Damian O'Farrell

MotionRe: MTO7 and MTO8 (page 62 of the Draft Plan), the recently completed ‘City Centre Cycle Parking Strategy’ needs to be specifically referenced in Objectives MTO7 & MTO13.

Reason: The City Centre Cycle Parking Strategy needs to be a stated and referenced objective of DCC in order to increase the likelihood of it being carried out.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseMTO7 and MTO8 relate to high density cycle parking and the strategic cycle network respectively (p 62 of the Draft Development Plan). MTO13 relates to parking provision at neighbourhood centres.

The ‘Dublin City Centre Cycle Parking Strategy Report’ relates to the ‘feasibility study for the provision of city centre high density cycle parking’ (October 2015) by Dublin City Council in conjunction with the NTA. The report went to the relevant SPC meeting in Nov 2015.

It is agreed that specific reference to the study is appropriate. Because MTO8 relates to the strategic cycle network (rather than parking) and MTO13 relates to parking at neighbourhood centres only, MTO7 is considered the most relevant and should be modified accordingly.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is adopted as amended.

Amend MTO7:



96


MotionThat MTO12 (i) be changed to “To provide permeability for cyclists by reducing speed limits to 30kph and allowing contraflow cycling on all single lane one way streets, and to provide a segregated contraflow cycle lane on all one way streets with two or more lanes.”

Reason: to improve permeability for cyclists

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe motion appears to look for a reduction in speed limits to 30km on all streets in the city. Objective MTO12 in the draft plan currently reads as follows:

MTO12: (i) To provide permeability for cyclists by reducing speed limits on all single lane one way streets to 30kph and allowing contraflow cycling , and to provide a segregated contraflow cycle lane on all one way streets with two or more lanes.

The motion requests the following amendment:

MTO12 (i) To provide permeability for cyclists by reducing speed limits on all single lane one way streets to 30kph and allowing contraflow cycling on all single lane one way streets, and to provide a segregated contraflow cycle lane on all one way streets with two or more lanes.”

These issues are raised in the submissions in the CE report, see pages, 132 & 135 in relation to the urban speed limit being reduced to 30kph. (It should be noted that the current objective MTO10 in the draft plan aims to review the 30kph limit for the city centre).

As stated in the Chief Executive’s report, the Council cannot commit to putting 30kph limits throughout the city as this would be premature pending the outcome of work with the Dept of Transport Tourism & Sport in relation to the possible expansion of the 30kph zone. This said, it is was considered appropriate to revise MTO12 to (a) ..omit reference to ‘single lane’ one way streets and broaden the potential for contraflow solutions, and (b) .. to support the introduction or expansion of 30kph zones inappropriate areas in compliance with DTTAS guidelines for setting/managing speed limits. The Chief Executive’s recommendation on p137 (re section 8.5.4.1) hence aims to replace MT012 with the following:

“In accordance with cycle routes identified in the National Transport Authority’sGreater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan:

(i) To improve permeability for cyclists by exploring the potential to providecontraflow cycling on 1 way streets.

(ii) To improve the traffic environment for cycling by reducing traffic speedsthrough the introduction or expansion of 30kph zones in compliance with theDepartment of Transport, Tourism & Sport document ‘Guidelines for Setting andManaging Speed Limits in Ireland’.”

Chief Executive's RecommendationThis motion is adopted as amended by revised MTO12 in CE's report p137. (See above).

97


MotionTo modify MTO10A as follows:

From:"To continue to promote improved permeability for both cyclists and pedestrians in existing urban areas in line with the National Transport Authority’s document “ Permeability – a best practice guide”. Also, to carry out a permeability and accessibility study of appropriate areas in the vicinity of Luas routes in cooperation with Transport Infrastructure Ireland and the National Transport Authority”

To include rail routes and BRT routes

"To continue to promote improved permeability for both cyclists and pedestrians in existing urban areas in line with the National Transport Authority’s document “ Permeability – a best practice guide”. Also, to carry out a permeability and accessibility study of appropriate areas in the vicinity of Luas routes, rail routes, and BRT routes, and in cooperation with Transport Infrastructure Ireland and the National Transport Authority”

Reason: to improve accessibility and permeability around rail routes and BRT routes, in addition to Luas routes

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe proposed new objective is recommended on page 136 of the Chief Executive’s report under Section 8.5.4 - Promoting Active Travel: Cycling & Walking. This was inserted on foot of the submission from Transport Infrastructure Ireland which recommended permeability and accessibility study of areas in the vicinity of the Luas routes should be carried out.

Objective MT10A refers to the Permeability Best Practice Guide. This guidance note seeks to provide a basis for the delivery of this choice in existing built-up area by promoting permeability for pedestrians and cyclists to key destinations. Permeability would help meet the objective of increased use of public transport, thereby maintaining current levels of service and even rendering further improvements viable. Transport operators and providers have been actively engaged in promoting permeability in suburban Dublin. Expanding the scope of the study to include rail routes and BRT as requested in the motion would improve the environment for walking and cycling, and connectivity generally.


Modify objective MTO10A

From:"To continue to promote improved permeability for both cyclists and pedestrians in existing urban areas in line with the National Transport Authority’s document “Permeability – a best practice guide”. Also, to carry out a permeability and accessibility study of appropriate areas in the vicinity of Luas routes in cooperation with Transport Infrastructure Ireland and the National Transport Authority”

98

To:"To continue to promote improved permeability for both cyclists and pedestrians in existing urban areas in line with the National Transport Authority’s document “Permeability – a best practice guide”. Also, to carry out a permeability and accessibility study of appropriate areas in the vicinity of Luas routes, rail routes and BRT routes in cooperation with Transport Infrastructure Ireland and the National Transport Authority”


MotionIn relation to MTO7 and MTO8 insert a specific reference to the recently completed ‘City Centre Cycle Parking Strategy’.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseMTO7 and MTO8 relate to high density cycle parking and the strategic cycle network respectively (p 62 of the Draft Development Plan). MTO13 relates to parking provision at neighbourhood centres.The ‘Dublin City Centre Cycle Parking Strategy Report’ relates to the ‘feasibility study for the provision of city centre high density cycle parking’ (October 2015) by Dublin City Council in conjunction with the NTA. The report went to the relevant SPC meeting in Nov 2015.

It is agreed that specific reference to the study is appropriate. Because MTO8 relates to the strategic cycle network (rather than parking) and MTO13 relates to parking at neighbourhood centres only, MTO7 is considered the most relevant and should be modified accordingly.


Amend MTO7



99


MotionIn relation to submissions highlighting the contradiction between a commitment to cycle lanes and commitment to on-street parking in the plan, insert the following sentence into the plan:

“Where development of cycle lanes is impeded by on-street parking, priority should be given to cycle lanes, in recognition of the need to transition away from driving in the city centre.”

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe design of new cycle lanes must be responsive to the design of established local environments. In some instances, the choice of providing either a cycle lane or parking spaces is not the only way forward. For example, parking provision in a given area may be limited and it may serve important local services. In such a case the position of the cycle lane and or parking spaces could be revisited with resulting redesign. Dublin City Council is guided by best practice and also DMURs and permeability guidance. The National Transport Authority’s cycle network plan is also relevant to route selection.

Also of relevance are pilot schemes in the city which examine the success or otherwise of design options – e.g. placing the cycle track between on-street parking and the footpath – hence accommodating both.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted for reasons above.


MotionThat this City Council implement a traffic plan to address the safety issue at the entrance and exit of Ashtown gates at the Phoenix Park.

Reason: To resolve the ongoing issue of safety concerns at this junction.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseSection 8.5.7 of the report on submissions relates to these matters. The matter is a local one and an operational traffic management matter rather than a strategic one. It should be referred to the relevant SPC .

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted (operational matter). Refer to relevant SPC.

100


MotionSection 8.5.5: Additional wording to include a reference that the School Travel Plan should also be required under SDZ applications and should include school redevelopment/expansion as well as new schools.

Reason: To ensure all travel plans are included for all school developments.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe amendment proposed for section 8.5.5 (pg 138 of Chief Executive’s report) states ‘school travel plans are required for all new schools’.

Section 169 of the 2000 Act states that an SDZ planning application scheme supersedes any contrary provisions of the Development Plan, and S170 states that the Planning Authority should grant Permission for a planning application which is consistent with the scheme.

Appendix 4 of the Draft Plan contains details on Travel Plans and the circumstances in which they are required. It seems to be that the motion is over prescriptive; it is up to the Planning Authority to determine whether there is sufficient information (including Traffic plans) to determine whether the application (under S34) is o is not consistent with the scheme.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted; outside the scope of the development plan.

101


MotionThat the Development Plan includes, where appropriate at section 8, an objective to promote the reinstatement by CIE/Irish Rail of the station entrance at Amiens Street/Buckingham Street junction to enable access for local community to service passing through their area.

Reason: To further encourage use of rail transport as per the as per the mode share targets.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseIt is Policy under MT6 to work with Iarnód Éireann, the NTA, RPA and other operators to progress a co-ordinated approach to improving the rail networks, integrated with other public transport modes to ensure maximum public benefit and promoting sustainable transport and improved connectivity.

This would be considered an operational matter for CIE/Irish Rail to be pursued under the above policy. The reason for the closure of the entrance requires exploration with CIE/Irish Rail. Matter could be referred to Traffic SPC.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThis motion is adopted.

Add to MTO5:

"To promote the re-instatement of station entrance at Amiens Street / Buckingham Street junction".

102


MotionThat the Development Plan includes, where appropriate at section 8, an objective to encourage Irish Rail to implement the measures outlined in the Arups Report with regard to through platforms both at Connolly and Pearse Stations.

Reason: To ease congestion in these stations and to encourage usage of this transport mode.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseIt is Policy under MT6 to work with Iarnód Éireann , the NTA , TII and other operators to progress a co-ordinated approach to improving the rail networks, integrated with other public transport modes to ensure maximum public benefit and promoting sustainable transport and improved connectivity. Policy MT3 seeks (inter alia) to achieve more efficient interchanges between transport modes.

This would be considered an operational matter for Irish Rail to be pursued under the above policy.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThis motion is not adopted. This matter is considered an operational matter for Irish Rail.

103


MotionTo amend MT13 and MT14 to reflect the fact that the City Centre has permanently lost over 400 parking spaces due to the Luas Cross City project. Policy MT14 should include the the following at the end of the policy: ....and leisure , mindful of, and taking into consideration, the permanent loss of over 400 parking bays in the City Centre due to the Luas Cross City project.

Reason: To acknowledge the loss of over 400 parking bays and take this loss of spaces into consideration when "discouraging" commuter parking.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponsePolicy MT13 in section 8.5.6 states ‘To minimise loss of on-street parking’. The motion does not seek any specific modification to MT13 and does not refer to the proposed amendment on page 139 of the CE's report which changes the policy significantly. It is however implicit in the motion that the loss of parking spaces has been significant and that further loss should cease.

The proposed amendment in the Chief Executive's report on submissions seeks "To minimise loss of on-street car parking, particularly in areas of high demand, whilst balancing the needs of new public transport infrastructure, public realm and cycle lanes". It is considered that this is sufficient to address the concern raised.

Policy MT14 seeks “to discourage commuter parking and to ensure adequate but not excessive parking provision for short term shopping, business and leisure use”. The motion suggests the addition of the following to the end of this policy, ”mindful of, and taking into consideration, the permanent loss of over 400 parking bays in the City Centre due to the Luas Cross City project”. The difficulty with this proposed change is that the addition of text as suggested may lead to confusion as it may be interpreted that the loss of 400 spaces for Luas needs somehow to be factored into site development calculations for new development. The suggested change may therefore be a source of confusion in relation to implementation of parking standards elsewhere in the plan.

Chief Executive's RecommendationRe: MT13That motion is noted (see proposed amendment to policy MT13 pg 139 of CE Report on Submissions).

Re: MT14That motion is not adopted (operational matter).

104


MotionTo create a new objective under section 8

“Review level of available private off street car parking in city centre, between canals, and consider the introduction of a private parking levy with a view to increasing the use of sustainable modes.”

Reason – to promote modal shift and sustainable transport

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe matter of introducing a private parking levy was addressed in Chief Executive’s report p138 and responded to on p 139. It states “ The idea of levying car parking spaces would require comprehensive study and significant time to prepare. This is beyond the time available given statutory requirements”. Any such study would necessarily include a review of the level of private parking available. In addition, and more significantly, the introduction of a private parking levy would be a matter for national government and legislation.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted (outside scope of the development plan).

105


MotionThis City Council rejects the proposal MTO27A that inserts a new objective providing for an Eastern By-Pass route protection corridor.

Reason: The elected City Council has repeatedly stated its opposition to an Eastern By Pass Road and provision for this route corridor is inconsistent with that policy position and inhibits the development of alternative transport possibilities.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseSince the preparation of the Chief Executive’s report on submissions, the National Transport Authority’s ‘Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area’ has been approved by the Minister for Transport. It contains reference to the bypass;



The route corridor south of the south port area should be retained for the future, i.e. beyond the NTA strategy period. The wording of the proposed new objective ( as per CE's report) should be modified to reflect the now approved strategy.


Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted as it is contrary to both national policy and the Planning Acts.

Modify the proposed new objective MTO27A (p141 of Chief Executive's Report):

From:"MTO27A: To protect the route of the proposed eastern by-pass in accordance with Transport Infrastructure Ireland ‘Corridor Protection Study – Sector A – Dublin Port Tunnel to Sandymount Strand’ , and support the provision of a link between Poolbeg and the southern cross/Southeastern motorway via an eastern bypass of the city" .

To:"MTO27A: To protect the route of the proposed eastern by-pass in accordance with Transport Infrastructure Ireland ‘Corridor Protection Study – Sector A – Dublin Port Tunnel to Sandymount Strand’, and for the longer term to retain a route corridor between Poolbeg and the southern cross/Southeastern motorway via an eastern bypass of the city, in accordance with the National Transport Authority’s Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2016-2035".

106


MotionTo delete objective 8.5.7 Road and Bridge Improvements on page 17 of the Chief Executive’s Report.


Motion





The route corridor south of the south port area should be retained for the future, ie beyond the NTA strategy period. The wording of the proposed new objective ( as per CEs report) should be modified to reflect the now approved strategy.



Modify the proposed new objective MTO27A (p141 of Chief Executive's Report):From:"MTO27A: To protect the route of the proposed eastern by-pass in accordance with Transport Infrastructure Ireland ‘Corridor Protection Study – Sector A – Dublin Port Tunnel to Sandymount Strand’ , and support the provision of a link between Poolbeg and the southern cross/Southeastern motorway via an eastern bypass of the city" .


107


MotionTo delete the reference to the Eastern By Pass and to amending Map J to provide for this in page 146 of the Chief Executive’s Report and all other parts of the Development Plan where such provision is made.


Motion



“…, in the case of the Eastern Bypass, while the 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. However, the retention of a route corridor for this scheme is recommended, to facilitate the possible future use of the corridor for transport provision.” (p81)

Dublin City Council must be consistent with the above, particularly since such consistency is a legal requirement under section 9 of the Planning and Development Act (as updated) . It is also relevant that Transport Infrastructure Ireland also supports the route.




Modify the proposed new objective MTO27A (p141 of Chief Executive's Report):From:"MTO27A: To protect the route of the proposed eastern by-pass in accordance with Transport Infrastructure Ireland ‘Corridor Protection Study – Sector A – Dublin Port Tunnel to Sandymount Strand’ , and support the provision of a link between Poolbeg and the southern cross/Southeastern motorway via an eastern bypass of the city" .


108


MotionExclude any reference to the Eastern Bypass, and amend maps and other references to reflect its omission.

Reason: The eastern by-pass route is not proposed during the period (up to 2035) of the National Transport Authority's Draft Strategy 2016-2035. Such a bypass is not in the interests of the residential amenity of the Dublin 4 area, and would also be hugely damaging to Dublin Bay.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseSince the preparation of the Chief Executive’s report on submissions, the National Transport Authority’s ‘Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2016-2035’ has been approved by the Minister. It contains reference to the bypass;




It is noted that the National Transport Authority strategy refers to the route corridor and it is not restricted to car-based movement.

Dublin Bay has a number of levels of appropriate protection including SAC, SPA, and other designations. The Appropriate Assessment process also relates.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted as contrary to both national policy and the principal planning act.

Modify the proposed new objective MTO27A (p141 of Chief Executives report) From:MTO27A ; To protect the route of the proposed eastern by-pass in accordance with Transport Infrastructure Ireland ‘Corridor Protection Study – Sector A – Dublin Port Tunnel to Sandymount Strand’ , and support the provision of a link between Poolbeg and the southern cross/Southeastern motorway via n eastern bypass of the city.

To:MTO27A ; To protect the route of the proposed eastern by-pass in accordance with Transport Infrastructure Ireland ‘Corridor Protection Study – Sector A – Dublin Port Tunnel to Sandymount Strand’ , and for the longer term to retain a route corridor between Poolbeg and the southern cross/Southeastern motorway via an eastern bypass of the city, in accordance with the National Transport Authority’s Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2016-2035.

109


MotionPage 65, Reject the Manager’s proposal as follows:

"MTO27A: To protect the route of the proposed eastern by-pass in accordance with Transport Infrastructure Ireland’s ‘Corridor protection study – Sector A – Dublin Port Tunnel to Sandymount Strand’, and support the provision of a link between Poolbeg and the Southern Cross/Southeastern Motorway via an eastern bypass of the city".

Reason: to provide for sustainable transport and travel and ensure that new roads do not consume an excessive proportion of the State’s limited funds that may be available for transport projects.

Motion





MotionThat the City Development Plan put in place when contractor’s carry out road works that all departments carry out whatever works are needed and not have roads and footpaths dug up time and time again and contractors to remove all barriers and cones when works are complete.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe motion recommends a co-ordination of services by Dublin City Council across all sectoral utility companies such that disruption to public realm is minimised and various works take place at the same time in any given area. The motion also relates to procedural aspects of the various operators in relation to the removal of cones and barriers. These matters are operational in nature and not a matter for the development plan.

All the works are managed by roadworks control section of Dublin City Council who issue roads opening licenses to allow for such works. Most developers are required to submit Construction management Plans. Utility Companies have a legal right to open the road if for emergency purposes, which makes controlling their works difficult.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted; as outside scope of the Development Plan and is an operational matter.

110


MotionThat the City Development Plan ensure a penalty be placed on any contractor who leaves paths or roads exposed after completed works.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe matter raised is an operational matter and also not on foot of submissions received for the Draft City Development Plan. It should be noted that all works to the public road are carried out in accordance with the Roads and Traffic Acts. These items are comprehensively dealt with in the document ‘Directions for the Control and Management of Road works in Dublin City’ and are not considered appropriate for the development plan. A copy of this document is available on www.dublincity.ie and can be made available if required.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is not adopted; outside the scope of the development plan and is an operational matter.

111


MotionPage 66, In the section that commences ”MTO27: To initiate and/or implement the following road improvement schemes and bridges within the six year period of the development plan, subject to the availability”

Under the word “Roads”

Delete the words ”Link from Military Road to Conyngham Road”Delete the words ”East Wall Road/Sheriff Street to North Quays”

Reason: in the interests of sustainable transport and travel.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe two road schemes referred to have been planned for some time and were included in objective SI038 of the 2011-2017 Development Plan.

The link from Military Road to Conyngham Road would be a short link that could resolve a number of traffic difficulties in the area surrounding Heuston Station and would also facilitate significant development within SDRA7.

The link from East Wall Road/Sheriff Street to North Quays is included on foot of the National Transport Authority’s Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area – which has been recently approved. Dublin City Council must be consistent with the above – as this is a legal requirement under section 9 of the Planning and Development Act (as updated) . The route is also supported within section 4.4.4 of the North Lotts and Grand Canal Dock Planning Scheme 2014.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted (on planning grounds /contrary to national policy).

112


MotionUnder the word “Bridges” Add

"New bridge across the River Liffey connecting Fishamble Street with Arran Street East for walking, cycling and public transport”"Reopening of pathway underneath Blaquiere Bridge on the North Circular Road beside the old

State Cinema in Phibsborough to pedestrians and cyclists”


Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseIn relation to a bridge connecting Fishamble Street with Arran Street East, this has not been proposed in the City Centre Transport Study and therefore will not be considered for policy at this time. It is perhaps relevant that there are two existing bridges nearby – Grattan Bridge to the east and O Donovan Rossa Bridge to the west. Approx 220 metres separate the two. Costs for a new bridge would be significant (for example, the Rosie Hackett bridge cost approx €13.5 million –albeit at a wider section of the river).

In relation to the reopening of the pathway underneath Blaquiere Bridge, and following discussion with Dublin City Council Roads and the National Transport Authority, this objective for the 2008 LAP was omitted as deemed unfeasible. Response to motion 41 in Chief Executive’s report on motions (report no. 350/2015) relates. In summary, the response states that the National Transport Authority do not propose to tunnel under the NCR as part of the proposed cycle route along the Royal Canal Bank.

Chief Executive's RecommendationRe Fishamble St Bridge; Not adopted.

Re pathway under Blaquiere Bridge; not adopted as not feasible in the lifetime of the Plan.

113


MotionCross Guns Bridge Phibsborough (upgrading for pedestrians’ and cyclists’ use)


Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe existing footpaths along Phibsborough Road at Cross Guns Bridge are indeed narrow. The presence of a lock to the west imposes a constraint in widening on the western side. Consideration may be given to providing a pedestrian bridge on the eastern side of the existing bridge, either as a cantilever or as a separate bridge.

In the immediate vicinity, and as part of the Royal Canal Greenway proposals (under Part 8) a number of significant improvements will be made to the Phibsborough Road/Whitworth Road junction. This will include ; (i) A widening of the footpath to the west ; (ii) Proposed on-road cycle lanes to a minimum width of 1.75m;(iii) Reduced traffic lanes to 3.0m; and( 4) A proposed Toucan Crossing to the south of the existing Pelican Crossing.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is noted (already addressed by roads proposals above).

114


MotionTo include a provision from the Phibsborough LAP to include a pedestrian/cyclist bridge over Railway line at Whitworth Road connecting the Royal Canal to Whitworth Road at an appropriate site

Reason: to improve permeability and accessibility to the Royal Canal amenity.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThis issue was previously raised in the Chief Executive’s Report on motions for the Draft Phibsborough LAP 2015, Report No. 350/2015.

The recently approved greenway along the Royal Canal includes a proposed pedestrian/cycle bridge across the canal at the 5th Lock. It would not however bridge the parallel rail line to the north. Under these greenway proposals a number of significant improvements will also be made to the nearby Phibsborough Road/Whitworth Road junction, to include footpath widening, new cycle lanes and a proposed Toucan Crossing. This will improve the environment for cyclists and pedestrians.

Draft plan policies & objectives are also relevant as they support improved permeability, improved junctions, and DMURS. They include;

Policy MT7 seeks to improve the city’s environment for walking and cycling through the implementation of improvements to thoroughfares and junctions and also through the development of new and safe routes, including the provision of foot and cycle bridges. Routes within the network will be planned in conjunction with Green Infrastructure Objectives and on foot of (inter alia) the NTA Cycle Network Plan for the Greater Dublin Area, and the National Cycle Manual.

Objective MTO27 seeks to initiate and/or implement road improvements schemes and bridges within a six year period, and under the heading ‘bridges’ it covers cycle/pedestrian bridges that emerge as part of the evolving Strategic Cycle Network and Strategic Green Infrastructure Network.

Objective MTO38 places emphasis on permeability and the implementation of DMURS with a focus on placemaking and permeability in order to create street layouts that are suited to all users, including pedestrians and cyclists.

The proposal for a pedestrian/cycle bridge at Whitworth Road was associated with the redevelopment of Mountjoy as a mixed use quarter, which is no longer a key objective.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted for planning reasons above.

115


MotionIn HCVC’s submission they pointed out that Harold’s Cross has experienced the direct consequence of Flood Damage in recent years, the HCVC are particularly cognizant of the need to introduce policy which mitigates the likelihood of flooding. In particular ensuring that planning policy requires new developments to be more cognizant of mitigating their impacts on flood events. With regard to the policy, they asked that the following be included in SI10; “

to require planning applicants and all statutory and non statutory plans to illustrate how they meet the requirements of the Guidelines for Planning Authorities on the Planning System and Flood Risk Management and Technical Appendices, November 2009, published by the Dept of Environment Community and Local government as may be revised/updated, when submitting planning applications and in the preparation of such plans” .

Unfortunately this was not addressed in the CE’s report.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe issues raised in this submission were dealt with and summarised on page 155 of the CE report, and also on page 159 of the CE report.

Objective SI08 of the Draft Development Plan states that all development proposals shall carry out a site specific Flood Risk Assesement .

Under the Planning and Development Act 200-2015 (as amended) , Section 28 refers to Ministerial Guidelines which states The Minister , may , at any time, issue guidelines to planning authorities regarding any of their functions under this Act and planning authorities shall have regard to those guidelines in the performance of their functions. ‘’.

Also it should be noted that in relation to the Guidelines for Planning Authorities on the ‘Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines’, Section 1.4 of the Guidelines under the heading ‘Status of the Guidelines’ states that ‘These Guidelines are being issued by the Minister of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government under Section 28 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. Planning authorities and An Bord Pleanála are required to have regard to the Guidelines in carrying out their functions under the Planning Acts’.

The draft Plan has included adequate policies and objectives to mitigate the impacts of climate change and flooding.

It is considered that the draft Plan and accompanying SFRA has adequately addressed the impacts of flooding in the City.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is noted, the matter is already addressed in the Draft Plan and on page 155 and 159 of the CE Report on submissions.

116

2121Councillor(s) Cllr. Dr. Paddy Smyth

MotionIn the interest of making our city streets more pleasant and safe environments for pedestrians and cyclists, a systematic review of all secondary roads should be undertaken with a view to narrowing the carriage-ways as much as possible to discourage speeding (as per the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets, Section 4.1.2) and use any excess space to either increase the size of the footpath or, if linear parking is in place, allocate space to a cycle lane between the footpath and the parking spaces.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseDMURS applies to planning of all road and streets. Existing objectives MTO37 and MTO38 are also relevant as MTO37 sets out measures to address adverse impacts of traffic in the city, and MTO38 seeks to implement best practice in road design.

Of particular importance to improving road safety are the following two initiatives;

(i) A Road Safety Strategy (the year 2020) is currently in preparation, and this will address all areas of safety on the roads/streets for all users. The strategy will accord with the ‘Road Safety Plan template’ prepared by the Road Safety Authority. The strategy will include an action plan with objectives focused on the ‘Four E’s’ of road safety; Education, Enforcement, Engineering and Evaluation. ‘Engineering’ in this case focuses on making the road network safer.

(ii) Dublin City Council has proposed to undertake a speed limit review of the City. This will accord with the requirements of the Guidelines for Setting and managing Speed Limits in Ireland, and will go to public consultation in June this year (a pre-draft consultation has already taken place).

The above initiatives are not limited to secondary roads. In addition to the above points, LEIP's may examine the issue for specific areas.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is noted. (Operational matter).

117

2122Councillor(s) Cllr. Vincent Jackson, Cllr. Dermot Lacey, Cllr. Éilis Ryan

MotionRe: the CE recommendation (as per p143 of his report):

“Insert new objective in section 8.5.8: "MTO36A: To support the implementation of appropriate speed limits throughout the City in accordance with guidelines published by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport".

We support this recommendation/motion.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs stated in the Chief Executive’s report on p 133, Dublin City Council is guided by the statutory document “Guidelines for Setting and Managing Speed Limits in Ireland” ( DTTAS March 2015).

The Chief Executive’s report (p143 section 8.5.8 recommends MTO36A as worded in the motion and therefore the matter is already included.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThis motion is adopted as recommended in MTO36A in Chief Executive’s report on Submissions p143.

118


MotionAdd before MTO28 a new objective:

To continue investment in area wide traffic calming to improve safety and priority given to pedestrians, cyclists and public transport in the city”


Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseIt is agreed that it is important that we continue investment in area wide traffic calming to improve safety and priority given to pedestrians and cyclists and public transport in the city. Existing objectives in the Draft Plan support this aim as follows:

MTO31 To review traffic management and calming plans for local areas throughout the city in consultation with local communities and subject to availability of resources.

MTO37 (includes the following ..) To tackle the adverse environmental and road safety impacts of traffic in the city through measures such as ; the implementation of traffic calming measures including the restriction of rat runs, in appropriate areas in accordance with best practice and following advice contained in the DMURS.

In addition to the above cycling-related objectives MTO12, MTO9 and MTO10 aim to improve permeability for cyclists. MTO17 and MTO18 aim to improve public realm permeability for pedestrians.

In relation to sub-areas of the city, the public realm strategy and City Centre Transport Study aim to rebalance existing access arrangements in favour of improved permeability for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users. LAPS and SDZs all plan for improved permeability at local level.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is noted (already addressed in existing Draft Development Plan).

119


MotionReplace the words:

“Traffic management policy will recognise the varying needs of the city through different parts of the day such as commuter peaks, shopping and business hours, and service and delivery hours. In assessing priority, account will be taken of the number of people who travel and not exclusively the number of vehicle movements.”

With the following words:“Traffic management policy will recognise the varying needs of the city through different parts of the day such as the needs of residents, visitors, businesses and those who travel for work and leisure."”


Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe motion requests a slight change of the text as set out in the draft plan under Section 8.5.8 Traffic Management, on page 66 of the draft plan.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is accepted

Amend text in draft plan under Section 8.5.8 Traffic Management, second paragraph:

From:"Traffic management policy will recognise the varying needs of the city through different parts of the day such as commuter peaks, shopping and business hours, and service and delivery hours. In assessing priority, account will be taken of the number of people who travel and not exclusively the number of vehicle movements."

To: "Traffic management policy will recognise the varying needs of the city through different parts of the day such as the needs of residents, visitors, businesses and those who travel for work and leisure."

120


MotionReplace the words:

“MTO36: To review the existing traffic layout of the junction at Doyle’s Corner, Phibsborough, during the lifetime of the plan with a view to implementing upgrade works.”

With the following words:

MTO36: “To review the existing traffic layout of thejunction at Doyle’s Corner, Phibsborough, during the lifetime of the plan with a view to prioritising the needs of vulnerable road users including pedestrians and cyclists as well as public transport and improving traffic safety”


Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe junction in question is heavily trafficked with many private vehicles accessing the city from (inter alia) the N2/M2 primary route in addition to local traffic, pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users. Dublin City Council will apply relevant policies/objectives in carrying out upgrade works. These include MT7, MT20, objective MTO31, and objectives MTO37 and MTO38. MTO38 seeks best practice in road design focusing on DMURS (mandatory guidance), placemaking and permeability. MT 7 encourages the development of new and safe routes for walking and cycling “…through the implementation of improvements to thoroughfares and junctions…”.

Given the range of necessary considerations in reviewing the traffic layout for the area, it is considered appropriate that the requested rewording be modified from ‘prioritising the needs of ..” ..to “providing for the needs of ..” (etc).


From:"MTO36: To review the existing traffic layout of the junction at Doyle’s Corner, Phibsborough, during the lifetime of the plan with a view to implementing upgrade works.”

"MTO36: “To review the existing traffic layout of the junction at Doyle’s Corner, Phibsborough, during the lifetime of the plan with a view to providing for the needs of vulnerable road users including pedestrians and cyclists as well as public transport and improving traffic safety”

121


MotionTo Support the manager recommendation to insert new objective in section 8.5.8: "MTO36A: To support the implementation of appropriate speed limits throughout the City in accordance with guidelines published by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport".

Reason: to promote sustainable transport.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe motion above is to support the CE recommendation in insert the new objectives MTO36A. This is covered in the CE Report on Submissions page 143.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThis motion is adopted.


MotionThat the City Development plan reconsider the foolish 30kph speed limit in operation on the Quays and increase it accordingly. Motorists are either frequently breaking the speed here in these zones, or driving looking at the speedometers.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe 30kph speed limit within the city was brought up in a number of submissions in the CE report; these were dealt with in Section 8.5.4 of the CE report see pages 131 – 137.

Dublin City Council must be guided by the statutory document ‘Guidelines for Setting and Managing Speed Limits in Ireland’’ DTTAS, March 2015. The City Council is currently working with the DTTAS to explore the potential for expanding the 30Kph speed limit outside the city centre.


See CE Recommendation MTO36A:

"MTO36A: To support the implementation of appropriate speed limits throughout the City in accordance with guidelines published by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport".

122


MotionThat the City Development Plan put in place the dishing of footpaths in Dublin City in order to assist personal who are wheel chair bound.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseSection 16.9 of the Draft City Development Plan states that, the design of footpaths shall adhere to the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets (DMURS).

In the Draft City Development Plan under Section 8.5.11 Accessibility for All, it is an objective ‘To prioritise the introduction of tactile paving, ramps and kerb dishing at appropriate locations, including pedestrian crossings, taxi ranks, bus stops and rail platforms’ (See MTO41)

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is noted as the matter raised has been addressed in Section 8.5.11 and section 16.9 of the Draft City Development Plan.

123


MotionThis City Council agrees that the City Development Plan should allow for consideration of the SUAS proposal subject to all normal Conservation, Heritage, Transport and all other Policies of the Development Plan.

Reason: The proponents of the SUAS, as referenced on page 128 of the Chief Executive Report, proposal deserve to have the idea considered as part of a Public Planning process and assessed accordingly. This amendment simply provides for that. While there are mixed views on the benefits and drawbacks of the SUAS proposal it is reasonable and good for transparent planning purposes that it not be precluded from consideration by the planners and the public in advance of a public submission.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponsePublic transport policy is guided by the National Transport Authority. Its recently adopted strategy document for the Greater Dublin Area for the period 2016-2035 makes no reference to cable car services for the city. Dublin City Council is obliged to be consistent with National Transport Authority policy. The principle of such a development is not supported at strategic transportation level.

The SUAS cable car concept as presented in the submission is likely to conflict significantly with conservation policy and has the potential to detract from the character of the city which attracts tourists.

It is not addressed in national or regional transport policy. It is not recommended that it be included as an objective in the City Development Plan.

This said, and as with any development proposal, there is no impediment to the proposer/developer of any ‘SUAS’-type project pursuing the normal path to planning approval by initially seeking pre-planning advice from Dublin City Council. Any discussion would however include the above information. The motion does not recommend any specific wording which changes the existing approach to such proposals, and hence existing development plan text is relevant.


124


MotionThat the City Development Plan look at ways of making the cost of using public transport cheaper for hard pressed commuters.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThis is not a matter for the Development Plan. This is an operational issue. Dublin City Council however will continue to work with the relevant bodies and transport providers, in this regard please refer to Policies, MT5 and MT6. (page 61)

Chief Executive's RecommendationThis motion is not adopted. Outside the scope of the Development Plan.

125

2131Councillor(s) Cllr. Chris Andrews, Cllr. Brendan Carr, Cllr. Mary Freehill

MotionSI10: Delete “To have regard to” and replace it with “To adhere to”… the Guidelines for Planning Authorities on the Planning system and Flood Risk Management, and technical appendices, November 2009, published by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government as may be revised/updated when assessing planning applications and in the preparation of plans both statutory and non-statutory”.

Reason: Given the consequences of flood damage in recent years experienced by many communities across the city, there is a need to introduce policy which mitigates the likelihood of flooding. In particular ensuring that planning policy requires new developments to be more cognizant of mitigating their impacts on flood events. With regard to the policy outlined in the Draft Plan in relation to Flood Management it is contended that the policy as worded is not strong enough, as it simply requires the local authority to have regard to the guidelines. This issue was raised in the Harold’s Cross Village Community Council's submission but was not addressed in the CE's report.

Motion

Refers to: Chapter 9 - Sustainable Environmental Infrastructure

Chief Executive's ResponseThis issue has been dealt with in the CE report, (see pages 155 and 159 of the CE report on submissions) which states‘’In relation to submissions which states that adhering to the guidelines should be a stated requirement. Under the Planning and Development Act 2000-2015 (as amended) , Section 28 refers to Ministerial Guidelines which states The Minister , may , at any time, issue guidelines to planning authorities regarding any of their functions under this Act and planning authorities shall have regard to those guidelines in the performance of their functions. ‘’.

Also it should be noted that in relation to the Guidelines for Planning Authorities on the ‘Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines’, Section 1.4 of the Guidelines under the heading ‘Status of the Guidelines’ states that ‘’These Guidelines are being issued by the Minister of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government under Section 28 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. Planning authorities and An Bord Pleanála are required to have regard to the Guidelines in carrying out their functions under the Planning Acts’’.

The draft Strategic Flood Risk Assessment(SFRA) which accompanied the draft plan on public display(see volume 7) was prepared and informed by the DEHLG Guidelines for Planning Authorities (DEHLG & OPW, 2009) on the Planning System and Flood Risk Management (and Technical Appendices).

Section 9.5.3 of the Draft Plan has incorporated a number of policies and objectives to protect the residents of Dublin against flooding and to mitigate the impacts of flooding. In this regard please refer to polices SI9, SI10, SI11, SI12, SI13, SI14, SI15, SI6, and related objectives, see SIO8, SIO9, SIO10, SIO11 and SIO12. Chapter 3 of the Draft plan incorporates policies and objectives to address climate change and flooding. Chapter 10 of the draft plan which relates to Green Infrastructure, Open Space and Recreation also contains policies and objectives to continue the development of the strategic green network in the City, which will also mitigate against the impacts of flooding.

It is considered that the draft Plan and accompanying SFRA has adequately addressed the impacts of climate change and flooding in the City.

126

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is not adopted, for the reasons stated above and on page 155 and 159 of the CE Report on submissions

127

2132Councillor(s) Cllr. Chris Andrews, Cllr. Brendan Carr, Cllr. Patrick Costello, Cllr.

Mary Freehill

MotionIn chapter 9 flood Management CE’s report page 160 refers to SI10

SI10 - Delete "To have regard to" and replace it with. "To adhere to the Guidelines for Planning Authorities on the Planning system and Flood Risk Management, and technical appendices, November 2009, published by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government as may be revised/updated when assessing planning applications and in the preparation of plans both statutory and non-statutory".

Reason: Given the consequences of flood damage in recent years experienced by many communities across the city, there is a need to introduce policy which mitigates the likelihood of flooding. In particular ensuring that planning policy requires new developments to be more cognizant of mitigating their impacts on flood events. With regard to the policy outlined in the Draft Plan in relation to Flood Management it is contended that the policy as worded is not strong enough, as it simply requires the local authority to have regard to the guidelines.

This issue was raised in the Harold’s Cross Village Community Council's submission but was not addressed in the CE's report.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThis issue has been dealt with in the CE report, (see pages 155 and 159 of the CE report on submissions) which states ‘’In relation to submissions which states that adhering to the guidelines should be a stated requirement. Under the Planning and Development Act 2000-2015 (as amended) , Section 28 refers to Ministerial Guidelines which states The Minister , may , at any time, issue guidelines to planning authorities regarding any of their functions under this Act and planning authorities shall have regard to those guidelines in the performance of their functions. ‘’.

Also it should be noted that in relation to the Guidelines for Planning Authorities on the ‘Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines’, Section 1.4 of the Guidelines under the heading ‘Status of the Guidelines’ states that ‘’These Guidelines are being issued by the Minister of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government under Section 28 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. Planning authorities and An Bord Pleanála are required to have regard to the Guidelines in carrying out their functions under the Planning Acts’’.

The draft Strategic Flood Risk Assessment(SFRA) which accompanied the draft plan on public display(see volume 7) was prepared and informed by the DEHLG Guidelines for Planning Authorities (DEHLG & OPW, 2009) on the Planning System and Flood Risk Management (and Technical Appendices).

Section 9.5.3 of the Draft Plan has incorporated a number of policies and objectives to protect the residents of Dublin against flooding and to mitigate the impacts of flooding. In this regard please refer to polices SI9, SI10, SI11, SI12, SI13, SI14, SI15, SI6, and related objectives, see SIO8, SIO9, SIO10, SIO11 and SIO12. Chapter 3 of the Draft plan incorporates policies and objectives to address climate change and flooding. Chapter 10 of the draft plan which relates to Green Infrastructure, Open Space and Recreation also contains policies and objectives to continue the development of the strategic green network in the City, which will also mitigate against the impacts of flooding.

128

It is considered that the draft Plan and accompanying SFRA has adequately addressed the impacts of climate change and flooding in the City.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is not adopted, for the reasons stated above and on page 155 and 159 of the CE Report on submissions


MotionThat the City Development Plan review the way part or parts of Dublin City are cleaned by Dublin waste management department as some parts of the City are not cleaned due car parking.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseIn response to the issue of street cleaning and littering, a number of submissions were received in relation to the litter problem in Dublin City and for the need for regular street cleaning and better policing and enforcement in relation to litter. These matters were dealt with under Section 9.5.5 Waste Management of the CE report, see page 168. Dublin City Council is in the process of reviewing its current Litter Management Plan (2008-2011) with the intention of developing a new plan for the period 2016-2018. In the CE report (page 169) , there was a recommendation amend the wording of objective SIO18 to read as follows ‘ To implement the current Litter Management Plan through enforcement of the litter laws, street cleaning and education and awareness campaigns.’’

The motion above seeks to review the way parts of the city are cleaned by Dublin Waste Management departments. It should be noted that this is an operational matter and not a matter for the Development Plan. This matter should be referred to the Environment SPC.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is not adopted.

This is an operational matter. Outside the scope of the Development Plan. This matter should be referred to the Environment SPC.

129


MotionPage 77, 9.5.5 Waste:

To insert a new policy: ‘At public bring centres and bottle banks, separate waste receptacles for the recycling of cardboard and plastic bags should be provided, designed with insertion points so as to avoid being used for illegal dumping of general waste’

Reason: bring centres / bottle banks are often left looking very messy and untidy as people leave the cardboard boxes and plastic bags behind them as there is nowhere to dispose of them. Providing such waste disposal facilities for these items would help to address this problem.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe issue of recycling and recovery facilities is dealt with under the current draft plan, please refer to section 9.5.5 under Waste Management (page 77). In this regard please refer to Policy SI19 and Objective SIO15 in the current draft Plan, which is to prevent and minimise waste and to encourage and support material sorting and recycling, and to provide for municipal /public recycling and recovery facilities in accessible locations throughout the city.

This is an operational matter for waste management.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThis motion is not adopted. (Operational matter).

130


MotionPage 78, 9.5.7 Noise Pollution

‘To insert a new objective to promote the use of low carbon fuels in Public Transport, delivery vehicles and private cars’

Reason: to help reduce noise pollution and improve air quality in the city

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe motion above has already been dealt with in the Chief Executives Report on Submissions; please refer to page 143 and 144 of the report, under Section 8.5.9 Environmental and Road Safety Impacts for Traffic.

A number of submissions were submitted at the draft stage in relation to the use of low carbon fuels as an alternative to standard fuels which would benefit the environment through reduced emissions. The availability of such fuels for standard vehicles may be an issue but as per the Chief Executives Report, the use of low carbon fuels for public transport in particular should be encouraged to focus on cleaner technology. Incentives for the introduction of such fuels and funding to support same may be an issue for central government. The Draft Plan already contains objectives to reduce noise and air pollution, in this regard please refer to Policy SI22 which is to monitor and improve air quality in accordance with national and EU policy directives on air quality and, where appropriate, promote compliance with established targets, and policy SI23 which is to seek to preserve and maintain air and noise quality in the city in accordance with good practice and relevant legislation. As part of the Chief Executives Recommendation a new objective was recommended for insertion into Section 8.5.9 under Environmental and Road Safety Impacts for Traffic which would read:

MTO38A: To promote the greater use of low carbon fuels.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is noted. This matter has already been addressed in the draft plan and the CE report on page 143 and 144 with the insertion of a new objective MTO38A which is to promote the greater use of low carbon fuels.

131


MotionPage 80, 9.5.12. Energy Facilities

‘To retain references to the provision of district heating systems and combined heat and power systems and to continue to support the development of these technologies in the City.’

Reason: to support technologies that encourage and facilitate a transition to a low carbon city

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs part of the Chief Executives report on Submissions it was recommended on foot of the submission from Codema that text would be inserted under Section 9.2 under Achievements setting out the progress to date of the Dublin District Heating System. (see page 151 and 152).

It is acknowledged that the section on District Heating and Combined Heat and power did form part of the current Development Plan, (see section 5.2.4.17, after section on Energy Efficiency, page 81 & 82 of the Dublin City Development Plan 2011 – 2017). The text on District Heating and Combined Heat and Power was subsequently moved to the new Chapter 3 ‘Addressing Climate Change’ in the draft Plan, and this was put under a new section, Section 3.5.2 Sustainable Energy/Renewable Energy, see page 19/20 of the draft Plan. In this regard Objective CCO14 of the Draft Plan seeks ‘to support the development of energy efficient initiative.

In the interests of clarity it is agreed that the section on District Heating and Combined Heat and Power should be moved to Chapter 9, after the section on Energy Facilities, on page 80 of the draft plan.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe Motion is adopted.

It is recommended that the existing text on District Heating & Combined Heat and Power in Chapter 3 , page 20, and its associated objective CCO14 be moved to Chapter 9, and a new sub section be created to read as follows:

Remove text from Chapter 3, page 20 , and renumber objectives accordingly.

District Heating & Combined Heat and Power

Dublin City Council has carried out a feasibility study on the implementation of a citywide district-heating network and pro-actively promotes its benefits and encourages its provision. District heating and Combined Heat and Power (CHP) offer potential for more efficient heating of Dublin’s buildings, through utilising waste heat produced in generating electricity. The advantages include higher energy efficiency and reduced consumption of energy resources. Codema’s SEDA study will progress a more detailed understanding of the potential of CHP to achieve efficiencies in different parts of the city.

CC014: To support the development of energy-efficient initiatives such as use of District Heating and Combined Heat and Power, and to promote the use of CHP in large developments.

132

Insert New Text into Chapter 9, after Section 9.5.12 Energy Facilities

9.5.13 District Heat and Combined Heat and PowerDublin City Council has carried out a feasibility study on the implementation of a citywide district-heating network and pro-actively promotes its benefits and encourages its provision. District Heating and Combined Heat and Power (CHP) offer potential for more efficient heating of Dublin’s buildings, through utilising waste heat produced in generating electricity. The advantages include higher energy efficiency and reduced consumption of energy resources. Codema’s SEDA study will progress a more detailed understanding of the potential of CHP to achieve efficiencies in different parts of the city.

It is the Objective of Dublin City Council:

SIO33: To support the development of energy-efficient initiatives such as use of District Heating and Combined Heat and Power, and to promote the use of CHP in large developments.


MotionTo include the Friends Trust benchmark for green/recreational space in the Liberties area as policy goal and quality standard.

Reason: To ensure sustainability, liveability and preservation of environment and the development of green infrastructure. Connects with urban design principles of connectivity, legibility and sustainable living, neighbourhood environment.

Motion

Refers to: Chapter 10 - Green Infrastructure, Open Space and Recreation

Chief Executive's ResponseIt is assumed the motion is referring to the "Fields in Trust Benchmark" which is a UK based benchmark with a mission to provide access to green areas.

The Draft City Development Plan contains many policies to improve access to greenspace to be delivered through Local Area Plans and the Development Management Process (see page 135, Appendix 23).

The green infrastructure strategy for Liberties area is contained in the Local Area Plan (LAP) for Liberties. The greening strategy for Liberties area seeks to capitalise on the value and benefits of the existing green spaces such as improving access to and the amenity of green spaces associated with deconsecrated churches and archaeological sites; wholesale regeneration of some local green spaces and incremental enhancements to existing well -functioning green spaces. The strategy seeks to ensure all children living in The Liberties are within a 5 minute walk of a high quality and secure play space and all residents within a short 5 minute walk of a high quality green space. The Greening Strategy will also provide a long term future for food production in the form of allotments and community gardens within The Liberties.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion not adopted as the matter is already addressed in the Liberties LAP and the Green Infrastructure Strategy.

133


MotionPage 84, ‘To support the proposed amendment to GIO4’


Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe Chief Executive Report on submission has recommended the following amendmentAmend GIO4 as follows:

From:"To improve pedestrian and cycle access routes to strategic level amenities while ensuring that ecosystem functions and existing amenity uses are not compromised and existing biodiversity and heritage is protected and enhanced biodiversity is conserved".

To:"To improve pedestrian and cycle access routes to strategic level amenities while ensuring that ecosystem functions and existing amenity uses are not compromised and existing biodiversity and heritage is protected and enhanced".

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is noted.


MotionThat Dublin City Council includes as an objective in the City Development Plan that Wilton Park, Wilton Place is open and accessible to the Public at all reasonable hours as part of the City Parks infrastructure

Reason: I submit this in accordance with several submissions seeking more public green spaces and recreation areas. The Park is effectively a Public park yet its opening times are inconsistent with those of other City Council parks. It would also be preferable that all such amenities be within the remit of the City Council.

Motion




134


MotionThat Dublin City Council includes as an objective in the Development Plan that Fitzwilliam Square Park be open and accessible at all reasonable hours to the Public

Reason: The continued closure of this green space in the City Centre is an affront to the principles of equal access to City amenities and accessibility would at least be a step in the right direction with similar opening times to other City Parks. I submit this in accordance with various submissions seeking more publicly accessible green spaces.

Motion




135


MotionThis Council agrees to include in Chapter 10 (Green Infrastructure, Open Space and Recreation) the Objective

“It is an objective of Dublin City Council to promote and actively pursue the development of a park in the area known as Scully’s Field between Clonskeagh and Milltown”

Reason: This Objective has been included in the last two Development Plans, and should be reinstated. It may be argued that proposed policies GI15 and GI3 will achieve the same result for Scully’s Field.

Proposed Policy GI15 states:“It is the policy of Dublin City Council to maintain and enhance the safety of the public in its use and enjoyment of the many public parks, open spaces and waterways and linkages within the city, including the River Dodder between Ringsend and Orwell (Waldron’s) Bridge, and at the area known as Scully’s Field between Clonskeagh and Milltown”

However, this new policy will not achieve the goal of a public park. It only resolves “to maintain and enhance the safety of the public in its use and enjoyment at the area known as Scully’s Field between Clonskeagh and Milltown”. It only refers to people at, but not in the Field. This could just refer to people using the existing Dodder Linear Walk beside the Field.

Proposed Policy GI3 states:

“It is the policy of Dublin City Council to develop linear parks, particularly along waterways, and to link existing parks and open spaces in order to provide green chains throughout the city. Where lands along the waterways are in private ownership, it shall be policy in any development proposal to secure public access along the waterway”.

However, this new policy will not achieve the goal of a public park. It refers to developing “linear parks”, but not parks. Furthermore, it says that “Where lands along the waterways are in private ownership, it shall be policy in any development proposal to secure public access along the waterway”, but says nothing about developing such lands into a park. Again, this policy is not relevant for Scully’s Field, since there is already public access on the existing narrow riverside walk beside the Field.

These new policies, although valid in their own right, do not address the Objective “to promote and actively pursue the development of a park in Scully’s Field”, an Objective DCC Councillors worked hard to put in the Development Plan ten years ago in response to the campaign of the residents of Milltown and the wider community.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseDodder River forms part of the city's green infrastructure corridor and the area known as Scully’s Field is an integral part of this corridor. Roads & Traffic Department of Dublin City Council is developing a greenway for the river and the Draft City Development Plan supports the development of the linear park and shall maintain full public access (see Policy GI3). It is a policy of the Draft City Development Plan to protect and improve the natural character of watercourses, including the Dodder, and to promote access, walkways, cycle ways and other compatible recreational uses along them, having regard to environmental sensitivities.

136

Other submissions and motions have been received requesting that Scully’s field should be primarily a nature conservation area, rather than a publicly accessible recreational park.

The area known as Scully’s Field between Clonskeagh and Milltown is zoned Z9 Open Space and in a Zone A (high Vulnerability) flood zone (see section 9.5.3, page 157 of CE Report) and it is considered appropriate that Scully’s Field be left to flood naturally and allow for natural wildlife.It is considered that Policy GI3 achieves a balance between these requests.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is noted as the matter raised is already addressed in the Chief Executive Report (See section 9.5.3, page 157 of Chief Executive Report) and in the Draft City Development Plan.

137



MotionShould the provision to allow for some commercial use on Z9 private lands, as one-off proposals in order to facilitate and consolidate the sporting use be reinstated in the City Development Plan and should this be extended to include the publicly-owned Dalymount Park, any proposal for commercial use not directly connected with Dalymount Park’s sporting recreational and community function should only be proceed after extensive public consultation in the Phibsborough area and a vote in its favour by the members of Dublin City Council

Reason: To avoid both the appearance and reality of conflict of interest on the part of Dublin City Council and to ensure the proper usage of a public asset.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs indicated on Page 261 of the Chief Executive’s Report, the Z9 zoning category includes private sports grounds which provide important open space, recreational amenity and green networks to improve the quality of life and environment for residents of the city. The Z9 zoning category allows for ancillary uses on site under the Permissible and Open for Consideration Uses which could benefit and help sustain existing facilities. The continuation of sports clubs and facilities to enhance sustainable city living is recognised. In highly exceptional circumstances, in order to serve the long term retention and consolidation of the sporting facility in a locality and to secure the primary sporting land use on the site, some limited once off development should be open to consideration e.g. some ancillary/small scale development.

That being said, the issue raised in this motion is acknowledged. Accordingly, it is considered that the text on page 262 be amended to exclude residential development from Z9 zones and the open to consideration uses.


1. Amend Section 14.8.9

From:"Specifically, residential development shall not generally be permitted on public or privately-owned open space. In certain specific circumstances where it has been demonstrated that there is a need for ancillary development to take place in order to consolidate or retain the sporting and amenity nature of Z9 lands or an existing facility in a local area, some limiteddegree of (residential/local retail) development may be permitted on a once-off basis and subject to the primary use of the site being retained for sporting or amenity uses".

To:“Residential development shall not be permitted in Z9 zones. However, in certain highly exceptional circumstances where it has been demonstrated that there is a need for ancillary development to take place in order to consolidate or retain the sporting and amenity nature of Z9 lands or an existing facility in a local area, some degree of small scale non-residential development may be permitted on a once-off basis and subject to the primary use of the site being retained for sporting or amenity uses”.

138

2. Amend Open for Consideration uses in section 14.8.9:

Remove Residential/local retail (in accordance with specific circumstances above) and replace it with Neighbourhood retail (in accordance with highly exceptional circumstances above).

139


Deputy Lord Mayor Cieran Perry, Green Party Group

MotionTo insert into the City Development Plan Objective V9 and G105 of the Draft Phibsborough Local Area Plan 2015 – “V9 Upgrade public open space and the quality of the public realm, landscaping and recreational areas in the plan area, including the expansion of Mount Bernard Park providing an important link to the Royal Canal”: “G105 To expand and enhance Mount Bernard Park:

a) Liaise with the RPA in relation to the new LUAS Stop at the entrance to Mount Bernard Park, and to improve the access to the park. b) Extend the park northwards to the Canal, following agreement with the RPA/ CIE. c) Provide a bridge over the Canal, linking the park to the wider Canal corridor subject to agree -ment with the NTA. d) Provide a new nature garden and/or allotments north of the Canal, subject to agreement with CIE.e) Provide improved play facilities at Mount Bernard Park f) To monitor and control the spread of invasive species in the park.

The above to be carried out as part of an overall landscape strategy for the Park”

Reason: To enhance the public realm and promote green infrastructure improvements in Phibsborough.

Motion


Chief Executive's Responsehe Draft City Development Plan includes policies and objectives to improve the public realm; landscaping and recreational areas of the city including Phibsborough (see policies and objectives such as SC13, SC17, MT7, GIO7, GI30). The plan will also seek to engage with relevant stakeholders in the development and delivery of green infrastructure programmes (see Objective GIO5).

The Phibsborough Local Area Plan was not approved by the City Council in December 2015. At the City Council meeting in January 2016 it was agreed to include Phibsborough in the schedule of LAPs and Local Environmental Improvement Plans, within Section 2.2.8.1. In addressing the request to incorporate the key elements of the 2015 Draft LAP for Phibsborough into the City Development Plan, each of the key development sites identified within the Plan was assessed to determine where new policies and/or objectives will be incorporated into the Draft City Development Plan.

As the proposed extension of Mount Bernard Park, as set out in the LAP, is a landuse change, it is agreed that a new objective can be inserted into the Plan, seeking this extension. Other enhancements to the park etc. are best dealt with through the LEIP process. The Planning Department has drafted a Local Environmental Improvement Plan (LEIP) for Phibsborough which will be presented to the Council in May. The main aim of the LEIP will focus on the improvement of public realm, examining spaces that can be improved and act as a catalyst for private investment. The detail of the objective (a-f) is included within the Draft LEIP.


140

Insert new objective after GIO14 on page 86

GIO14B: “To seek to expand Mount Bernard Park northwards to the Royal canal, with a bridge connecting with the Green Way”


MotionThe reinstatement of the objective to initiate the preparation of a Special Amenity Area Order for the Phoenix Park.

Reason: This motion was already passed by City Council and this Objective was included in the 2011 – 2016 Development Plan as part of Objective GCO9. It appears that this Objective is missing from the new draft plan. It does not seem that any work was carried out on the SAA designation of the Phoenix Park during the life of the current plan. It is imperative that the Phoenix Park is afforded every protection possible in particular in light of the devastation caused by certain concerts during the life of the current plan.

Motion



Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is not adopted (already in Draft Plan): Out of order.

141


MotionTo address the safety issues of access to the canal and railway tracks at Park in Ashington which is adjacent to a city council Playground.

Reason: This site has been identified by the Gardaí as a serious safety hazard for residents.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseIt is the policy of Dublin City Council to maintain and enhance the safety of the public in its use and enjoyment of the many public parks, open spaces and waterways and linkages within the city, see policy GI15 which states it is the policy of Dublin City Council to maintain and enhance the safety of the public in its use and enjoyment of the many public parks, open spaces, waterways and linkages within the city.

The specific safety issue of access to canal and railway track at Ashington Park is an operational matter.

It is the objective of the Draft City Development Plan to tackle the adverse environmental and road safety impacts of traffic in the city through a series of measures (see MTO37).

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion noted; already provided for in the draft Development Plan.


Motion10.5.2 Green Infrastructure:

Objective GC09 from the previous plan is reinserted into the new City Development Plan:

"It is the objective of Dublin City Council to designate the Phoenix Park as a Special Amenity Area and to prepare a Special Amenity Area Order for same".

Motion



Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is not adopted (already in Draft Plan): Out of order.

142


MotionThat a new GIO1 Objective be inserted on P.84 which reads:

"Upgrade public open space and the quality of the public realm, landscaping and recreational areas in the plan area, including the expansion of Mount Bernard Park providing an important link to the Royal Canal”:

To expand and enhance Mount Bernard Park:

a) Liaise with the RPA in relation to the new LUAS Stop at the entrance to Mount Bernard Park, and to improve the access to the park. b) Extend the park northwards to the Canal, following agreement with the RPA/ CIE. c) Provide a bridge over the Canal, linking the park to the wider Canal corridor subject to agree¬ment with the NTA. d) Provide a new nature garden and/or allotments north of the Canal, subject to agreement with CIE.e) Provide improved play facilities at Mount Bernard Park f) To monitor and control the spread of invasive species in the park. The above to be carried out as part of an overall landscape strategy for the Park”

Reason: In order to enhance the public realm and promote green infrastructure improvements in Phibsborough.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe Draft City Development Plan includes policies and objectives to improve the public realm, landscaping and recreational areas of the city including Phibsborough (see SC13, SC17, MT7, GIO7, GI30). The plan will also seek to engage with relevant stakeholders in the development and delivery of green infrastructure programmes (see Objective GIO5).


As the proposed extension of Mount Bernard Park, as set out in the LAP, is a landuse change, it is agreed that a new objective can be inserted into the Plan, seeking this extension. Other enhancements to the park etc. are best dealt with through the LEIP process.

The Planning Department has drafted a Local Environmental Improvement Plan (LEIP) for Phibsborough which will be presented to the Council in May. The main aim of the LEIP will focus on the improvement of public realm, examining spaces that can be improved and act as a catalyst for private investment. The detail of the objective (a-f) is included within the Draft LEIP.


143

Insert new objective after GIO14 on page 86

GIO14B: “To seek to expand Mount Bernard Park northwards to the Royal canal, with a bridge connecting with the Green Way”

2148Councillor(s) Cllr. Damian O'Farrell

MotionIt is the policy of Dublin City Council to designate Phoenix Park, North Bull Island Botanic Gardens and St Anne’s Park as Landscape Conservation Areas.

Reason: These areas where referenced under ‘objectives’ as regards pursuing ‘landscape conservation areas’ in the last development plan and it is critical to retain these existing key landscapes and open spaces which offer so much for the City.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe areas mentioned in this motion enjoy National and/or European Conservation and Protection status. These landscape areas are of historical and international importance to Dublin City. Landscapes and key open spaces in the city help to give a sense of identity and place. Dublin’s city landscape is one of its greatest assets, essential to the quality of life that both Dubliners and visitors to the City enjoy. Dublin City Council will continue to protect and enhance these key green spaces in the city.

GI16 is a policy to support and implement the objectives of the National Landscape Strategy.

GI7 of the Draft Development Plan contain the policy to protect and enhance landscape, including existing green spaces through sustainable planning and design for both existing community and for future generations in accordance with the principles of the European Landscape Convention. The Parks Department of Dublin City Council have a management plan in place for the protection and improvement of St Anne’s Park.

GIO6 is to prepare a Landscape Character Assessment for the city in accordance with the National Landscape Strategy.

The Botanic Gardens is managed by Office of Public Works and listed under the National Historic Properties. The principal objective of the OPW is to protect, conserve, maintain and present national historic properties. Phoenix Park is addressed by Objective GIO14 and North Bull Island is designated a Special Conservation Area and also designated Terrestrial Buffer Zone and Terrestrial Transition Zone under the Dublin Bay UNESCO Biosphere. See map of the Dublin Bay UNESCO Biosphere zonation at www.dublinbaybiosphere.ie/about. The areas are of ecological importance and Dublin City Council will seek to protect its flora, fauna and habitats (GI23).

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is noted; the matter raised is addressed in the Chief Executive Report and also included in the Draft City Development Plan.

144


MotionPage 88, 10.5.3 Parks and Open Space

‘To amend GI13 to include ‘sitting furniture, kick around space, facilities for dog walking and the provision of bins and dog waste disposal bins’

Reason: to improve accessibility of parks to a range of users.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseIt is the policy of the Draft City Development Plan to ensure that in new residential developments, public open space is provided which is sufficient in quantity and distribution to meet the requirements of the projected population. To amend GI13 as requested will result in an overly prescriptive policy. Public parks have different functions depending on location, size and the distribution of amenities in the area

The design of an open space to include facilities such as sitting furniture, kick around space, facilities for dog walking, bins and dog waste bins will be determined by the Development Management process in consultation with the Parks & Landscape Division.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is noted as the matter raised is addressed in the Draft City Development Plan.


Motion'That there will be no commercial development along the Graving Docks in Grand Canal Dock, and that these docks should be restored and maintained as a public open recreational green space and to facilitate the docking of boats both visiting or otherwise'

Reason: There is insufficient green space in the Grand Canal Dock area yet sufficient space allocated for commercial development. In terms of promoting mixed use development, maintaining the graving docks and creating a canal side public park / green space would add more long term social, environmental and economic value to the area.

Motion




145


MotionThat the City Development Plan build on the excellent work in recent years of the provision of community gardens and allotments and continue to make this a priority for the next Plan.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe Council will support the provision of community gardens/allotments/local markets/pocket parks, where feasible, and in particular as temporary uses on vacant, under-utilised or derelict sites in the city.

“GIO10: To support the provision of community gardens/allotments/local markets/pocket parks, where feasible, and in particular as temporary uses on vacant, under-utilised or derelict sites in the city”.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is noted; the matter raised is addressed in the Draft City Development Plan.


MotionThat the City Development Plan designates all Parks with special status and ensure that zoning cannot be changed in order to build on them, as occurred in Orchard Lawns, Cherry Orchard.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseDublin City Council is committed providing parks and open space areas in the city. The Draft City Development Plan will continue to manage and protect and/or enhance public open spaces to meet the social, recreational, conservation and ecological needs of the city and to consider the development of appropriate complementary facilities which do not detract from the amenities of spaces. (Policy GI10).

In areas that are lacking in open space, the Draft City Development Plan will seek the provision of additional spaces in areas deficient in public open spaces – by way of pocket parks or the development of institutional lands (Policy GI11). Dublin City Council will actively promote a green infrastructure strategy which draws on the Council’s sustainable principles. (See Appendix 23 on Green Infrastructure Guiding principles).

All Parks are zoned Z9 Open Space “To preserve, provide and improve recreational amenity and open space and green networks”. Any changes to zoning are subject to approval from the elected members.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is noted as the matter raised is addressed in the Draft City Development Plan.

146


MotionThis Council agrees to amend the Objective GIO16 in Chapter 10 (Green Infrastructure, Open Space and Recreation) to read:

“To protect and improve the natural character of watercourses, including the Dodder, and to promote access, walkways, cycleways and other compatible recreational uses along them, subject to a defined strategy of nature conservation.”

Reason: Any promotion of access to, and use of, valuable natural amenities should ensure that promotion does not damage those very amenities. The previous two DCC Development Plans included the Objective, “to promote access, walkways, cycleways and other recreational uses along them (watercourses), subject to a defined strategy of nature conservation” .

The current Draft Objective GIO16 proposes to replace the phrase “subject to a defined strategy of nature conservation” with the phrase “having regard to environmental sensitivities”. It is submitted this would weaken the Objective, as “to have regard for” could be interpreted as simply “to look at environmental sensitivities” and then decide they can be dismissed, in direct contradiction of the first part of the policy “To protect and improve the natural character of watercourses”. It is submitted that the safe and sensible option is to reinstate the long standing and proven phrase “subject to a defined strategy of nature conservation” in Objective GIO16.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe approach of the Draft City Development Plan is to develop the city in a planned and sustainable manner in order to ensure a balance between development and conservation/environmental protection.

The phrase “having regards to environmental sensitivities” in GIO16 is not to weaken the objective, it is a mitigation/avoidance measure resulting from the environmental assessment of the Development plan under the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for the plan in accordance with EU Directive 2001/42/EC and in accordance with Article 6 of the EU Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. (See Environmental Report and Natura Impact Report for the Draft City Development Plan).

The phrase “having regards to environmental sensitivities” is not to simply “look at environmental sensitivities” but in carrying out any development relating to this objective to carry out environmental assessments (i.e. EIS and NIS).

The Draft City Development Plan has been prepared to be consistent, as far as practicable with the conservation and protection of the environment as stated in Section 10 of the Planning and Development Act 2010. Dublin City Council placed sustainability as the overarching theme from the outset of the preparation of the development plan. It is also a Policy in the Draft City Development to also ensure that any plan/project, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects that has the potential to give rise to significant effect on the integrity of any European site(s), shall be subject to an appropriate assessment in accordance with Article 6(3) and 6(4) of the EU Habitats Directives. (Policy GI2).

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion not adopted as the text is in compliance with Article 6 EU Habitats Directive Assessment.

147


MotionThis Council agrees to include in Chapter 10 (Green Infrastructure, Open Space and Recreation) the Objective:

“To co-operate with the relevant adjoining local authorities of Dun Laoghaire Rathdown and South Dublin County Councils in developing a strategy for the preparation and graduated implementation of an integrated Maintenance, Improvement and Environmental Management Plan for the entire length of the River Dodder and to support the establishment of a co-ordinating River Dodder Authority or equivalent body to implement that strategy.

Reason: It is submitted that this Objective would be particularly timely in the context of the ongoing CFRAMS Works and the proposal for a River Dodder Greenway. As a ‘border’ between the 3 local authorities of SDCC, DCC and DLR, responsibility for the Dodder has been largely undefined in the past. At the same time, their Development Plans have for many years, included policies to cooperate in maintaining and enhancing the habitat, heritage, landscape and amenity of this unique river, as, for example, with a coordinated Environmental Management Plan. These aims and objectives would best be achieved in the long term through an established authority or body. Its essential components could be, for example, the relevant Depts. of the three authorities, such as Water and Drainage for the river, Parks and Biodiversity for the riverbanks, parks and public open spaces, Roads and Traffic for the paths, Heritage and Conservation for heritage elements, Engineering for infrastructure, Planning for oversight. They are currently all, or will be, involved in the CFRAMS and Greenway Proposals, so providing an invaluable opportunity to determine how such an effective authority can be established.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe council will involve corporate volunteers, landowners and relevant agencies to support their communities in the development and delivery of green infrastructure programmes (GIO5). Any environmental trans boundary projects to be carried out in the city particularly along river courses shall be done in consultation with relevant adjoining local authorities and state agencies (Policy GI18).

The Roads & Traffic Department of Dublin City Council is developing a greenway project for the Dodder River in co-operation with the adjoining Local Authorities.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is noted as the matter raised is already addressed in the Chief Executive Report (See section 10.5 of Chief Executive Report) and the Draft City Development Plan.

148


MotionIt is the policy of Dublin City Council to enhance the amenities of the Nanikin River

Reason: To protect the drainage and environmental role of the river.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseIt is a policy of the City Development Plan to promote and maintain the achievement of at least good status in all water bodies in the city (Policy SI4) and it is also a policy of the plan to protect, maintain, and enhance the natural and organic character of the watercourses in the city (Policy GI15) including the Nanikin River.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is noted as the matter raised is already been addressed in Section 9.5.1 and Section 10.5.4 of the Draft City Development Plan.

149


MotionPage 87, Add after GI18

“GI19: That the Council shall seek the ‘daylighting’ of rivers and streams that have been covered over in the city in order to provide amenity value.”

Reason: to improve access to, and visibility of blue infrastructure in the city.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe ‘daylighting’ of rivers and streams that have been covered over is primary a matter for the Engineering SPC. Policy GI15 seek to enhance the natural, organic character of waterways. The motion can be incorporated in this policy.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is adopted as amended:

Amend Policy GI15:

From: "To protect, maintain, and enhance the natural and organic character of the watercourses in the city. The creation and/or enhancement of riparian buffer zones will be required where possible. It is the policy of Dublin City Council to maintain and enhance the safety of the public in its use and enjoyment of the many public parks, open spaces, waterways and linkages within the city, including the River Dodder between Ringsend and Orwell (Waldrons) bridge, and at the area known as Scully’s Field between Clonskeagh and Milltown".

To:"To protect, maintain, and enhance the natural and organic character of the watercourses in the city, including daylighting where safe and feasible. The creation and/or enhancement of riparian buffer zones will be required where possible. It is the policy of Dublin City Council to maintain and enhance the safety of the public in its use and enjoyment of the many public parks, open spaces, waterways and linkages within the city, including the River Dodder between Ringsend and Orwell (Waldrons) bridge, and at the area known as Scully’s Field between Clonskeagh and Milltown".

150


MotionPage 88, 10.5.7 Trees

To insert a new objective ‘That the new Tree Strategy for Dublin, when completed, will be included in the Dublin City Development Plan by way of variations to the plan as necessary’

Reason: To ensure the protection of existing trees and the planting of a sufficient level of new trees within the City in order to increase the tree canopy of the city and help increase biodiversity and help mitigate against the impacts of climate change.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe Parks Department of Dublin City Council have prepared a Draft Tree Strategy for the city and the strategy aims to provide the city with a diversity and abundance of healthy, attractive trees, cared for and managed to a high standard.

This strategy has informed the Draft City Development Plan strategy for trees. It is also the policy of the plan to support the implementation of the Dublin City Tree Strategy, which provides the vision for the long-term planting, protection and maintenance of trees, hedgerows and woodlands within Dublin City (see policy GI27).

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is noted; the matter raised is already provided for in the Draft City Development Plan.

151


MotionThe City Development Plan promote development of sports facilities in Phibsborough and that the planning department where possible promote the area given the loss of the local area plan.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe Phibsborough Local Area Plan was not approved by the City Council in December 2015. At the City Council meeting in January 2016 it was agreed to include Phibsborough in the schedule of LAPs and Local Environmental Improvement Plans, within Section 2.2.8.1. In addressing the request to incorporate the key elements of the 2015 Draft LAP for Phibsborough into the City Development Plan, each of the key development sites identified within the Plan was assessed to determine where new policies and/or objectives will be incorporated into the Draft City Development Plan.

The Draft Development Plan proposes to re-zone Dalymount Park from Z10 (mixed use) to Z9 (open space) with the intention to retain the sporting use at this location following DCC’s purchase of the site for sporting use. The shopping centre component of the site retains its Z4 zoning and KDC status. The plan will also allow for some commercial use on Z9 private lands, as one-off proposals in order to facilitate and consolidate the sporting use. It is considered that such a proposal should be extended to public lands which could help integrate DCC’s plans to provide a new stadium at this location with a potential redevelopment of the shopping centre.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is noted as the matter raised are included in the Chief Executive Report, the Draft City Development Plan as proposed and the proposed LEIP.

152


Deputy Lord Mayor Cieran Perry, Cllr. Nial Ring, Green Party Group

MotionDalymount Park: To insert into the City Development Plan Objective TC10 of the Draft Phibsborough Local Area Plan 2015 – “ Retain the sporting use at this site, with objectives to see it enhanced and extended to provide a wider sporting, recreational and community use.”

Reason: To ensure the proper, controlled and suitable development of Phibsborough in accordance with the objectives of the Draft Phibborough LAP and to ensure the proper usage of a public asset.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe above motions seek to include new objectives to retain the sporting use at Dalymount and to see it enhanced and extended to provide a wider sporting, recreational and community use, and also to celebrate the sporting heritage of this site. These motions are based on objectives included in the Draft 2015 Local Area Plan for Phibsborough.


The Draft Development Plan proposes to re-zone Dalymount Park from Z10 (mixed use) to Z9 (open space) with the intention to retain the sporting use at this location following DCC’s purchase of the site for sporting use.

In addition, Policy GI30 of the Draft City Development Plan is to improve sports and recreational facilities throughout the city in accordance with the Dublin City Sport and Active Recreation Strategy. It is therefore considered that the motion to see sporting use retained and enhanced is already accommodated within the Draft Plan. That being said, Dublin City Council is now the owner of Dalymount Park, and is seeking to provide a wider focus for this site incorporating community/ recreational use and also seeking to celebrate the heritage of this site. It is considered that a new objective can be included which combines the above aspirations/ motions into a single objective for Dalymount Park.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is adopted as amended insert new objective after GIO33 (p90) of the Draft City Development Plan:

“GIO33B: To redevelop Dalymount Park soccer stadium providing enhanced sporting, recreational and community amenities and as part of this development to celebrate the rich sporting history of this site.”

153

2160Councillor(s) Cllr. Brendan Carr, Cllr. David Costello, Cllr. Vincent Jackson, Cllr.

Ray McAdam, Deputy Lord Mayor Cieran Perry, Cllr. Nial Ring, Green Party Group

MotionTo insert into the City Development Plan Objective TC11 of the Draft Phibsborough Local Area Plan 2015 – “Celebrate the sporting heritage of Dalymount Park, with consideration given to the provision of a soccer museum/ public information space within any redevelopment proposals.”

Reason: To ensure the proper, controlled and suitable development of Phibsborough in accordance with the objectives of the Draft Phibsborough LAP and to ensure the proper usage of a public asset.

To provide for a space to preserve our national soccer history in the home of Irish soccer.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe above motion seeks to include new objectives to retain the sporting use at Dalymount and to see it enhanced and extended to provide a wider sporting, recreational and community use, and also to celebrate the sporting heritage of this site. These motion is based on objectives included in the Draft 2015 Local Area Plan for Phibsborough.






154

2161Councillor(s) Cllr. Mannix Flynn

MotionThat this development plan creates a fit for purpose public play park soley designed around children and all their play needs. That this park would have at its centre inclusiveness and be built and designed in such a way as to not be a hindrance to any child with a disability and that this park be centred within the city core and be a lasting legacy to the principal of cherishing all the children of the nation equally.

Reason: There are many parks within Dublin city that have playground facility for children but there is no play park that is entirely given over to children and their world. More and more of the space for children is being eroded and commandeered. Many families within the city area travel long distances to find appropriate facilities and amenities that their children can interact with without having to fork out money. It is time now that DCC build on its record of fine parks and develop a state of the art accessible inclusive children’s park and perhaps enshrine it to the memory of all those children who lives were cut short in 1916. We need playgrounds that are built for fun, inclusiveness, and to help build great communities.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseIt is a policy of the plan (GI32) to seek the provision of children’s play facilities in new residential developments. To provide playgrounds to an appropriate standard of amenity, safety, and accessibility and to create safe and accessible places for socialising and informal play.

In additon Objective GIO27 is:

"GIO27: To support the implementation of the Dublin City Play Plan 2012-2017, which aims to provide inclusive and accessible play opportunities for children and young people". (pg 90 of Draft Plan).

The plan will promote the development of both indoor and outdoor facilities for young people e.g. multiuse games areas (MUGAs), teenage shelters, skateboarding areas and skateboard parks, youth cafes, youth centres. (Policy SN20).

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is noted as the matter raised is addressed in the Chief Executive Report (See section 10.5.8 of Chief Executive Report) and the Draft City Development Plan.

155


MotionThat a new Objective GIO34 be included on P.90 which states:

"To retain the sporting use of Dalymount Park, with additional objectives to enhance the stadium which will enable a wider sporting, recreational and community use to be provided for".

Reason: To maintain the sporting use of Dalymount Park following the Council’s purchase of the site and to enable other purposes which will benefit the communities in Phibsborough.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe above motions seek to include new objectives to retain the sporting use at Dalymount and to see it enhanced and extended to provide a wider sporting, recreational and community use, and also to celebrate the sporting heritage of this site. These motions are based on objectives included in the Draft 2015 Local Area Plan for Phibsborough.






156


MotionPage 88, 10.5.8 Sport Recreation and Play

To insert a new objective ‘To provide additional sports facilities and activities for young people in the Ringsend / Irishtown Area’

Reason: This area has a growing youth population that is in need of further sports facilities and activities for young people that would accommodate popular sports and activities beyond football, rugby & GAA such as swimming, boxing, MMA, yoga, pilates etc.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe plan will promote the development of both indoor and outdoor facilities for young people e.g. multiuse games areas (MUGAs), teenage shelters, skateboarding areas and skateboard parks, youth cafes, youth centres. (Policy SN20).

The Council will support and encourage the future growth of a wide range of public, social and community services essential to local community life, and to promote and seek to provide multi -use, fit-for-purpose community facilities which are suitable for all ages and all abilities, are operated according to an effective and efficient management strategy, and which are accessible in terms of physical design, location, cost of use, and opening hours. (Policy SN7).

Any additional sports facilities and activities in specific areas such as Ringsend/Irishtown Areas will be delivered through the implementation of Dublin City Active Recreation strategy 2009-2016 (see GI30).

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is noted as the matter raised is addressed in the Chief Executive Report (See section 10.5.8 of Chief Executive Report) and the Draft City Development Plan.

157


MotionTo insert a new objective ‘To increase the provision of and access to parks and facilities for dog owners’

Reason: There are an increasing number of dog owners in the city and recreational facilities and activities should be provided for dogs and their owners within existing and new parks.

Motion





MotionPage 90, ‘To support the proposed new policy GIO27’


Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe Draft City Development Plan will support the implementation of the Dublin City Play Plan 2012-2017, which aims to provide inclusive and accessible play opportunities for children and young people (GIO27).

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is noted.

158


MotionPage 91, 11.1 .3 Challenges

Insert new objective: ‘To extend the Living City Initiative beyond to current SRA’s’

Reason: Uptake on this initiative has been quite low. Extending the initiative beyond the current boundaries and criteria will help increase much needed housing provision in the city.

Motion

Refers to: Chapter 11 - Culture and Heritage

Chief Executive's ResponseThe boundaries of the Living City Initiative (LCI) have been designated for the purposes of the scheme by Order of the Minister of Finance. Any amendment to the LCI is a matter for the Department and thus is not within the remit of the City Council or the Development Plan review process.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted, as an amendment to the Living City Initiative SRA boundary is outside the scope of the Development Plan.

159


MotionPage 91, To add the following from the current Development Plan:

"To seek the preservation of the built heritage of the city that makes a positive contribution to the character, appearance and quality of local streetscapes and the sustainable development of the city”

Reason: Large tracts of the city have significant built heritage that defines the character of the area but does not have any special protection.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseChapter 11 sets out policy for the protection and enhancement of structures and areas of special historic and architectural interest; Policy CHC1 seeks

To ensure that the special interest of protected structures is protected and Policy CHC3 seeks

To protect the special interest and character of Dublin’s Conservation Areas. Development within or affecting conservation areas will contribute positively to the character and distinctiveness; and take opportunities to protect and enhance the character and appearance of the area and its setting.

The Design Principles as set out in Section 16.2.1 states;Development will respond creatively to and respect and enhance its context, and have regard to:1. The character of adjacent buildings, the spaces around and between them and the character and appearance of the local area2. The character, scale and pattern of historic streets, squares, lanes mews and passageways3. Existing materials, detailing, building lines, scale, orientation, height and massing, plot width4. The form, character and ecological value of parks, gardens and open spaces, and5. Dublin's riverside and canal-side settings.

Section 16.2.1.1 Respecting and Enhancing Character and Context states;The City Council will seek to ensure that the design of new development respects and enhances these and other elements that contribute positively to the cityscape and urban realm, the settings of protected structures, areas of special interest and important views and that such design incorporates high-quality detail, materials and craftsmanship.

The Conservation and Design policies and principles as set out in Chapter 11 and 16 clearly set out the policy framework for the protection and conservation of the built heritage and character of the City.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is noted, the issue of protection and conservation of the built heritage and character of the City is addressed in existing text, policy CHC1, CHC3 and subsections 16.2.1, 16.2.1.1.

160

2168Councillor(s) Cllr. Frank Kennedy

MotionMotion for change to 11.1.4: To add the following to the list at 11.1.4:

“11. The Grand Canal area adjacent to the Georgian Quarter including Leeson Street Upper, Mespil Road and Percy Place.”

Rationale: The area identified is the physical integration point between the South Georgian Quarter and the city suburbs. This city space, incorporating the Grand Canal, could be enhanced for the future potential residents of the adjacent Georgian mile, the existing residents south of the canal and the general public who visit the city daily for work or pleasure. The built heritage on the roads identified will play an important part in the visual amenity of this Grand Canal area.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseSection 11.1.4 Strategic Approach sets out a phased area based approach to survey and review of priority historic areas, which is to be conducted outwards from the historic core, i.e. Medieval City, Temple Bar etc. The strategy sets out to review the RPS, review NIAH recommendations and designate ACA’s where special interest is identified, in these priority areas.

The Chief Executive's Report recommends the following text be added to 11.1.4 of the Draft Plan:

"The existing conservation policy framework is comprised of the Record of Protected Structures with in excess of 8,500 entries, no. 21 Architectural Conservation Areas and a significant number of Conservation Areas and Conservation Zoning Objective Areas, it is considered to be sufficiently robust at present. However, in order to ensure the policy framework is comprehensively updated in accordance with the relevant planning legislation, guidelines and the recent recommendations from the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage and so that all areas and structures of special historic and architectural interest have the appropriate legal protection measures applied, Dublin City Council will undertake the following, phased survey and review, area based approach, to protecting and enhancing the city’s built heritage. The survey and review will be conducted outwards from the historic core and will focus on the following 10 no., phase 1, priority areas, which are set out below. In order to ensure the full and proper protection of the areas and structures of special historic and architectural interest the City Council has identified the following priority areas. The rationale for this area selection These are areasis that they are areas sited within the historic core that have high concentrations of protected structures but are presently sited outside designated Architectural Conservation Areas".

Section 11.1.4 sets out 10 no. Priority areas areas the following is recommended:

"By way of explanation, the evolution and development of Dublin City and the heritage significance of its historic core dictates that the areas to be considered for the designation of ACA’s shall be prioritised firstly in the historic core and the Georgian city and radiate outwards into the adjoin 19th Century Suburbs. The former will comprise the first phase of 10 priority areas as identified above.

As the survey and review of the phase 1 areas nears completion, phase 2 of the survey and review (based on the area selection rationale set out above) will include areas adjacent to phase 1 priority areas;

161

Extension of the Thomas Street ACA; Pembroke Estate/ Rathmines Lower & Upper Belgrave Square; Stoneybatter/ Oxmantown; Ranelagh Village".

Leeson Street Upper is principally zoned objective Z2 Residential Conservation Area and almost all structures are included on the Record of Protected Structures. Mespil Road and Percy Place are presently designated Conservation Areas (Red-hatched) and have areas zoned Z8 Georgian Conservation Areas and zoned objective Z2 Residential Conservation Area, there are also a large number of structures which are included on the Record of Protected Structures on the Roads. The conservation policy framework for Leeson Street Upper, Mespil Road and Percy Place is considered highly robust at present. As an area adjacent to an area listed in phase 1, it will be considered for survey and review in subsequent phasing, when phase 1 has been completed.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is not adopted for the planning reasons as set out above.


MotionSection 11.1.4: To amend the new wording proposed for the last bullet point (re World Heritage Site designation) to remove the "guide consideration.... to pursue" approach and replace it with a definitive statement that the designation will be pursued and not that we will "consider" pursuing the designation.

Reason: The previous bullet point, backed up by policy CHC12 (To support and promote the designation of Dublin as a World heritage Site) was definitive and unambiguous and was a statement of intent. This is what is needed - not a "consideration" as to whether, or not, we will pursue the designation.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe intention of the motion is acknowledged and accepted; with revised wording recommended.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is adopted as amended:

"This approach , shall in turn, guide consideration by the City Council, in partnership with the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht and other stakeholders, in the pursuit of the potential to pursue a World Heritage nomination for the Historic City of Dublin".

Amended sentence to read in full as follows: "This approach , shall in turn, guide the City Council, in partnership with the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht and other stakeholders, in the pursuit of a World Heritage nomination for the Historic City of Dublin".

162


MotionRetain Policy FC27 from the current Development Plan: "To seek the preservation of the built heritage of the city that makes a positive contribution to the character, appearance and quality of local streetscapes and the sustainable development of the city”

Reason: Large tracts of the city have significant built heritage that defines the character of the area but does not have any special protection.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponsePolicy FC27 is retained and further developed and expanded under the policy and principles set out in chapters 11 and 16.

Chapter 11 sets out policy for the protection and enhancement of structures and areas of special historic and architectural interest; Policy CHC1 seeks:

To ensure that the special interest of protected structures is protected and Policy CHC3 seeks:


The Design Principles as set out in Section 16.2.1 states:

Development will respond creatively to and respect and enhance its context, and have regard to:1. The character of adjacent buildings, the spaces around and between them and the character and appearance of the local area2. The character, scale and pattern of historic streets, squares, lanes mews and passageways3. Existing materials, detailing, building lines, scale, orientation, height and massing, plot width4. The form, character and ecological value of parks, gardens and open spaces, and5. Dublin's riverside and canal-side settings.

Section 16.2.1.1 Respecting and Enhancing Character and Context states;

The City Council will seek to ensure that the design of new development respects and enhances these and other elements that contribute positively to the cityscape and urban realm, the settings of protected structures, areas of special interest and important views and that such design incorporates high-quality detail, materials and craftsmanship.

The Conservation and Design policies and principles as set out in Chapter 11 and 16 therefore articulate in much greater and clearer detail than Policy FC27 the policy framework for the protection and conservation of the built heritage and character of the City.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is noted, the issue of protection and conservation of the built heritage and character of the City is addressed in existing text, policy CHC1, CHC3 and subsections 16.2.1, 16.2.1.1.

163


MotionRetain Policy FC53 from the current Development Plan

“To protect traditional pitch-roof forms in historic streetscapes.”

Reason: The introduction of inappropriate roof forms can have a very negative impact.

Motion




164


MotionMotion to include the following paragraph in the Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022

"The scale of buildings in new developments shall be sympathetic to their receiving environment; proposals will be considered in terms of their impact on existing buildings and shall not negatively impact residential dwellings or protected structures."

Rationale: For the harmonious and proper development of the city

Motion


Chief Executive's Response

The Design Principles as set out in Section 16.2.1 states;

Development will respond creatively to and respect and enhance it context, and have regard to:

1. The character of adjacent buildings, the spaces around and between them and the character and appearance of the local area2. The character, scale and pattern of historic streets, squares, lanes mews and passageways3. Existing materials, detailing, building lines, scale, orientation, height and massing, plot width


The City Council will seek to ensure that the design of new development respects and enhances these and other elements that contribute positively to the cityscape and urban realm, the settings of protected structures, areas of special interest and important views and that such design incorporates high-quality detail, materials and craftsmanship. ….In assessing new development, consideration will be given to how the design has responded to the existing context and its relationship to the established pattern, form(s), density and scale of surrounding townscape, taking account of existing rhythms, proportion, symmetries, solid to void relationships, degree of uniformity and the composition of elevations, roofs and building lines.

Chapter 11 sets out policy for the protection and enhancement of structures and areas of special historic and architectural interest; Policy CHC1 seeks;

To ensure that the special interest of protected structures is protected and development will conserve and enhance Protected Structures and their curtilage and will:

Incorporate high standards of craftsmanship and relate sensitively to the scale, proportions … of the original building

Policy CHC3 seeks;


165

The issue of the scale of new development respecting the existing environment is addressed under the policy and principles set out in chapters 11 and 16.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is noted, the issue of the scale of new development respecting the existing environment is addressed in existing text, policy CHC1, CHC3 and subsections 16.2.1, 16.2.1.1.


MotionDublin City Council agree to include the following in Chapter 11 of the Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022:

"To ensure that no advertising material other than brass or stone name-plate type signs or other suitable quality material will be permitted in conservation areas. On commercial properties leading into such areas, advertising will be severely restricted, and shall only relate to the service provided in the premises."

Reason: To ensure appropriate protection of the city's conservation areas. The existing City Plan and the Dublin City Development Plan 2005 - 2011 both contained this provision.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe standards for shopfront signage and signs of shopfronts are set out under section 16.24.2 and 16.24.3 of the Draft Plan and the City Council Shopfront Design Guide 2001, the O’Connell Street Area Shopfront Design Guidelines 2003 & the Retail Design Manual 2012. It is considered that signage relating to specific conservation areas should be set out in the character appraisal documents as requirements will be area specific i.e. relate to whether area is residential or commercial, this approach will be developed in accordance with the conservation strategy providing for an area based survey and review of priority historic areas requiring the designation of Architectural Conservation Areas where special interest is defined. Having said that, the motion may be included for the avoidance of doubt.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion be adopted.

Add text to Section 11.1.5.6, end of para 4:

"To ensure that no advertising material other than brass or stone name-plate type signs or other suitable quality material will be permitted in conservation areas. On commercial properties leading into such areas, advertising will be severely restricted, and shall only relate to the service provided in the premises."

166


MotionPage 91, To add the following from the current Development Plan:

Add the following wording from the current Development Plan (Par.17.10.5)

"The re-use of older buildings of significance is a central element in the conservation of the built heritage of the city and important to the achievement of sustainability. In assessing applications to demolish older buildings which are not protected, the planning authority will actively seek the retention and re-use of buildings/structures of historic, architectural, cultural, artistic and/or local interest or buildings which make a positive contribution to the character and identity of streetscapes and the sustainable development of the city."

Reason: This provisions is important for sustainability and conservation reasons

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThis wording has been retained in the Draft Plan and is included as section 16.10.17 Retention and Re-use of Older Buildings of Significance which are not Protected.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is noted, the matter is already addressed in existing text, section 16.10.17 Retention and Re-use of Older Buildings of Significance which are not Protected in the Draft Plan.

167


MotionPage 92, 11.1.5 Policies and Objectives

To insert a new policy that: ‘The City will consider new incentives for developers through development levies and / or rates schemes in order to provide much needed workspaces for the artistic, cultural and creative industries in Dublin City’

Reason: With the recent closure of a significant number of artist studios and workspaces over the last few years and the resultant deficit in the provision of space for artistic, cultural and creative industries in Dublin City the City has a responsibility to explore new and innovative ways of providing such space for our citizens.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseStatutory mechanisms for ‘planning gain’ are not provided for in the Planning and Development Acts and cannot be included in the Development Plan. Planning guidance from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government mandates that private development may not be burdened with contributions in addition to the City Council’s own Development Contribution Scheme. The Development Contribution Scheme, adopted by the City Council, provides the contributions to be paid in respect of development and the distribution of such contributions in relation to the provision and improvement of city infrastructure and amenities, including community and cultural infrastructure.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted. This is an issue outside the scope of the Development Plan.

168

2176Councillor(s) Cllr. Mary Freehill, Green Party Group

MotionTo amend Policy CHC1 to include the word "and setting" so that it reads as follows: "To ensure that the special interest of protected structures is protected. Development will conserve and enhance Protected Structures and their curtilage and setting and will.”

Reason: The words "and setting" would appear to have been omitted in error given that the Protected Structures Policy Application (11.1.5.3) states "The curtilage and setting of a Protected Structure is often an essential part of the structure's special interest".

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThere is no definition of “setting” in Irish planning law and the term is mainly used in Ireland as part of the management provisions of Architectural Conservation Areas (ACAs) and the associated management of the setting of groups of structures and protected structures. The term “curtilage” is used in Irish planning law in relation to protected structures and in the Ministerial Guidelines for Planning Authorities on Architectural Heritage Protection (Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, 2011; see in particular Chapter 13: Curtilage and Attendant Grounds). It is recommended that this term is appropriate to CHC1. It is therefore recommended that the references to setting be removed from the policy application section 11.1.5.3, paragraph 7, as follows;

The curtilage and setting of a Protected Structure is often an essential part of the structure’s special interest. In certain circumstances, the setting curtilage may comprise a clearly defined garden or grounds, which may have been laid out to complement the design or function. However, the setting curtilage of a structure can also be expansive and can be affected by development at some distance away.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is adopted as amended. Section 11.1.5.3, paragraph 7, amended as set out above in Chief Executive’s response.

169


Motion‘To reject the Chief Executive’s proposal to include the term ‘and site development standards may need to be relaxed’ in Paragraph 8.

Reason: There should be no relaxation in any building standards.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe motion text is an extract from paragraph 11.1.5.3 of the Draft Development Plan, including “The historic use of the structure is part of its special interest and in general the best use for a building will be that for which it was built. However, on occasion the change of use will be the best way to secure the long-term conservation of a structure. Where a change of use is proposed, the building should be capable of being converted into the new use without harmful extensions or modifications, especially if the change of use would require new openings, staircases and substantial sub-divisions to the historic floor plan or loss of historic fabric. Issues such as fire protection, sound proofing, servicing and access will also require detailed consideration. In finding the optimum viable use for protected structures, other land – use policies may need to be relaxed to achieve long-term conservation.

DCC is now operating the Living City Initiative, to convert and re-use the upper floors of our streets to residential uses. On occasion compromise is necessary to ensure the objectives of city living and architectural conservation are achieved.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is not adopted. In the interests of clarity a revision to the Draft text of section 11.1.5.3. paragraph 8, making cross reference to the provisions of section 14.5 is recommended as follows;

Amendment to section 11.1.5.3, paragraph 8 (in green text underlined); In finding the optimum viable use for protected structures, other land-use policies and site development standards may need to be relaxed to achieve long term conservation.

170


MotionDublin City Council agrees to amend the Policy CHC3 in Chapter 11 (Culture and Heritage) to read:

“To protect the special interest and character of Dublin’s Conservation Areas. Development within or affecting conservation areas will contribute positively to the character and distinctiveness, and take opportunities to protect and enhance the character and appearance of the area and its setting, wherever possible.

Enhancement opportunities may include:

1. Replacement or improvement of any building, feature or element which detracts from the character of the area or its setting2. Re-instatement of missing architectural detail or other important features3. Improvement of open spaces and the wider public realm, and re-instatement of historic routes and characteristic plot patterns4. Contemporary architecture of exceptional design quality, which is in harmony with the Conservation Area5. The repair and retention of shop and pub fronts of architectural interest.

Development will not:1. Harm buildings, spaces, original street patterns or other features which contribute positively to the special interest of the conservation area2. Involve the loss of traditional, historic or important building forms, features, and detailing including roofscapes, shopfronts, doors, windows and other decorative detail3. Introduce design details and materials, such as uPVC and aluminium windows and doors which are out of character with the building and area4. Harm the setting of a conservation area5. Constitute a visually obtrusive or dominant form

Changes of use will be acceptable where, in compliance with the zoning objective, they make a positive contribution to the character, function and appearance of conservation areas and their settings. The council will consider the contribution of existing uses to the special interest of an area when assessing change of use applications and will promote compatible uses which ensure future long-term viability.”

Reason: This is a proposal to add “5. Constitute a visually obtrusive or dominant form” to the list of adverse effects that development should not result in.

It would reinstate the intent and content of the statement “Development within conservation areas should be so designed so as not to constitute a visually obtrusive or dominant form of development” that is contained in Section 17.10.8.1 of the current 2011-2017 DCC Development Plan.

It may be argued that phrases in the policy such as ‘will not harm the setting of a conservation area’ would serve the same function, but it is submitted that they only do so in a general sense.

It is submitted that this statement has been of significant value in the lifetime of the current and

Motion


171

previous Plans in preventing the development of adverse visually obtrusive and dominant structures and buildings. It has been of particular value in the context of natural Conservation Areas, where the introduction of such built forms is a major issue for landscape, views and prospects.

Chief Executive's ResponseThe policy CHC3 states that;

Development within or affecting conservation areas will contribute positively to the character and distinctiveness, and take opportunities to protect and enhance the character and appearance of the area and its setting,

Development will not:

1. Harm buildings, spaces, original street patterns or other features which contribute positively to the special interest of the conservation area

4. Harm the setting of a conservation area

Section 11.1.5.6 Conservation Area – Policy Application states;

All new development must have regard to the local context and distinctiveness and the contribution to the local scene of buildings, landmarks, views, open spaces, and other features of architectural, historic or topographical interest. The general design, principles are set out in a separate policy but it is particularly important within conservation areas that design is appropriate to the context and based on an understanding of Dublin’s distinctive character areas.

In addition, section 16.2.1.1 Respecting and Enhancing Character and Context states;

The City Council will seek to ensure that the design of new development respects and enhances these and other elements that contribute positively to the cityscape and urban realm, the setting of protected structures, areas of special interest and important views and that such design incorporates high-quality detail, materials and craftsmanship.

It is therefore considered the Draft Development Plan is explicit in its requirement that new development should respect and enhance the existing special character, distinctiveness and appearance of conservation areas and this most particularly includes the visual appearance of the area.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is noted, the issue of visual obtrusiveness in Conservation Areas is already addressed in existing text, policy CHC3 and sections 11.1.5.6 & 16.2.1.1.

172


MotionTo include a new Objective specifically relating to Moore Street and its environs which will reflect the recent High Court judgement relating to the Moore Street National Monument, battlefield site and wider area. (Justice Barrett - 18th March 2016 - High court).

Reason: To reflect the recent High Court judgement relating to the Moore Street National Monument, battlefield site and wider area. (Justice Barrett - 18th March 2016 - High court).

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe Draft Plan contains objective CHCO26:

"CHCO26: To develop a 1916 Historic Quarter, including Moore Street, with its National Monument and historic terrace, an appropriately developed street market, the GPO and Parnell Square, creating an integrated historic, literary and commercial focus for the north city centre and providing potential for tourism and to prepare a Development Brief for the Moore Street Area which addresses the above".

In addition a LAP is proposed for Moore Street area.

The period for an appeal of the High Court decision has not yet expired. As such it would not be appropriate to include an objective based on the High Court decision at this point.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is not adopted.

2180Councillor(s) Cllr. Rebecca Moynihan

MotionThat the areas around Mount Brown and Kilmainham be designated an ACA

Reason: to protect the historical architecture in this area

Motion




173


MotionThat John Dillon Street and environs, Meath Street and the artisan buildings surrounding be deemed Architectural Conservation Areas and that a Liberties Task Force be established with strategic focus on their preservation.

Reason: To protect the special character of these areas, to contribute to sustainable and integrated development and to protect the cultural/architectural character of the old city. Furthermore, unlike other ACAs (such as Georgian areas) what is lacking in the Liberties area is a Task Force that will bring strategic focus and implementation to a program of conservation in the area, including adjacent ACAs such as Thomas Street. Furthermore, there is a large amount of derelict land in the Liberties, its development needs cohesion and to be done under the framework of the existing Liberties Area Plan.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseJohn Dillon Street and Meath Street are presently sited with the boundaries of the Thomas Street Architectural Conservation Area.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is noted – the areas referred to are already sited within the Thomas Street Architectural Conservation Area.

174


MotionThat a Architectural Conservation Area be developed for the Richmond Cottages area bordered by the Tolka River, Summerhill Parade and Richmond Street North.

Reason: In order to preserve the special character and architectural interest of the Richmond Cottages area.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseSection 11.1.4 Strategic Approach sets out a phased area based approach to survey and review of priority historic areas, which is to be conducted outwards from the historic core, i.e. Medieval City, Temple Bar etc. The strategy sets out to review the RPS, review NIAH recommendations and designate ACA’s where special interest is identified, in these priority areas. Section 11.1.4 states;

The existing conservation policy framework is comprised of the Record of Protected Structures with in excess of 8,500 entries, no. 21 Architectural Conservation Areas and a significant number of Conservation Areas and Conservation Zoning Objective Areas, it is considered to be sufficiently robust at present. However, in order to ensure the policy framework is comprehensively updated in accordance with the relevant planning legislation, guidelines and the recent recommendations from the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage and so that all areas and structures of special historic and architectural interest have the appropriate legal protection measures applied, Dublin City Council will undertake the following, phased survey and review, area based approach, to protecting and enhancing the city’s built heritage. The survey and review will be conducted outwards from the historic core and will focus on the following 10 no., phase 1, priority areas, which are set out below. In order to ensure the full and proper protection of the areas and structures of special historic and architectural interest the City Council has identified the following priority areas. The rationale for this area selection These are areasis that they are areas sited within the historic core that have high concentrations of protected structures but are presently sited outside designated Architectural Conservation Areas:

Section 11.1.4 sets out 10 no. priority areas and states;By way of explanation, the evolution and development of Dublin City and the heritage significance of its historic core dictates that the areas to be considered for the designation of ACA’s shall be prioritised firstly in the historic core and the Georgian city and radiate outwards into the adjoin 19th Century Suburbs. The former will comprise the first phase of 10 priority areas as identified above.

As the survey and review of the phase 1 areas nears completion, phase 2 of the survey and review (based on the area selection rationale set out above) will include areas adjacent to phase 1 priority areas;

Extension of the Thomas Street ACA; Pembroke Estate/ Rathmines Lower & Upper Belgrave Square; Stoneybatter/ Oxmantown; Ranelagh Village.

The area of Richmond Cottages bordered by the Tolka River, Summerhill Parade and Richmond Street North will be considered for survey and review in subsequent phasing, when phase 1 has been completed.

175

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is not adopted for the planning reasons as set out in the main report, section 11.1.4 Strategic Approach.


MotionPage 97, Add after CHC08

“CHC09 That an audit of post office boxes be carried out with a view to listing the older boxes as Protected Structures.”

Reason: to provide additional protection of architectural heritage.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe National Inventory of Architectural Heritage is undertaking its survey of Dublin City, the survey includes items of street furniture including post boxes.

Objective CHCO1 address the matter.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is noted, as alreay provided for in the Draft Plan.

176


MotionMotion to include the following policy for the Liffey Quays:

"It is policy to protect and reinforce the important civic design character of Dublin's quays, which are designated a Conservation Area. The repair and restoration of existing buildings rather than demolition is preferred, and new building proposals will be required to fit in sympathetically with the existing built form in terms of scale and architectural design."

Rationale: The contribution of the River Liffey to the character and identity of Dublin cannot be overstated.

Motion





MotionAmend Policy CHC14 to remove the words "where possible", so that it reads: "To preserve, repair and retain in situ historic elements of significance in the public realm....."

Reason: The inclusion of "where possible" weakens the policy to an unacceptable extent.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseNo objection to this proposed amendment.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is adopted.

Reword CHC14 as follows;

"To preserve, repair and retain in situ, where possible, historic elements of significance in the public realm including railings, milestones …".

177


MotionPolicy CHC16 and objective CHCO24

To amend this policy and objective, as appropriate, to reflect the state ownership of the National Monument as well as the recent High Court judgement relating to the Moore Street National Monument, battlefield site and wider area. (Justice Barrett - 18th March 2016 - High court)

Reason: To have an up to date policy position and objective.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe period for appeal of the High Court decision is four weeks from the 8th of April. Therefore, it is considered that the case remains sub-judice.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is not adopted for the reasons set out above.

178


MotionCHCO16A: To amend the reference to 14 Henrietta Street museum to read the 14 Henrietta Street Tenement Museum to reflect the motions unanimously passed at the Central Area Committee meetings of February 9th and March 8th last.

Reason: To ensure that,despite the sanitisation process attempted by DCC, a process clearly designed to exclude the word "tenement" from the description of 14 Henrietta Street, the word "tenement" will be a fundamental part of the project name.I set out hereunder, for the benefit of members, the motions passed and the reports given by management which clearly ignore the motions and attempt to defer the naming process.

__________________________________________________________________________

DUBLIN CITY COUNCILCENTRAL AREA COMMITTEE8th March, 2016

Item 6246

Motion in the name of Councillor Nial Ring

That this Committee informs the Chief Executive that it is the clear and unambiguous instruction of this Committee that the project, based in the heart of our area, be named “14 Henrietta Street – Tenement Museum” - in light of the blatant attempt to misguide Councillors on the true intentions of Dublin City Council vis a vis the naming of the project - I refer to my motion (item no. 6231) passed at last month's (February) CAC and the report thereon (reproduced below) and I also refer to the recently produced DCC Centenary programme which on page 9 thereof prominently describes the building as "14 Henrietta Street - Townhouse Museum" and commences the narrative "At No.14 Henrietta Street Townhouse Museum..." The report on my motion does not give any indication of the sanitisation process being undertaken by DCC, a process clearly designed to exclude the term "tenement" from the description, notwithstanding the motion passed last month.

"Item 6231

Motion in the name of Councillor Nial Ring

That this Committee rejects the attempt by DCC to exclude the word “Tenement” from the naming of the refurbished tenement house at 14 Henrietta Street and that this Committee agrees that the building be named and marketed as the “Tenement Museum”.

Report

It has always been the intention of the City Council to research and present in No. 14 Henrietta Street, the story of tenement life on Henrietta Street and surrounding areas and to place this narrative within its historical context. It is proposed that the visitor to this museum will explore the unique social and cultural history of the house and the street, spanning three centuries from its origins in the 18th century to the 100 years of tenement life that began in the 1880s; tracing this history from a home for a single family to (the same building) providing homes for 17 families.

Motion


179

This history will be presented thematically. Themes that are being discussed include: the home, motherhood and childhood, daily tenement life, work and labour. This unique history of the building will be presented in a number of ways, through restoration/interpretation of the house itself and through programmed tours and audio visual presentations.

The project name for now is 14 Henrietta Street Dublin 1. This is a temporary placeholder name, not the museum name. As the works on the building reach completion later this year and the interpretive plan for the house is further developed, discussions will take place on a suitable name, which fully captures the purpose and experience and we will revert to the Area Committee then. It should be noted that there has not been nor would there be any attempt to exclude the word ‘tenement’ from the project, as the presentation of the building’s tenement history is in fact a core feature of the project".

Report

There has been no attempt to misguide Councillors on the naming of this project or to exclude the word ‘tenement’ from the project.

Clarification was provided that ’14 Henrietta Street, Dublin 1’ is the temporary placeholder name of the project and is not the museum name which will only be named later in the year. As advised at the February Central Area Committee meeting the Area Committee will be updated on the project in due course ‘As the works on the building reach completion later this year and the interpretive plan for the house is further developed, discussions will take place with the Area Committee on a suitable name, which fully captures the purpose and experience of the project’.

The text referring to 14 Henrietta Street Townhouse Museum – was produced in October 2015 which was prior to the February Central Area Committee Meeting.

Contact: Paul Clegg, Executive ManagerTel: 222 3309Email: [email protected]

Contact: Charles Duggan, Heritage Officer.Tel: 222 2856Email: [email protected]

Chief Executive's ResponseThere is no objection to this proposed amendment, subject to a minor rewording to the Dublin Tenement Museum at 14 Henrietta Street.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is adopted as amended.

Insert amended text at CHCO16 (pg102) and also pg215 of Chief Executive Report Objective CHCO16A:

"To undertake a feasibility study for the development of a museum of urban social history in Dublin based around utilising and exhibiting the Dublin Civic Museum collection and the Dublin Tenement Museum at 14 Henrietta Street".

180

2188Councillor(s) Cllr. Brendan Carr, Cllr. Vincent Jackson, Deputy Lord Mayor

Cieran Perry, Cllr. Nial Ring, Green Party Group

MotionPage 106, Motion: To insert into the City Development Plan Objective PS5 of the Draft Phibsborough Local Area Plan 2015:

“Prior to any redevelopment of the northern [Smurfit Printworks] site a detailed inventory of the complex, including buildings and machinery shall be provided. Any historic machinery etc which is deemed worthy of retention shall be flagged and incorporated into the future development either within the buildings or in the public space, e.g. as sculpture. This evaluation shall be undertaken by practitioners with knowledge and expertise in the area of industrial heritage and in keeping with the guidelines for the evaluation of industrial heritage sites, outlined in the Heritage Council publication Recording and Conserving Ireland’s Industrial Heritage.”

Reason: to protect heritage

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe Chief Executive’s recommendation to section 11.1.5.15 Industrial Heritage sets out a replacement to point no. 6 of objective CHCO9 as follows:

"To have regard to the city’s industrial heritage and Dublin City Industrial Heritage Record (DCIHR) in the preparation of Local Area Plan (LAPs) and the assessment of planning applications and to publish the DCIHR online. To review the DCIHR in accordance with Ministerial recommendations arising from the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (NIAH) survey of Dublin City and in accordance with the Strategic Approach set out in Section 11.1.4 of this Chapter".

The structure referred to as the Smurfit Printworks is included on the Dublin City Industrial Heritage Record, no. 18 03 042. The assessment of any planning application relating to the structure referred to as the Smurfit Printworks in accordance with the above objective will therefore have regard to the Dublin City Industrial Heritage Record.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is noted, the issue is addressed in existing text Objective CHCO9.

181


MotionTo include a new policy (CHC20) to reflect the historical importance of the building at 44 Parnell square. This policy should seek to clarify its legal ownership, state of dereliction/neglect and restoration potential as part of the Parnell square quarter project.

Reason: To protect and restore the historic building at 44 Parnell Square.

Motion





MotionPolicy CHC12: To amend the replacement objective policy CHC12 to delete the phrase "....will give consideration to the potential to pursue a World Heritage nomination...." and replace with a simple statement that we will pursue the designation and not "give consideration to the potential to pursue".

Reason: Unambiguous statement of intent needed - not consideration of a potential to pursue which is a three stand approach instead of a direct approach. We should not fear bold unambiguous ambitions for our City and policies should reflect this confidence and ambition.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe intention of the motion is acknowledged and accepted; with revised wording recommended.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is adopted as amended:

"CHC12: This approach , shall in turn, guide consideration by the City Council, in partnership with the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht and other stakeholders, in the pursuit of the potential to pursue a World Heritage nomination for the Historic City of Dublin".

Amended sentence to read in full as follows:

"CHC12: This approach , shall in turn, guide the City Council, in partnership with the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht and other stakeholders, in the pursuit of a World Heritage nomination for the Historic City of Dublin".

182


MotionPolicy CHC18: To amend this policy to read "To make contact with the new owners of Aldborough House, Portland Row, Dublin 1, and work with them to seek a use that would facilitate its restoration.

Reason: To include communication/contact with new owner in the policy.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThis is not an issue for strategic Development Plan policy. The owners will be contacted: this is an operational matter.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is noted. This is an operational matter.


MotionObjective CHCO26: To include in this policy a statement to the effect that the policy will have regard to the implications of the recent High Court Judgment relating to the Moore Street National Monument, battlefield site and wider area. (Justice Barrett - 18th March 2016 - High court).

Reason: To take account of the implications of the judgement and its affect on this policy.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe period of an appeal of the High Court decision has not yet expired. As such it would not be appropriate to include an objective based on the High Court decision at this point.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat the Motion is not adopted for reasons set out above.

183


MotionRetain Policy FC28 from the current Development Plan: “It is the policy of Dublin City Council: To continue to protect our built heritage, and development proposals affecting the built heritage will be assessed in accordance with the DoEHLG document “Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities, 2004”

Reason: In order to ensure holistic protection of our built heritage.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe policy to protect the built heritage is set out principally under policies CHC1-CHC7. The reference to the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government Guidelines for Planning Authorities on the Architectural Heritage is set out in subsection 11.1.5.3 Protected Structures – Policy Application, paragraph 11, as follows;

Given the high concentration of protected structures in Dublin City, it is important to refer to the further detailed guidance on protection, repair and alteration of protected structures as set out in the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government Guidelines for Planning Authorities on the Architectural Heritage Protection 2004.

It is not necessary to state this in policy as section 28 Ministerial Guidelines, of the Planning and Development Acts 2000-2014, requires that planning authorities have regard to the Guidelines in the performance of their functions.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is noted. The matter is already addressed in the existing text as set out under policies CHC1-CHC7 and subsection 11.1.5.3 Protected Structures – Policy Application, paragraph 11.The reference to the Guidelines requires to be updated from Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government Guidelines for Planning Authorities on the Architectural Heritage Protection 2004.

to

Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht Guidelines for Planning Authorities on Architectural Heritage Protection (2011).

184


MotionThat the Old/Medieval City be expanded to include the Tenters and Marrowbone Lane.

Reason: Maintain the historical and special character of the area.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseMarrowbone Lane does appear partly within the Medieval City as shown on Figure 16. The Tenters area associated with the Huguenot weaving industry of the 17th century is considered to be outside the Medieval City.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is noted and is already addressed in the existing text Figure 16, page 93.

185


Motion‘To insert a new policy ‘That Dublin City Council will work with NAMA to ensure the delivery of the social contribution as outlined in section 2 b (VIII) of The NAMA Act in order to provide artistic, cultural and creative space, studios and workplaces for these industries in existing and new developments’

Reason: NAMA are failing to deliver on the social dividend in the City and their contribution could go a long way in providing such space in the City.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThis issue is primarily a matter for NAMA and national Government.

Para 13.2.3 of the Draft Plan states that the role of NAMA is critical to ensuring lands become available for development which will require certain infrastructure, and as such collaboration with NAMA, their clients and other agencies is essential.

For the sake of clarity, Section 2(VIII) of the NAMA act 2009 states that the purposes of this Act are:

"(a) To address the serious threat to the economy and the stability of credit institutions in the State generally and the need for the maintenance and stabilisation of the financial system in the State, and

(b) To address the compelling need-

(i) To facilitate the availability of credit in the economy of the State,(ii) To resolve the problems created by the financial crisis in an expeditious and efficient manner and achieve a recovery in the economy(iii) To protect the State’s interest in respect of the guarantees issued by the State pursuant to the Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Act 2008 and to underpin the steps taken by the Government in that regard(iv) To protect the interests of taxpayers(v) To facilitate restructuring of credit institutions of systemic importance to the economy(vi) To remove uncertainty about the valuation and location of certain assets of credit institutions of systemic importance to the economy(vii) To restore confidence in the banking sector and to underpin the effect of Government support measures in relation to that sector(viii) To contribute to the social and economic development of the State".

NAME is not (except for a small number of cases) the owner of land or property. Its role, like a bank, is that of a secured lender. The Planning Act does not allow for a different obligation to be placed on a developer, solely due to the lending institution the owner has borrowings with. Notwithstanding this NAMA is fully supportive of the proper, sustainable development of the City as expressed in the City Development Plan.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThis motion is adopted as amended, by adding text to 13.2.3:

186

"The role of NAMA is critical to ensuring that lands become available for development, which may also require the provision of certain infrastructure and, as such, collaboration with NAMA, their clients, and other agencies is essential. NAMA shall have regard to the proper planning and sustainable development of the City, as expressed in the City Development Plan".

187


MotionThat Dublin City Council is committed to ensuring there is a supply of workspaces for artists in the city. It is the policy of Dublin City Council to work with all private, public and cultural stakeholders in cooperation to ensure that artistic work space is a key element in all multi use developments in the City in particular ensuring there is provision for cultural and artistic space in new developments.

Reason: To protect the cultural assets of the city which plays a key role in the sustainable development of the city and enhances the quality of life of both citizens and visitors to the city.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseUnder CHCO17, it is an objective "To facilitate the growth and continued development of cultural life in the city by supporting the implementation of Dublin City Council’s Cultural Strategy 2009 –2017 and the City of Culture bid".

In addition the Chief Executive's report on Submissions includes the following recommendation:

"CHCO18A: The City Council will conduct cultural audits (qualitative and quantitative) in all city areas paying particular attention to developing cultural clusters".

"CHCO18B: The City Arts Office will continue to develop its role as broker between the owners of vacant premises/properties and artists seeking temporary accommodation, with the assistance of and in conjunction with the active land management role of the City’s Planning and Property Development Department". Statutory mechanisms for planning gain are not provided for in the Planning and Development Acts and cannot be included in the Development Plan. Planning guidance from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government mandates that private development may not be burdened with contributions in addition to the City Council’s own Development Contribution Scheme.

The Development Contribution Scheme, adopted by the City Council, provides the contributions to be paid in respect of development and the distribution of such contributions in relation to the provision and improvement of city infrastructure and amenities, including community and cultural infrastructure.

Para 16.10.4 of the Draft Plan requires an audit of social infrastructure for proposals over certain threshold stages.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is not adopted. The motion is outside the scope of the Development Plan.

188


MotionPage 103, 11.2.5.1 Leading the Cultural Development of Dublin City

‘To insert a new policy that: ‘The City will consider new incentives for developers through development levies and / or rates schemes in order to provide much needed workspaces for the artistic, cultural and creative industries in Dublin City’

Reason: With the recent closure of a significant number of artist studios and workspaces over the last few years and the resultant deficit in the provision of space for artistic, cultural and creative industries in Dublin City the City has a responsibility to explore new and innovative ways of providing such space for our citizens.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseStatutory mechanisms for ‘planning gain’ are not provided for in the Planning and Development Acts and cannot be included in the Development Plan. Planning guidance from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government mandates that private development may not be burdened with contributions in addition to the City Council’s own Development Contribution Scheme. The Development Contribution Scheme, adopted by the City Council, provides the contributions to be paid in respect of development and the distribution of such contributions in relation to the provision and improvement of city infrastructure and amenities, including community and cultural infrastructure.


189


MotionTo insert a new policy: Dublin City Council will seek insofar as possible to protect the cultural and artistic use of buildings in established cultural quarters.

Reason: To protect and enhance the artistic and cultural infrastructure in the city

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe protection of specific uses in privately owned properties is not provided for in the Planning and Development Acts, except in an Area of Special Planning Control adopted under a designated Architectural Conservation Area (ACA).

Note the Chief Executive’s Report on Submissions and the response in relation to Section 11.2.5.1 Leading the Cultural Development of Dublin City, in particular the recommendation of two new Objectives:

CHCO18A: The City Council will conduct cultural audits (qualitative and quantitative) in all city areas paying particular attention to developing cultural clusters; and

CHCO18B: The City Arts Office will continue to develop its role as broker between owners of vacant premises/properties and artist seeking temporary accommodation, with the assistance of and in conjunction with the active land management role of the City’s Planning and Property Development Department.

Planning guidance from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government mandates that private development may not be burdened with contributions in addition to the City Council’s own Development Contribution Scheme. The Development Contribution Scheme, adopted by the City Council, provides the contributions to be paid in respect of development and the distribution of such contributions in relation to the provision and improvement of city infrastructure and amenities, including community and cultural infrastructure.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted. This issue is addressed in as much as is possible under the provisions of the Planning and Development Acts and the Development Plan, in the provisions of the recommended new Objectives CHCO18A and CHCO18B.

190


MotionThat this new development plan incorporate the building and the development of live/work artist studio spaces and also build for artist workspaces/studios.

Given the profile of Dublin City as an arts destination and its global reputation as a visual arts centre and a cultural centre, now is the appropriate time to build on that legacy for present and future artists and arts making.

Reason: There has been very little artist residence studio build in the city in the past two decades. Space is at a premium and many artists are finding themselves out of space and evicted from premises because of high rents and speculation. While on the other hand Dublin City Council’s conservation policy and dwelling policies are impacting on the living and working spaces of many artists due to enforced conditions and bylaws. If we are not careful many of our artists will be forced to leave the city in order to find space to simply make their work. Dublin City Council’s Development plan presents an ideal opportunity to make Dublin not only a place to see, view and acquire art but also an outstanding place, due to its facilities, to make art and to live within a city no matter where it is. Artists living within the city and working within the city give Dublin it’s cultural credibility. Indeed, the whole city is a cultural quarter, therefore, it is imperative and a principal that Dublin City Council make provision for the building of such facilities and where there is a developer who is in the process of a major development within the city that those applications for planning be mindful of cultural workspace provision. You can show art anywhere but you must have a place/space to make it.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseRefer to the Chief Executive’s Report on Submissions and the response in relation to Section 11.2.5.1 Leading the Cultural Development of Dublin City, in particular the recommendation of two new Objectives

CHCO18A: The City Council will conduct cultural audits (qualitative and quantitative) in all city areas paying particular attention to developing cultural clusters; and


Planning guidance from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government mandates that private development may not be burdened with contributions in addition to the City Council’s own Development Contribution Scheme. The Development Contribution Scheme, adopted by the City Council, provides the contributions to be paid in respect of development and the distribution of such contributions in relation to the provision and improvement of city infrastructure and amenities, including community and cultural infrastructure.

In relation to any proposed undertaking of building programme by the City Council for live/work artist studio spaces and building of artist workspaces/studios, this would be a matter in the first instance for the relevant SPC and the Capital Programme of the City Council.

191

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted. This issue is addressed in as much as is possible under the provisions of the Planning and Development Acts and the Development Plan, in the provisions of the recommended new Objectives CHCO18A and CHCO18B.

2200Councillor(s) Cllr. Mary Freehill, Cllr. Dermot Lacey

MotionRetain Policy FC46 of the current Development Plan “To protect and enhance the civic design of Dublin’s quays, squares and historic public spaces”

Reason: These areas are key to Dublin's identity.

Motion





MotionTo insert a new policy that Dublin City Council will encourage and facilitate the temporary use of underused sites or buildings for artistic or cultural provision.

Reason- to enhance cultural infrastructure in the city and ensure that underused sites are utilised for communal gain

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThis issue is already addressed under Chapter 6: City Economy and Enterprise – See Policy CEE15 (v). Also note the Chief Executive’s Report on Submissions and the response in relation to Section 11.2.5.1 Leading the Cultural Development of Dublin City, in particular the recommendation of the new Objective:


Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted. It is already provided in Policy CEE15 (v) and proposed new Objective CHCO18B.

192


MotionThis City Council sets as an objective the holding of an Architectural competition to seek a suitable environmentally sustainable building and purpose for the site of the former Public Toilets on Anglesea Road.

Reason: This is an important publicly owned site that warrants the holding of such a competition and inclusion in the Development Plan would assist in the pursuit of same. It is submitted in accordance with the clarified zoning now in the Draft Development Plan.

Motion





MotionTo insert a new policy to include the provision of artistic, cultural and creative work spaces in the new Parnell Square redevelopment plan.

Reason: This would to enhance and deliver the vision for that area as a new cultural quarter of the City. Building up local industry and services that relate to small artistic businesses in the area will draw on existing expertise and service the other cultural amenities envisaged , which is important for a balanced residential/visitor character and a daytime/evening time balance.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe proposed new City Library project at Parnell Square is an objective of the draft Development Plan; CHCO27 “To promote and facilitate the development of a mixed-use cultural facility in Parnell Square anchored by a new City Library, stimulating the regeneration of the north inner city”.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is noted. The substance is already provided in Objective CHCO27.

193


MotionObjective CHCO25: To include The Four Courts and Annesley Bridge on the list of sites.

Reason: To acknowledge the historical importance of the Four Courts in the 1916 - 22 period. Also, to acknowledge the little known Battle of Annesley Bridge (April 24/25 1916) and its recently discovered major impact on the British military strategy during the Easter Rising.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe locations mentioned are noted. The locations and areas of the proposed “revolutionary” or “green” trail will be identified and incorporated during the research and development phase of the proposed project. It is not considered necessary to provide a comprehensive and exhaustive list of each of the locations across Dublin City for the entire 1916 to 1922 period in the draft Development Plan Objective CHCO25, which provides a strategic outline of the concept “revolutionary”/”green” trail proposed.



MotionThat the City Development Plan implement a “revolutionary trail” or “green trail” through the city, such as Boland’s mills, to the GPO, Moore Street, Dublin Castle, Kilmainham Jail and Richmond Barracks (similar to what is in operation in Boston). This has the ability to be a significant tourist attraction for Dublin City.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe locations mentioned are noted. The locations and areas of the proposed “revolutionary” or “green” trail will be identified and incorporated during the research and development phase of the proposed project. It is not considered necessary to provide a comprehensive and exhaustive list of each of the locations across Dublin City for the entire 1916 to 1922 period in the draft Development Plan Objective CHCO25, which provides a strategic outline of the concept “revolutionary”/”green” trail proposed.


194


MotionTo enter a new policy: It is the policy of Dublin City Council, that all large scale mixed use developments (as defined by the Development plan) of office or residential space will include at least at least 2% cultural provision of cultural and artistic workspace.

Reason: It is preferable in the city that all developments have a mixed use of office, residential, retail and cultural. This is to ensure that in the development of the city there is a supply of culture units alongside other uses.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponsePlanning guidance from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government mandates that private development may not be burdened with contributions in addition to the City Council’s own Development Contribution Scheme. The Development Contribution Scheme, adopted by the City Council, provides the contributions to be paid in respect of development and the distribution of such contributions in relation to the provision and improvement of city infrastructure and amenities, including community and cultural infrastructure.

Para 16.10.4 of the Draft Plan includes provision for an audit of community infrastructure : to demonstrate what deficiencies exist.


195


MotionPage 108, To insert a new bullet point under section 12.4 The Strategic Approach as follows:

Recognises the need to ensure new communities are walkable in order to support social interaction among members of the community.

Reason: to promote Sustainable communities and neighbourhoods

Motion

Refers to: Chapter 12 - Sustainable Communities and Neighbourhoods

Chief Executive's ResponseEnsuring that new neighbourhoods are walkable to support social interaction is a key element within the Draft Plan, notably within Chapter 8 Movement and Transport and also within Chapter 12 Sustainable Communities and Neighbourhoods. The Draft Plan currently includes the following text:

Section 12.5.1 A Good Urban Neighbourhood: The urban neighbourhood in Dublin should be big enough to support a range of services and small enough to foster a sense of belonging and community; it should be sufficiently dense to enable all of its essential facilities to be within easy walking distance of the urban centre.The DECLG has produced a suite of planning guidelines to promote sustainable neighbourhoods and communities, including 'Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas, 2009, Local Area Plans along with its accompanying Design Manual, 2013, and the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets, 2013 (DMURS)…..The Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets aligns spatial planning and transport policy, focusing on streets as attractive places to create secure connected places that work for all members of the community. It offers guidance to ensure compact, connected neighbourhoods based on street patterns and forms of development that make walking and cycling more attractive.

Furthermore, section 12.5.2 Making Sustainable Neighbourhoods includes the following: Equally, the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets, 2013 (DMURS), which deals with the street network, movement and place, permeability and legibility, has a pivotal guidance role in the making and protection of good neighbourhoods, with direct impacts for street vibrancy and social interactions, healthy living, recreation, energy efficiency and climate change.

Policy SN4 states that specific regard must be had to DECLG’s Design Manual for Urban Streets and Roads (DMURS), 2013 and the NTA’a Permeability Best Practice Guide, 2015, in the making of sustainable neighbourhoods.

It is therefore considered that this issue is already addressed in the Draft Plan.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is noted, matter is addressed in Section 12.5.

196


MotionThat the City Development Plan recognises the breakdown of Law and Order right across this City and commits to do everything in its power to provide safe communities to the citizens of this City.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAddressing matters of law and order is not considered a matter for the Development Plan. What the Plan does commit to is the requirement to provide design which is safe, and to having regard to a number of Department Guidelines on good practice in design, including DECLG’s Guidelines on Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas and its accompanying Urban Design Manual, 2010. The matter is also specifically addressed within Chapter 16, Section 16.2.1.4 Design for a Safer Environment. This requires new developments to incorporate active frontages, natural surveillance, enclose of space etc.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is noted. This matter is addressed in planning terms in Section 16.2.1.4 Design for a Safer Environment. 'Law and Order' is not a plannig matter.

197


MotionPage 110, In SN4 to replace the words:

"To have regard to”

To:

“To comply with”

Reason: to provide safer streets.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponsePolicy SN4 within the Draft Plan currently reads as:

"SN4: To have regard to the DECLG’s Guidelines on Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas and its accompanying Urban Design Manual, 2010, the Guidelines on Local Area Plans and the related Manual, 2013 and the joint DTTS and DCLG’s Design Manual for Urban Streets and Roads (DMURS), 2013 and the NTA’a Permeability Best Practice Guide, 2015, in the making of sustainable neighbourhoods. www.environ.ie".

The use of the term “regard” takes account of the fact that two of the documents referred to above are manuals, providing a wide variety of examples of development. It would be impossible to state that a development must comply with such manuals, but rather it is imperative that new design proposals take on board the examples given and apply the theory in a manner appropriate to each individual case. Some of the documents also provide general advice to the Planning Authority as to the approach to adopt in their respective Development Plans. Taking these factors into account it is considered appropriate to retain the term “regard to” in this case.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion not adopted, as would not be enforceable for reasons set out above.

198


MotionPage 110, In SN4 add the words at the end:

“and facilitate self-enforcing lower traffic speeds, below 30 kph without the need to resort to the use of remedial measures such as speed ramps”

Reason: Such a provision would demonstrate Dublin City Council’s commitment to lower traffic speeds and safer environs for all ages. It would also avoid the cost of retro-fitting which would be many times higher.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponsePolicy SN4 currently reads as:

"SN4: To have regard to the DECLG’s Guidelines on Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas and its accompanying Urban Design Manual, 2010, the Guidelines on Local Area Plans and the related Manual, 2013 and the joint DTTS and DCLG’s Design Manual for Urban Streets and Roads (DMURS), 2013 and the NTA’a Permeability Best Practice Guide, 2015, in the making of sustainable neighbourhoods. www.environ.ie".

Of the Documents referred to above, the DMURS manual specifically sets out a balanced approach to speed on urban streets, with lower speed limits of 30km/h applicable for local streets and within central urban areas (Section 4.1.1 of DMURS). The DMURS manual is also supported within Chapter 8 Movement and Transport, specifically within Policy MT1.

Furthermore objective MTO12 (p62) as recommended for changes within the CE report states:

MTO12: It is an objective of Dublin City Council in accordance with cycle routes identified in the National Transport Authority’s Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan:(i) To improve permeability for cyclists by exploring the potential to provide contraflow cycling on 1 way streets.(ii) To improve the traffic environment for cycling by reducing traffic speeds through the introduction or expansion of 30kph zones in compliance with the Department of Transport, Tourism & Sport document ‘Guidelines for Setting and Managing Speed Limits in Ireland’.”

Objective MTO10 states:

"MTO10: To review the 30kph speed limit that applies within the city centre (i.e. area between the canals)”.

In conclusion it is considered the motion proposed is already provided for within the Plan, both within SN4 and also specifically within Objective MTO10.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is noted. This matter is already specifically addressed within Objective MTO10.

199


MotionThe City Development Plan must ensure that all significant developments can only take place where sufficient schools, transport, community facilities and resources (including Gardaí, Fire Services and Ambulance provision). Without such measures, developments are doomed to failure and a repeat of social problems that currently exist in areas throughout the city sure to reoccur. Any areas that currently encounter such social problems should be carefully considered before any development is allowed to take place.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseCreating sustainable neighbourhoods is one of the key strands of the core strategy of the Development Plan, with many policies and objectives in place to help achieve this, including for example:

Policy SN1: To promote good urban neighbourhoods throughout the city which are well designed, safe and suitable for a variety of age groups and tenures, which are robust, adaptable, well served by local facilities and public transport, and which contribute to the structure and identity of the city, consistent with standards set out in this Plan.

Where large scale development/ redevelopment is anticipated it is the policy of the City Council to adopt Local Area Plans to ensure that sufficient resources are put in place in tandem with new residential developments. Chapter 15 of the Draft Plan also identifies seventeen strategic development and regeneration areas where development/ redeveloped is anticipated and sets out guiding principles for each of these sites.

The Plan also contains a requirement, where large scale development is proposed, for applicants to submit a Social Audit of Community Infrastructure to ensure that the needs of the existing area and future population are met, see policy SN5 and section 16.10.4.

SN5: To ensure that applications for significant large new developments (over 50 Units) are accompanied by a Social Audit and an Implementation and Phasing Programme in relation to community infrastructure, so that facilities identified as needed are provided in a timely and co-ordinated fashion.

This requirement is further detailed in Chapter 16, section 16.10.4 Making Sustainable Neighbourhoods, which details the requirement for submitting an audit of existing facilities within an area; how the proposal will contribute to the range of supporting community infrastructure; and also that proposals over 50 units must be accompanied by the assessment of the capacity of local schools to accommodate the proposed development.

In reviewing Section 16.10.4 it is noted that this section was amended by the Council in the preparation of the Draft 2016 Plan, whereby the benchmark for contributing to social infrastructure on all large schemes was changed from large schemes of 200 units to a more modest 50 units. By changing one aspect of this section, i.e. the 200 to 50 units, there is currently an inconsistency in the information being sought from applicants for schemes of 100 units versus 50 units.

There is also an inconsistency in the level at which the capacity of local schools must be assessed, with section 16.10.4 now requiring this assessment for schemes of 50 units, while section 16.16 Schools requires this assessment for schemes of over 200 units. The approach set

200

out in section 16.16, i.e. using a threshold of 200 units, is in line with the recommendation of the Department of the Environment Community and Local Government, set out in the Guidelines for Planning Authorities on Sustainable Residential development in Urban Areas (Section 4.4), and as endorsed by The Provision of Schools and the Planning System: A Code of Practice for Planning Authorities (2008), (Section 5). More recently the guidance issued by the Department in December 2015, Sustainable Urban Housing: Design Standards for New Apartments, Guidelines for Planning Authorities, draws attention to the need for planning policy to not overly burden residential development. Taking these matters into consideration it is recommended that the thresholds set out in section 16.10.4 retain those of the current 2011-2017 Development Plan, whereby schemes of 200 units or 20,000 sq.m. shall be required to make a significant contribution to an area in terms of community facilities and social infrastructure. Schemes of 100 units or 10,000 sq.m. and public transport infrastructure shall continue to provide an urban design statement addressing a number of stated issues. Also of note, other guidance set out in the Development Plan requires consideration be given to the provision of childcare facilities for schemes in excess of 75 dwelling units, and for public open space provision in new developments. Developments in mixed use zonings shall continue to be assessed on their merits having regard to the requirement to provide sustainable neighbourhoods.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is noted, and this matter is considered to be adequately addressed in the Plan through LAPs, SDRAs, zoning objectives, and more specifically Policies SN1, SN5 and Section 16.10.4.

In reviewing the above policies and guidance, it is the recommendation of the CE that the threshold for social audits and contributing to community facilities be changed from 50 units or 5,000 sq.m. to 200 units or 20,000 sq.m. as per the current Plan, for reasons set out above and to align with national Planning Guidelines.

Section 12.5.3 Neighbourhoods and Supporting Infrastructure:

Policy SN5: To ensure that applications for significant large new developments (over 50 200Units) are accompanied by a Social Audit and an Implementation and Phasing Programme in relation to community infrastructure, so that facilities identified as needed are provided in a timely and co-ordinated fashion.

Section 16.10.4 Making Sustainable Neighbourhoods:

50 200 Units or 5,000 20,000 sq.mProposals for new large development must make a contribution to an area in terms of community facilities and social infrastructure where significant shortfalls are identified. When submitting plans for large-scale residential, typically over 50 200 units depending on local circumstances, and/or mixed-use schemes (i.e. circa 5,000 20,000 sq.m and above), developers will be required to submit an audit of existing facilities within the area and to demonstrate how the proposal will contribute to the range of supporting community infrastructure.

Proposals in excess of 50 200 dwelling units must be accompanied by an assessment of the capacity of local schools to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with the above guidelines and the DES & then DEHLG’s Code of Practice on the Provision of Schools and the Planning System 2008.

Dublin City Council may also require developers to submit a Phasing & Implementation Programme for large residential schemes in excess of 50 200 units, to ensure an agreed co-ordinated approach is taken to the timely delivery of key physical and social infrastructure elements that are essential for sustainable neighbourhoods. Proposals of this scale must also be accompanied by an Urban Design Statement (as set out above).

201


MotionThat no major housing development, regardless of need, be allowed to proceed without agreements and plans in place for schools, public transport, economic areas, parks, community centres. It cannot be a case anymore where we build big housing developments and everything that is needed for them to succeed comes later or is invariably cancelled.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseCreating sustainable neighbourhoods is one of the key strands of the core strategy of the Development Plan, with many policies and objectives in place to help achieve this, including for example:

Policy SN1: To promote good urban neighbourhoods throughout the city which are well designed, safe and suitable for a variety of age groups and tenures, which are robust, adaptable, well served by local facilities and public transport, and which contribute to the structure and identity of the city, consistent with standards set out in this Plan.

Where large scale development/ redevelopment is anticipated it is the policy of the City Council to adopt Local Area Plans to ensure that sufficient resources are put in place in tandem with new residential developments. Chapter 15 of the Draft Plan also identifies seventeen strategic development and regeneration areas where development/ redeveloped is anticipated and sets out guiding principles for each of these sites.

The Plan also contains a requirement, where large scale development is proposed, for applicants to submit a Social Audit of Community Infrastructure to ensure that the needs of the existing area and future population are met, see policy SN5 and section 16.10.4.

SN5: To ensure that applications for significant large new developments (over 50 Units) are accompanied by a Social Audit and an Implementation and Phasing Programme in relation to community infrastructure, so that facilities identified as needed are provided in a timely and co-ordinated fashion.

This requirement is further detailed in Chapter 16, section 16.10.4 Making Sustainable Neighbourhoods, which details the requirement for submitting an audit of existing facilities within an area; how the proposal will contribute to the range of supporting community infrastructure; and also that proposals over 50 units must be accompanied by the assessment of the capacity of local schools to accommodate the proposed development.

In reviewing Section 16.10.4 it is noted that this section was amended by the Council in the preparation of the Draft 2016 Plan, whereby the benchmark for contributing to social infrastructure on all large schemes was changed from large schemes of 200 units to a more modest 50 units. By changing one aspect of this section, i.e. the 200 to 50 units, there is currently an inconsistency in the information being sought from applicants for schemes of 100 units versus 50 units.

There is also an inconsistency in the level at which the capacity of local schools must be assessed, with section 16.10.4 now requiring this assessment for schemes of 50 units, while section 16.16 Schools requires this assessment for schemes of over 200 units. The approach set out in section 16.16, i.e. using a threshold of 200 units, is in line with the recommendation of the Department of the Environment Community and Local Government, set out in the Guidelines for

202

Planning Authorities on Sustainable Residential development in Urban Areas (Section 4.4), and as endorsed by The Provision of Schools and the Planning System: A Code of Practice for Planning Authorities (2008), (Section 5). More recently the guidance issued by the Department in December 2015, Sustainable Urban Housing: Design Standards for New Apartments, Guidelines for Planning Authorities, draws attention to the need for planning policy to not overly burden residential development. Taking these matters into consideration it is recommended that the thresholds set out in section 16.10.4 retain those of the current 2011-2017 Development Plan, whereby schemes of 200 units or 20,000 sq.m. shall be required to make a significant contribution to an area in terms of community facilities and social infrastructure. Schemes of 100 units or 10,000 sq.m. and public transport infrastructure shall continue to provide an urban design statement addressing a number of stated issues. Also of note, other guidance set out in the Development Plan requires consideration be given to the provision of childcare facilities for schemes in excess of 75 dwelling units, and for public open space provision in new developments. Developments in mixed use zonings shall continue to be assessed on their merits having regard to the requirement to provide sustainable neighbourhoods.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is noted, and this matter is considered to be adequately addressed in the Plan through LAPs, SDRAs, zoning objectives, and more specifically Policies SN1, SN5 and Section 16.10.4.

In reviewing the above policies and guidance, it is the recommendation of the CE that the threshold for social audits and contributing to community facilities be changed from 50 units or 5,000 sq.m. to 200 units or 20,000 sq.m. as per the current Plan, for reasons set out above and to align with national Planning Guidelines.

Section 12.5.3 Neighbourhoods and Supporting Infrastructure:

Policy SN5: To ensure that applications for significant large new developments (over 50 200Units) are accompanied by a Social Audit and an Implementation and Phasing Programme in relation to community infrastructure, so that facilities identified as needed are provided in a timely and co-ordinated fashion.

Section 16.10.4 Making Sustainable Neighbourhoods:

50 200 Units or 5,000 20,000 sq.mProposals for new large development must make a contribution to an area in terms of community facilities and social infrastructure where significant shortfalls are identified. When submitting plans for large-scale residential, typically over 50 200 units depending on local circumstances, and/or mixed-use schemes (i.e. circa 5,000 20,000 sq.m and above), developers will be required to submit an audit of existing facilities within the area and to demonstrate how the proposal will contribute to the range of supporting community infrastructure.

Proposals in excess of 50 200 dwelling units must be accompanied by an assessment of the capacity of local schools to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with the above guidelines and the DES & then DEHLG’s Code of Practice on the Provision of Schools and the Planning System 2008.

Dublin City Council may also require developers to submit a Phasing & Implementation Programme for large residential schemes in excess of 50 200 units, to ensure an agreed co-ordinated approach is taken to the timely delivery of key physical and social infrastructure elements that are essential for sustainable neighbourhoods. Proposals of this scale must also be accompanied by an Urban Design Statement (as set out above).

203


MotionThat a new Policy SN5 be included on P.110 which states:

"That the existing traffic layout and management in Doyle’s Corner, Phibsborough be reviewed and ultimately upgraded in line with the joint Department of Transport, Tourism & Sport and Department of the Environment, Community Local Government ‘Design Manual for Urban Streets and Roads (DMURS), 2013".

Reason: The existing junction at Doyle’s Corner is made up of an intersection of two national primary routes, namely the N2 and the N3. Both of these primary routes have been upgraded to full motor-way status in the past ten years and this has resulted in an even further increase in the amount of vehicular traffic inter-secting a long established large urban community.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseIssues of road alignment, safety, the creation of pedestrian and cycle friendly environments, the creation of placemaking etc. are addressed in detail within Chapter 8 Movement and Transport, with policies and objectives to support the Design Manual for Urban Streets and Roads set out therein. Existing pertinent policies and objectives include MT1, MT2, MT7, MTO31, MTO37, MTO38. In addition there is a specific local objective for carrying out a review of Doyle’s Corner and implementing upgrading works thereafter (Objective MTO36).

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is noted. This matter is already addressed under MTO36, and also under MT1, MT2, MT7, MTO31, MTO36 (as amended), MTO37, MTO38.

204


Deputy Lord Mayor Cieran Perry, Cllr. Nial Ring, Green Party Group

MotionTo insert into the City Development Plan Objective TC12 of the Draft Phibsborough Local Area Plan 2015 – “As part of any [Dalymount Park] redevelopment proposals, the Department of Education and Skills will be consulted to determine if there is a need to expand the existing St. Peter’s School.

Consideration should also be given to allowing direct access from the school to enhanced sporting / recreational facilities.”

Reason: To deliver key “community gain” elements of Dublin City Council’s acquisition of Dalymount Park.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponsePolicy SN10 of the Draft Plan specifically states that it is Council policy to facilitate school extensions. In addition Objective SN03 states that it is an objective to assist and liaise with the DES in facilitating the expansion of existing schools throughout the city (amendments to SNO3 are recommended). It is not considered appropriate or necessary to single out one particular school at the City Development Plan level. The above motions will be forwarded to the Department of Education and Skills. This matter can be followed up with the Arts, Culture, Leisure & Community SPC.

It should also be noted that any expansion of St. Peter’s School into the Dalymount Site, which is proposed to be rezoned to Z9, will require a change of landuse zoning, as the proposed Z9 zoning does not allow for educational facilities.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is noted. This matter is addressed as a landuse policy issue in existing Policy SN10, and as an objective in SN03. The details in relation to St. Peter’s School are an operational matter for DCC in the development of Dalymount Park.

205


MotionPolicy SN14: To include the words "encourage and" before facilitate the provision of continuing educational and lifelong learning facilities for all.

Reason: So that DCC takes a pro active role. Encouragement can be by way of advertising through public libraries etc.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseExisting Policy SN14 in the Draft Plan is “To facilitate the provision of continuing educational and lifelong learning facilities for all.” This is a policy statement that the City Council in dealing with landuse planning matters will seek to facilitate lifelong learning / educational proposals.

To include the objective of “encouraging” lifelong learning is a matter for the Local Economic and Community Plan or the City Libraries Plan, rather than a policy statement of the City Development Plan. Indeed one of the key high level objectives of the Dublin City LECP 2016-2021 is to “Promote access to a range of education, training and developmental opportunities starting in early childhood, leading to a culture of lifelong learning and an appropriately qualified and skilled workforce.” As such this motion is already an objective of the City Council, but is outside the scope of the City Development Plan

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion noted, outside the scope of the Development Plan. Is an objective of the DCC LECP.

206

2216Councillor(s) Cllr. Brendan Carr, Cllr. Vincent Jackson, Cllr. Ray McAdam,

Deputy Lord Mayor Cieran Perry, Green Party Group

MotionTo amend the new objective SNO4 within section 12.5.4 Schools and Educational Facilities proposed by the Chief Executive by replacing the words “at the Smurfit Complex on Botanic Road” with the words “on the northern half of Smurfit Complex on Botanic Road, incorporating the Protected Structure of the former Player’s Factory”

Reason: The Chief Executive’s proposed wording is “to assist the Department of Education and Skills with regard to the provision of a new school site at the Smurfit Complex on Botanic Road or at another appropriate location in the locality”. The school site is not as concretely specified by the Chief Executive as it is by the Draft Phibsborough LAP. The final part is an invitation to any developer of the Smurfit site to try and get rid of this community infrastructure provision by pushing it off somewhere else. No appropriate alternative location for a school was identified by or discussed in the Draft Phibsborough LAP.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe CE Report on Submissions included a recommendation to include a new objective as follows:

SN03A: To assist the Department of Education and Skills with regard to the provision of a new school site at the Smurfit Complex on Botanic Road or at another appropriate location in the locality.

This was proposed following requests to incorporate key elements of the Draft Phibsborough 2015 Local Area Plan into the City Development Plan. During the preparation of the Draft LAP the Department of Education and Skills specified a request to retain an objective for a school at the Smurfit site, as previously identified during the preparation of the 2008 Phibsborough/ Mountjoy LAP as adopted.

In the intervening period an opportunity has arisen to provide a new primary school at the All Hallows site on Gracepark Road, Dublin 9 (due to open Sept. 2016). As such it is recommended that the CE recommendation which allows for options in the catchment to be explored with the Department of Education and Skills be retained. The DES supports SNO3A as recommended.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion not adopted. Retain SNO3A as recommended in the CE report.

207


MotionPage 112, To amend SNO3 to read:

SNO3: To actively assist and liaise with the DSE in the provision of required new or additional school places where possible, to facilitate any potential expansion of existing schools throughout the city.

Reason: The amendment removes the phrase “in developing areas”, due to demographics changes many other areas, not just developing areas face problems of lack of school places. This objective is designed to facilitate school places were needed, the amendment is to make sure that is everywhere that is needed, not just in developing communities.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseObjective SNO3 currently reads as:

"SNO3: To actively assist and liaise with the DES in the provision of new or additional school places in developing areas and where possible, to facilitate any potential expansion of existing schools throughout the city".

While demand for new schools is greatest in newly developing areas, it is acknowledged that changing demographics and redevelopment of brownfield sites within the city can lead to demand for new schools and for school expansions.

The motion is noted, and it is proposed to amend SNO3.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is adopted as amended, as follows:

"SNO3: To actively assist and liaise with the DES in the provision of new schools where there is a demand for such, and to facilitate any potential expansion of existing schools throughout the city".

208


Paddy McCarten

MotionTo insert a new objective SN03B within section 12.5.4 Schools and Educational Facilities as follows:

SNO3B: To assist the Department of Education and Skills with regard to the provision of a new school site at the Harold’s Cross Greyhound Stadium Site on Harold’s Cross Road or at another appropriate location in the locality.

Reason: As outlined in the Submission by the Harold’s Cross Village Community Council there is an unmet need for a second level educational facility in the Dublin 6 area. Following detailed public consultation within the village, the Harold’s Cross Village Community Council have identified a pressing need for, inter alia, additional outdoor playing facilities (multi-purpose pitch) and a secondary school. The need for a new secondary school in the D2/4/6/8 area has been accepted by the Department of Education and there is a commitment to have a new school opened by 2018.

We consider that the Harold’s Cross Greyhound stadium site would offer an excellent site for the provision of a new school and associated playing facilities which could also be made available to the local community when not in use by the school. Such an educational facility would be multidenominational and multifunctional. The fact that the site is already in public ownership should facilitate such a development.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThere are policies in the Draft Development Plan to work with DES in relation to the provision of new schools, as and where needed, throughout the city. (SN10 ,SN11, SN13, SN14 - pg 111 of Draft Plan).

The site of the Church of Ireland College of Education on the Upper Rathmines Road, Dublin 6 is zoned for institutional and community uses and is to be retained for the future educational needs of the area (Dublin 6). The Greyhound Stadium site, is currently zoned Z9 “To preserve, provide and improve recreational amenity and open space and green networks”, where the provision of a new school is neither a ‘permissible use’ nor ‘open for consideration’ under the landuse zoning objectives of the Development Plan. However the zoning proposal by the CE in the Report on Submissions (page 344), is to rezone the lands from Z9 to Z1, which allows for both residential and/or a school, should the need for further secondary schools in the Dublin 6 area become necessary.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion noted. Objective is not permissible under Z9 landuse zoning, matter addressed in existing policy set out above.

209


MotionThat the City Development Plan ensures that all new schools have a drop and go area, and that these be “retro-fitted” to older buildings in order to keep movement at peak times of the mornings and afternoons.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe Draft Plan, Section 16.16 Schools, states that in determining an application for a new school, the following will be considered:

“Compliance with current Department of Education and Skills Technical Guidance. Current details of site norms, sizes, shapes may be amended from time to time by the Department of Education and Skills to reflect on-going practice (see Technical Guidance document TGD-025 on the Identification and Suitability Assessment of Sites for Primary Schools – September 2007)”

The Department’s Technical Guidance Document covers issues of appropriate school drop -off facilities. This will be balanced with a requirement to first and foremost encourage sustainable mobility by walking and cycling. The retrofitting of existing schools is a matter for the Department of Education and Skills.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is noted. Matter is addressed within Guidance Documents referred to in section 16.16 Schools.

210



MotionTo amend the new objective SNO4 within section 12.5.4 Schools and Educational Facilities proposed by the Chief Executive by deleting from it the words “or at another appropriate location in the locality”.

Reason: The Chief Executive’s proposed wording is “to assist the Department of Education and Skills with regard to the provision of a new school site at the Smurfit Complex on Botanic Road or at another appropriate location in the locality”. The school site is not as concretely specified by the Chief Executive as it is by the Draft Phibsborough LAP. The final part is an invitation to any developer of the Smurfit site to try and get rid of this community infrastructure provision by pushing it off somewhere else. No appropriate alternative location for a school was identified by or discussed in the Draft Phibsborough LAP.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe CE Report on Submissions included a recommendation to include a new objective as follows:

SNO3A: To assist the Department of Education and Skills with regard to the provision of a new school site at the Smurfit Complex on Botanic Road or at another appropriate location in the locality.

This was proposed following requests to incorporate key elements of the Draft Phibsborough 2015 Local Area Plan into the City Development Plan. During the preparation of the Draft LAP the Department of Education and Skills specified a request to retain an objective for a school at the Smurfit site, as previously identified during the preparation of the 2008 Phibsborough/ Mountjoy LAP as adopted.

In the intervening period an opportunity has arisen to provide a new primary school at the All Hallows site on Gracepark Road, Dublin 9 (due to open Sept. 2016). As such it is recommended that the CE recommendation which allows for options in the catchment to be explored with the Department of Education and Skills be retained. The DES supports SNO3A as recommended.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion not adopted. Retain SNO3A as recommended in the CE report.

211


MotionThat a new Policy SN25 be included on P.113 which states:

"To provide a Public Information Space / Centre for Community Engagement in the refurbished Dalymount Park".

Reason: To ensure that community facilities are provided in the new Dalymount Park for the benefit of the Phisborough community.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe redevelopment proposals for Dalymount have been addressed under section 10.5.8, whereby it is the recommendation of the CE to include a new objective GIO34, to redevelop Dalymount Park soccer stadium providing enhanced sporting, recreational and community amenities, and as part of this development to celebrate the rich sporting history of this site.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion adopted as amended.

New objective proposed under Section 10.5.8:

"GIO34A: To redevelop Dalymount Park soccer stadium providing enhanced sporting, recreational and community amenities and as part of this development to celebrate the rich sporting history of this site”.

212


MotionThat the City Development plan fully commits to the provision of significant numbers of elderly units in senior citizen complexes and support schemes to allow elderly residents downsize their homes to a more manageable size where appropriate.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe Draft Plan contains a number of policies and objectives which seek to create balanced sustainable communities catering for those at all stages of their life cycle, including for example Policy SN1, QH14 and most notably QH15 and QH02 which currently read as follows:

QH15: It is the policy of Dublin City Council [t]o support the concept of independent living and assisted living for older people, to support the provision of specific purpose-built accommodation, and to promote the opportunity for older people to avail of the option of “downsizing”. To support the promotion of policies that will:

Encourage/ promote full usage of dwelling units;Incentivise property owners of underutilised dwellings to relocate to smaller age friendly dwellings;Actively promote surrendering larger accommodation/ financial contribution schemes without compulsion.

QH02: It is an objective of Dublin City Council [t]o instigate the design of a prototype block of age-friendly apartments for older people based on age-friendly design principles in conjunction with other bodies, as appropriate, in order to inform a model of good practice.

The Housing Strategy (Appendix 2) also clearly recognises the need to provide accommodation for senior citizens (including sheltered accommodation and nursing homes) and outlines the various means by which Dublin City Council will deliver social housing, including the construction of new dwellings, the provision of dwellings for social housing under Part V arrangements, the purchase and acquisition of new or second hand dwellings, leasing, RAS and the HAP scheme.

A financial contribution scheme is already in place designed to help home owners downsize to older persons accommodation provided by Dublin City Council. It forms part of the Housing Allocations Scheme adopted by the City Council in January 2014. Under this scheme the applicant offers their house for sale to Dublin City Council in the first instance, and remains in the house until a suitable vacancy becomes available. There are currently 302 applicants on the Financial Contributions Waiting list waiting on suitable vacancies to arise. This is due to the lack of supply of new build older persons accommodation in recent years. The operation of this scheme is an operational matter for the Development Plan.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is noted. The provision for housing for the elderly is supported through various Development Plan policies, most notably QH15.

213


MotionWhere a development has been granted planning permission 8 years ago, and had it renewed, that a mechanism be installed for re-assessment before any building work commences. Schemes that were granted throughout the Celtic Tiger, and became abandoned since the crash, should be re-assessed as to current viability.

Motion

Refers to: Chapter 13 - Monitoring, Implementation and Development Management

Chief Executive's ResponseThe process by which applications are granted a time extension are dealt with under the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended), and would be dealt with under the Development management process. This is not a matter for the Development Plan.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThis motion is not adopted. This is outside the scope of the Development Plan.

214


MotionTo include the following paragraph in section 16.2.2.1 of the Draft Plan 2016-22:

The planning authority will encourage the submission of development models where appropriate. In photomontages submitted with planning applications or with an environmental impact statement, proposed development should be clearly depicted and should be clearly distinguishable from existing adjacent development, the sky and the surrounding environment. In order to represent how a proposed development will appear on an average day, excessive sunshine and blue sky should be avoided. Neutral lighting conditions will be preferable.

Reason: In recent years, the submission of substantial collections of digital colour photomontages has assumed a central role in the presentation of development proposals for assessment. Many of these have lacked clarity in their depiction of the height and mass of proposed development. In view of the potential for subjectivity in this area, the suggested provision should be included in the Development Plan.

Motion

Refers to: Chapter 13 - Monitoring, Implementation and Development Management

Chief Executive's ResponseThis motion is similar to the content of the submission made by An Taisce, where it relates to photomontages, on the Draft plan.

As Section 16.2.2.1 relates to Large Scale Development, it is considered that the matters raised in this motion are more appropriately addressed under Section 13.3, as Section 13.3 encompasses large scale applications and complex planning proposals in the section on Development Management.

As outlined in the Chief Executive’s Report on the submissions received on the Draft plan, the requirement that the proposed development should be clearly depicted and clearly distinguishable from existing adjacent development, would give rise to difficulties in its application. For example, there may instances where a proposed development is not intended to be clearly distinguishable from adjoining properties, or where certain structures may not be easily discernible against certain background colours.

However, it is reasonable to insert additional text to the plan to the effect that sky and other detailing or colouring, which may distort the reliability of the photomontages, should be avoided.

With regard to the suggested wording that the planning authority “will encourage” the submission of models, it is recommended that the wording contained in Section 13.3.11 of the Draft plan, which requires models in certain instances, is retained.

Accordingly, the recommendation set out below is the same as that contained in the Chief Executive’s Report on Submissions on the Draft Plan.


Amend section 13.3.11 as follows:

From:"In the case of certain large or complex planning proposals, models of a proposedscheme to an

215

appropriate scale will be required by the planning authority. All photo-montages submitted with a planning application or environmental impact statement must include details of the type of camera and lens used to create the image".

To:"In the case of certain large or complex planning proposals, models of a proposed scheme to an appropriate scale will be required by the planning authority. All photo-montages submitted with a planning application or environmental impact statement must include details of the type of camera and lens used to create the image. The inclusion of excessive sunshine, blue sky and any other detailing or colouring which may distort the reliability of the photomontages should beavoided".


MotionTo delete from the Z1 “open for consideration” category the words “Embassy office”.

Reason: This is based on a number of submissions and on the position pursued at City Council level. It is important that the sort of sneaking office development that has occurred in residential areas not be facilitated to continue.

Motion

Refers to: Chapter 14 - Land Use Zoning

Chief Executive's ResponseEmbassy office is a building or part thereof, or land used by a foreign government for diplomatic purposes, which may include a foreign trade delegation, trade office or public embassy offices.

It is considered that embassy office use is not the same as standard office use; it is a unique use essential for a capital city and one which is predominantly required to be located in residential areas adjoining or in the vicinity of its associated embassy. Having embassy: office listed as open for consideration in Z1 areas does not guarantee that approval will be issued for such development, nor will it facilitate office use in Z1 areas. An open for consideration use is one 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 on the permitted uses, and would otherwise be consistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted for the reasons outlined above.

216


MotionTo allow up to 10% office space in Z1 zoning.

Reason: to allow more mixed use in Z1 areas.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs indicated on page 252 of the Chief Executives Report; it is part of the sustainable mixed use approach underpinning this Development Plan to allow for a variety of uses which contribute to a neighbourhood, especially those within walking/cycling range, whilst avoiding bad neighbour uses. The Z1 zoning does contain a range of generally permissible uses, including home based economic activity and it is on balance considered unnecessary to include limited office space, given the distribution of employment and related zonings across the city.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted as the issues raised are adequately dealt with in the Chief Executives Report, as outlined above.

217


MotionDublin City Council agree to delete the following wording from Section 14.8.2 (2nd paragraph), of the Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022:

"The principle land-use in residential conservation areas is housing but can include a limited range of other secondary and established uses such as those outlined above in respect of Z1 lands. In considering other uses the guiding principle is to enhance the architectural quality of the streetscape and the area."

Reason: The list of uses in the Permissible and Open for Consideration categories for Z2 Residential Conservation Areas adequately covers the range of uses suitable in these conservation areas.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs indicated in the addendum to the Chief Executives Report in relation to the issue with potential embassy office use and the second paragraph under section 14.8.2, it is considered appropriate that the paragraph be clarified/amended as the intention was to emphasise the primarily residential use of Z2 areas but that other uses can be considered as set out in the Z2 land use category and in the context of the architectural quality of the streetscape and the area.

Accordingly, it was recommended in the Addendum to the Chief Executives Report that the second paragraph of section 14.8.2 under Z2 zoning, page 121 be amended from:

“The principal land-use in residential conservation areas is housing but can include a limited range of other secondary and established uses such as those outlined above in respect of Z1 lands. In considering other uses, the guiding principle is to enhance the architectural quality of the streetscape and the area”.

To:“The principal land-use in residential conservation areas is housing but can include a limited range of other uses. In considering other uses, the guiding principle is to enhance the architectural quality of the streetscape and the area”.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is adopted as amended. Amend text as per the addendum to the Chief Executives Report, which contains the recommendation as outlined above.

218


MotionThis City Council agrees to ensure that Embassy Office use is not permitted in Z2 Residential Conservation areas by adding the following words to those proposed by the Chief Executive on page 3 of his addendum circulated to the Council “excluding embassy office use.” after the words”include a limited range of other uses” and before the words “In considering other uses”.

Reason: This is based on a number of submissions and on the position pursued at City Council level. It is important that the sort of sneaking office development that has occurred in residential areas not be facilitated to continue.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseIt is recommended in the Addendum to the Chief Executives Report that the second paragraph of section 14.8.2 under Z2 zoning, page 121 be amended from:


To:“The principal land-use in residential conservation areas is housing but can include a limited range of other uses. In considering other uses, the guiding principle is to enhance the architectural quality of the streetscape and the area”.

Embassy office use is one of a number of uses excluded from the list of "open for consideration" uses in Z2 (pg 122 of Draft Plan) and it is not necessary to duplicate text.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted as the issues raised are adequately dealt with in the addendum to the Chief Executives Report, and the Draft Plan.

219


MotionDublin City Council agree to delete the following wording from Section 14.8.2 (2nd paragraph) of the Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022:

"The principal land-use in residential conservation areas is housing but can include a limited range of other secondary and established uses such as those outlined above in respect of Z1 lands. In considering other uses the guiding principle is to enhance the architectural quality of the streetscape and the area."

Reason: The list of uses in the Permissible and Open for Consideration categories for Z2 Residential Conversation Areas adequately covers the range of uses suitable in these conservation areas.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs indicated in the addendum to the Chief Executives Report in relation to the issue with potential embassy office use and the second paragraph under section 14.8.2, it is considered appropriate that the paragraph be clarified/amended as theintention was to emphasise the primarily residential use of Z2 areas but that other uses canbe considered as set out in the Z2 land use category and in the context of the architecturalquality of the streetscape and the area.

Accordingly, it was recommended in the Addendum to the Chief Executives Report that the second paragraph of section 14.8.2 under Z2 zoning, page 121 be amended from:


To:

“The principal land-use in residential conservation areas is housing but can include a limitedrange of other uses. In considering other uses, the guiding principle is to enhance thearchitectural quality of the streetscape and the area”.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is adopted as amended; Amend text as per the addendum to the Chief Executive's Report, as outlined above.

220


MotionSection 14.8.7: To delete the line "They can unavoidably cause 'bad neighbour' problems due to the generation of disamenities such as noise, smells, heavy goods traffic, etc"

Reason: Dublin Port Company has a reputation for being a 'good neighbour' and, insofar as possible, limits any possible negative impact of Port related activities. The sentence has negative connotations and the plan should accentuate the positive aspects of Dublin port, in terms of economic benefit, local employment and ongoing and substantial community gain.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe Chief Executives Recommendation on page 256 of the Chief Executives Report is to:

1. Amend section 14.8.7 as follows:

Land-Use Zoning Objective Z7:

To provide for the protection and creation of industrial uses, and facilitate opportunities for employment creation and Port Related Activities.

The majority of these lands are located in the Port area (see chapter 4 and also section 16.22 re: the Docklands and Dublin Port). The primary uses in these areas are those that can result in a standard of amenity that would not be acceptable in other areas. They can sometimes unavoidably cause ‘bad neighbour’ problems due to the generation of disamenities such as noise, smells, heavy goods traffic, etc. Activities include industry, other than light industry; manufacturing repairs, open storage, waste material treatment, and transport operating services.

This issue has already been addressed in the Chief Executives Report.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted as the issues raised are adequately addressed in the Chief Executives Report, as outlined above.

221

2231Councillor(s) Cllr. Mary Freehill, Cllr. Dermot Lacey, Green Party Group

MotionDublin City Council do not agree the Chief Executive's Recommendation to amend the text of Sec.14.8.9 to include the word "generally" in the following sentence: "Specifically, residential development shall not be permitted on public or privately-owned open space".

Reason: Dublin City Council agreed the removal of "Residential" from the list of uses on Z9 open space lands at the Special City Council meeting in December. It is not in the interest of proper planning to reverse that decision. The Z9 zoned lands are a vital green space resource for the city and should not be compromised in any way.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs indicated on Page 261 of the Chief Executives Report; the Z9 zoning category includes private sports grounds which provide important open space, recreational amenity and green networks to improve the quality of life and environment for residents of the city. The Z9 zoning category allows for ancillary uses on site under the Permissible and Open for Consideration Uses which could benefit and help sustain existing facilities. The continuation of sports clubs and facilities to enhance sustainable city living is recognised. In highly exceptional circumstances, in order to serve the long term retention and consolidation of the sporting facility in a locality and to secure the primary sporting land use on the site, some limited once off development should be open for consideration e.g. some ancillary/small scale development.

That being said, the issue raised in this motion is acknowledged. Accordingly, it is considered that the text on page 262 could be amended to exclude residential development from Z9 zones and the open for consideration uses.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is adopted as amended

1. Amend section 14.8.9

From:"Specifically, residential development shall not generally be permitted on public or privately -owned open space. In certain specific circumstances where it has been demonstrated that there is a need for ancillary development to take place in order to consolidate or retain the sporting and amenity nature of Z9 lands or an existing facility in a local area, some limited degree of (residential/local retail) development may be permitted on a once-off basis and subject to the primary use of the site being retained for sporting or amenity uses".

To:"Residential development shall not be permitted in Z9 zones. However, in certain highly exceptional circumstances where it has been demonstrated that there is a need for ancillary development to take place in order to consolidate or retain the sporting and amenity nature of Z9 lands or an existing facility in a local area, some limited degree of small scale, non-residential development may be permitted on a once-off basis and subject to the primary use of the site being retained for sporting or amenity uses".

222

2. Amend open for Consideration uses in section 14.8.9

Remove Residential / local retail (in accordance with specific circumstances above) and replace it with neighbourhood retail (in accordance with highly exceptional circumstances above).

223

2232Councillor(s) Cllr. Mary Freehill, Cllr. Dermot Lacey, Green Party Group

MotionDublin City Council do not agree the Chief Executive's Recommendation to amend the text of Sec.14.8.9 to include the following wording: "In certain specific circumstances where it has been demonstrated that there is a need for ancillary development to take place in order to consolidate or retain the sporting and amenity nature of Z9 lands or an existing facility in a local area, some limited degree of (residential / local retail) development may be permitted on a once-off basis and subject to the primary use of the site being retained for sporting or amenity uses."

Reason: Our Green Open Spaces are a vital amenity for the city and should not be compromised in any way.

Motion








224



225

2233Councillor(s) Cllr. Mary Freehill, Cllr. Dermot Lacey

MotionDublin City Council do not agree the Chief Executive's Recommendation to amend the Open for Consideration uses to include "Residential / Local Retail (in accordance with specific circumstances above)".

Reason: Our Green Open Spaces are a vital amenity for the city and should not be compromised.

Motion










226


MotionTo delete the word “generally” and to delete the words “Residential/local retail” from the text as proposed by the Chief Executive defining the Z9 category as referenced on Page 262 of the report from the Chief Executive.

Reason: There must be an overarching protection of all Z9 zoned lands. In the past, looseness of language in defining and categorising uses for these lands was used to allow permission that was not in keeping with the intention of the elected members in this regard. In the event of a need being identified a material contravention can be sought and Councillors have proven themselves capable and winning to be flexible in such defined cases.

Motion








227



228


Motion(a) This Council agrees to retain the following in Section 14.8.9 of Chapter 14 (Amenity/Open Space Lands/Green Networks – Zone Z9) as set out in the Draft Development Plan

“Specifically, residential development shall not be permitted on public or privately owned open space apart from limited once off development on lands accommodating private sports facilities as detailed below.

In the case of sports facilities in private ownership, Dublin City Council recognises that such facilities are under pressure to relocate so as to release resources for the maintenance and development of the club or sports facility. In highly exceptional circumstances, where it is considered to be required to secure, protect and consolidate the sporting and amenity nature of the lands and retain the facility in the local area, some limited degree of residential development may be permitted, on such sites on a once off basis and subject to the primary use of the site being retained for sporting/amenity use”.

(b) To exclude “Residential/local retail (in accordance with specific circumstances above)” from the list of Open for Consideration Uses

Reason: The exclusion of all residential and retail development on lands zoned Z9, save in highly exceptional circumstances, should continue as specified in the current DCC Development Plan 2011-2017, and detailed in this motion.

There is ample scope in the current Development Plan specification of the Zoning Objective Z9 for a case to be made on a once off basis for any such development. It is imperative that the phrase ‘highly exceptional’ should be retained. It is imperative that ‘Residential/local retail (in accordance with specific circumstances above)’ should not be included in the list of Open for Consideration Uses.

It is unnecessary that any change should be made. The example quoted of a ‘spatially coherent civic plaza’ adjacent to Dalymount Park in Phibsborough could be adequately and appropriately addressed on a once off basis as outlined, without any requirement to disrupt the constraints and balance of the current Objective which have been achieved through considered and reasonable debate.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs indicated on Page 261 of the Chief Executives Report; the Z9 zoning category includes private sports grounds which provide important open space, recreational amenity and green networks to improve the quality of life and environment for residents of the city. The Z9 zoning category allows for ancillary uses on site under the Permissible and Open for Consideration Uses which could benefit and help sustain existing facilities. The continuation of sports clubs and facilities to enhance sustainable city living is recognised. In exceptional circumstances, in order to serve the long term retention and consolidation of the sporting facility in a locality and to secure the primary sporting land use on the site, some limited once off development should be open for consideration e.g. a spatially coherent civic plaza, such as that proposed linking Dalymount Park with the Shopping Centre.

It is considered that the inclusion of the revised text as per page 262 of the Chief Executives Report, is required so that in certain specific circumstances where it has been demonstrated that

229

there is a need for ancillary development to take place in order to consolidate or retain the sporting and amenity nature of Z9 lands or an existing facility in a local area, some limited degree of (ancillary/small scale) development may be permitted on a once-off basis and subject to the primary use of the site being retained for sporting or amenity uses.

The revisions suggested in the above motion are noted and it is considered that the recommended text in the Chief Executives Report, as follows: “Specifically, residential development shall not generally be permitted on public or privately-owned open space. In certain specific circumstances where it has been demonstrated that there is a need for ancillary development to take place in order to consolidate or retain the sporting and amenity nature of Z9 lands or an existing facility in a local area, some limited degree of (residential/local retail) development may be permitted on a once-off basis and subject to the primary use of the site being retained for sporting or amenity uses.”, should be amended to specifically exclude residential development from Z9 zones, to include the phrase “highly exceptional”, as per Councillors Lacey’s request and to remove residential from the open for consideration uses.


1. Amend section 14.8.9:





230


MotionThat the Chief Executive’s proposal to allow for residential development on Z9 zoned lands be rejected.

Motion








2. Amend open for Consideration uses in section 14.8.9:


231


MotionThat the proposal that areas designated Zone 9 (open space, sports fields, play areas, and park) be opened up to residential and retail development be rejected.

Reason: Sport amenities, open park areas and playing fields (Zone 9) are at a premium in the city and should be protected, guarded and enhanced as community amenities for present and future generation of city dwellers, particularly children.

In addition, intense development is already permitted on Z15 sites and to allow the proposal for Zone 9 above would obviously result in the over development of these sites, many of which are centrally located.

Motion








232



233


MotionSection14.8.9 Zone 9:

Retain the original section 14.8.9 - Specifically, residential development shall not be permitted on public or privately owned open space.

Reason: Sport amenities, open park areas and playing fields (Zone 9) are at a premium in the city and should be fiercely guarded as community amenities for the present and future generation of city dwellers, particularly children.

Intense development is already permitted on Z15 sites and to increase the plot ratio would only allow for over development these sites many of which exist in the main city area.

Motion








234



235


MotionPage 125, 14.8.9 Amenity / Open Space Lands / Green Networks – Zone 9

‘To reject the Chief Executive’s proposal to include ‘Residential / Local retail in open for consideration in Z9 zoning, to remove any reference to this from the City Development Plan and to retain the existing wording of Z9 zoning’

Reason: There is sufficient land zoned to reach housing objective as per p7 of the Draft City Development Plan. Any inclusion of the terms residential or retail leaves this important zoning open to abuse. Z9 zoning should remain as is.

Motion







To: "Residential development shall not be permitted in Z9 zones. However, in certain highly exceptional circumstances where it has been demonstrated that there is a need for ancillary development to take place in order to consolidate or retain the sporting and amenity nature of Z9 lands or an existing facility in a local area, some limited degree of small scale, non-residential development may be permitted on a once-off basis and subject to the primary use of the site being retained for sporting or amenity uses".

236




Motion14.8.12 Institutional Land (Z12)

P268 - ‘To reject the proposal to reduce 20% social housing to 10% social housing requirement’

Reason: As we are in a housing crisis, any reduction in the provision of social housing in new developments should be rejected.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe maximum allowable percentage for social housing under Section 94 (4) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended) has been reduced to 10% by Article 33 of Part 5 of the Housing and Urban Regeneration Act 2015. Thus the maximum percentage for social housing that can be reserved in any development for residential and other uses is 10%.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted as it is outside the scope of the Development Plan and ultra vires.

237


MotionDublin City Council do not agree the Chief Executive's Recommendation to amend the text on Page 128, Section 14.8.14 relating to uses on Z15 lands, to include the wording "and to the delivery of housing in the city". Dublin City Council supports the wording as published in the Draft Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022:

"With any development proposal on these lands, consideration should be given to their potential to contribute to the development of a strategic green network (see also Chapter 10). In addition, development at the perimeter of the site adjacent to existing residential development shall have regard to the prevailing height of existing residential development and to standards n section 16.7 in relation to aspect, natural lighting, sunlight, layout and private open space, and in Section 14.7 in relation to the avoidance of abrupt transitions of scale between zonings."

Reason: Prioritising the delivery of housing in this manner would place undue emphasis on the residential use of these lands and would undermine the Land Use Zoning Objective Z15 as it relates to Permissible Uses and Open for Consideration Uses.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs indicated on page 266 of the Chief Executives Report, the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government requested that consideration be given to rezoning institutional lands for residential purposes to address the housing supply issue in the city. Accordingly, the text "and to the delivery of housing in the city" was included in response to this request from the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government.


238


Motion14.8.14 To protect and provide for Institutional & Community Uses - Z15:

Following the disappointing judicial review result, which forced the inclusion of the word ‘residential’ as open for consideration, the following should be added –“Residential - where it will not reduce the existing green or sporting space on the said site".

Reason: To ensure sufficient Green space or amenity space.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe draft plan text has already addressed the substantive issue raised in the motion. Paragraph 4, page 128 of the Draft Plan states that any development on Z15 lands will be required to demonstrate how it secures the retention of existing functional open space e.g. school playing fields. Paragraph 7 on the same page states that any Masterplan for Z15 lands shall set out a clear vision for the lands zoned Z15, to provide for the identification of 25% of the lands for open space and/or community facilities (instead of the 10-20% public open space provided for in Chapter 14).

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted as the matter is already addressed in the Draft Plan.

239

2243Councillor(s) Cllr. Michael O'Brien

MotionPage 284, I wish to support the submissions seeking to rezone the site in question beside St Anne's Park from Z15 to Z9 because any significant residential development on this site would impact on St Anne's Park as a visual amenity.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs is stated on page 284 of the Chief Executive’s Report, it is recommended that the Z15 zoning be retained, consistent with the existing adopted Development Plan and agreed draft Plan. Under this zoning, where there is an existing institutional and/or community use, any proposed development for “open for consideration” uses on part of the landholding, shall be required to demonstrate to the Planning Authority how the proposal is in accordance with and assists in securing the aims of the zoning objective, how it secures the retention of the main institutional and community uses on the lands, including space for necessary expansion, and how it secures the retention of existing functional open space (e.g. school playing fields) in a manner in which the nature and scale of the proposal integrates with the surrounding lands.

In this regard, it is evident from the previous submission on behalf of the site owner, that a masterplan approach to the future development of this site has been undertaken which ensures the existing community and institutional uses are protected, that at least 25% of the site is provided as public open space or community facilities (a sports hall and playing pitches) and any necessary future expansion by existing community uses on site is accounted for. It should be noted that there is a live application for development on this site (Reg Ref 4185/15).

This site is not part of St Anne’s Park presently and to change the zoning to Z9 would not reflect the current institutional and community uses, which the current zoning seeks to provide for. Residential uses are “open for consideration” under the Z15 zoning and development management is the appropriate process under which to assess the merits of a residential proposal in accordance with Z15 zoning principles applying to this site.

It is further noted that the subject site was zoned Z15 in the draft Plan agreed by Council.


240

2244Councillor(s) Cllr. Ruairí McGinley

MotionThat the zoning of site 233, Tyrconnell Road be rezoned to Z3 from Z6

Reason:Current site is derelict and has ongoing illegal dumping

Site is incapable of being developed for Z6 due to its size , configuration , slope and access

Site is split by river Camac which negates Z6 zoning

Adjacent sites are residential / residential related

Z6 zoning is incompatible with the neighbourhood residential zoning

Site is suitable for a high quality neighbourhood centre type development

The site is a flood free site as evidenced in OPW Flood diagrams, and actual experience over the past 50 years in particular. The chief executives response is mistaken in this regard

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs is stated on page 292 of the Chief Executive’s Report, the vacant site adjoins the River Camac which is liable to flooding. Under the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA), Volume 7 of the agreed Draft Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022, the site is located within a flood risk area (Site 18 Middle Camac identifies the site partly within flood risk Zone A and B). The SRDA states that this area does not benefit from formal flood defences and the area remains at risk to flooding pending further studies. Any new development should avoid flood risk Zones A and B unless defended and lands that are currently open spaces should be retained as such

The re-development of this site should therefore be considered within the wider context of lands adjoining within the same flood risk zones, including the Z6 lands to the north, detailed flood risk assessment and appropriate defence measures.

A Z3 zoning is primarily for local neighbourhood shops/services and the subject site is not considered appropriate for such uses.It is further noted that the Z6 zoning of the site was agreed in the draft Plan by Council.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion not adopted for the reasons set out above, being related to flood risk.

241


MotionZoning Map H Ref No 8 Anglesea Rd, Ballsbridge:

Dublin City Council agree with the Chief Executive's Recommendation that the lands in question should retain the Z9 zoning designation.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThis motion supports the recommendation of the Chief Executive’s report.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is noted.


MotionThe City Council upholds the recommendation of the Chief Executive to zone the area known locally as Scully’s Field as Z9 and inserts in the City Development Plan a specific objective to develop this area as the Linear Park long sought by the Council.

Reason: While the retained Z9 zoning is welcome this issue has been a long standing policy of the Council. The acquisition of the lands should be more expressly stated in the Plan.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe support for the existing proposed zoning is noted.

In relation to the issue of a linear park, Section 2.2.8.1 of the draft Plan expressly states that schematic masterplans will be prepared for the linear park proposed along the Dodder. It should be noted that the greenway strategy to implement this is already underway. Objective GIO16 of the Draft Plan is to protect and improve access along the Dodder, having regard to environmental sensitivities.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is noted; content of motion included in Draft Plan.

242


MotionThis Council supports the Chief Executive's Recommendation in relation to Map H Reference Number 14.

Reason: To emphasise support for the reasons stated in the Chief Executive's Report page 338.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe support for the recommendation in the Chief Executives Report is noted.



MotionThis Council supports the Chief Executive's Recommendation in relation to Map H Reference Number 15

Reason: To emphasise support for the reasons stated in the Chief Executive Report page 339.

Motion




243


MotionThis Council supports the Chief Executive's Recommendation in relation to Map H Reference Number 16

Reason: To emphasise support for the reasons stated in the Chief Executive Report page 340.

Motion




244


MotionRe. Zoning Map H Reference Number 10

Dublin City Council agrees to the re-zoning from Z1 to Z2, of lands stretching from, and including, Prince of Wales Terrace, along Sandymount Avenue as far as No. 15 Sandymount Avenue to the South and No. 28 Sandymount Avenue to the North and to include Churchill Terrace.

Reason: Due primarily to the Victorian and Edwardian architectural merit and the historic significance - birth place of WB Yeats (No.3 Sandymount Ave), the home of T.C. Murray (No.9 Sandymount Ave). The Chief Executive's comments were based on an area identified on Map H Ref. No.10 but this area does not tally with the wording and is not the area being proposed.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseNotwithstanding that the motion considers that the area addressed in the Chief Executive’s Report is not the area being proposed, due to the boundary indicated on the map (although Map F7 includes a wider area), it is confirmed that the wider areas identified in the submissions on the draft Plan were considered in the assessment of the submissions.

Prince of Wales Terrace, including No. 10, are all already on the Record of Protected Structures, and as such are afforded a high level of protection.

As is stated on page 335 of the Chief Executive’s Report, a key element of the conservation strategy for the City Council is a focus on Architectural Conservation Areas rather than land use zonings for areas that are considered of conservation importance.

The existing conservation policy framework comprising the Record of Protected Structures, Architectural Conservation Areas and Zoning is considered to be sufficiently robust at present. However in order to ensure the framework is comprehensively updated in accordance with the legislation and recent recommendations from the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage and so that all areas and structures of special historic and architectural interest have the appropriate legal protection measures applied, this draft plan conservation strategy sets out Priority Areas (1-10) of special historic and architectural interest which represent the first phase of the review of the conservation policy framework. The area cited in the submission is not one of the priority areas identified for Phase 1.

Sandymount has a recently designated Architectural Conservation Area, the conservation policy framework for the area is considered to be robust, however it will be reviewed in accordance with subsequent phasing and the issue of the conservation zoning objective will form part of this review.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted for the reason set out above, relating to the approach to conservation agreed in the draft Plan.

245

2251Councillor(s) Cllr. Brendan Carr, Deputy Lord Mayor Cieran Perry

MotionThat the rezoning of lands to the north of Cross Guns Bridge proposed by the Chief Executive is not enacted and that the rezoning of lands at this location contained in Variation No. 35 of the Dublin City Development Plan 2005-2011 be reversed until such time as a proposal with a definite and short timescale is brought forward by the relevant transport authorities to bring a train station into operation at this location.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseIt is noted that no planning rationale has been put forward as to why a mix of Z4 District Centre and Z3 Neighbourhood centre is more appropriate than the Z3 Neighbourhood Centre and Z1 residential proposed, as agreed by Council in the draft Plan. It is not recommended that land use zoning be used as a negotiating mechanism.

As stated on page 317 of the Chief Executive’s Report, rather than revert to the 2005 zoning, which included a Z4 district centre zoning, it is considered that the site is better zoned as an overall neighbourhood centre (Z3), with residential zoning (Z1) to the rear as proposed in the draft. It should be noted that Phibsborough Village is the designated district centre in the area.


246


MotionSection 14.8.2 refers:

That Grangegormaan Lower (Map Ref E - 33 - submission no. 2894 - p315) be rezoned from Z1 to Z2 as per the submission.

Reason: The historic and architectural value of the dwellings on this road merit special care in dealing with development proposals which can only be achieved a rezoning from Z1 to Z2.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe subject are is zoned Z1 in the agreed draft Plan. It is considered that this residential area does not demonstrate an architectural quality of such merit that it requires special care in dealing with development proposals as set out in the rationale for residential conservation areas in section 14.8.2 of the Development Plan.

A key element of the conservation strategy for the City Council is a focus on Architectural Conservation Areas rather than land use zonings for areas that are considered of conservation importance.

The existing conservation policy framework comprised of the Record of Protected Structures and Conservation Areas and Zoning is considered to be sufficiently robust at present. However in order to ensure the framework is comprehensively updated in accordance with the legislation and recent recommendations from the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage and so that all areas and structures of special historic and architectural interest have the appropriate legal protection measures applied, this draft plan conservation strategy sets out Priority Areas (1-10) of special historic and architectural interest which represent the first phase of the review of the conservation policy framework. The area cited in the submission is not one of the priority areas identified for Phase 1.


247

2253Councillor(s) Cllr. Vincent Jackson


Motion





248


MotionMcKee Ave Finglas:

That this Council supports the CE recommendation to retain Z6 zoning and further calls on the CE not only to consider the piecemeal development of the Z6 lands but to carry out an impact assessment on both employment and the economic factors including loss of rates versus gain in property tax before asking Councillors to make a decision on Z6 rezoning.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe support for the retention of Z6 zoning On McKee Avenue is noted. In relation to the request for an impact assessment on both employment and the economic factors including loss of rates versus gain in property tax before asking Councillors to make a decision on Z6 zoning it is noted that the draft Plan includes objective CEEO4 To carry out a targeted survey of those industrial estates with likely redevelopment potential, and to make recommendations on how that redevelopment potential might be best achieved.

It is considered that this will address the future use of industrial estates in the City Council area.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is noted as survey is provided for in Draft Plan.


MotionThat the Inchicore Sports and Social Club building located on map D be zoned from Z9 to Z6.

The already existing building should be zoned appropriately as it already facilitates employment and a Z9 zoning for an already existing building makes little sense.

Reason: to provide local employment.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe subject site was zoned Z9 in the draft Plan agreed by Councillors and was not subject to a submission for rezoning during the draft process. No indication of the form of employment referred to in the motion has been provided and presumably relates to employment in the running of the sports and social club i.e. ancillary to, and supporting, the Z9 function of the overall site.

It is not considered appropriate to consider a rezoning from the existing Z9 to Z6.


249


MotionThat the proposed zoning on map G, reference 4 on the site of the Assumption Girls school remain Z12.

Reason: it is isolated from other Z1 areas and would be piecemeal land zoning. Z12 zoning is appropriate in this case and the already existing planning permission should go ahead.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseHaving regard to the planning history on site, it is not considered that a change in zoning from Z12 to Z1 can be considered piecemeal. The subject site has the benefit of a grant of permission for residential development and it is considered appropriate to provide for a change of zoning in keeping with the permission. As this part of the site is not required for community/institutional facilities, by virtue of the planning permission granted and development management process which determined residential use as suitable in this location, a Z1 zone is appropriate to protect, provide and improve residential amenities

Having regard to the need for housing and to the submission from the Department of the Environment on the identification of suitable lands in the city, it is considered appropriate to zone the site Z1.

It is further noted that there is significant open space provision in the immediate area.


250


MotionThat the proposed land zoning on map G, reference 5 Kimmage Road West, remain zoned Z9.

Reason: to protect residential amenity. Provide for recreation locally. To oppose unsustainable development near the River Poddle, which can exacerbate environmental concerns and flooding on that river.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseHaving regard to the need for housing in the city and the guidance from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, it is considered that part of the overall subject site is suitable for housing. The existing entrance to the site is within Flood Zone A/B but the area to the rear identified as being suitable for housing is not in Flood Zone A or B.

Having regard to the current urgent need for housing, it is considered appropriate to identify sites suitable for housing in principle and to rezone accordingly. The subject site is considered to be potentially suitable for housing and therefore a rezoning is considered appropriate.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted for the reason set out above, being related to the need for housing in the city and the potential suitability of the subject site for same.

251


MotionThat the proposed land zoning on map E, reference 25 - Davitt Road, Goldenbridge remain zoned Z6.

Reason: To provide for local employment and local housing as housing is allowed under a Z6 zoning.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs is stated on page 310 of the Chief Executive’s Report, the site is separated from a further area of Z6 lands to the east by the junction of Davit Road and Benbulben Road and is not integrated into a larger Z6 land bank and therefore a re-zoning would not be considered piecemeal in this regard. The site has many attributes for a residential development including a long frontage towards the

Grand Canal which would provide a favourable outlook and amenity for residents.

Access to the Goldenbridge LUAS stop is a strategic benefit to optimise a more sustainable use of the site and remove a derelict site in such a prominent and strategic location. Section 16.4 “Density” and Section 16.7.2 “Height Limits and Areas of Low Rise, Mid Rise and Taller Development” of the Draft Plan will ensure an appropriate density is achieved where a development site is within close proximity (500m) of existing and proposed LUAS line.

A Z1 zone would be compatible with and integrate successfully with Z1 zoning directly adjoining and south of the site.

It should be noted that although a Z6 zoning provides for residential use to be open for consideration, this is required to be subsidiary to employment generating uses.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted for the reason set out above, being related to the need for housing in the city and the potential suitability of the subject site for same.

252

2259Councillor(s) Cllr. Paul McAuliffe

MotionTo change the zoning of the site marked in red on Map A at Jamestown Road from Z1 to Z15.

Reason to compliment the usage of adjacent sites, to restore the site to a community use as it had been in previous development plans when it was a public park. To meet growing demand for uses permitted by Z15.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe subject site was proposed as Z1 zoning in the agreed draft Plan. This relates to a site specific rezoning which was not raised during the draft process.

The reason provided in the motion is to ‘to compliment the usage of adjacent sites, to restore the site to a community use as it had been in previous development plans when it was a public park. To meet growing demand for uses permitted by Z15

However, it is noted that Poppintree Park is located in close proximity to the subject site.

It is further noted that the Z1 zoning provides for community use as a permissible use, and for all uses in the Z15 category to be considered save for residential institution, conference centre, funeral home, guest house and municipal golf course.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted as the Z1 zoning is considered to be the appropriate zoning for the site.

253


MotionThat the site proposed as green space in the Liberties Greening Strategy and bounded by Bridgefoot Street, Island Street and Bonham Street be rezoned from Z5 to Z9 and furthermore, that the development of a park/recreational area on the site in question be identified as a policy under the Liberties Area Plan.

Reason: To ensure the mixed, sustainable planning & development of the surrounding area which is housing dense. Dublin City Council recognises in its “Liberties Greening Strategy” that there is a chronic shortage of open space for sports & recreation in the South Inner City equating to only 16% of the recommended minimum provision.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe subject site has been zoned Z5 in the previous two Development Plans and also under the Liberties LAP, which is the statutory context for the development of the area. The Z5 zoning is a flexible city centre zoning which would facilitate the delivery of the Local Area Plan.

As is stated on page 311 of the Chief Executive’s Report, although a draft ‘Greening Strategy’ has been produced as a discussion document by the Parks Department, this is not the statutory context for the development of the area. Rather, the current Local Area Plan is the context to deliver development in the area.

The LAP, which was approved by the City Council and extended to 2019 provides for a combination of open space and housing on this important site.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is not adopted for the reasons set out above.

254

2261Councillor(s) Cllr. Catherine Ardagh, Cllr. Pat Dunne, People Before Profit Group

MotionTo retain the Z9 zoning of the site adjacent to St Catherine's Centre Marrowbone Lane.

Reason: To ensure that the development of this site is done in an integrated manner and contributes to the overall sustainability of the wider area including the expansion and enhancement of existing facilities for use by local sporting clubs and the community, acknowledging Dublin City Council's concern as expressed in the 'Liberties Greening Strategy' that there is a chronic shortage of open space for sports and recreation in the South Inner City, equating to only 16% of the recommended minimum provision and having regard to Dublin City Council's Dublin City Sports and Active Recreational Strategy 2009 - 2016.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs is stated on pages 306 and 307 of the Chief Executive’s Report, the Liberties Local Area Plan is the approved local framework guiding the development of the Liberties area, including Marrowbone Lane.

The LAP states that the development of the City Council’s land holding in the Liberties Area is a key element of the LAP. Section 1.3.2, the purpose of the LAP, states:

The depot sites in addition to the housing estates make up a considerable portion of the study area and the proposals for these sites aim to deliver a number of objectives including:

• promoting investment, economic development, employment growth and market services such as shopping• improving the urban design quality of the area• building homes to better space and construction standards with energy efficient systems• developing a modern depot facility• improving the legibility and permeability of the area• creating a network of high quality public spaces• improving cultural, leisure and sport facilities• supporting economic regeneration• providing childcare facilities

The LAP identifies the subject area, the Depot Lands, as being a significant redevelopment site (section 7.4 of the LAP).

It is therefore considered that the zoning proposed in the Chief Executive’s report is the appropriate zoning for the site.


255


MotionTo rezone the site of the DIT school of music in Rathmines to Z15.

Reason: To ensure the sustainable development of the surrounding area and to contribute to quality urban neighbourhood living it is necessary to enhance the potential for provision of educational amenities, particularly in an area where current educational facilities at primary and secondary level are oversubscribed. Furthermore, plans by the Department of Education to establish a new second level school in the area are advanced and the existing educational use building could potentially serve as a site for the new school.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe existing Z4 zoning for the site, being a district centre zoning in the centre of Rathmines, a key district centre in the draft Plan, is considered to be the appropriate zoning.

As is stated on page 345 of the Chief Executive’s Report, The Z4 zone in the centre of Rathmines encompasses a range of existing uses that provide a community, cultural and recreational role, including the library and sports centre.

It was emphasised that supporting the role of schools in the centre of Rathmines is important. However, the site is in third party ownership and while the submission relates to what may be possible should the site become vacant, there is no guarantee that the DIT site will ever be selected as a site for educational use.

Under the Z4 zoning objective, community, education and cultural uses are permissible and the Z4 zone therefore does not preclude the opportunity for the DIT building or site to provide for these uses into the future, should they become available to the schools and an extension sought. It is not unusual within the higher density, mixed use zones of the city that schools are included within mixed use zones as opposed to Z15 zoning.

Development management is the appropriate process to determine the future appropriate redevelopment of this site, including determining suitable uses and design that protects the amenities of schools adjoining. A proposal by the school or DES to extend educational uses into the site or improve boundaries with the school can still be considered under the Z4 zoning.

The Department of Education and Skills has indicated that the Church of Ireland site on Rathmines Road Upper should be retained for future Z15 uses.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted as the Z4 zoning is the appropriate zoning for the location.

256



Motion






MotionThat the zoning status of Reference No.29 on MAP E, Church Street, OPW site, be rezoned in part to Z9.

Reason: In order to better provide for recreational facilities, open spaces and green networks in the Church Street district of Dublin 7.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs is stated on page 312 of the Chief Executive’s Report, the subject site is located adjacent to strategic public transport services (Luas) and is located within the city centre zone under the Core Strategy, for which the Z5 zoning is appropriate to maximise the efficient use of zoned serviced land, consolidate the city and provide mixed services, residential and employment uses in the city core, thus limiting encroachment into greenfield areas in the city’s hinterland.


257


MotionThat the zoning status of Reference No.33 on MAP E, Grangegorman Rd Lower, be rezoned to Z2.

Reason: In order to better protect and preserve the historic and architectural value of the dwellings in the area and their proximity to the historic area that is Grangegorman.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseIt is considered that this residential area does not demonstrate an architectural quality of such merit that it requires special care in dealing with development proposals as set out in the rationale for residential conservation areas in section 14.8.2 of the Development Plan.

A key element of the conservation strategy for the City Council is a focus on Architectural Conservation Areas rather than land use zonings for areas that are considered of conservation importance.



258


MotionThat the zoning status of Reference No.34 on MAP E, Prussia Street, be rezoned from a mixture of Z6 and Z1 to only Z4.

Reason: The existing zoning is conflicted as there exist two zoning schemes in place and the provision of a simplified single zoning standard would be the clarification required with regards to the possible development of the site in question.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe motion calls for the same change in zoning as that recommended on page 316 & 317 of the Chief Executive’s Report.


259


MotionThat the zoning status of Reference No.6 on MAP E, Richmond Cottages, be rezoned to Z2.

Reason: In order to better protect and preserve the historic and architectural value of the dwellings in the area.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs is stated in the Chief Executive’s report, a key element of the conservation strategy for the City Council is a focus on Architectural Conservation Areas rather than land use zonings for areas that are considered of conservation importance.


Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted for the reason set out above..


MotionThat the existing zoning status of Z1 be retained on Reference No.8 on MAP E.

Reason: The change of zoning status to Z4 would not allow for the continued protection of amenity in the area.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe motion calls for the same outcome as that recommended on page 321 of the Chief Executive’s Report

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is adopted

260


MotionThat the zoning status of Reference No.7 on MAP E, Ballybough Road- Annesley Motors, be rezoned to Z3.

Reason: In order to enable the regeneration of such a significant site along Ballybough Road which is needed.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe motion calls for the same outcome as that recommended on page 320 of the Chief Executive’s Report.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is adopted


MotionThat the zoning status of Reference No.4 on MAP E, Cross Guns Bridge- Phibsborough, be amended to a mixture of Z3, Z4, and Z9.

Reason: The proposed mix of zoning will provide for an improvement of neighbourhood facilities, mixed services facilities and to allow for improved transport links.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs stated on page 317 of the Chief Executive’s Report, rather than revert to the 2005 zoning, which included a Z4 district centre zoning, it is considered that the site is better zoned as an overall neighbourhood centre (Z3), with residential zoning (Z1) to the rear as proposed in the draft. It should be noted that said zoning would allow for the provision of neighbourhood facilities and mixed services facilities and allow for improved transport links as indicated in the reason for the motion. It should be further noted that Phibsborough Village is the designated district centre in the area.


261

2271Councillor(s) An tÁrdmheara Críona Ní Dhálaigh

MotionThat the CE recommendation re the lands at Marrowbone Lane (Ref no 23) be rejected and that the lands remain zoned Z9.

Reason: To ensure that the development of this site is done in an integrated manner and contributes to the overall sustainability of the wider area including the expansion and enhancement of existing facilities for use by local sporting clubs and the community, acknowledging Dublin City Council's concern as expressed in the 'Liberties Greening Strategy' that there is a chronic shortage of open space for sports and recreation in the South Inner City, equating to only 16% of the recommended minimum provision and having regard to Dublin City Council's Dublin City Sports and Active Recreational Strategy 2009 - 2016.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs is stated on pages 306 and 307 of the Chief Executive’s Report, the Liberties Local Area Plan is the approved local framework guiding the development of the Liberties area, including Marrowbone Lane.

The LAP states that the development of the City Council’s land holding in the Liberties Area is a key element of the LAP. Section 1.3.2, the purpose of the LAP, states:

The depot sites in addition to the housing estates make up a considerable portion of the study area and the proposals for these sites aim to deliver a number of objectives including:

• promoting investment, economic development, employment growth and market services such as shopping• improving the urban design quality of the area• building homes to better space and construction standards with energy efficient systems• developing a modern depot facility• improving the legibility and permeability of the area• creating a network of high quality public spaces• improving cultural, leisure and sport facilities• supporting economic regeneration• providing childcare facilities

The LAP identifies the subject area, the Depot Lands, as being a significant redevelopment site (section 7.4 of the LAP).


262


MotionBased on the rezoning submission on Map A, reference 4 (McKee Avenue, Finglas): "To review the zoning for the Z6 lands on McKee Avenue to allow for more mixed use development of the entire site with good permeability and connectivity between Jamestown Road and McKee Avenue”

Reason: a lot of the land on the site has been idle for many years, and a more sustainable mixed use development would be appropriate for the area. It is better to review the entire site, rather than rezoning the site piecemeal.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe draft Plan includes objective CEEO4 To carry out a targeted survey of those industrial estates with likely redevelopment potential, and to make recommendations on how that redevelopment potential might be best achieved.

Page 272 of the Chief Executive’s report indicates that the long term vacancy of the site is noted and promotion of a sustainable redevelopment of the site for more intensive uses is in accordance with the Core Strategy of the Draft Plan.

Strengthening the city’s economy, facilitating commercial development and job creation for the city’s population is integral to the Core Strategy (Section 2.2.4 of the Draft Plan which refers to implementing the Local Economic and Community Plan 2016 - 2021) and the growth of economic and employment clusters is promoted through the policies and objectives of Section 6 “City Economy and Enterprise” of the Draft Plan. Further, it is a policy of the Council to engage in the “active land management” of vacant sites with economic use potential (Policy CEE16 refers).

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted as a comprehensive review is provided for in Objective CEEO4.

263


MotionPage 125, Motion Re. Zoning Map H Reference Number 10

Dublin City Council agrees to the re-zoning from Z1 to Z2, of lands stretching from, and including, Prince of Wales Terrace, along Sandymount Avenue as far as No. 15 Sandymount Avenue to the South and No. 28 Sandymount Avenue to the North and to include Churchill Terrace.

Reason: Due primarily to the Victorian and Edwardian architectural merit and the historic significance - birth place of WB Yeates (No.3 Sandymount Ave), the home of T.C. Murray (No.9 Sandymount Ave). The Chief Executive's comments were based on an area identified on Map H Ref. No.10 but this area does not tally with the wording and is not the area being proposed and about which detailed information was submitted.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseNotwithstanding that the motion considers that the area addressed in the Chief Executive’s Report is not the area being proposed, due to the boundary indicated on the map (although Map F7 includes a wider area), it is confirmed that the wider areas identified in the submissions on the draft Plan were considered in the assessment of the submissions.

Prince of Wales Terrace, including No. 10, are all already on the Record of Protected Structures, and as such are afforded a high level of protection.

As is stated on page 335 of the Chief Executive’s Report, a key element of the conservation strategy for the City Council is a focus on Architectural Conservation Areas rather than land use zonings for areas that are considered of conservation importance.

The existing conservation policy framework comprising the Record of Protected Structures, Architectural Conservation Areas and Zoning is considered to be sufficiently robust at present. However in order to ensure the framework is comprehensively updated in accordance with the legislation and recent recommendations from the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage and so that all areas and structures of special historic and architectural interest have the appropriate legal protection measures applied, this draft plan conservation strategy sets out Priority Areas (1-10) of special historic and architectural interest which represent the first phase of the review of the conservation policy framework. The area cited in the submission is not one of the priority areas identified for Phase 1.

Sandymount has a recently designated Architectural Conservation Area, the conservation policy framework for the area is considered to be robust, however it will be reviewed in accordance with subsequent phasing and the issue of the conservation zoning objective will form part of this review.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted for the reason set out above, relating to the approach to conservation agreed in the draft Plan.

264


MotionMap E

‘To retain the Z9 zoning of space at the junction of South Great Georges Street and Dame Lane as proposed in the Draft City Development Plan’

Reason: This space should be used as a green space in the City and this zoning will help facilitate that. Furthermore funding has been secured in the South East Area to explore the development of this space into a green space.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe subject site is already proposed to be Z9.



MotionMap H

To Rezone Cathal Brugha Barracks from Z15 to Z1.

Reason: Based on several submissions pointing out the need for increased housing rezoning the Barracks site to provide for housing on this 30 acre site.

Motion




265


MotionZonings, on Map E

“That the 30 metre westernmost section of the large vacant site on the west side of Church Street, Dublin 7 know as the Maguire and Paterson site be zoned Z9 (preserve, provide and improve recreational amenity and open space and green networks.)”

Reason: to provide additional green infrastructure in the city.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs is stated on page 312 of the Chief Executive’s Report, the subject site is located adjacent to strategic public transport services (Luas) and is located within the city centre zone under the Core Strategy, for which the Z5 zoning is appropriate to maximise the efficient use of zoned serviced land, consolidate the city and provide mixed services, residential and employment uses in the city core, thus limiting encroachment into greenfield areas in the city’s hinterland.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted for the reason set out above

266

2277Councillor(s) Cllr. Greg Kelly

MotionMap D, Ref 4 - Ballyfermot Road, D.10

Rezoning from Z1 to Z6

I want to support the request to re-zone this site on the bases that this was a Petrol Station that was put in for PP to put housing that was denied by An Bord Pleanala and has now been set up again for business and has 2 business running on this site.

Reason: Re-zoning will guarantee the jobs for the site and keeping Z6 will not guarantee housing will ever be built on the site.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseHaving regard to the current need for housing in the city and to the submission from Central Government in relation to same, and having regard to the local context of primarily residential use in the immediate area, it is considered that the subject site is capable of delivering housing. A previous permission for residential development was granted on the site (but overturned by An Bord Pleanala). It is considered that the residential zoning of the site is appropriate.

It should be noted that no permission can be found for the business uses present on the site and there is an enforcement file open in relation to the subject site (Ref E0641/15), although there is a live application for the retention of two structures on the site for the sale of fuel and cars (Reg Ref 2444/16).

It is considered that the existing zoning is the appropriate zoning for the site.


267


MotionMap D, Ref 5 - 233 Tyrconnell Road, D.8


I want to support the request to re-zone this site. This site has access from the canal which is the same access as houses and nursing home on the Canal. I do not agree with the issue of flooding of the site as it has not been deemed to benefit from flood defenses. This site has not flooded according to local residents.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs is stated on page 292 of the Chief Executive’s Report, The vacant site adjoins the River Camac which is liable to flooding. Under the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA), Volume 7 of the agreed Draft Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022, the site is located within a flood risk area (Site 18 Middle Camac identifies the site partly within flood risk Zone A and B). The SRDA states that this area does not benefit from formal flood defences and the area remains at risk to flooding pending further studies. Any new development should avoid flood risk Zones A and B unless defended and lands that are currently open spaces should be retained as such

The re-development of this site should therefore be considered within the wider context of lands adjoining within the same flood risk zones, including the Z6 lands to the north, detailed flood risk assessment and appropriate defence measures.

It is further noted that the Z6 zoning of the site was agreed in the draft Plan by Council.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion not adopted for the reasons set out above, being related to flood risk.

268


MotionMap D, Ref 6 - HSE Site at Davitt Road

I believe the zoning of this site is in appropriate due to an Ambulance Hub has been giving permission for this site and it goes against the Z10 zoning.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe Z10 zoning is appropriate for such lands and provides for ‘buildings for the health, safety or welfare of the public’ as permissible uses and therefore the permitted development is in accordance with he Z10 zoning for the site.

It is further noted that the Z10 zoning of the subject site was agreed by Council in the preparation of the draft Plan and it is not considered appropriate to consider rezoning at this stage


269


MotionMap D, Ref 7 - Tribeach Ltd, Jamestown Road

Rezoning from Z6 to Z10 or Z1

I believe that this site would benefit from re-zoning for housing. Lands across from this were zoned for housing (Lands belonging to CIE) so re-zoning this should be considered.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseIt is noted that the Z6 zoning of the subject site was agreed by Council in the preparation of the draft Plan. As is stated on page 294 of the Chief Executive’s report, a change in zoning to Z10 for part of the Z6 lands remaining to the east side of this cul de sac would still be piecemeal with respect to how the proposed Z10 or Z1 zone, predominantly allowing for residential development, interacts with established Z6 sites adjoining such as Jamestown Industrial Centre.

As is further stated, there is an opportunity with vacant Z6 sites (site adjoining noted) to attract new employment uses and expand the long term employment base of the city. Strengthening the city’s economy, facilitating commercial development and job creation for the city’s population is integral to the Core Strategy (Section 2.2.4 of the Draft Plan which refers to implementing the Local Economic and Community Plan 2016-2021) and the growth of economic and employment clusters is promoted through the policies and objectives of Section 6 “City Economy and Enterprise” of the Draft Plan. Further, it is a policy of the Council to engage in the “active land management” of vacant sites with economic use potential (Policy CEE16 refers) aswell as to examine industrial estates under objective CEEO4

Residential use can still be considered as Open for Consideration and a high quality mixed use development delivering enterprise and employment and housing can still be facilitated by the existing zoning.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted having regard to the reasons set out above.

270


MotionMap E, Ref 24 - Davitt Road/Galtymore Road


I believe this site should be rezoned on the same bases that Ref number 25 has been re-zoned. we should be looking for a full re-zoning of this road as there are a lot of vacant sites.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe subject site is located within an existing parcel of Z6 and is not the same context as the recommendation under E25, which is self-contained smaller Z6 parcel in the middle of residential development.

It is further noted that the Z6 zoning of the subject site was agreed by Council in the preparation of the draft Plan and it is not considered appropriate to consider rezoning at this stage or to consider a wider rezoning as indicated.


271


Ruairí McGinley, Cllr. Claire O'Connor

MotionMAP H REF No. 1 Greenmount Industrial Estate Harold’s Cross:

That this site remains Z6. As the CEO’s report states this is a backland site with narrow road access, which provides a range of light industrial uses and current zoning should not be amended until a spatial planning exercise is carried out for the Harold’s Cross Area. The Motion in the first instance referred to Greenmount Industrial Estate, however the zoning map includes the Eircom/eir Site which is on the other side of Greenmount Lane and not in the Industrial Estate, this error should be corrected.

Reason: There are a number of reasons for retaining the Z6 zoning. Firstly, accessibility issues. This blackland site is poorly serviced by two very narrow access roads Greenmount Ave and Greenmount Lane, the latter which leads on to Parnell Rd. The current level of traffic is a major imposition for people living on Greenmount Ave and Greenmount Lane.

Secondly, the retention of the Z6 zoning would protect an existing mixed use enterprise and employment centre in a vibrant urban village. The current Z6 zoning provides for a mix of uses on this former historical industrial site, including, light industrial, enterprise, office and indoor recreational uses. This allows a vibrant mix of uses in close proximity to the core of Harold’s Cross. This facilitates sustainable urban living as it allows people to live, work and access a range of recreational facilities in a single area.

Thirdly, this is one of four large sites proposed for rezoning in the Harold’s Cross area – which collectively amounts to 17.5 acres.

It is essential that prior to any rezoning a proper Spatial planning examination of the area is carried out through a Local Area Plan as requested by the Harold's Cross Village Community council in their submission. This would allow for a democratic way of involving the residents of Harold’s Cross and The Harold’s Cross Village Community Council to ensure sustainable development and to address issues of mixed use development, traffic management and movement issues including safe and viable access and egress to this site.

Fourthly, this is an area that has experienced the direct consequence of flood damage in recent years, a Statutory Local Area Plan would allow the issue of flood risk management and mitigation to be considered in a coherent and integrated manner throughout the area, including on this site.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseIt is noted that the Z1 zoning of the subject site was agreed by Council in the preparation of the draft Plan on the basis of Motions received and it is not considered appropriate to consider rezoning at this stage.

This backland area has a narrow access road which is not suited to industrial traffic. The site is well located for residential uses however, and given the current demand for housing land a Z1 zoning is considered appropriate.

Given the Department of the Environment's advice to the City Council to take additional steps in the Development Plan to bring forward the supply of much needed housing in the city it is

272

considered that the Z1 zoning is appropriate.

In relation to the statement that a Local Area Plan is required for the Harold’s Cross Area, Harold’s Cross is not a town requiring an LAP under Section 19 of the Planning Act. In relation to section 19 (1)(a), a local area plan may be prepared in respect of any area, including .. an existing suburb of an urban area, which the planning authority considers suitable and, in particular, for those areas which require economic, physical and social renewal and for areas likely to be subject to large scale development within the lifetime of the plan.

Of the sites available for development within Harold‟s Cross many already either have planning permission or are in the planning system already, notably:

The St. Clare‟s Convent site is the subject of a permission (2186/15) for a residential scheme.The St. Pancras Works, Mount Tallant Avenue was granted Permission (2710/14) for a residential scheme of 63 units.The site fronting Harold’s Cross Road at Our Ladies Hospice has Permission (4783/06) extended until May 2016.The lands at Mount Argus have two Permissions: 1) 3792/13 for change of use of monastery etc to 42 residential units; 2) 2966/10 for 184 dwellings to the front of the grounds.

The Planning Authority does not consider that, notwithstanding site availability, the Harold’s Cross Area can be identified as likely to being subject to ‘ large scale development within the lifetime of the plan’ having regard to the fact that the existing context is a largely built up area with a small number of discreet development sites likely to be delivered over the lifetime of the Plan. It should be noted that although it is indicated that there are c7 Hectares (17.5acres) proposed for rezoning in the Harold’s Cross area, this should be taken in the context of the general Harold’s Cross area being c307 hectares in size (c2% of the overall area).

The existing Development Plan contains proposals to provide sixteen new LAPs of which six have been completed to date (including two SDZs). It also contains proposals to carry out fourteen local improvements plans, including a plan for Harolds Cross.

It is an objective of the draft Plan to identify those areas in need of a Local Area Plan with priority given to areas likes to experience significant development within the life of the Plan, and to provide guidance for such.

LAPs are considered most suitable for those areas which require economic, physical and social renewal and for areas which are likely to be the subject of large scale development within the lifetime of the plan. Another factor which must be taken account of in prioritising LAPs/SDZs is their lengthy preparation times. On this basis, the selection of areas for which LAPs will be prepared is an important process of prioritisation. Many areas will benefit from LEIPs instead of an LAP.



273


Ruairí McGinley, Cllr. Dr. Paddy Smyth

MotionMap Ref H Ref. No. 3 St Clare’s Convent, Harold’s Cross Rd. Dublin 6

That this site remains Z12.

Reason: As a former convent this site was zoned Z15 in the 2005 Dublin City Development Plan which required that the owners made 25% of the site available as a public space or service. The zoning of the site was changed to Z12 on the recommendation of the CEO in the 2011 review of the Dublin City Development Plan on the basis that it was no longer a convent. The site has been the subject of many planning applications in the interim period. The rationale of the initial Z15 zoning was that in the event of change of use, that the Institutional use of the site was protected, and/or green lungs were protected in the city, as these sites changed. The Z12 zoning retains an element of this latter rationale, in that it protects and provides an element of green infrastructure insofar as it requires 20% of the site remains as public space in any redevelopment proposal.

This rationale for the Z12 zoning and the protection of an appropriate amount of open space within developing areas remains. Indeed it is all the more compelling given the need for the multifunctionality of green infrastructure networks in the city for, ecosystem services, amenity and flood management as outlined in Chapter 10 of the Draft Development Plan. The issue of green infrastructure in relation to flood management is a particularly pertinent issue for the Harold's Cross area, given the experience of flooding in recent years.

Furthermore, the rezoning would be premature in the absence of a wider planning framework for the development of the urban village of Harold's Cross. it is essential that a proper Spatial planning examination of the area is carried out through a Local Area Plan as requested by Harold’s Cross Village Community council in their submission. This would provide a coherent framework for considering this and all of the other potential development sites in the broader context of the development of Harold's Cross as a whole and would allow for a democratic means of involving the residents of Harold’s Cross and the Harold’s Cross Village Community Council to ensure sustainable development.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseIn relation to the proposed Z1 zoning, as stated on page 343 of the Chief Executive’s report, a Z1 zoning, corresponding to that part of the site with planning permission for housing, is appropriate for the long term residential use envisaged and permitted on this part of the site. As this part of the site is not required for community/institutional facilities, by virtue of the planning permission granted and development management process which determined residential use as suitable in this location, a Z1 zone is appropriate to protect, provide and improve residential amenities and to provide housing in the city.

In relation to the statement that a Local Area Plan is required for the Harold’s Cross Area, Harold’s Cross is not a town requiring an LAP under Section 19 of the Planning Act. In relation to section 19 (1)(a), a local area plan may be prepared in respect of any area, including ..an existing suburb of an urban area, which the planning authority considers suitable and, in particular, for those areas which require economic, physical and social renewal and for areas likely to be subject to large scale development within the lifetime of the plan.

274

Of the sites available for development within Harold‟s Cross many already either have planning permission or are in the planning system already, notably:




It is an objective of the draft Plan to identify those areas in need of a Local Area Plan with priority given to areas likes to experience significant development within the life of the Plan, and to provide guidance for such.

LAPs are considered most suitable for those areas which require economic, physical and social renewal and for areas which are likely to be the subject of large scale development within the lifetime of the plan. Another factor which must be taken account of in prioritising LAPs/SDZs is their lengthy preparation times. On this basis, the selection of areas for which LAPs will be prepared is an important process of prioritisation. Many areas will benefit from LEIPs instead of an LAP.



275


Ruairí McGinley, Cllr. Dr. Paddy Smyth, Sinn Féin Group

MotionMap Reference H ref. No. 4 Greyhound track

That the council resolves to retain the existing Z9 zoning for the Greyhound Stadium Site in the interest of ensuring sustainable plan led development.

Reason: The CE’s report focuses more on the lack of business viability. Significant evidence exists to prove that the current Greyhound Track is financially viable. In any event any change in use of the site requires a spatial plan for the area of Harold’s’ Cross that will service the community in a sustainable way for generations to come.

The rezoning to Z1 is premature given the lack of any wider planning framework for the development of the urban village of Harold’s Cross. Already the village of Harold’s Cross is the subject of a number of planning permissions for residential development and there are a number of potential development sites which are also the subject of further proposals for development. In the light of such development pressures there is a need to put a plan in place for Harold’s Cross, which will provide an integrated context for the future development of the area. While it is an objective of the current City Development Plan, to prepare such a plan for Harold’s Cross (SC09 Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017, p 35) this has not as yet taken place. Without such a planning framework (in the form of a Local Area Plan), {or a Village Design Statement)}, future development in the village is likely to be piecemeal and unintegrated, and the opportunity for the development of a high quality sustainable neighbourhood, will be lost.

A broader area based plan (ideally a statutory Local Area Plan) would by contrast provide a coherent framework for considering this and all of the other potential development sites in the broader context of the development of Harold’s Cross as a whole. An area based Local Area Plan would create the potential for links and synergies across a number of sites and would allow for community participation and engagement. A community visioning event organised by Harold’s Cross Village Community Council and the Harold’s Cross Business Association on July 6th 2015 in Harold’s Cross National School saw over 80 community members, business representatives and elected representatives discuss a future vision for Harold’s Cross and ideas put forward included the need for greater greening in Harold’s Cross, an increase in sports and community infrastructure, better car parking, cycling and pedestrian infrastructure all of which could be explored within a local plan.

In this regard the Local Environmental Improvement Plans (LEIPs) mentioned in the draft plan in chapter 4 would not offer the potential of a more comprehensive Local Area Plan.

It is essential that a proper Spatial planning examination of the area is carried out through a Local Area Plan as requested by Harold’s Cross Village Community council in their submission. This would allow for a democratic way of involving the residents of Harold’s Cross and The Harold’s Cross Village Community Council to ensure sustainable development.

Furthermore the CEO’s report refers to the IGB submission which contains a survey of local area open space. This survey and the quoted figure that 16% of the local area comprises open space, included the very large Mount Jerome graveyard which is in private ownership and could hardly be regarded as a truly public open space. In addition the Greyhound stadium is also used as an active recreational space for tag rugby and furthermore acts as a green lung in the centre of

Motion


276

Harold's Cross. The proposed rezoning would reduce the city's recreational amenity space, and would reduce the amenity and environmental benefits to the wider community, including the ability to develop a comprehensive green infrastructure network through Harold’s Cross.

In conclusion, the current Z9 zoning should remain in place in order to allow a broader Local Area Plan to be prepared.

Chief Executive's ResponseIt is considered that the change in zoning to a residential use is appropriate having regard to the need for housing in the city and the location of the subject site in a well serviced and well connected location.

In relation to the statement that there is evidence that the Greyhound Track is financially viable, it is noted that the Irish Greyhound Board (IGB) stated that they commissioned a report from Indecon on the functioning of Bord na gCon. The report recommended that IGB activities within the city should be consolidated at Shelbourne Park and that Harold’s Cross should be disposed of. The submission from IGB indicates that this is the strategy that is being pursued.

In relation to the statement that a Local Area Plan is required for the Harold’s Cross Area, Harold’s Cross is not a town requiring an LAP under Section 19 of the Planning Act. In relation to section 19 (1)(a), a local area plan may be prepared in respect of any area, including .. an existing suburb of an urban area, which the planning authority considers suitable and, in particular, for those areas which require economic, physical and social renewal and for areas likely to be subject to large scale development within the lifetime of the plan.

Of the sites available for development within Harold’s Cross many already either have planning permission or are in the planning system already, notably:




It is an objective of the draft Plan to identify those areas in need of a Local Area Plan withpriority given to areas likes to experience significant development within the life of the Plan, and to provide guidance for such.

LAPs are considered most suitable for those areas which require economic, physical and social renewal and for areas which are likely to be the subject of large scale development within the

277

lifetime of the plan. Another factor which must be taken account of in prioritising LAPs/SDZs is their lengthy preparation times. On this basis, the selection of areas for which LAPs will be prepared is an important process of prioritisation. Many areas will benefit from LEIPs instead of an LAP.


It is not considered necessary for a broader local area plan to be prepared in relation to the Harold’s Cross Area and it is further not considered that the provision of such a plan should be a pre-requisite of a change in zoning for the Greyhound stadium.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted for the reason that the proposed Z1 zoning is considered to be appropriate in the context of the demand for housing and the site specific circumstances of the Greyhound stadium and for the fact that the call for an LAP for Harold’s Cross is not considered appropriate having regard to the objectives for LAPs set out in the agreed draft Plan and to the prevailing circumstances in the Harold’s Cross area.

278


Ruairí McGinley

MotionMAP Ref H ref No. 5 - Rathmines DIT

That the DIT building at Rathmines Rd Lr. Dublin 6, be zoned Z15 to protect the continued educational use of the building.

Reason: This DIT building on Rathmines Rd Lr. (next door to Rathmines Library) is the Conservatoire of Music and was previously the Rathmines College of Commerce. This building was purpose built as a traditional public education institution, over 100 years ago. It started as a trades school and in 1932 was taken over by the VEC and became known as Rathmines College of Commerce . In 1991 it was designated to DIT and currently is the DIT Conservatoire of Music.

DIT will move to Grangegorman in the next few years. In the interest of protecting public educational facilities in the area, it’s important that this building does not qualify for a change of use. Dublin 6 has one of the greatest needs for educational services at primary, secondary and tertiary levels. Given that it has consistently provided publicly funded education in the area its vital that this service is protected.

DIT is required to accrue the maximum value for all DIT buildings to offset Grangegorman construction costs. So with the best will in the world even DIT wouldn’t be in a position to protect this building for education use if it is still zoned Z4.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe existing Z4 zoning for the site, being a district centre zoning in the centre of Rathmines, a key district centre in the draft Plan, is considered to be the appropriate zoning.

As is stated on page 345 of the Chief Executive’s Report, The Z4 zone in the centre of Rathmines encompasses a range of existing uses that provide a community, cultural and recreational role, including the library and sports centre.

It was emphasised that supporting the role of schools in the centre of Rathmines is important. However, the site is in third party ownership and while the submission relates to what may be possible should the site become vacant, there is no guarantee that the DIT site will ever be selected as a site for educational use, or the associated potential risk of vacancy.

Under the Z4 zoning objective, community, education and cultural uses are permissible and the Z4 zone therefore does not preclude the opportunity for the DIT building or site to provide for these uses into the future, should they become available to the schools and an extension sought. It is not unusual within the higher density, mixed use zones of the city that schools are included within mixed use zones as opposed to Z15 zoning.

Development management is the appropriate process to determine the future appropriate redevelopment of this site, including determining suitable uses and design that protects the amenities of schools adjoining. A proposal by the school or DES to extend educational uses into the site or improve boundaries with the school can still be considered under the Z4 zoning.

Chief Executive's Recommendation

279

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted as the Z4 zoning is the appropriate zoning for the location.



MotionNo.5 Map H ref No. 17 - Orwell Rd Rathgar

That the current Z15 zoning on Marionella Orwell Rd be retained on this site.

Reason: The Z15 zoning is because this was in institutional use. There is a requirement to make 25% of lands available for public use in the event of change of use. If it were to change to Z1 now the community would no longer have access to 25% of the land. This site has a current planning decision based on Z15 taking account of 25% open public space requirement.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe change of zoning recommended in the Chief Executive’s Report was on the basis that the replacement monastery building granted under Reg Ref 2187/09 was not going to be delivered on the site. Given this context, and the grant of permission under Reg Ref 2186/09, it is considered that an extension of the Z12 zoning is appropriate and represents an opportunity to address the housing needs of the city.

The Chief Executive's recommendation was for a Z12 zoning and this zoning includes a requirement for 20% public open space in any redevelopment proposals.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted having regard to the reasons outlined above.

280



MotionMap H ref. No. 19 - Former Mount Argus Monastery, Harold’s Cross Dublin 6W

That the Z15 zoning be retained.

Reason: The CE’s report does not respect the rationale behind Z15 which is intended to retain green lungs and provide for public services in the event of the area being developed and therefore resulting in an increase in population. This site has a current planning decision based on the Z15 zoning taking account of the 25% open public space requirement. The Harold’s Cross area is currently undergoing significant redeveloped with the possibility of a further 17.5 acres earmarked for rezoning and potential development, therefore a Local Area Plan is essential for the area before any change takes place. The Z15 zoning would allow for sympathetic treatment of the current character of the site.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs is stated on page 342 of the Chief Executive’s Report, a Z1 zoning, corresponding to that part of the site with planning permission for housing, is appropriate for the long term residential use envisaged and permitted on this part of the site. As this part of the site is not required for community/institutional facilities, by virtue of the planning permission granted and development management process which determined residential use as suitable in this location, a Z1 zone is appropriate to protect, provide and improve residential amenities.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted having regard to the permitted development on site and to the residential nature of same.

281


MotionMap G ref. No. 4. Assumption Girls NS Long Mile Rd. Walkinstown

To reject the CEO’s report and that Z12 be retained.

Reason: This site already has a planning decision for 61 residential units. With the increase in population of this site that was formally part of a primary school site its important to retain 20% open space which is a requirement of Z12 requirement.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseHaving regard to the planning history on site, it is not considered that a change in zoning from Z12 to Z1 can be considered piecemeal. The subject site has the benefit of a grant of permission for residential development and it is considered appropriate to provide for a change of zoning in keeping with the permission. As this part of the site is not required for community/institutional facilities, by virtue of the planning permission granted and development management process which determined residential use as suitable in this location, a Z1 zone is appropriate to protect, provide and improve residential amenities

Having regard to the need for housing and to the submission from the Department of the Environment on the identification of suitable lands in the city, it is considered appropriate to zone the site Z1.

It is further noted that there is significant open space provision in the immediate area.


282



Motion






MotionThat the City Development Plan remove Z12 zoning from the Orchard Lawns park and return it for cultural and recreational use. The planning permission that was granted 9 years ago does not take into account the social problems that exist in the area and it is downright dumb to simply place more houses in this location.

Motion




283


MotionZoning Map H Ref No 9 Merrion Road - Hotel:

Dublin City Council agree with the Chief Executive's Recommendation that the lands in question should retain the Z1 zoning designation.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThis motion supports the recommendation of the Chief Executive’s report.


284


MotionThat Dublin City Council clearly outline in its “General Principles for Development” its structures for community/stakeholder consultation; its on-going monitoring of progress and its implementation of all the objectives in a balanced fashion of the “Strategic Development and Regeneration Areas” (SDRA's) in the Dublin City Development Plan 2016-22 to ensure the developments are coherent, fulfil their stated purpose and achieve their targets.

Reason: This Motion was already passed by the City Council and furthermore, none of the Regeneration Projects under the last Development Plan were implemented as planned. Indeed, very few were implemented at all. Likewise, the Phibsborough Local Area Plan (2008-14) was left untouched. The work of these projects was costly, time-consuming and wasted. There has been a tendency in the public private partnership plans (PPP‟s) to concentrate on the private sector requirements and to neglect social regeneration. It is important that the plans for SDRA‟s deliver tangible social benefits for their local communities.

Motion

Refers to: Chapter 15 - Strategic Development and Regeneration Areas

Chief Executive's ResponseFirstly, in relation to the development principles for SDRA’s including principles for community/stakeholder consultation, it is considered that through this current development plan process, which involves extensive public display of the draft plan, the community and stakeholders have had opportunities to comment on the SDRA’s and the development principles for those SDRA’s. A large number of submissions have been received in relation to the SDRA’s to date, with the development principles amended where appropriate on foot of submissions received.

It should be noted that the majority of the SDRA’s are either the subject of an LAP, a SDZ, or a large-scale public housing project, with each of these processes involving extensive community/stakeholder consultation.

Chapter 13 of the Draft Plan sets out the means by which the Development Plan will be implemented and monitored. The SDRA’s are a key component of the implementation framework and can be cross referenced at the beginning of the SDRA chapter and with the active land management approach and vacant site levy as referred to in the Core Strategy and paragraph 6.5.4 of the Draft Plan.

It should also be noted that while the SDRA’s include guiding principles for development of these sites, any development will still be the subject of a planning application, with the public having the opportunity to comment on such applications, as part of the development management process.

With regard to including specific requirements for the on-going monitoring of progress and the implementation of all the objectives as part of the development principles for the SDRA’s, the development principles for the SDRA’s will inform future planning applications and provide a framework to expedite the completion of the regeneration of the 17 SDRA’s in a focused and co-ordinated manner. The timeframe for the regeneration of these areas is dependent on a large range of factors. Each SDRA will be reviewed at the two year and four year stage of the development plan process.


285

Add the following text to the end of paragraph 15.1 (Development Principles for SDRA’s):

"Structures for community /stakeholder consultation within the SDRA’s will follow the procedures set out in Chapter 13 (Monitoring, Implementation and Development Management) of the plan".

286

2293Councillor(s) Cllr. Frank Kennedy, Cllr. Dermot Lacey, Sinn Féin Group

MotionDublin City Council resolves to designate the National Concert Hall Quarter, comprising an area including the National Concert Hall, Iveagh Gardens and extending along Earlsfort Terrace to the north, and bounded by the Grand Canal to the south, South Richmond/Camden Street Upper to the west, and by Harcourt Terrace/Hatch Lane Place to the east, as a Strategic Development and Regeneration Area (SDRA).

The following objectives and the accompanying map shall be included in the Dublin City Development Plan 2016 – 2022 in relation to the National Concert Hall SDRA:

Consolidate and further enhance the cultural significance of the area, including facilitating significant enhancements and improvements to the National Concert Hall, the development of the Exploration Station by the Irish Children’s Museum and increased accessibility and linkages with the Iveagh Gardens, in order to establish the area as a key cultural destination attraction in the city centre.

To create a character area which can successfully transition between the South Georgian Core to the east and the emerging mixed use area to the west concentrated between the National Concert Hall and the Grand Canal.

To create a critical mass of employment generating land uses to utilise the investment in public transport in the area and to facilitate the delivery of additional planned public transport services, such as the Metro North, Dart Underground and Bus Rapid Transit.

To promote the development of vacant and under-utilised sites in the character area for high quality commercial development and appropriate viable ancillary uses.

To facilitate and deliver improved pedestrian linkages between the areas key open spaces and streets, creating a highly permeable and connected urban quarter that ensures vibrancy and vitality.

To create significant improvements to the public realm throughout the character area through economic development and investment, creating lively streets and passive surveillance, contributing to a vibrant and attractive urban area. Development in the National Concert Hall Quarter should create pedestrian linkages through the Iveagh Gardens to the National Concert Hall, and the development of a high quality public space on Hatch Street Upper to signal a new public entrance to Iveagh Gardens from Hatch Street. This would facilitate the establishment of strong linkages between the Grafton Street area, through St. Stephen’s Green and Iveagh Gardens, and connecting to the Grand Canal greenway.

To promote the development of a common signage and branding strategy to distinguish the area and provide the area with a sense of place. See example below of a signage approach which could be applied throughout the National Concert Hall Quarter.

To promote the development of buildings of up to 9-storeys commercial to ensure critical mass is achieved to support public transport services and ensure the most efficient use of scarce urban land, subject to preparing visual impact assessments and photomontages to verify the appropriateness of any proposed development in its city-wide and local context.

Motion


287

To ensure that the architectural composition and design of buildings and clusters of buildings contribute to the sense of place and identity and character of the area.

Any proposals for development must have regard to the existing views and vistas from the South Georgian Core, while also contributing to the establishment of a distinct form, character and appearance of the National Concert Hall Quarter. Reason: The National Concert Hall Quarter (NCHQ) is uniquely positioned to develop as a distinct but connected cultural and commercial urban quarter, with its own character, identity and architecture, and by adopting an urban scale and grain that can deliver the quality and scale of commercial space required by a contemporary city.

I believe that a planned and co-ordinated approach is required to ensure the area reaches its full potential in terms of cultural, commercial and residential development, and that such development is delivered in conjunction with appropriate planning benefits, such as high quality streetscape and public realm upgrades.

In this respect, I am proposing that the National Concert Hall Quarter be specifically recognised and designated in the new City Development plan as a Strategic Development and Regeneration Area (SDRA).

The NCHQ has a number of distinctive characteristics which make it suitable for an SDRA designation, including its established office nature, its linkages with cultural facilities such as the National Concert Hall, the proposed Exploration Station, and Iveagh Gardens, the excellent existing and planned public transport services in the area.

The objectives of the NCHQ SDRA can provide for a number of significant benefits, including accessibility and linkages with the Iveagh Gardens, in order to establish the area as a key cultural destination attraction in the city centre. Significant public realm and streetscape improvements, and funding for same, can be delivered in an integrated manner through the SDRA designation.

The SDRA can deliver a critical mass of employment generating land uses to utilise the investment in public transport in the area and to facilitate the delivery of additional planned public transport services, such as the Metro North, Dart Underground and Bus Rapid Transit, through the development of regeneration/redevelopment sites in the NCHQ SDRA.

Chief Executive's ResponseAs indicated on page 353 of the Chief Executives Report; the majority of the 17 SDRA areas selected in the Draft Plan are areas which are capable of delivering a significant quantum of homes and employment for the city. Some are important public housing regeneration areas and are areas where proposals for comprehensive development or re-development have been, or are in the process of being prepared.

The motion expands upon material submitted in submissions and reported on in the Chief Executives Report (pg 352-3), requesting an SDRA designation for a National Concert Hall quarter, which also includes the office quarter around Hatch Street/Upper Harcourt Street.

As stated in the Chief Executives Report, it is considered that existing zonings and other development plan designations are adequate to allow for the areas sustainable development.A number of specific objectives are sought in the motion; Enhancements and improvements to the National Concert Hall and Children’s museum are sought. These are not dependent on designation as an SDRA.

288

The creation of a new character area transitioning to surrounding areas does not require an SDRA, given the area already has a distinctive character and is served by good public transport including LUAS.

Matters raised relating to employment generation, public realm, signage, protecting views, building design, and development of under-utilised sites and pedestrian linkages are not dependent on securing an SDRA designation. Building heights for the city are dealt with elsewhere in the Chief Executives Report (section 4.5.4).

Page 353 of the Chief Executive Report also states that; It is important to note that 17 SDRA’s are identified to focus regeneration in accordance with the core strategy and development plan. The addition of further SDRA’s will result in a lack of focus, with none of the designated areas being a priority.

Overall, many of the matters raised are already addressed in the Chief Executives Report. It remains the case that the designation of SDRAs must reflect priority areas of the city, and the National Concert Hall and environs is not high priority given that it is fully built out and can be further developed / regenerated in line with the policies and objectives of the Development Plan.


289


MotionTo provide a new SDRA taking in the significant number of sites for development in the Harolds Cross Area including Former Mount Argus Monastery Harolds Cross, Greenmount Industrial Estate, HArolds Cross Greyhound Stadium St Clare’s Convent Harolds Cross Road and Cathal Brugha Barracks.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe motion requests an SDRA for the Harold’s Cross area. As indicated in the Chief Executives Report the majority of the 17 SDRA areas selected in the Draft Plan are areas which are capable of delivering a significant quantum of homes and employment for the city.Some are important public housing regeneration areas and are areas where proposals for comprehensive development or re-development have been, or are in the process of being prepared.

It is considered that the wider Harold’s Cross area does not meet the criteria for Strategic Development and Regeneration Area. It is not an important public housing regeneration area and is not an area where proposals for comprehensive development or redevelopment have been, or are in the process of being prepared.

Accordingly, it is considered that designating the Harold’s Cross area as an additional SDRA does not meet the principles or objectives of what a SDRA seeks to achieve, particularly with regard to the delivery of significant quanta of homes and employment for the city and its inclusion in the draft as an SDRA is not supported.

It is important to note that 17 SDRA’s are identified to focus regeneration in accordance with the core strategy and development plan. The addition of further SDRA’s will result in a lack of focus, with none of the designated areas being a priority.

It is noted that Harold’s Cross is identified for a Local Environmental Improvement Plan on Page 13 of the Draft Plan.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted for the planning reasons outlined above.

290


MotionThat the City Development Plan has as one of its primary objectives the regeneration of Cherry Orchard and delivers realistic commitments to the community.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseIn the Draft Plan Table F (Schedule of proposed statutory Local Area Plan to deliver the core strategy) on page 13 identifies Park West/Cherry Orchard for a statutory LAP. The LAP process will facilitate the regeneration of Cherry Orchard and will involve extensive community/stakeholder consultation, which is a statutory requirement of the LAP process. The Cherry Orchard LAP forms part of the Core Strategy of the new Development Plan.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is noted: Issue adequately dealt with in the existing text in the Draft Plan.

291


MotionIn keeping with the continuity of the SDZ Docklands plan that DCC incorporate and facilitate the building of a best practice dance theatre with state of the art facilities to complete part of the cultural provision of providing such amenities.

Reason: Dance is en par with all the other art forms – music, theatre, poetry, visual arts, and while we provide studio space and rehearsal space Dance companies from home and abroad have to rely on the lend of the hall/theatre spaces which are often inadequate and hinder performances as well as creating limitations on the kind of dance works that can be presented both at home and abroad. The building of a specific dance theatre would recognise Irish dance as the art form that it is and acknowledge once and for all the global significance of Irish dance in particular and avail of the opportunities in this growing sector. Given the deficit of performance space and cultural amenities in this, Docklands area, and with the demise of the Screen on the green (cinema) and also the over production of office and commercial space the balance needs to be addressed by way of this cultural amenity that will benefit the city and the artists in the City as well as the public. It would an error to simply rely on Dublin City Council’s cultural arts plan or cultural strategy documents to facilitate this initiative.

It would be more appropriate that this be enshrined as a core cultural development principal within the development plan, which is a statutory legal document rather than a policy document.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs indicated on page 225 of the Chief Executives Report, the Draft Plan will include Objective CHCO18A: The City Council will “conduct cultural audits (qualitative and quantitative) in all city areas paying particular attention to developing cultural clusters.

It should be noted that Objective CR1 of the North Lotts and Grand Canal Dock Planning Scheme 2014 (Docklands SDZ) makes a commitment to develop an inclusive strategy for culture in the wider Docklands Area based on the findings of the cultural audit undertaken through engagement with cultural, community and corporate stakeholders in the area as set out in the audit report ‘The Docking Station’.

It should also be noted that Section 16.10.4 (Making Sustainable Neighbourhoods) of the Draft Plan requires that Proposals for new large development must make a contribution to an area in terms of community facilities and social infrastructure where significant shortfalls are identified. When submitting plans for large-scale residential, typically over 50 units depending on local circumstances, and/or mixed-use schemes (i.e. circa 5,000 sq.m and above), developers will be required to submit an audit of existing facilities within the area and to demonstrate how the proposal will contribute to the range of supporting community infrastructure.

Through the objectives and requirements contained within the Draft Plan and the Docklands SDZ, cultural audits (qualitative and quantitative) will be undertaken and should the necessity for certain facilities arise, their feasibility will be investigated.


292


Motion15.1.1.7 SDRA Docklands Area, P. 137

‘To ensure that the following is retained: "That all new developments in the Docklands Area, North Lotts and Grand Canal Dock and Poolbeg West will provide for a minimum of 5% allocation of space in the development to be used for social, cultural, creative and artistic purposes."

Reason: To ensure that the issues regarding the deficit in the availability of provision of artistic, cultural and creative studio and work spaces are addressed and that the City plays its role in providing these much needed spaces for the creative communities of the City.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe motion is noted; however the above motion is already a development principle for the Docklands SDRA (pg 137 of Draft Plan). It is considered that duplicating this text to provide an additional objective is wholly unnecessary, when this requirement already exists as a development principle, provided it is consistent with the SDZ scheme.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is noted as the issues raised are dealt with in the Draft Plan, as outlined above.

293


MotionP. 140 ‘To reject the Chief Executive’s proposal to amend map page 140 of draft to have regard to the revised Eastern By-Pass corridor as per the Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2016 – 2035’

Reason: The removal of the reference to the Eastern By Pass was voted for by the Councillors in 2015 and therefore should be upheld regardless of the recommendations outlined here. There is no immediate plan or funding available to build this route in the lifetime of this Development Plan and therefore it should be omitted. In addition, the delivery of such a route would be at variance to the recent designation of Dublin Bay as a Unesco Biosphere and therefore any plans for a tunnel or route of this sort should be omitted from the City Development Plan.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseSince the preparation of the Chief Executive’s report on submission, the National Transport Authority’s Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area’ has been approved. It contains reference to the bypass;

‘’…. In the case of the Eastern Bypass, while the section of the route from the Dublin Port Tunnel to the South Port is included for delivery in this Strategy, the remainder of the route is not proposed for development during the Strategy period. However, the retention of a route corridor for this scheme is recommended, to facilitate the possible future use of the corridor for transport provision (page 81).’’

Dublin City Council must be consistent with the above , particularly since such consistency is a legal requirement under Section 9 of the Planning and Development Act (as updated) Transport Infrastructure Ireland also supports the route.

The route corridor south of the south port area should be retained for the future, ie beyond the NTA strategy period. The wording of the proposed new objective (as par CEs report) should be modified to reflect the now approved strategy).

It is not accepted that the retention of a route corridor is at offs with the development of alternative sustainable transport possibilities.

The map referred to on page 40 is a schematic route only.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThis motion is not adopted, as contrary to both national policy and the principle planning act.Modify the proposed new objective MTO27a ( p141 of Chief Executives report)

From:"MTO27A ; To protect the route of the proposed eastern by-pass in accordance with Transport Infrastructure Ireland ‘Corridor Protection Study – Sector A – Dublin Port Tunnel to Sandymount Strand’ , and support the provision of a link between Poolbeg and the southern cross/Southeastern motorway via n eastern bypass of the city" .

To:"MTO27A ; To protect the route of the proposed eastern by-pass in accordance with Transport

294

Infrastructure Ireland ‘Corridor Protection Study – Sector A – Dublin Port Tunnel to Sandymount Strand’ , and for the longer term to retain a route corridor between Poolbeg and the southern cross/Southeastern motorway via an eastern bypass of the city".


MotionThis Council agrees that in any mapping and submission to the Minister on a SDRA for Poolbeg West that no reclamation of any part of Sandymount and Merrion Strands will be provided for development purposes.

Reason: To heighten the protection afforded to this most important asset of Dublin and Dublin Bay in particular.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe Key Development Principles identified for Poolbeg West in the Draft Development Plan, which are also illustrated on the indicative map on page 140 of the Draft, do not involve or propose the reclamation of any part of Sandymount and Merrion Strands for development purposes.

It should be noted that one of the guiding principles for this SDRA in the Draft requires that the unique landscape qualities of the Poolbeg Peninsula, rivers and bay area be protected and enhanced, and the existing open character and nature of the coastal views from Irishtown Nature Park will be retained.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is noted. The issues raised are already death within the Draft Development Plan, as outlined above.

295


MotionSection 15.1.1.9

Delete paragraph 1 of the Chief Executive's Recommendation (on Eastern By-Pass).

Reason: The eastern by-pass route is not proposed during the period (up to 2035) of the National Transport Authority's Draft Strategy 2016-2035. Such a bypass is not in the interests of the residential amenity of the Dublin 4 area, and would also be hugely damaging to Dublin Bay.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseSince the preparation of the Chief Executive’s report on submissions, the National Transport Authority’s ‘Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area’ has been approved. It contains reference to the bypass;

“…, in the case of the Eastern Bypass, while the 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. However, the retention of a route corridor for this scheme is recommended, to facilitate the possible future use of the corridor for transport provision.” (p81)

Dublin City Council should be consistent with the above, particularly since such consistency is a legal requirement under section 9 of the Planning and Development Act (as updated). It is also relevant that Transport Infrastructure Ireland also supports the route.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted, as it is contrary to national policy

296


Motion15.1.1.9 Poolbeg West, Page 138

To amend the following:

“To include a feasibility study of extending the Luas and providing regular bus service from the City to the Docklands area”

To read as follows

“To provide a Luas extension and provide regular bus service from the City to the Docklands area including the Poolbeg Peninsula”

Reason: to improve access to public transport in a redevelopment area in a timely fashion

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseSince the preparation of the Chief Executive’s report on submissions, the National Transport Authority’s ‘Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area’ has been approved. It contains reference to Poolbeg Luas;

Section 5.3.8 (Poolbeg Luas) of the Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2016-2035, states:

“To serve the future development area of Poolbeg, in addition to Ringsend and Irishtown, it is intended to extend the Luas Red Line south of the River Liffey at, or close to, its eastern end. Potentially, this could be achieved by crossing the Liffey on a new bridge in the vicinity of existing East Link Bridge. Luas services would be extended past the Point, continuing onto Poolbeg development area. This extended link will provide a fast and convenient connection from this area into the City Centre and westwards.”

Dublin City Council should be consistent with the above, particularly since such consistency is a legal requirement under section 9 of the Planning and Development Act (as updated.As the provision of Poolbeg Luas is identified in the above national strategy, it is considered that the text in the draft plan should be amended to reflect this.


Amend the text in the 2nd bullet point on page 138 of the draft plan

From:“To include a feasibility study of extending the Luas and providing regular bus service from the City to the Docklands area including out to the Poolbeg Peninsula.”

To:“To allow for the extension of the Luas (in accordance with NTA Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2016-2035) and the provision of regular bus service from the City to the Docklands area including out to the Poolbeg Peninsula.”

297


MotionThat the City Development Plan agree to incorporate Inchicore Village into an expanded St Michaels Estate Regeneration Plan. The Village is currently dying on its knees and needs much needed support. If this cannot be done, that the Plan included a commitment to pursue the regeneration of Inchicore Village.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseIt should be noted that bullet point two in section 15.1.1.12 SDRA 9 Saint Michael’s Estate (including adjoining Keogh Barracks/ Richmond Barracks) states: The development will complement the regeneration of Inchicore by encouraging a natural extension of the village centre eastwards along Emmet Road; the development will provide strong connections between the site and the functions of the village centre, for which a Local Environmental Improvements Plan is proposed.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is noted; Inchicore is included in the text in the SDRA section of the Draft Plan, and it is also proposed for an LEIP.

298


MotionP. 145 Add the following text as an addition bullet points to 15.1.1.14 SDRA 11 Stoneybatter, Manor Street & O’Devaney Gardens on page 145 of the draft plan: “-Provide space for an all-weather pitch, Multiple Use Games Area (MUGA), Community centre, and community garden. -Provide quality open green spaces consisting of a minimum of 15-20% of the site area. Green spaces can serve as sites of social exchange and communicate a respect for nature as a guiding design principle for the site.”

Reason: to provide additional community, social and green infrastructure in the city

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs indicated on page 372 of the Chief Executives Report Table F: Schedule of proposed statutory Local Area Plans (in the draft plan) to deliver the core strategy identifies the Stoneybatter, Manor Street and O’Devaney Gardens as being on the list of scheduled LAP’s, with Ballymun, Park West/Cherry Orchard and Moore Street and Environs. Accordingly the LAP for Stoneybatter will be pursued as and when resources allow.

As indicated on page 372 of the Chief Executives Report; in relation to the quantum and location of open space indicated on the map on page 146 of the draft plan, it should be noted that this map is indicative and though the formal LAP process, which involves substantial public consultation, the exact location and quantum of open space will be determined.

The issue of providing this additional text was also raised in the submissions received on foot of the public display of the Draft Development Plan. Page 372 of the Chief Executives Report deals with this issue and states: With regard to the submissions received requesting additional text to be included in this section of the draft, it is considered that the additional text proposed is site specific and would be of greater value as text in the final LAP document.

It should also be noted that Point 5 on page 145 of the draft plan requires: The development of a neighbourhood park as a key feature of the design to provide recreational amenities, encourage community interaction and provide a focal point/meeting place for the wider local community; the location will be bounded by high-quality streetscapes accommodating commercial, community and residential uses to generate activity, encourage active use of the space and provide passive surveillance.

Accordingly, it is considered that the text currently in the draft plan, as quoted above is adequate to provide additional community, social and green infrastructure in the area as per the Councillors request.


299


MotionIn relation to sub-section 15.1.1.14 SDRA 11 Stoneybatter, Manor Street & O’Devaney Gardens, that the plan by amended to guarantee a minimum of 15% of the O’Devaney Gardens site be given over to green spaces. Whilst recognising the plans under development, it is appropriate to grant certainty to a community who have been repeatedly let down.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs indicated on page 372 of the Chief Executives Report Table F: Schedule of proposed statutory Local Area Plans (in the draft plan) to deliver the core strategy identifies the Stoneybatter, Manor Street and O’Devaney Gardens as being on the list of scheduled LAP’s, with Ballymun, Park West/Cherry Orchard and Moore Street and Environs. Accordingly the LAP for Stoneybatter will be perused as and when resources allow. The issue of the exact quantum of open space to be provided on site is an issue which will be addressed as part of the LAP process.

As indicated on page 372 of the Chief Executives Report; in relation to the quantum and location of open space indicated on the map on page 146 of the draft plan, it should be noted that this map is indicative and though the formal LAP process, which involves substantial public consultation, the exact location and quantum of open space will be determined.

That being said the green are shown in the middle of the indicative map on page 146 of the draft plan has an area of approximately 0.4 ha, or approximately 30% of the O’ Devaney Gardens site or three times the quantum of open space required by section 16.10.3 Residential Quality Standards – Apartments and Houses, in the Draft Development Plan, which states: In new residential developments, 10% of the site area shall be reserved as public open space. The exact quantum of open space will be determined though the Lap process, but a minimum of 10% is currently required by the Draft.

It should also be noted that Point 5 on page 145 of the draft plan requires: The development of a neighbourhood park as a key feature of the design to provide recreational amenities, encourage community interaction and provide a focal point/meeting place for the wider local community; the location will be bounded by high-quality streetscapes accommodating commercial, community and residential uses to generate activity, encourage active use of the space and provide passive surveillance.

Accordingly, it is considered that the text currently in the draft plan, as quoted above is adequate to provide adequate green space in the area as per the Councillors request.


300


MotionIn relation to sub-section 15.1.1.14 SDRA 11 Stoneybatter, Manor Street & O’Devaney Gardens, that the plan be amended to include a commitment to retaining social and affordable housing as the primary use of the O’Devaney Gardens site. Whilst recognising the plans under development, it is appropriate to grant certainty to a community who has been repeatedly let down.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseWhile the specific development principles for SDRA 11 (Stoneybatter, Manor Street &O’Devaney Gardens) do not include a commitment to retaining social and affordable housing as the primary use of the O’Devaney Gardens site, SDRA’s by their definition are areas which are capable of delivering a significant quantum of homes and employment, already contain large -scale public housing, are important public housing regeneration areas and are areas where proposals for comprehensive development or redevelopment have been, or are in the process of being prepared.

With regard to the provision of social and affordable housing the Housing Strategy (Appendix 2A of the draft plan) has regard to the following:

1. The existing need and the likely future need for housing;

2. The need to ensure that housing is available for persons who have different levels of income;

3. The need to ensure that a mixture of house types and sizes is developed to match theneeds of different households in the City; and,

4. The need to counteract undue segregation in housing between persons of different socialbackgrounds.

The O’ Devaney Gardens site’s designation as an SDRA coupled with the requirements of the Housing Strategy will ensure that a significant quantum of social and affordable housing will be retained on the O’Devaney Gardens site.

It should also be noted that in order to progress the development of this key site, Dublin City Council is prioritising the compilation, development and implementation of a Housing Plan for the area.


301

2306Councillor(s) Cllr. Pat Dunne, Cllr. Tina MacVeigh, Cllr. Rebecca Moynihan, An

tÁrdmheara Críona Ní Dhálaigh

MotionThat Dublin City Council acknowledges the existing sports lands identified in SDRA 12 of St Teresa's gardens and it's environs and acts to retain and augment these lands as sporting facilities for the benefit of the wider community and use by local sports clubs.

Reason: this is to ensure the mixed, sustainable planning & development of SDRA 12 and its surrounding areas which are housing dense. Dublin City Council recognises in it’s “Liberties Greening Strategy” that there is a chronic shortage of open space for sports & recreation in the South Inner City equating to only 16% of the recommended minimum provision. Ensuring the traditional sports grounds are retained & expanded for sports use by local clubs is essential for the sustainable growth and planning of the site in the context of the wider Dublin 8 area.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs indicated on page 373 of the Chief Executives Report; a large quantum of open space is shown in the North East section of the study area on the map on page 147 of the draft plan. This is designated as Parks and Sports facilities in the key associated with the map on page 147. It should also be noted that that one of the objectives for SDRA 12 on page 146 of the draft plan states that a new public park is proposed as a landmark feature with passive supervision by residential and other uses; it will have a comprehensive landscaping strategy to provide significant greenery within the scheme and will make provision for a diverse range of recreational and sporting facilities for use by the wider neighbourhood. Accordingly, it is considered that the draft contains general objectives for the provision of sports facilities, together with much needed housing and other community facilities as part of the overall regeneration plan for the area.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted as the issues raised are adequately dealt with in the Chief Executives Report and Draft Plan, as outlined above.

302



MotionThat an integrated masterplan for the entire SDRA 12 Regeneration Area will be developed and be carried out in such a manner so as to provide for an area zoned Z9 (To preserve, provide and improve recreational amenity and open space) sufficient in size to accommodate a minimum 80m by 130m playing pitch.

Reason: To ensure that the development of this site is done in an integrated manner and contributes to the overall sustainability of the wider area including the retention and enhancement of existing facilities for use by all local sporting clubs.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs indicated on Page 373 of the Chief Executives’ Report; a large quantum of open space is shown in the North East section of the study area on the map on page 147 of the draft. This is designated as Parks and Sports facilities in the key associated with the map on page 147. It should also be noted that that one of the objectives for SDRA 12 on page 146 of the draft states that a new public park is proposed as a landmark feature with passive supervision by residential and other uses; it will have a comprehensive landscaping strategy to provide significant greenery within the scheme and will make provision for a diverse range of recreational and sporting facilities for use by the wider neighbourhood. Accordingly, it is considered that the draft contains general objectives for the provision of sports facilities, together with much needed housing and other community facilities as part of the overall regeneration plan for the area. The provision of a full scale sports pitch for one sport is not appropriate in this location.

With this in mind, it is considered that a masterplan for the entire SDRA 12 Regeneration Area is not necessary and that the Key Development Principles Map on page 147 of the draft provides an adequate level of detail, so as to inform subsequent planning applications, which the public will be able to comment on through the statutory planning application process.


303



MotionThat at least 20% of SDRA 12 be retained for public open space, recreation & sporting facilities including an area to facilitate organised games.

Reason: to ensure the long term social and environmental sustainability of the area. The provision of these vital facilities which will benefit new and existing residents for generations to come can be accommodated within the SDRA 12 area while retaining the envisaged housing density.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs indicated on Page 373 of the Chief Executives’ Report; a large quantum of open space is shown in the North East section of the study area on the map on page 147 of the draft. This indicative area equates to approximately 1.34ha or approximately 37% of the St. Teresa’s Gardens site. This is designated as Parks and Sports facilities in the key associated with the map on page 147. It should also be noted that that one of the objectives for SDRA 12 on page 146 of the draft states that a new public park is proposed as a landmark feature with passive supervision by residential and other uses; it will have a comprehensive landscaping strategy to provide significant greenery within the scheme and will make provision for a diverse range of recreational and sporting facilities for use by the wider neighbourhood. There is also a policy requirement to provide 10% open space on the residential parts of the remaining SDRA 12 lands. Accordingly, it is considered that the draft contains general objectives for the provision of sports facilities, which are adequate and contain adequate detail at this moment in time.


304


MotionThe Chief Executive’s report on the development of Oscar Traynor Road is different in terms of the number of units proposed to build in comparison to the land initiative. Why is this? This motion calls for the CEO to align the Development plan with numbers proposed in the land initiative.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseIn relation to the number of units proposed for Oscar Traynor Road, the Chief Executives Report states on page 379 that:

“This section of the draft intends to provide general guidance for the development ofthis area and does not, nor is it intended to provide such specific detail as the exactnumber of units. Exact details such as the number of units will be established throughpreparing and submitting a planning application, which local residential will have theopportunity to comment on.”

Preliminary work recently presented to the Planning and Housing SPC, indicates that the site, taking into account local circumstances can provide for circa 655 residential units. The core Strategy, on the other hand provides a breakdown of the estimates residential capacity to serve the needs of the city in the future (See Table E Page 10 of the Draft Plan). In this table, of the 52,600 estimated capacities for the whole city, 1000 units are allocated to Oscar Traynor Road at a strategic level. Accordingly, there is no conflict between the strategic city estimate and the number of units which will eventually be built following site specific assessment.


305


MotionSDRA 17 - Oscar Traynor Road

That the development plan removes the ten story high rise block as it is not in keeping with surrounding areas.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs indicated on page 379 of the Chief Executives Report; in relation to the height this section of the draft states that higher densities will be sought to the northern and western edges of the site with heights of 4 to 6 storeys being generally appropriate, scaling down to the east and south where the site adjoins existing 2-storey residential housing. The draft goes on to state that heights of up to 10-storeys will be considered in the north-west corner of the site as slender land-mark features. It is considered that the height strategy for this area is acceptable, as all the higher densities and height are away from existing residential areas to the south and east. In addition the higher buildings will form local landmarks on the approaches to the city.

The Chief Executives Report on Page 379 goes on to state that; in relation to potential development outlined in the SDRA not in keeping with the character of the area, it is considered that the scale and form of any future development at this location, which includes twice the normal amount of public open space (20%), will integrate sufficiently with property in the vicinity.

Accordingly, it is considered that the height strategy for SDRA 17 allows for a much needed residential yield, while at the same time protecting the amenity of existing property in the vicinity.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted, as the issues raised are adequately dealt with in the Chief Executives Report and Draft Plan, as outlined above.

306


MotionSDRA 17 - Oscar Traynor Road

That the development plan clearly sets out how the Water infrastructure issues in Lorcan are going to be dealt with.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThere are policies in the Draft Development Plan to ensure all new schemes have adequate water supply and drainage provision (See SI3, SIO3 pg 72 of Draft).

As indicated on page 379 of the Chief Executives Report; in relation to the impact of any future development on existing services and infrastructure, a planning application will be required for any future development within this SDRA, which will need to demonstrate that existing services and infrastructure are adequate to accommodate the level of development anticipated.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is noted as issues raised are included in Draft Plan.

307


MotionThat a clearly defined time period is set out for a traffic assessment given that some lands are going to the market very soon.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseIn relation to the request that a clearly defined time period is set out for a traffic assessment, page 378 of the Chief Executives Report States:

“With regard to the traffic and parking implications of future development within this SDRA, Appendix 4 of this draft indicates that as a general guideline, Dublin City Council will require a transport assessment (TA) if the proposed development meets with one or more of the following criteria:

● The proposed development provides for 200 or more dwelling units● The development generates more than 500 private vehicle trips per day and/or more than 100 trips in the peak period● The office and commercial component of the development provides for 5,000sq.m or moreGross Floor Area (GFA)● Retail development with a GFA of 1,000sq.m or more is provided in the scheme● Warehousing and wholesaling with a GFA of 10,000sq.m or more is contained in the development● The development provides for 100 or more off-street parking spaces with a single access to the adjoining street network● The development generates vehicle movement through adjacent residential areas of goods vehicles of 3 tonnes weight limit or greater● The above thresholds should serve as general guidelines. However, they do not preclude the submission of TAs for developments below the threshold where the planning authority is of the opinion that a TA is required.

Accordingly, it is considered that a TA will be required for initial applications with thisSDRA, which will seek to mitigate potential traffic issues.”Accordingly, it is considered that a timeframe for a traffic assessment of that site cannot be provided as a traffic assessment would be carried out (at the developer’s expense) and submitted with any future planning application on this site. Carrying out a traffic assessment of the site, prior to a planning application being submitted would be premature.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted as the issues raised are adequately dealt with in the Chief Executives Report, and Draft Plan as outlined above.

308


MotionGiven that the Chief Executive Officer supports the increased provision of Senior Citizens homes on the Oscar Traynor sight, that the Development Plan will now incorporate this and give definitive numbers.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseWith regard to the request that the Draft contain definitive number in relation to the quantum of Senior Citizens homes to be provided on site, it is considered that the draft intends to provide general guidance for the development of this area and does not, nor is it intended to provide such specific detail as the exact number of units. Exact details such as the number of units will be established through preparing and submitting a planning application, which local residents will have the opportunity to comment on. That being said, the Housing Land Initiative Report, which has been presented to the Planning and Housing SPC’s, indicates that the subject site is capable of accommodating 40 senior citizen units.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted as the issues raised are adequately dealt with in the Housing Land Initiative Report, the Draft Development Plan (which is strategic in nature) and the Chief Executives Report, as outlined above.

309


MotionLimit height of SDRA 17, Oscar Traynor Lands to 6 storeys.

Reason: This was agreed with residents in public consultation.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs indicated on page 379 of the Chief Executives Report; in relation to the height this section of the draft states that higher densities will be sought to the northern and western edges of the site with heights of 4 to 6 storeys being generally appropriate, scaling down to the east and south where the site adjoins existing 2-storey residential housing. The draft goes on to state that heights of up to 10-storeys will be considered in the north-west corner of the site as slender land-mark features. It is considered that the height strategy for this area is acceptable, as all the higher densities and height are away from existing residential areas to the south and east. In addition the higher buildings will form local landmarks on the approaches to the city.

The Chief Executives Report on Page 379 goes on to state that; in relation to potential development outlined in the SDRA not in keeping with the character of the area, it is considered that the scale and form of any future development at this location, which includes twice the normal amount of public open space (20%), will integrate sufficiently with property in the vicinity.

Accordingly, it is considered that the height strategy for SDRA 17 allows for a much needed residential yield, while at the same time protecting the amenity of existing property in the vicinity.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted, as the issues raised are adequately dealt with in the Chief Executives Report and Draft Plan, as outlined above.

310


MotionRetain the wording of Par.16.1.3 from the current Development Plan 'Making Successful Streets': "Building frontages should provide appropriate enclosure to streets. They should have consistent heights relative to existing buildings and their plan form should prioritise the provision of a consistent building line, giving enclosure to the street or space."

Reason: This is an important provision in relation to streetscape.

Motion

Refers to: Chapter 16 - Development Standards

Chief Executive's ResponseThis motion was also submitted as a motion to the draft and also formed part of a submission to the Draft.

Section 16.2.1 Design Principles states;

"Development will respond creatively to and respect and enhance its context, and having regard to;1. The character of adjacent buildings, the spaces around and between them and the character and appearance of the local area2. The character, scale and pattern of historic streets, squares, lanes, mews and passageways3. Existing materials, detailing, building lines, scale, orientation, height and massing, plot width4. The form, character and ecological value of parks, gardens and open spaces".

The Design Principles as set out in 16.2.1 has four main elements, the first of which is 16.2.1 Respecting and Enhancing Character and Context, this section states:

"The City Council will seek to ensure that the design of new development respects and enhances these and other elements that contribute positively to the cityscape and urban realm, … .In assessing new development, consideration will be given to how the design has responded to the existing context and its relationship to the established pattern, form(s), density and scale of surrounding townscape, taking account of existing rhythms, proportion, symmetries, solid to void relationships, degree of uniformity and the composition of elevations, roofs and building lines".

Section 16.2.2.1 Large-Scale Development is a new section setting out standards required in the case of large scale developments, this section seeks;

"To provide high quality new streets, squares and open spaces, where appropriate, linked in to the surrounding street pattern and, To retain existing and create new features to make easily understandable urban environment, including active building frontages with clearly defined edges".

Therefore it is considered that the issue of creating streets with appropriate sense of enclosure is addressed in the Draft Development Plan under the Design Principles & Standards as set out subsection 16.2.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is noted, the issue is addressed in existing Draft Plan text subsections 16.2.1, 16.2.1.1 & 16.2.2.1.

311


MotionRetain the wording of Par.16.1.4 ' Proportions and Enclosure' from the current Development Plan:

"It is an objective of the Council to promote streets and public spaces which are human-scaled, are memorable as places which have a high standard of amenity. The relationship of Dublin's street facades to the human scale is recognised as a major attraction of the city. It is a policy of Dublin city council that new buildings should be designed and sited with a view to maintaining this important characteristic."

Reason: This is an important provision in relation to maintaining the characteristic human-scale of Dublin which is recognised internationally as intrinsic to its charm.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThis motion was also submitted as a motion to the draft and also formed part of a submission to the Draft.The Design Principles as set out in Subsection 16.2.1 states;

Development will respond creatively to and respect and enhance its context, and having regard to;1. The character of adjacent buildings, the spaces around and between them and the character and appearance of the local area2. The character, scale and pattern of historic streets, squares, lanes, mews and passageways3. Existing materials, detailing, building lines, scale, orientation, height and massing, plot width4. The form, character and ecological value of parks, gardens and open spaces,

The Design Principles (16.2.1) has four main elements, the first of which is 16.2.1.1 Respecting and Enhancing Character and Context, this section states;

The City Council will seek to ensure that the design of new development respects and enhances these and other elements that contribute positively to the cityscape and urban realm, … .In assessing new development, consideration will be given to how the design has responded to the existing context and its relationship to the established pattern, form(s), density and scale of surrounding townscape, taking account of existing rhythms, proportion, symmetries, solid to void relationships, degree of uniformity and the composition of elevations, roofs and building lines.

The Design Standards subsection 16.2.2, subsection 16.2.2.1 Large-Scale Development is a new section setting out standards requiring large scale development;

To provide high quality new streets, squares and open spaces, where appropriate, linked in to the surrounding street pattern

Therefore it is considered that the issue of creating streets and public spaces with a human scale to respect this important characteristic of the city is addressed in the Draft Development Plan under the Design Principles & Standards as set out subsection 16.2.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is noted, the issue is addressed in existing text subsections 16.2.1, 16.2.1.1 & 16.2.2.1.

312


MotionRetain the wording of Par.16.1.11 from the current Development Plan ' Sustainable Urban Form': "To minimise the waste of embodied energy in existing structures, the re-use of existing buildings should always be considered as a first option in preference to demolition and new-build. New public spaces should incorporate proposals for Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDS) in their design”

Reason: In the interest of sustainability.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThis motion was also submitted as a motion to the draft and also formed part of a submission to the Draft.

The Design Principles section 16.2.1. States;

Development proposals will be expected to minimise energy use and emissions that contribute to climate change during the life-cycle of the development with an aspiration towards zero carbon and ensure the reduction, reuse or recycling of resources and materials, including water, waste and aggregates. The re-use of existing buildings should always be considered as a first option in preference to demolition and new-build. New public spaces should incorporate proposals for Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDS) in their design.

Therefore it is considered that the issue of reusing buildings in preference to demolition or new build is addressed in the Draft Development Plan under the Design Principles & Standards as set out subsection 16.2.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is noted, the issue is addressed in existing text subsections 16.2.1.

313


MotionDublin City Council agree to insert the following objective:

"Roof forms of new development should harmonise with, and not clash with, the city's traditional pitched roof forms"

Reason: To ensure the harmonious development of the city.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe Design Principles as set out in Section 16.2.1 states;

Development will respond creatively to and respect and enhance its context, and have regard to:1. The character of adjacent buildings, the spaces around and between them and the character and appearance of the local area2. The character, scale and pattern of historic streets, squares, lanes mews and passageways3. Existing materials, detailing, building lines, scale, orientation, height and massing, plot width


The City Council will seek to ensure that the design of new development respects and enhances these and other elements that contribute positively to the cityscape and urban realm, the settings of protected structures, areas of special interest and important views and that such design incorporates high-quality detail, materials and craftsmanship. …. In assessing new development, consideration will be given to how the design has responded to the existing context and its relationship to the established pattern, form(s), density and scale of surrounding townscape, taking account of existing rhythms, proportion, symmetries, solid to void relationships, degree of uniformity and the composition of elevations, roofs and building lines.

Section 16.2.2.3 Alterations and Extensions states;

Alterations and extensions at roof level, including roof terraces are to respect scale, elevational proportions and architectural form of the building and, will:Respect the uniformity of terraces, or groups of buildings with a consistent roofline or adversely affect the character of terraces with an attractive varied rooflineNot result in the loss of roof forms, roof coverings or roof features (such as chimneystacks) where these are of historic interest or contribute to local character and distinctiveness

Chapter 11 sets out policy for the protection and enhancement of structures and areas of special historic and architectural interest, Policy CHC1 seeks;

To ensure that the special interest of protected structures is protected. Development will … :A. Protect or, where appropriate, restore form, features and fabric which contribute to special interest

Policy CHC3 seeks;

To protect the special interest and character of Dublin’s Conservation Areas. Development within or affecting conservation areas will contribute positively to the character and distinctiveness; and take opportunities to protect and enhance the character and appearance of the area and its

314

setting, wherever possible.

Development will not:2. Involve the loss of traditional, historic or important building forms, features and detailing including roofscapes, shopfronts etc.

The Design and Conservation principles and policies and as set out in Chapter 16 and 11 articulate in clear detail the protection and conservation of the city’s traditional roof forms in the streetscape.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is noted, the issue is addressed in existing text subsections 16.2.1, 16.2.1.1, 16.2.2.3 & Policy CHC1 & CHC3.


MotionDublin City Council agrees to alter the wording of the 2nd last bullet point at 16.2.2.3 such that the words "and will not" will be inserted in the following bullet point instead of "or" so that it reads:

"......alterations and extensions at roof level, including roof terraces are to respect the scale, elevational proportions and architectural form of the building and will:

Respect the uniformity of terraces or groups of buildings with a consistent roofline and will not adversely affect the character of terraces with an attractive varied roofline."

Reason: The wording as published was an error

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAgreed, this is an error in the Draft text.


Amend text at page 156, subsection 16.2.2.3 Alterations and Extensions, paragraph 4, bullet point no. 2:

From:"Respect the uniformity of terraces or groups of buildings with a consistent roofline or adversely affect the character of terraces with an attractive varied roofline".

To:"Respect the uniformity of terraces or groups of buildings with a consistent roofline and will not adversely affect the character of terraces with an attractive varied roofline".

315


MotionThis Council agrees to include the following paragraph in Section 16.2.2.3 of the Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022:

"The clean intersection of building parapets and the sky is an integral visual characteristic of the city’s built environment. Addition of fencing or related elements to rooflines and parapets, resulting in damage and visual injury to this relationship, will not be permitted."

Reason: In order to address the increasing phenomenon of construction of fencing around parapets of many (often prominent and visible) buildings, and the resulting visual injury to the streetscape and townscape.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseSection 16.2.1.1 Respecting and Enhancing Character and Context states;

The City Council will seek to ensure that the design of new development respects and enhances these and other elements that contribute positively to the cityscape and urban realm, the settings of protected structures, areas of special interest and important views and that such design incorporates high-quality detail, materials and craftsmanship. …. In assessing new development, consideration will be given to how the design has responded to the existing context and its relationship to the established pattern, form(s), density and scale of surrounding townscape, taking account of existing rhythms, proportion, symmetries, solid to void relationships, degree of uniformity and the composition of elevations, roofs and building lines.

Section 16.2.2.3 Alterations and Extensions states;

Alterations and extensions at roof level, including roof terraces are to respect scale, elevational proportions and architectural form of the building and, will:

Respect the uniformity of terraces, or groups of buildings with a consistent roofline or adversely affect the character of terraces with an attractive varied rooflineNot result in the loss of roof forms, roof coverings or roof features (such as chimneystacks) where these are of historic interest or contribute to local character and distinctiveness

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is noted, the issue in relation to the protection of the roofscape is addressed in existing text subsections 16.2.1.1, and 16.2.2.3.

316


MotionDublin City Council do not agree the Chief Executive's Recommendation to amend the circumstances under which a higher plot ratio may be permitted to include the following: "To facilitate the strategic role of institutions such as hospitals"

Reason: At a ratio of up to 2.5:1, Z15 lands in the city can achieve very high volumes of development to further intensify their institutional use would lead to unsustainable development.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe importance of retaining and facilitating the development/expansion of hospitals and related healthcare uses in the City Council area is critical for the city, as they are major employers and contributors to the knowledge economy, and also due to their potential to act as a catalyst for urban regeneration. Furthermore, facilitating the appropriate development or expansion of hospitals allows for these institutions to remain in the city. This is particularly important in the context of national hospitals, whose catchments, by their nature, can extend across the state.

Under Section 6.5.5 (Employment, Enterprise and Economic Development Sectors), Policy CEE20 outlines that it is policy to recognise that hospitals and the wider healthcare sector are crucial to the wellbeing of the city, including as major sources of employment, economic development and innovation, and to promote and facilitate their development and expansion. Similarly, Policy CEE2 (i) supports the provision of the appropriate volume of floor space and associated facilities necessary to secure the delivery of their services and potential.

Section 16.5 of the draft plan expressly outlines that plot ratio standards need to be used in conjunction with other development control measures. It is considered that the indicative plot ratio standards are sufficiently well-considered, and that no further amendments to Section 16.5 are recommended.


317

2322Councillor(s) Cllr. Daithí De Róiste, Cllr. Paul Hand, Cllr. Vincent Jackson, Cllr.

Rebecca Moynihan, People Before Profit Group

MotionThis Council rejects the Chief Executive's Recommendation to add the following at Section 16.5 of the Draft Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022: "To facilitate the strategic role of institutions such as hospitals" to the list of circumstances under which a higher plot ratio may be considered for a site.

Reason: The indicated plot ratio for institutional / hospital use i.e. Z15 lands is already very high at up to 2.5:1. To exceed this would not be in compliance with proper and sustainable planning."

Motion






318


MotionThis Council DCC rejects the Chief Executive’s Recommendation to add the following at section 16.5 of the Draft Dublin City Development Plan 2016 - 2022: "To facilitate the strategic role of institutions such as hospitals " to the list of circumstances under which a higher plot ratio may be considered for a site.

Reason: The indicated plot ratio for institutional / hospital use i.e. Z15 lands is already very high at up to 2.5:1. To exceed this would not be in compliance with proper and sustainable development.

Motion






319


Motion16.7 City Building Height in a Sustainable City:

All Low-rise heights to remain the same as the previous Development Plan regardless of whether specified in metres or floors/storeys. The draft plan attempts to increase residential heights by more than 2 storeys in the Inner City, more than a storey at Rail Hubs and the Outer City.

Low-rise Inner City Residential – 6 storeys (18m)/Commercial – 7 storeys (28m) Low-rise Rail Hubs Residential – 6 storeys (18m)/Commercial – 6 storeys (24m) Low-rise Outer City Residential – 4 storeys (12m)/Commercial – 4 storeys (16m)

Reason: To ensure sustainable development in the city.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseIt is emphasised that the building height of up to 28m in the Low Rise category in the Inner City is a maximum height. This maximum height of up to 28m is already allowed for commercial buildings in the Inner City in the current City Development Plan 2011-2017.

The Draft plan continues the policy of previous development plans, acknowledging the intrinsic quality of Dublin’s low rise character and the need to protect in particular the historic city core encompassed by the Quays, the Georgian Squares, Dublin Caste, College Green (para 16.7). The Draft plan specifically states that “Low Rise” relates to the prevailing local heights and context (pg 162). By reducing the definition of “low rise” to the height of typical Georgian buildings (4 storeys over basement equates to 14-16m) as suggested, it would have severe repercussions across the city in terms of employment, international competitiveness, housing provision, together with critical infrastructure such as transport and hospitals.

It should also be noted that proposals to allow building heights up to 28m in the inner city are subject to assessment against criteria and standards set out in Chapter 16 (Development Standards) and elsewhere in the Draft plan. The intention of allowing buildings up to a maximum height of 28m is to avoid the potential for incoherent streetscapes, and also to allow for residential development up to this maximum height, where appropriate. Furthermore, to permit and to deliver residential units in the Inner City is a key issue for the city, in order to address current severe shortages of housing supply.

In particular, Section 16.2.1.1 (Respecting and Enhancing Character and Context) sets out that in assessing new development, consideration will be given to how the design has responded to the existing context and its relationship to the established pattern and scale of surrounding townscape.

Accordingly, it is considered that there are sufficient safeguards in the Plan to allow for the provision of buildings of up to 28m in the inner city, which both respect the established character, and allow for the sustainable growth of the city.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted, for reasons outlined in report.

320


Motion16.7 City Building Height in a Sustainable City:

Phibsborough remains a Low-rise area as per the current Draft Development Plan

Reason: To ensure sustainable development in the city. Phibsborough is a low-rise Victorian village of two and three storey red brick houses. Constructions of 50 metres in height would overshadow the streets and houses while destroying the integrity of the existing urban landscape and utterly transforming our residential areas.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs the draft Phibsborough LAP was not adopted, it was agreed by the members to use the draft City Development Plan process to incorporate key policy elements of the key development sites outlined in the draft LAP for inclusion in the new City Development Plan for statutory guidance.

For this reason the Amendments show that Phibsborough is included in the mid-rise category, and it is expressly stated under Section 16.7.2 of the CE’s Report on Submissions that Phibsborough will remain a low rise area, with the exception of allowing for (i) up to maximum height of 19m in the centre of the Smurfit site and immediately adjoining the proposed railway station at Cross Guns Bridge; and (ii) the addition of one additional storey of 4m will be considered in relation to any proposals to reclad the existing ‘tower’ at the Phibsborough Shopping Centre (as per the 2015 Draft Phibsborough LAP). (See pg 396 of Chief Executive’s Report on Submissions).

It was agreed at City Council that Phibsborough is to be included into the list of the draft plan relating to LAPs/SDZs for preparation.

The Draft Plan already contains a provision (16.7.2 para 1) that all areas outlined in the Height Table are considered to be in the Low rise category unless an LAP / SDZ / SDRA indicates otherwise.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is noted; as the Draft Plan at 16.7.2 already contains this provision.

321


MotionOmit the wording "of the same number of storeys" and replace with "of the same height" in the following clause from Par.16.7.2 in the Draft Development Plan, so that it reads:

"Where a site has a pre-existing height over that stipulated above, a building of the same height may be permitted, subject to assessment against the standards set out elsewhere in the Development Plan and the submission of an Urban Design Statement outlining:…"

Reason: To avoid a further increase in the height of buildings which are already higher than considered desirable in the area.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe paragraph on ‘Pre-existing height in low-rise areas’ allows for existing properties to be redeveloped to the same number of storeys, thereby allowing for improved building stock to be provided in the city at the same number of storeys. However, this paragraph very specifically states that such proposals are subject to assessment against the standards set out in the elsewhere in the Plan, and also that the submission of an Urban Design Statement is required. Accordingly, it is considered that there are adequate safeguards in the Plan to allow for the paragraph on ‘pre-existing height in low-rise areas’ to be redeveloped to the same number of storeys, to be contained in the Plan.

Furthermore, it is recognised in the Draft plan that ensuring a sustainable supply of new commercial floorspace and housing provision remains a challenge for the city. Under Section 6.5.2 (Offices/Commercial/Employment Space), Policy CEE11 outlines that it is policy to promote and facilitate the supply of commercial space, where appropriate; to encourage indigenous and global HQs to locate in Dublin; and to consolidate employment provision in the city by incentivising and facilitating the high-quality re-development of obsolete office stock in the city.

The content of Section 6.5.2 illustrates the importance of high quality, prime grade A office accommodation being constructed in the city, in order to both attract and retain businesses in the City Council area. A shortage of such high quality office accommodation could result in the loss of development, investment and employment to other areas outside the city and possibly the country.

An important concern would also be that under-utilised or under-occupied building stock does not fall into dereliction, but rather that appropriate refurbishment or redevelopment can be considered, and that there is an appropriate policy in place in the Plan to allow for this. Furthermore, the inclusion of this section on ‘pre-existing height in low-rise areas’ provides a clearer framework for the planning authority, developers and for the public.

The replacement of obsolete stock is also fully in accordance with sustainability policies to retain employment in the central area close to public hospitals.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted, for planning reasons set out in the report.

322


MotionThis Council agrees to amend the low rise height standards in the Draft Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022 to reflect the stated policy that Dublin is a low rise city and that the intrinsic quality associated with this feature is protected. The potential for taller buildings is identified in 13 locations. The height of the remainder of the city shall be no higher than the traditional height of the city.

Reason: The older parts of the city are very high density areas. Extremely high densities (200-250 uph net) are achievable in the low rise areas at heights roughly equivalent to the historic cores of Georgian Dublin, Edinburgh and London. The desired average densities for the city of 120 uph net could clearly be exceeded at the traditional low rise height.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe Plan already acknowledges the intrinsic quality of Dublin as a predominantly low rise city, and Section 16.7.2 sets out that height is specifically limited to identified areas in order to preserve this low rise character. It is emphasised that building heights contained in the table set out under Section 16.7.2 are maximum heights.

Proposals to provide low-rise, mid-rise and high-rise buildings are subject to assessment against standards and criteria set out in Chapter 16 (Development Standards) and elsewhere in the Draft plan. In particular, Section 16.2.1.1 (Respecting and Enhancing Character and Context) sets out that in assessing new development, consideration will be given to how the design has responded to the existing context and its relationship to the established pattern and scale of surrounding townscape. Accordingly, it is considered that there are sufficient safeguards in the Plan to allow for the provision of low-rise, mid-rise and high-rise buildings in the City.

Furthermore, to restrict building heights to across the city, save for the identified mid and high rise areas, to the traditional height of the city, would significantly impact on the Council’s requirement to deliver housing units, would significantly impact on housing units being permitted, and could potentially contribute to unsustainable urban sprawl.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is noted; matter already addressed in text of Draft Plan.

323


MotionThat in the categorisation of building heights permissible in the city, Phibsborough is designated a low-rise area. Any future exception to this designation should only be permitted through a variation of this Development Plan that is provided for in a Local Area Plan adopted for Phibsborough by Dublin City Councillors following genuine and meaningful consultation with the local community.

Reason: As outlined below in relation to the sites specifically earmarked for greater height –Smurfit Printworks, Cross Guns Bridge, Phibsborough Shopping Centre/Dalymount Park - the Chief Executive’s arguments for moving Phibsborough into mid-rise category are not well-founded.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs the draft Phibsborough LAP was not approved, it was agreed by the members to use the draft City Development Plan process to incorporate key policy elements of the key development sites outlined in the draft LAP for inclusion in the new City Development Plan for statutory guidance. For this reason the Amendments show that Phibsborough is included a more narrowly defined mid-rise category, and it is expressly stated under Section 16.7.2 of the CE’s Report and Recommendation on Submissions that Phibsborough will remain a low rise area, with the exception of allowing for (i) up to maximum height of 19m in the centre of the Smurfit site and immediately adjoining the proposed railway station at Cross Guns Bridge; and (ii) the addition of one additional storey of 4m will be considered in relation to any proposals to reclad the existing ‘tower’ at the Phibsborough Shopping Centre (as per the 2015 Draft Phibsborough LAP).


Furthermore, Phibsborough is to be inserted into the section of the draft plan relating to current LAPs/SDZs for preparation.

However, as Phibsborough is to be included in the Amendments in the mid-rise category the text of Section 4.5.4.1 (Approach to Taller Buildings) should be amended to recognise that there are specific areas identified for mid-rise buildings.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted for the planning reasons set out in the report.

Amend Section 4.5.4.1 as follow:

Omit: Of the 15 specific areas identified for mid-rise (up to 50m) and taller (above 50m) buildings, ……..11 are in the mid-rise category, of which 6 are in areas already the subject of local area plans and SDZs.

Replace with: Of the 14 specific areas identified for mid-rise (up to 50m) and taller (above 50m) buildings, 10 are in the mid-rise category, of which 4 are already subject of local area plans

324

For the sake of clarity; the following recommendations included from CE Report and Recommendations (pg 396)

Amend table Building Height in Dublin in Section 16.7.2 as follows:

Insert, in the Mid-rise category, after ‘Oscar Traynor Road’: Phibsborough*

Insert, underneath the Building Height in Dublin table, the following new text:*Phibsborough will remain a low rise area with the exception of allowing for (i) up to a max of 19m in the centre of the Smurfit site and immediately adjoining the proposed railway station at Cross Guns Bridge; and (ii) the addition of one additional storey of 4m will be considered in relation to any proposals to reclad the existing ‘tower’ at the Phibsborough Shopping Centre (as per the 2015 Draft Phibsborough LAP).

Amend the Building Height in Dublin Table, such that the three Areas in the low rise category and their corresponding maximum building heights directly correspond, so that “Up to 16m” is re-positioned to align horizontally with “Outer City” in the table.

Insert in Section 16.7.2, under Point 2, after “For the sake of clarity, plant rooms are included in the height definition”, (skip a line) and insert additional text:“The heights stated in the low-rise and mid-rise categories of the table titled Building Height in Dublin are maximum heights. Notwithstanding the maximum permissible heights specified in this section, proposals will be subject to assessment against standards set out elsewhere in the Development Plan, as will proposals in the high-rise category.”

325


MotionThat the Draft City Development Plan’s limitation on building heights on the Smurfit site to 16m (4-storey residential) is affirmed and that buildings of greater height are not permitted on this site.

Reason: The Chief Executive seeks greater height citing size of site, proximity to city centre and the quality of public transport provision. He makes no reference to the prevalence of chronic road traffic congestion at this Hart’s Corner location. The Chief Executive cites DECLG and NTA endorsement of high density development but this a macro view that takes no account of the micro realities that degrade Phibsborough’s environment and make it well -nigh impossible to sustain successful businesses in this location, as testified by the combined prevalence of empty units and low grade (fast food, bookies, tattoo parlours and charity shop) uses. He makes no reference to the way in which numerous community submissions and community-inspired motions opposing excessive height and density were undemocratically denied any consideration or discussion in the context of the Draft Phibsborough LAP’s preparation. The Chief Executive cites the proposed Development Plan objective of a Cross Guns Bridge railway station. He ignores the fact that the agencies with the power to bring such a station into operation have made clear that they have no plans to do so in the foreseeable future. Excessive building height and density at this location will therefore only exacerbate the existing blight and congestion caused by massive private road traffic volumes.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs the draft Phibsborough LAP was not approved, it was agreed by the members to use the draft City Development Plan process to incorporate key policy elements of the key development sites outlined in the draft LAP for inclusion in the new City Development Plan for statutory guidance.

For this reason the Amendments show that Phibsborough is included in the mid-rise category, and it is expressly stated under Section 16.7.2 of the CE’s Report and recommendations on Submissions that Phibsborough will remain a low rise area with the exception of allowing for greater heights on a very limited number of sites. One such site is the allowance of up to a maximum height of 19m in the centre of the Smurfit site. (Note that this height reduces to 2/3 storey and between site on surrounding residential areas).

With regard to the matters set out in the motion relating to road traffic congestion at Hart’s Corner, it may be noted that these matters may be further examined in the new LAP to be prepared.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted, for the reasons outlined in the report.

326


Cieran Perry

MotionThat the Draft City Development Plan’s limitation on building heights at Cross Guns Bridge site to 16m (4-storey residential) is affirmed and that buildings of greater height are not permitted on this site.

Reason: The agencies with the power to bring such a station into operation have made it clear that they have no plans to do so in the foreseeable future. To now zone land at this location for development (whether Z10 or Z3/Z1) will therefore only exacerbate the existing blight and congestion caused by massive private road traffic volumes through Phibsborough with no counterbalancing gain in public transport infrastructure.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe Amendments to the Draft plan specifically refer to Phibsborough remaining a low rise area with very limited exceptions, one of which is the allowance of up to 19m in height immediately adjoining the proposed railway station at Cross Guns Bridge.

The provision of a railway station at Cross Guns Bridge is a longer term aim, and so it is important that support for this remains in Dublin City Council’s Development Plan. To exclude any reference to a proposed railway station at this location in the Plan may negatively impact on the actual delivery of this public transport infrastructure. Furthermore, the increased height allowance to 19m at this location increases the sustainability and viability of public transport infrastructure.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted, for the planning reasons set out in the report.

327

2331Councillor(s) Cllr. Brendan Carr, Cllr. Vincent Jackson

MotionThat, since only the height of the office tower on the shopping centre site has been addressed in the CE’s report, and that moving Phibsborough from the low-rise to the medium-rise category could open the way for buildings of 50m to be permitted elsewhere on this site, the whole of Phibsborough, including the shopping centre site, should remain in the low-rise category with provision for a variation of the City Development Plan to be made once a Local Area Plan has been adopted for Phibsborough by Dublin City Council following genuine and meaningful consultation with the local community.

Reason: The CE’s report states: “Height: The Draft LAP allowed for the provision of one extra floor to the existing shopping centre tower in the event of proposals to refurbish such. With the existing building already at 28/31 metres, buildings in excess of this are not permitted under the existing Draft Development Plan, with Phibsborough classified as a low rise area. It is therefore proposed that Phibsborough be included in the list of areas suitable for mid-rise buildings (Section 16.7.2) with specific reference to this site.” The LAP amendment dealing with height proposed by Cllr Carr and carried at the 7 December DCC meeting at which the Draft LAP fell states: "It is acknowledged that Phibsborough will remain predominantly low rise in character. Building heights of up to 24 metres will generally be considered for this site with commercial building heights of three storeys, 12 metres, fronting on to Phibsborough Road with a further potential for a maximum of up to three setback storeys, 24 metres in total, having regard to architectural expression, location along Phibsborough Road, relationship to adjoining buildings, the public realm and anew civic plaza. Fronting on to the North Circular Road a maximum building height of three storeys with a possible fourth storey set back will be considered. In addition, proposals to either replace or reclad the existing unsightly tower, which is about 28-31 metres high will be considered with a maximum of one additional storey of 4 metres considered either to screen the existing unsightly roof plant and/or to give architectural expression to the roof. Furthermore that the City Council urge any future developer of the Phibsborough Shopping Centre to consult with the local community and take into consideration any proposals they may have in relation to broader urban design of the shopping centre site and its impact on the wider public realm in Phibsborough". Faced with a choice between an unstated (but presumably a 24m “low-rise” rail hub limit) and a 50m “mid-rise” limit, which is what the Chief Executive’s proposal involves, councillors should for the present opt for the former and deal properly with the issue’s specifics by means of a variation to the City Plan once a new Phibsborough LAP has been properly processed.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs the Draft Phibsborough LAP was not approved, it was agreed by the members to use the draft City Development Plan process to incorporate key policy elements of the key development sites outlined in the draft LAP for inclusion in the new City Development Plan for statutory guidance.

For this reason the Amendments show that Phibsborough is included in a more narrowly defined mid-rise category, and it is expressly stated under Section 16.7.2 of the CE’s Report and Recommendations on Submissions that Phibsborough will remain a low rise area with exception of allowing for (i) up to maximum height of 19m in the centre of the Smurfit site and immediately adjoining the proposed railway station at Cross Guns Bridge; and (ii) the addition of one additional storey of 4m will be considered in relation to any proposals to reclad the existing ‘tower’ at the Phibsborough Shopping Centre (as per the 2015 Draft Phibsborough LAP).

In relation to the motion, it is the purpose of the Development Plan to give strategic direction,

328

rather than use the Local Plan process to initiate a variation to the Development Plan.


Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted for the planning reasons set out in the report, and that The CE’s Recommendations are accepted i.e.;






329

2332Councillor(s) Cllr. Daithí De Róiste, Cllr. Pat Dunne, People Before Profit Group

MotionThis Council agrees that the proposed Inner City Low rise height of 28m is a contradiction in terms and should be changed to accurately interpret 'Low-rise' in the context of a low-rise European city like Dublin where the tall Georgian terraces should define the maximum low-rise height.

Reason: 13 areas of the city are specifically identified in the Draft Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022 to cater for mid-rise and high buildings with the remainder of the city being low-rise. A height of 9 residential storeys (28m) cannot be considered "low" in a city mostly comprised of buildings of 2 - 4 storeys. 9 storey heights are unnecessary for high residential densities. Remarkably high residential densities can be achieved (200-250 uph) with 5/6 storey buildings.

Motion



The Draft plan continues the policy of previous development plans, acknowledging the intrinsic quality of Dublin’s low rise character and the need to protect in particular the historic city core encompassed by the Quays, the Georgian Squares, Dublin Caste, College Green (para 16.7). The Draft plan specifically states that “Low Rise” relates to the prevailing local heights and context (pg 162). By reducing the definition of “low rise” to the height of typical Georgian buildings (4 storeys over basement equates to 14-16m) as suggested, it would have severe repercussions across the city in terms of employment, international competitiveness, housing provision, together with critical infrastructure such as transport and hospitals.





330


MotionSection 16.7.2: That the Chief Executive's recommendation to designate Phibsborough as a 'mid-rise' (up to 50 metres) area be rejected and that Phibsborough remain in the 'low-rise' category.

Reason: Phibsborough, being above sea level, is therefore naturally set high on the city landscape (the base of the front door of St. Peter's Church is at the same height as the tip of the old Nelson's Pillar). Constructions of over 28 metres will visually intrude upon protected building, impede important vistas and dominate the city's skyline in an unacceptable and exaggerated way.(Phibsborough Tower, at 28 meters, is already visible from many points in the city.

The planners and management position vis a vis the implied correlation between height and density needs to be reexamined in the context of their stated aim for a density of 120 units per hectare by again looking at European models such as Frankfurt (density achieved allowing for 'low-rise' at 20 metres) as well as Dublin's own Georgian model which already achieves a density of 160 units per hectare at four storeys over basement.

The sustainability of building of 50 meters needs to be examined from an economic, financial and operational viewpoint, and evidence suggests that: a) The buildings are more expensive to both construct and to maintain. Sinking fund provisions are often ignored leading to long term problems for tenants.b) Required lifts impact negatively on the available living space, resulting in smaller apartments. The ongoing operational costs, maintenance and repair of lifts result in disproportionate additional expense to tenants as well as inconvenience during frequent and, over time, increasing, "out of use" time.

The proposed designation of up to 500 metres either side of transport corridors and hubs (i.e. Luas , Dart, Rail, Mainline and Underground lines) and on strategic sites as 'mid-rise' (50 metres), would become ,constructions of 50 metres in height would overshadow the streets and houses while destroying the integrity of the existing urban landscape and utterly transforming this old Dublin residential area which should be treasured and not destroyed.

Motion



For this reason the Amendments show that Phibsborough is included in a more narrowly defined mid-rise category, and it is expressly stated under Section 16.7.2 of the CE’s Report and Recommendations on Submissions that Phibsborough will remain a low rise area, with the exception for (i) up to maximum height of 19m in the centre of the Smurfit site and immediately adjoining the proposed railway station at Cross Guns Bridge; and (ii) the addition of one additional storey of 4m will be considered in relation to any proposals to reclad the existing ‘tower’ at the Phibsborough Shopping Centre (as per the 2015 Draft Phibsborough LAP).


Furthermore Phibsborough is to be inserted into the section of the draft plan relating to current LAP's/SDZ's for preperation.However, as Phibsborough is to be included in the Amendments in

331

the mid-rise category, the text of Section 4.5.4.1 (Approach to Taller Buildings) should be amended to recognise that there are specific areas identified for mid-rise buildings.











332


MotionSection 16.7.2 and p394: That the Chief Executive's recommendation that the Phibsborough Tower height be increase to 31 metres be rejected and that the note attaching to section 16.7.2 relating thereto be removed.

Reason: Most of the technology on the roof is redundant and can therefore be removed and, if needs be, replaced by modern technology which can achieve the same results with smaller, more seamless and visually acceptable equipment.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs the draft Phibsborough LAP was not approved, it was agreed by the members to use the draft City Development Plan process to incorporate key policy elements of the key development sites outlined in the draft LAP for inclusion in the new City Development Plan for statutory guidance. For this reason the Amendments show that Phibsborough is included a more narrowly defined mid-rise category, and it is expressly stated under Section 16.7.2 of the CE’s Report and Recommendation on Submissions that Phibsborough will remain a low rise area, with the exception of allowing for (i) up to maximum height of 19m in the centre of the Smurfit site and immediately adjoining the proposed railway station at Cross Guns Bridge; and (ii) the addition of one additional storey of 4m will be considered in relation to any proposals to reclad the existing ‘tower’ at the Phibsborough Shopping Centre (as per the 2015 Draft Phibsborough LAP).


However, as Phibsborough is to be included in the Amendments in the mid-rise category, the text of Section 4.5.4.1 (Approach to Taller Buildings) should be amended to recognise that there are specific areas identified for mid-rise buildings.







333





334


MotionSection 16.7.2: That the height definition pertaining to 'low-rise' (Inner City area) be reduced from 28 metres (the height of the Phibsborough Tower) to 20 metres.

Reason: Currently, the Phibsborough Tower is 28 metres high and to categorise or consider this tower as 'low-rise' is not only ridiculous but insulting to the people of the area who have had to live in the shadow of this building for many years. More importantly, the Draft Dublin City Development Plan allows for 'low-rise' buildings of up to 28 metres for 500 metres each side along the route of all transport hubs, such as the new Luas Line through Cabra, the Cross Guns Bridge site appointed for a new rail station and on the Smurfit site as well as other designated sites across the city. This means the integrity and amenity of these already existing residential areas right across the city will be compromised at best, and with unacceptable overshadowing further compromising and destroying the integrity and amenity values of existing residential areas.

As a modern European capital, Dublin should, insofar as possible, lead where possible and follow where necessary, European Planning standards, one of which is the accepted European standard whereby 28 metres is considered 'mid-rise', whereas Dublin City Council has designated 28 metres as 'low-rise'.

The planners and management position vis a vis the implied correlation between height and density needs to be re-examined in the context of their stated aim for a density of 120 units per hectare by again looking at European models such as Frankfurt (density achieved allowing for 'low-rise' at 20 metres) as well as Dublin's own Georgian model which already achieves a density of 160 units per hectare at four storeys over basement.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseIt is agreed that Dublin, as a modern, progressive, European capital should strive for quality urban living which makes best use of social and physical infrastructure and reduces urban sprawl. The height and density policies in the draft Development Plan are the result of an intensive review during the preparation of the current Development Plan, which included a review of other European cities.

The Draft Plan stipulates that the 28 metre height for the Inner City “relates to the prevailing local height and context”. This allows the policy to respond to the variety of height characteristics in the city, ranging from 2 storey terraces, 4 storey Georgian (c14-18m) and commercial / hotel / offices up to 7 storeys (28m).

A height limit of 20m combined with the existing overarching policy in the Development Plan that Dublin will remain a low rise city predominantly, would have severe repercussions for the city in terms of economic competitiveness, employment, housing provision, and climate change mitigation.

The relationship between height and density is contingent on many factors including variety of building typology, open space, and the degree to which comprehensive planning takes place. For example density in Georgian Dublin ranges from 26 uph to 44 uph, whereas 240 uph is achieved in the new Docklands.


335


MotionThat Low Rise be defined as Georgian height (14 metres) or maximum 20 metres and not 28 metres as proposed.

Reason: To retain the integrity of the Georgian Quarter.

Motion



The Draft plan continues the policy of previous development plans, acknowledging the intrinsic quality of Dublin’s low rise character and the need to protect in particular the historic city core encompassed by the Quays, the Georgian Squares, Dublin Caste, College Green (para 16.7). The Draft plan specifically states that “Low Rise” relates to the prevailing local heights and context (pg 162). By reducing the definition of “low rise” to the height of typical Georgian buildings (4 storeys over basement equals to the 14-18 metres) as suggested, it would have severe repercussions across the city in terms of employment, international competitiveness, housing provision, together with critical infrastructure such as transport and hospitals.





336

2337Councillor(s) Cllr. Vincent Jackson, Deputy Lord Mayor Cieran Perry

MotionThat the Draft City Development Plan’s limitation on building heights on the Smurfit site to 16m (4-storey residential) is affirmed and that buildings of greater height are not permitted on this site.

Reason: The Chief Executive seeks greater height citing size of site, proximity to city centre and the quality of public transport provision. He makes no reference to the prevalence of chronic road traffic congestion at this Hart’s Corner location. The Chief Executive cites DECLG and NTA endorsement of high density development but this a macro view that takes no account of the micro realities that degrade Phibsborough’s environment and make it well -nigh impossible to sustain successful businesses in this location, as testified by the combined prevalence of empty units and low grade (fast food, bookies, tattoo parlours and charity shop) uses.

Motion



For this reason the Amendments show that Phibsborough is included in a more narrowly defined mid-rise category, and it is expressly stated under Section 16.7.2 of the CE’s Report and Recommendations on Submissions that Phibsborough will remain a low rise area (i) up to maximum height of 19m in the centre of the Smurfit site and immediately adjoining the proposed railway station at Cross Guns Bridge; and (ii) the addition of one additional storey of 4m will be considered in relation to any proposals to reclad the existing ‘tower’ at the Phibsborough Shopping Centre (as per the 2015 Draft Phibsborough LAP). With regard to the matters set out in the motion relating to road traffic congestion at Hart’s Corner, it may be noted that these matters may be further examined in the new LAP to be prepared.


337


MotionThis Council DCC agrees that the proposed inner City Low height 28m is a contradiction in terms and should be changed to accurately interpret LOW RISE in the context of a low rise European city like Dublin where tall Georgian terraces should define the maximum low rise height.

Reason: 13 areas of the city are specifically identified in the Draft Dublin City Development Plan 2016 to 2022 to cater for mid rise and high buildings with the remainder of the city being low rise. A height of 9 residential storeys 28 m cannot be considered “low" in a city mostly comprised of buildings of a 2-4 storeys. 9 storey heights are unnecessary for high residential densities. Remarkably high residential densities can be achieved (200-250 uph) with 5/6 storey buildings.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseIt is agreed that height and density are not necessarily linked, and that relatively high densities can achieved within 5/6 storey buildings; however Dublin is not uniform, and height needs to be planned to take account of historic character and the need for open space.

It is emphasised that the building height of up to 28m in the Low Rise category in the Inner City is a maximum height. This maximum height of up to 28m is already allowed for commercial buildings in the Inner City in the current City Development Plan 2011-2017.

The Draft plan continues the policy of previous development plans, acknowledging the intrinsic quality of Dublin’s low rise character and the need to protect in particular the historic city core encompassed by the Quays, the Georgian Squares, Dublin Caste, College Green (para 16.7). The Draft plan specifically states that “Low Rise” relates to the prevailing local heights and context (pg 162). By reducing the definition of “low rise” to the height of typical Georgian buildings (4 storeys over basement equals to the +6m) as suggested, it would have severe repercussions across the city in terms of employment, international competitiveness, housing provision, together with critical infrastructure such as transport and hospitals.





338

2339Councillor(s) Cllr. David Costello, Cllr. Vincent Jackson

MotionThat, in the categorisation of building heights permissible in the city, Phibsborough is designated a low-rise area. Any future exception to this designation should only be permitted through a variation of this Development Plan that is provided for in a Local Area Plan adopted for Phibsborough by Dublin City Councillors following genuine and meaningful consultation with the local community

Reason: As outlined below in relation to the sites specifically earmarked for greater height –Smurfit Printworks, Cross Guns Bridge, Phibsborough Shopping Centre/Dalymount Park - the Chief Executive’s arguments for moving Phibsborough into mid-rise category are not well-founded.

Motion




In relation to the motion, it is the purpose of the Development Plan to give strategic direction, rather than use the Local Plan process to initiate a variation to the Development Plan. Accordingly, as the members have agreed to incorporate the key policy elements of the fallen draft LAP into the new City Development Plan, it is recommended that this motion is not adopted.






339



MotionThat the Draft City Development Plan’s limitation on building heights at Cross Guns Bridge site to 16m (4-storey residential) should be relaxed if proposed developments that front onto the road or walkways stepped back to maintain a low rise street frontage while maintaining housing density.

Reason: To maintain a low rise street frontage while providing for density in keeping with proximity to the city centre.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe Amendments to the Draft plan specifically refer to Phibsborough remaining a low rise area with very limited exceptions, one of which is the allowance of up to 19m in height immediately adjoining the proposed railway station at Cross Guns Bridge.

The provision of a railway station at Cross Guns Bridge is a longer term aim, and so it is important that support for this remains in Dublin City Council’s Development Plan. To exclude any reference to a proposed railway station at this location in the Plan may negatively impact on the actual delivery of this public transport infrastructure. Furthermore, the increased height allowance to 19m at this location increases the sustainability and viability of public transport infrastructure.

All proposed development, irrespective of the maximum height standards are subject to the various standards in the Draft Plan including those in 16.2 "Respecting and enhancing character and context".


340


MotionThat, since only the height of the office tower on the shopping centre site has been addressed in the City Manager’s report, and that moving Phibsborough from the low-rise to the medium-rise category could open the way for buildings of 50m to be permitted elsewhere on this site, the whole of Phibsborough, including the shopping centre site, should remain in the low-rise category with provision for a variation of the City Development Plan to be made once a Local Area Plan has been adopted for Phibsborough by Dublin City Council following genuine and meaningful consultation with the local community

Reason: The CE's report states: “Height: The Draft LAP allowed for the provision of one extra floor to the existing shopping centre tower in the event of proposals to refurbish such. With the existing building already at 28/31 metres, buildings in excess of this are not permitted under the existing Draft Development Plan, with Phibsborough classified as a low rise area. It is therefore proposed that Phibsborough be included in the list of areas suitable for mid-rise buildings (Section 16.7.2) with specific reference to this site.” The LAP amendment dealing with height proposed by Cllr Carr and carried at the 7 December DCC meeting at which the Draft LAP fell states: "It is acknowledged that Phibsborough will remain predominantly low rise in character. Building heights of up to 24 metres will generally be considered for this site with commercial building heights of three storeys, 12 metres, fronting on to Phibsborough Road with a further potential for a maximum of up to three setback storeys, 24 metres in total, having regard to architectural expression, location along Phibsborough Road, relationship to adjoining buildings, the public realm and anew civic plaza. Fronting on to the North Circular Road a maximum building height of three storeys with a possible fourth storey set back will be considered. In addition, proposals to either replace or reclad the existing unsightly tower, which is about 28-31 metres high will be considered with a maximum of one additional storey of 4 metres considered either to screen the existing unsightly roof plant and/or to give architectural expression to the roof. Furthermore that the City Council urge any future developer of the Phibsborough Shopping Centre to consult with the local community and take into consideration any proposals they may have in relation to broader urban design of the shopping centre site and its impact on the wider public realm in Phibsborough". Faced with a choice between an unstated (but presumably a 24m “low-rise” rail hub limit) and a 50m “mid-rise” limit, which is what the Chief Executive’s proposal involves, councillors should for the present opt for the former and deal properly with the issue’s specifics by means of a variation to the City Plan once a new Phibsborough LAP has been properly processed.

Motion




In relation to the motion, it is the purpose of the Development Plan to give strategic direction,

341

rather than use the Local Plan process to initiate a variation to the Development Plan.








342


MotionThis Council agrees that the proposed Inner City Low rise height of 28m is a contradiction in terms and should be changed to accurately interpret 'Low-rise' in the context of a low-rise European city like Dublin where the tall Georgian terraces should define the maximum low-rise height.

Reason: 13 areas of the city are specifically identified in the Draft Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022 to cater for mid-rise and high buildings with the remainder of the city being low-rise. A height of 9 residential storeys (28m) cannot be considered "low" in a city mostly comprised of buildings of 2 - 4 storeys. 9 storey heights are unnecessary for high residential densities. Remarkably high residential densities can be achieved (200-250 uph) with 5/6 storey buildings.

Motion







Chief Executive's RecommendationThat this motion is not adopted, for the reasons set out in the report.

343


MotionDublin City Council agrees to amend the Draft Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022 to ensure that, other than in the areas in this Plan which permit the possibility of taller buildings, the remainder of the city will retain its low-rise character in accordance with the historic Georgian height.

Reason: Buildings in Dublin are for the most part low-rise, with many residential areas having single and two storey structures. Variance from this within areas of this kind would clearly result in an incoherent streetscape and skyline and completely destroy the character of the city.

Motion








344


MotionMotion re. Low Rise Height

With 13 areas designated for mid-rise and high-rise buildings, Dublin City Council agrees to retain the low - rise character of the remainder of the city. The low-rise height should be in keeping with the internationally recognised and admired historic height of the city.

Reason: The desirability of retaining the traditional low-rise height of the city is acknowledged.With heights up to 28 m the low-rise character would be lost.

Motion



In the vast majority of the city, the maximum height is set at 16m (equivalent to 4 storey commercial). Again this relates to prevailing local height.

The Draft plan continues the policy of previous development plans, acknowledging the intrinsic quality of Dublin’s low rise character and the need to protect in particular the historic city core encompassed by the Quays, the Georgian Squares, Dublin Caste, College Green (para 16.7). The Draft plan specifically states that “Low Rise” relates to the prevailing local heights and context (pg 162). By reducing the definition of “low rise” to the height of typical Georgian buildings (4 storeys over basement equals to the 14-16 metres) as suggested, it would have severe repercussions across the city in terms of employment, international competitiveness, housing provision, together with critical infrastructure such as transport and hospitals.




Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted, for reasons set out in the report.

345


MotionThat the new city development must acknowledge the intrinsic quality of Dublin as a low rise city and also seek to recognise and protect our seafront. In this regard the maximum height of all front line buildings and / or within 150 metres of our coastline/seashore (excl docklands) will be three stories. This amendment will supersede where applicable any low rise amendments dealing with mainline, Dart and Metro hubs (currently 6 storey residential / 6 storey office commercial.) and rest of outer city amendments ( currently 4 storey residential / 4 storey office commercial.

Reason: To protect the environmental amenity that is our city’s coastline.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThis motion was previously raised in the Draft Motions (Motion 1543), and was not adopted, as set out in the minutes of the Special Council Meetings of 16th and 17th September 2015.

Policy SC14 (4.5.4.1 Approach to Taller Buildings) sets out that it is Council policy to recognise that Dublin is a fundamentally low-rise city and that the intrinsic quality of this feature is protected while also recognising the potential and need for taller buildings in a limited number of locations. The proposal to limit building height as set out in the motion would significantly impact on housing units being permitted and delivered across the city.

Furthermore, to apply a blanket approach of maximum three storeys in height as proposed would be to disregard entirely the targeted approach to allowing taller buildings in specific areas, and would also be in conflict with the content of Chapter 16.

For example, Section 16.2.1(Design Principles) states inter alia:“All development will be expected to incorporate exemplary standards of high -quality sustainable and inclusive urban design and architecture befitting the city‟s environment and heritage and its diverse range of locally distinctive neighbourhoods…”

The inclusion of this motion would result in the draft plan being internally inconsistent, and would encourage unsustainable urban sprawl.

With regard to protecting the amenity of Dublin city’s coastline, Chapter 10 (Green Infrastructure, Open Space and Recreation) recognises the need to sustainably develop the recreational amenities of the coastline, in addition to other watercourses in the city. Policy GI17 is to develop sustainable coastal, estuarine, canal and riverine recreational amenities to enhance appreciation of coastal natural assets in a manner that ensures that any adverse environmental effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

The process of improving access to the city’s coastline, and the coastline of adjoining local authorities to north and south of the Dublin City Council area, is underway with the Sutton to Sandycove 2S cycleway project. Further protection of the city’s coastline is also set out in Chapter 9 (Sustainable Environmental Infrastructure), where Policy SI14 is to protect the Dublin City coastline from flooding as far as reasonably practicable, by implementing the recommendations of the Dublin Coastal Flood Protection Project and the Dublin Safer Project.

Accordingly, it is considered that there is sufficient recognition of protecting the environmental amenity of Dublin’s coastline in the Draft Plan.


346

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted, as there is sufficient protection in the Draft plan.

347


MotionAmend the low-rise heights in the table 'Building Height in Dublin' in Section 16.7.2, in the 'Inner City' and 'Rail Hub' categories as follows:

From: Low-rise (relates to the prevailing local height and context)Inner City - Up to 28mRail Hubs (see 3 above) - Up to 24m

To:Low-rise (relates to the prevailing local height and context)Inner City and Rail Hubs (see 3 above) - Up to 20mAmend any other relevant section of the Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022 to reflect this change to the 'Building Height in Dublin' table.

Reason: Dublin is recognised internationally as a low-rise city i.e. its character is largely determined by its Georgian scale (up to c.15m). The desirability of maintaining this scale is stated repeatedly in the Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022. To permit heights of up to 28m while claiming this qualifies as "low" is contradictory and runs directly contrary to the aim to specifically limit height to identified areas in order to preserve the low-rise character of the city. Any claim that 28m heights are required in order to increase densities in the city is erroneous and confuses density with height, planning concepts that are largely unrelated.

Motion






348


Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is not adopted, for the reasons set out in report.

349


MotionPage 162, In Table under 16.7.2

Change the phrase “Up to 28m” under Low-rise to “”Up to 24m”

Reason: to limit overlooking, overshadowing and excessive building heights

Motion








350


MotionIn relation to public submissions received on height, to adjust proposed increased maximum heights in the Inner City (low rise) area to 20 metres rather than 28 metres, allowing for a balance of high-density accommodation with an ability to limit urban sprawl and minimum standards. Exemptions to this height limit may be granted up to 28m only in instances of residential buildings where common green space is expanded by at least 30% above the minimum outdoor space requirements.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseIt is emphasised that the building height of up to 28m in the Inner City in the low-rise category is a maximum height. This maximum height of up to 28m is already allowed for commercial buildings in the Inner City in the current City Development Plan 2011-2017. The intention of allowing buildings up to a maximum height of 28m is to avoid the potential for incoherent streetscapes, and to allow also for residential development up to this maximum height, where appropriate.

It should be noted that the any proposals to build up to 28m in the Inner City are subject to assessment against standards and criteria set out in Chapter 16 (Development Standards) and elsewhere in the Draft Plan. In particular, Section 16.2.1.1. (Respecting and Enhancing Character and Context) sets out that in assessing new development, consideration will be given to how the design has responded to the existing context and its relationship to the established pattern and scale of surrounding townscape.

Furthermore, a blanket ban on buildings in excess of 20m in the Inner City (low rise category) would significantly impact on the Council’s requirement to deliver housing units in the inner city, would impact on the number of housing units being permitted, and could potentially contribute to unsustainable urban sprawl. Increasing housing supply and increasing the potential for more people to live in the city can reduce long commutes and can instead result in more sustainable travel patterns being achieved.

With regard to allowing buildings of 28m in height only in specific instances, based on common green space being expanded by at least 30% above the minimum outdoor space requirements, as set out in this motion, it should be noted that the DECLG’s Sustainable Urban Housing: Design Standards for New Apartments – Guidelines for Planning Authorities (December 2015) set out what the minimum floor areas for communal amenity space are.


351


MotionAdd a new paragraph (Building Height in Phibsborough):

“That, in the categorisation of building heights permissible in the city, Phibsborough is designated a low-rise area (up to 24m). Any future exception to this designation should only be permitted through a variation of this Development Plan that is provided for in a Local Area Plan adopted for Phibsborough by Dublin City Councillors following genuine and meaningful consultation with the local community

Reason: to prevent inappropriate heights.

Motion




In relation to the motion, it is the purpose of the Development Plan to give strategic direction, rather than use the Local Plan process to initiate a variation to the Development Plan.







352



MotionThat this City Development Plan set up a planning unit to check that footpaths and roads are not left in a dangerous condition.

Motion





MotionThis City Council agrees to amend the Floor to Ceiling height requirement for attic conversions in traditional Dublin Corporation terraced housing to that of 2.1metres.

Reason: This is to allow optimum use of existing housing and reflects a reality that is already happening across the City. This motion stems from a variety of submissions seeking better use of the existing stock and revitalising the residential options for the City.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe Development Plan does not provide minimum floor-to-ceiling heights for attic conversions. Issues of attic conversions are dealt with under the Building Regulations, with requirements to comply with Part F for adequate means of ventilation, and Part B for fire safety of particular note. To simply inset a requirement for a 2.1 floor-to-ceiling height would not in itself adequately address the requirements of the building regulations.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion not adopted. This is a building regulations matter and is outside the scope of the Development Plan.

353


MotionThis City Council agrees to amend Chapter 16 in all appropriate sections to allow for the floor to ceiling heights for attic conversions in single family residential units to be approximately 2.1 metres to enable families provide the necessary opportunities for bedroom accommodation, subject to all other health and safety requirements.

Reason: There is a huge stock of traditional City Council provided and designed housing in which the current attics do not allow for the required 2.4 metre floor to ceiling height requirement as contained in the Development Plan. This seriously inhibits the opportunities for existing residents to remain in their homes and provide for the accommodation needs of their families. This change would facilitate that.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe Development Plan does not provide minimum floor-to-ceiling heights for attic conversions. Issues of attic conversions are dealt with under the Building Regulations, with requirements to comply with Part F for adequate means of ventilation, and Part B for fire safety of particular note. To simply inset a requirement for a 2.1 floor-to-ceiling height would not in itself adequately address the requirements of the building regulations.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion not adopted. This is a building regulations matter and is outside the scope of the Development Plan.

354


Motion16.10.1 Residential Quality Standards – Apartments:

The existing requirements for 85% of apartments to be dual aspect must be retained

Reason: To encourage building layout and design which maximises daylight while using innovative design techniques to achieve this.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe changes proposed within the Chief Executive’s Report on Submissions aligns the Development Plan with the standards set out for apartment developments in the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government guidelines entitled Sustainable Urban Housing: design Standards for New Apartments – Guidelines for Planning Authorities, December 2015. Within this context it is a specific planning policy requirement that the minimum number of dual aspect apartments that may be provided in a scheme is 50%. This is a mandatory national standard which supersedes the provision of the Development Plan. Were the Development Plan to contain a requirement for 85% dual aspect this would undoubtedly mislead the public and applicants as to what is the statutory requirement.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThis motion is not adopted as it is contrary to National Planning Policy and is out of order.

355


MotionThe existing requirement of 20% maximum of 1 bed units per development must be retained

Reason: To maintain the diverse nature of occupancy and to promote family friendly living environments.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe 2011-2017 City Development Plan contains a requirement for a maximum of 20% one-bed units. This was changed to 30% in the Draft 2016-2022 Plan which went on public display. It was further recommended in the CE report on submissions that the percentage be altered to a maximum of 25-30% one-bed units, on foot of the 2015 Department Guidelines, which requires a range to be provided in the order of 20% on the upper limit of one-bed units.

The increase in the allowable percentage of one-bed units was addressed and agreed upon prior to the Draft Plan being put on display. It was a reflection of the current household composition of the City, as set out in the Housing Strategy Appendix 2A of the Draft Plan. The average household size in Dublin is declining from 2.67 in 1996 to 2.4 in 2011, and over 30% of households in Dublin City are one person households.

Research also suggests that in the future 57% of all households in the Dublin Region will be for one and two person households (Housing Agency, Housing Supply Requirement in Ireland’s Urban Settlements 2014-2018). The Development Plan is thus ensuring that the housing provision is suitable to the future needs of the population.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion not adopted in the interests of aligning the City’s housing provision with projected household formation.

356


MotionThe proposal to introduce studio apartment size to 45m2 should be omitted.

Reason: To maintain residential accommodation standards.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe changes proposed within the Chief Executive’s Report on Submissions aligns the Development Plan with the standards set out for apartment developments in the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government guidelines entitled Sustainable Urban Housing: design Standards for New Apartments – Guidelines for Planning Authorities, December 2015. This sets a specific planning policy requirement for minimum overall apartment sizes, including a studio-type apartment of 40 sq.m., and a one-bed unit of 45 sq.m. These are mandatory national standards which supersede the provision of the Development Plan. Were the Development Plan to be at odds with the National Standards set by the Department, this would undoubtedly mislead the public and applicants as to what is the statutory requirement.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThis motion is not adopted as it is contrary to National Planning Policy and is out of order.

357


MotionTo remove the following sentence "within managed 'build- to- let' apartment schemes up to 42-50% of the total units may be in the form one bed or studio units" and replace with "within managed 'build- to- let' apartment schemes up to 30-35% of the total units may be in the form one bed or studio units"

Reason: to provide a suitable residential mix in build-to-let developments, protect and promote residential amenity, promote sustainable city-living in the proposed electoral divisions where they apply.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe Department’s 2015 Guidelines state that it is a planning policy requirement that the mix ranges that generally apply to housing should not apply to managed ‘build to let’ housing. It states that the mix may include a higher proportion of studio or one bedroom apartments, subject to a maximum of 50% studio type units. The CE Report on Submissions which takes on board the 2015 Department Guidelines confines build-to-let schemes to certain parts of the City with large centres of employment, and also stipulates that the mix contain a maximum of 42-50% of one-bed or studio units. There is no reduction on the requirement for 15% family units. This is reflective of the population composition of the City, and indeed future population and household forecast predictions, e.g. the Housing Agency’s report Housing Supply Requirement in Ireland’s Urban Settlements 2014-2018, states that research currently indicates that in the future 57% of all households in the Dublin Region will be for one and two person households. It should be noted that the proposed amendments in the CE’s report also includes the proviso that “Build -to-let schemes for mobile works should be adaptable for future demographic needs of the City, e.g. by providing for the amalgamation of studios in a change of use scenario”.

It should be noted also that the 'studio' provision only applies to professionally managed Build -to-let schemes within a 500m walking distance of major employment centres, such as the Docklands and National Hospitals.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion not adopted, as contrary to guidance set out in the 2015 Department Guidelines and at odds with future population and household composition forecasts.

358


MotionTo add the following text in to section 16.10.1 after the words"acoustic privacy standards":

"The 2015 Department Guidelines represent insufficient standards for apartment developments in the Dublin City Council administrative area. The proposed apartment sizes are too small to meet the needs for families, people with disabilities (who will have difficulty installing grab rails or any other disability aids in such small dwellings) and ordinary Dubliners".

Reason: To highlight the reduced size of residential units and the fact that small units cannot facilitate stair lifts, grab rails and countless other aides for people with disabilities. Additionally, this makes no material change to the development plan but highlights important issues for people in our city.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe 2015 Department Guidelines contain specific policy requirements which are mandatory national standards. If the Draft Plan refers to the 2015 Guidelines and in the same paragraph states that these Guidelines represent insufficient standards for apartment development, this will undoubtedly cause confusion amongst the public and lead to uncertainty as to what standard is required/ applied. It is also noted that all new residential units must be part M compliant under the Building Regulations.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion not adopted, as it is contrary to National Planning Policy and is out of order.

359


MotionThat Dublin City Council maintains the current minimum apartment size of 55m2. Whilst recognising the directive of the Department of the Environment in this regard, the council believes it is important that Dublin maintains its record of pushing national government towards higher standards for those living in apartments.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe changes proposed within the Chief Executive’s Report on Submissions aligns the Development Plan with the standards set out for apartment developments in the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government guidelines entitled Sustainable Urban Housing: design Standards for New Apartments – Guidelines for Planning Authorities, December 2015. This sets a specific planning policy requirement for minimum overall apartment sizes, including a studio-type apartment of 40 sq.m., and a one-bed unit of 45 sq.m. This is a mandatory national standard which supersedes the provision of the Development Plan. Were the Development Plan to contain a requirement for a 55sq.m. one-bed units this would undoubtedly mislead the public and applicants as to what is the statutory requirement.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThis motion is not adopted as it is contrary to National Planning Policy and out of order. This is a mandatory national standard issued by the Minister under the Planning Acts and must be complied with.

360


Motion16.10.7 Guidelines for Student Accommodation

Developments of over 200 units should maintain a 1Km radius from another student Accommodation development

Reason: To prevent over studentification of a community

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe Draft Plan contains a requirement for an applicant for student accommodation to submit details of all student accommodation within 0.25km of a proposal, as an aid to the planning authority in assessing applications for new student developments. The Draft Plan states that the planning authority will have regard to “the pattern and distribution of student accommodation in the locality and will resist the over-concentration of such schemes in anyone area, in the interests of achieving a sustainable mix of development”.

In assessing an application the Planning Authority will have regard to the level of development sought, the proximity to third level institutions and other student accommodation, to public transport, retail and recreational amenities etc., and to good urban design principles.

To prohibit student development within a 1km radius of another student accommodation development would severely restrict opportunities for student accommodation within walking distance of third level establishments and indeed public transport, and would as such be contrary to other provisions within the Development Plan which seek to create a sustainable, walkable city. It would also severely impact upon and be contrary to Policy CEE19 of the Draft Plan which is:

(i) To promote Dublin as an International Education Centre/Student City, as set out in national policy, and to support and encourage provision of necessary infrastructure such as colleges (including English Language Colleges) and high quality, custom built and professionally -managed student housing.

(ii) To recognise that there is a need for significant extra high-quality, professionally-managed student accommodation developments in the city; and to facilitate the high-quality provision of such facilities.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is not adopted as there is sufficient policy to achieve a balance in the plan.

361


MotionRetain reference to maximum number of single and double occupancy units of 40%.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseChanges to the guidelines for student accommodation were proposed in the Chief Executive’s report on submissions following detailed submissions received from both the third level institutions and from providers of student accommodation requesting that the Development Plan reconsider the limits placed on the nature and type of student accommodation provided. In particular there were requests to remove the restriction on the 40% maximum of single/ double occupancy units. The submissions stated that studio units or single/double occupancy units are crucial for post-graduates and oversees students who may have sole living preferences relating to their study demands, culture or religion. The 40% maximum placed on such units is considered to be overly restrictive and also at variance with a number of recent decisions by An Bord Pleanála where 100% studio units were granted approval.

The CE in considering the public submissions received considered it reasonable to allow for greater percentages of single/ double occupancy units subject to units providing adequate sunlight and daylight as required, and ensuring that sufficient amenity and communal spaces are provided to allow for students to interact outside the studio room, in study rooms/ tv rooms/ gardens etc.

There is no planning reason put forward with this motion to reinstate the 40% reference in the Draft. It is recommended that the modifications put forward in the CE report are retained in relation to this matter.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is not adopted for the reasons outlined above.

362


MotionAfter the new sentence referencing townhouses (“Within campus locations consideration will be given to the provision of townhouse, 'own-door' student accommodation with a maximum of 12 bed spaces per townhouse”), insert the additional phrase; “which will be subject to the same communal/amenity facility requirements as other student accommodation types.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseCommunal facilities serving/ available to students are required for all types of student accommodation, including and not specific to the “townhouse”. The amended text proposed in the CE report on submissions including the following wording:

Communal facilities and services which serve the needs of students shall be provided for, which include laundry facilities, caretaker/ security and refuse facilities (either on site or near -by within a campus setting).

This allows for facilities such as laundry, security to be available on campus for the town house model as opposed to within the individual “house”. It should be noted that the reason for allowing the “town house” model within a campus setting is to allow the historic setting of the Trinity and Grangegoramn campuses through the provision of smaller fine-grain units. The Plan specifically requests the provision of communal facilities to be addressed, and it is reasonable that in a campus setting some of this provision may be in adjoining or nearby buildings.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is noted. Communal student facilities are specifically required for the student "townhouses". (See Chief Executive's Report pg 417).

363


MotionRetain the following wording from the current Development Plan (Par.17.10.5)

"The re-use of older buildings of significance is a central element in the conservation of the built heritage of the city and important to the achievement of sustainability. In assessing applications to demolish older buildings which are not protected, the planning authority will actively seek the retention and re-use of buildings/structures of historic, architectural, cultural, artistic and/or local interest or buildings which make a positive contribution to the character and identity of streetscapes and the sustainable development of the city."

Reason: This provision is important for sustainability and conservation reasons.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThis wording has been retained in the Draft Plan and is included as section 16.10.17 Retention and Re-use of Older Buildings of Significance which are not Protected.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThat motion is noted, the matter is already addressed in existing text, section 16.10.17 Retention and Re-use of Older Buildings of Significance which are not Protected in the Draft Plan.

364


MotionThat in respect of a planning application for the alteration of a front garden in the curtilage of protected structures and in conservation areas / Architectural Conservation Areas in order to provide car parking by either creating a new access or by the material widening of an existing access, the maximum width dimensions if planning is allowable are amended as follows.

From: Maximum width 2.6 metres

To:Maximum width 2.9 metres

Reason: To accommodate and give a greater degree of flexibility to households where the number of cars has increased due to older children living longer in the family home because of economic barriers / housing supply etc. There is an advantage to neighbours etc including health & safety if vehicles are taken off the public road into a driveway etc. Planning permission will still be required and planning conditions can still be attached in specific site circumstances.

Motion




365


Motion16.12 Standards – Institutions/Hostels & Social Support Services:

Increase the radius from 500m to 1km.

A map of all homeless and other social services within a 1Km radius of the application.

Reason: To prevent any over concentration of these services within communities which may undermine their sustainability.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAs stated in the CE report, the Draft Plan requirement is to provide a map of all homeless and other support services within a 500m radius of an application site. This 500m radius is equivalent to a 1km diameter and this is considered more than adequate in a City the size of Dublin to determine whether there is an over-concentration or not of certain facilities.

The provision of such a map is an aid to the Planning Authority in carrying out an assessment. In assessing such applications, the Authority must also comply with policy requirements of the Draft Plan which seek to avoid the over-concentration of such services, notably Policy SN27 in Chapter 12 and QH31 in Chapter 5, which state, as follows:

SN27: To facilitate the balanced provision of social support services and avoid the proliferation of such facilities in any one part of the city.

QH31: To ensure that all proposals to provide or extend temporary homeless accommodation or support services shall be supported by information demonstrating that the proposal would not result in an undue concentration of such uses nor undermine the existing local economy, resident community or regeneration of an area. All such applications shall include: a map of all homeless services within a 500 metre radius of the application site, a statement on the catchment area identifying whether the proposal is to serve local or regional demand; and a statement regarding management of the service/facility.

It is considered that the provisions in the Draft Plan adequately address this issue.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion not adopted, as existing map requirement and Policies SN27, QH31 are considered to adequately address this issue already.

366

2365Councillor(s) Cllr. Dr. Paddy Smyth

MotionIn an attempt to make the city a less obesogenic environment, the granting of planning permission for new individual retail units should be conditional on the vendors therein not selling (non-alcoholic) beverages with a sugar content of greater than 5% from the premises.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe Development Plan is primarily concerned with land use issues in the city and inserting guidance regarding the sugar content of beverages is outside the scope of the plan. It is acknowledged that there is growing concern regarding the occurrence of obesity, particularly amongst the young. The City Council is proactive where possible and encourage practical measures to tackle obesity. Chapter 10 ‘Green Infrastructure, Open Space and Recreation’ sets out the various strategies for the promotion of a healthier, greener city including the development of ‘green route’ infrastructure throughout the city. Section 16.25 ‘Takeaways’ sets down guidelines to prevent the proliferation of takeaways in any one locality.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is not adopted as it is outside the scope of the development plan.


MotionAdvertising will not be permitted on top of / on the roof of Bus Shelters.

Reason: This form of advertising increases visual clutter and has a detrimental effect on the streetscape.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseAppendix 19 of the draft plan deals with standards for outdoor advertising. Section 19.4 deals specifically with Advertising on Bus Shelters. In considering applications for bus shelters , the Planning authority will have regard to the particular circumstances of each case , such as location, scale and type of advertising proposed, and the effect on the amenities of the area and the streetscape, as well as the provisions of zones of sensitivity as set out in the general outdoor strategy. It should also be noted that there is guidance also in relation to conservation areas and protected structures, and it states that large, internally illuminated advertising panels on bus shelters can detract from the visual appearance of protected structures, conservation areas and residential conservation area and in these instances will not generally be permitted.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThis motion is not adopted. Advertising on Bus shelters is already covered in sufficient detail the draft plan, see Appendix 19.

367


MotionPage 186, In Table 16.1 to decrease the quantum of car parking in the table in Zone 1 by 50%

Reason: to improve the public realm and encourage sustainable travel.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseSubmissions relating to the reduction in car parking are addressed in the CE report on pages 425- 426 of the CE report. Parking is an integral element of overall land-use and transportation policy within the city. The purpose of these standards is to ensure that an appropriate level of car parking is provided in new developments. The standards are maximum so below the maximum may be considered on a site by site basis. Likewise in exceptional circumstances an increase in the maximum standards may be permissible. In relation to requests for reduced standards in city centre locations, this is addressed by the 3 zones for which there are different standards. It is noted that there is no need to reduce the standards as the standard given are stated as maxima.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThis motion is not adopted for the reasons set out above.

368


MotionThat in respect of a planning application for the alteration of a front garden in order to provide car parking by either creating a new access or by the material widening of an existing access, the maximum width dimensions if planning is allowable are amended as follows:

From: Maximum 3.6 metres

To:Maximum 3.9 metres

Reason: To accommodate and give a greater degree of flexibility to households where the number of cars has increased due to older children living longer in the family home because of economic barriers / housing supply etc. There is an advantage to neighbours etc including health & safety jif vehicles are taken off the public road into a driveway etc. Planning permission will still be required and planning conditions can still be attached in specific site circumstances.

Motion




369


MotionPage 188, Add at the end of paragraph 16.39 replace the words

“Should be of Sheffield stand type ” with the words “shall be of Sheffield stand type excepting extraordinary circumstances.”

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseSheffield stands are already a requirement for all publicly accessible cycle stands and other requirements are set out in the text. The design of cycle stands located within private developments may vary according to the location and design of the scheme and therefore it may not be appropriate to insist on Sheffield type stands in all cases.

The Chief Executive Report on submission has recommended changes to Section 16.39 to strengthen the preference for Sheffield stands (see Section 16.39 of the Chief Executive Report). However, the preference for Sheffield stands and the importance of security should be further strengthened in section16.39.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is Adopted

Amend 3rd Para, 3rd Sentence of Section 16.39 Cycle Parking

From:“As such, publicly accessible cycle parking should be of Sheffield stand type; toaster racks or similar are not acceptable for publicly accessible cycle parking.”

To:“As such, publicly accessible cycle parking shall be of Sheffield stand type except in extraordinary circumstances; toaster racks or similar are not acceptable for publicly accessible cycle parking.”

370


MotionPage 189, In Table 16.2 to increase the quantum cycle parking in in the table in Zone 1 (or All Zones where Zones 1, 2 and 3 are not listed separately) by 50%

Reason: to improve the public realm and encourage sustainable travel.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe issue of increasing the amount of cycle spaces is addressed in the submissions on the Development Plan, see the CE report section. 16.39 Cycle Parking., pages 428-429.

Some of the submissions stated that the required one space per residential unit is insufficient given that the national cycle manual recommends one per bedspace. The manual also seeks visitor spaces which are absent from the draft plan. National Transport Authority guidance should be taken into account. Mode share goals may not be met simply because people have nowhere to store a bicycle.

In the CE response it was acknowledged that The National Cycle Manual requirement is for one cycle space per bed space .However on restricted urban sites this requirement may be difficult to meet. It is considered that a more flexible approach may be appropriate, where one per unit is a minimum requirement. Additional requirements for larger units and visitorparking will be decided on a case by case basis.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThis motion is not adopted for reasons set out above.

371


MotionPage 198, “To add the document known as the draft Phibsborough Local Area Plan (and approved by 31 of the councillors present at the City Council meeting held on the 7th December 2015) to the Draft Dublin City Development Plan.”

Reason: to reflect the views of the majority of the elected representatives present on that evening.

Motion

Refers to: Miscellaneous

Chief Executive's ResponseThe Local Area Plan is a separate statutory planning process to that of the City Development Plan. The Draft 2015 Phibsborough LAP was voted upon and rejected by the City Council in December 2015.

Following the City Council meeting on the 1st February 2016 it was agreed to add Phibsborough to the list of LAP’s to be prepared during the life of the forthcoming City Development Plan. Furthermore the recommendation by the CE in the report on public submissions has proposed numerous new policies and objectives to be added to the City Development Plan following requests to incorporate the Draft Phibsborough LAP into City Development Plan. This report further adds to those additions. The Council has also drafted a Local Environmental Improvements Plan (LEIP) for circulation amongst members which captures those elements of the 2015 Draft LAP which dealt with issues of public domain, parks, culture etc. It is therefore considered that the essence of the LAP has been adequately captured in both statutory landuse planning terms and for local environmental improvements. There is no provision in the Planning Acts to attach a Draft LAP which was rejected by the City Council under Section 20 of the Planning Act 2000 (as amended) to the City Development Plan.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion is not adopted; Outside scope of the development plan.

372


MotionThat the City Development Plan will look at the current unfairness that exists in setting rates across the city. Inchicore Village, a place that is encountering significant problems, is now paying almost double their rates due to recent changes. This is unacceptable and offers no help or support to local enterprises that need it and mean that businesses are more likely to cease trading resulting in a loss of local jobs.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe setting of and collection of rates is a matter governed by separate legislation and is not a matter for the Development Plan.



MotionThat the City Development plan aligns both DCC CCTV systems and those operated by the Gardaí. At present, neither of the CCTV services are accessible by both parties.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThis is not a matter for the Development Plan.


373


MotionThat the City Development Plan be ambitious in its Housing Strategy. In the 1950’s, we had the great areas of Ballyfermot. Finglas, Blanchardstown build and in order to tackle the current housing crisis that we find ourselves in, such grand ideas are needed.

Motion

Refers to: Appendix 2 - Housing Strategy

Chief Executive's ResponseIt is considered that the Housing Strategy, which aims to deliver 30,000 residential units (approx) over the next 6 years, is indeed ambitious. The DECLG 2020 Housing Strategy outlines in detail the number of residential properties that must be delivered over the lifetime of the development plan and the City Council has a programme in place to deliver the Strategy.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion noted.

374



MotionThat the new paragraph at the end of section “District Centres – Older centres” the Chief Executive proposes to insert into the Retail Strategy chapter be amended to read as follows: “The City Council supports the redevelopment and revitalisation of the existing Phibsborough Shopping Centre which expands the retail offering in keeping with the designation of Phibsborough as a Key District Centre. The City Council recognises that large number of currently empty units along Phibsborough Road and the prevalence in this urban village of low grade uses like fast food, bookmakers, tattoo parlours and charity shops bear witness to a blight that is completely at variance with the designation of Phibsborough as a Key District Centre.

While Phibsborough may be regarded as a key nodal point which is highly accessible by public transport, it also suffers to a massive extent from excessive traffic volumes for which private cars etc. are principally responsible. The result is a degraded environment which is unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists and in which it is virtually impossible to sustain a varied mix of businesses. Redevelopment of the shopping centre requires to be considered in this wider context of how the urban village of which it forms a part is to rescued from the parlous state in which it currently finds itself, a state to which misconceived planning policies at local and national level have greatly contributed.”

Reason: To encourage creative and holistic thinking about how planning might begin to make Phibsborough a better which in which to live and/or work.

Motion

Refers to: Appendix 3 - Retail Strategy

Chief Executive's ResponsePhibsborough’s designation as a KDC (S2.2.3) is recognition of the area’s potential to be a thriving urban centre within the city serviced by accessible public transport, (see MTO6A) and not per se a reflection of its existing physical or economic condition. It is strategically located to provide a comprehensive range of commercial and community services, and contains strategic land parcels with zoning designations to allow for the provision of substantial residential development. It is appreciated that a KDC designation alone will not alleviate immediately the issue of vacancy or the number of charity shops or fast food outlets in the area. It is anticipated as redevelopment progresses such uses will become less ubiquitous as the physical and socio-economic profile of the area changes. The KDC designation reflects the aim of the core strategy (Fig.1) to deliver sustainable city living by 2030, essentially encompassing a quality physical, social and public transport infrastructure servicing an increasing residential population in the area. The Chief Executive’s report (P444) contains a recommendation to include additional text at the end of the section ‘District Centres – Older Centres’, including reference to Phibsborough Shopping Centre;

"……..The City Council supports the redevelopment and revitalisation of the existing Phibsborough Shopping Centre which expands the retail offering in keeping with the designation of Phibsborough as a Key District Centre……”

This is considered to be a positive policy approach regarding the revitalisation of the area.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is not adopted for the reasons outlined.

375


MotionPage 77, To support the Manager’s proposed addition as follows:

Inset a new paragraph at the end of section “District Centres – Older centres” (page77), arising from the review of the Phibsborough Shopping Centre was carried out aspart of the 2015 Draft Phibsborough LAP, as follows:

"A review of the Phibsborough Shopping Centre was carried out as part of the 2015 Draft Phibsborough LAP. Although not formally adopted a number of objectives came from this report which the Development Plan now seeks to capture. The City Council supports the redevelopment and revitalisation of the existing Phibsborough Shopping Centre which expands the retail offering inkeeping with the designation of Phibsborough as a Key District Centre. New development shall be of a suitably high density and mix to create new job opportunities at this key nodal point which is highly accessible by public transport. Uses that create an “evening economy” and enhance the attractiveness of the centre as a destination will be encouraged, as will the integration of the site with the adjoining Dalymount Park, ideally creating a new enhanced public entrance to this sporting venue. The provision of a new civic plaza will also be sought".

Add the following:

“Any redevelopment of significant regeneration of the Phibsborough shopping centre requires to be considered in the wider context of significant pressure from excessive vehicular traffic, which will require significant investment in walking, cycling and public transport.”

Reason: to provide for sustainable transport and travel

Motion

Refers to: Appendix 3 - Retail Strategy

Chief Executive's ResponseIt is recognised that Phibsborough as a designated KDC (S2.2.3) will be subject of revitalisation and redevelopment over the coming years. The draft LAP identified those areas that would require infrastructural upgrading such as transport. With regard to the transport implications arising from redevelopment, Chapter 8 ‘Movement and Transport’ outlines strategy for sustainable transport throughout the city and in relation to Phibsborough it is proposed to insert Objective MTO6A seeking the development of a new commuter rail station at Cross Guns. In the same chapter Objective MTO36 sets out that the existing traffic layout at the junction of Doyle’s Corner will be reviewed with a view to conducting upgrade works during the lifetime of the plan. The area will also benefit from the green cycle route planned along the Royal Canal Bank (Figure 10), part of the overall Strategic Green Network (Figure 13).

Also the development plan introduces the concept of ‘Resilience’ and the transition towards a resilient sustainable city and the policies of various chapters combine to encourage sustainable communities, green infrastructure and sustainable transport. Therefore consideration of regeneration/transport linkages is already integrated through the draft plan and the proposed LEIP.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is not adopted for the reasons stated, as subject matter of motion is addressed in Draft Plan and Recommended amendments.

376


MotionThis City Council agrees that completing the necessary flood defence programme for the Sandymount area be included as an objective of the City Development Plan 2016-2022.

Reason: This is a key issue for residents as evidenced in the submissions for example from the Sandymount and Merrion Residents Association and any future developments in the Sandymount/Poolbeg area as envisaged in the rest of the Development Plan cannot conceivably be considered in the absence of completing these necessary flood defence works.

Motion

Refers to: Appendix 11 - Flood Defence Infrastructure

Chief Executive's ResponseDublin City Council are currently progressing a flood alleviation scheme for Sandymount promenade which will involve reducing the number of car park entry points, slightly raising the existing sea wall in places and placing a low wall around the Martello Tower. Preliminary site investigations are now complete. Once preliminary drawings are completed meeting s will be arranged with local residents to get their view prior to going for planning permission. An allowance for some sea level rise and larger wave action has been included in this feasibility study.Section 9.5.3 of the draft plan sets out the polices and objectives in relation to flood management, and in relation to coastal flooding. Appendix 11.4 sets out the flood defence infrastructure for Sandymount.

It is however recommended that a new objective be inserted in to cover coastal flooding in areas such as Clontarf and Sandymount.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is adopted as amended.

It is recommended that a new Objective be inserted into Section 9.5.3 after SIO12,

SIO12A: To undertake a programme of flood defence works for the City and in particular to protect its coastal areas (including Sandymount and Clontarf) from the effects of flooding and climate change in line with National Guidelines.

377


MotionAppendix 19:

Dublin City Council agrees to remove the word "generally" from first sentence of Sec.19.4 in Appendix 19, 'Advertising on bus Shelters', so that it reads:

"Large, internally illuminated advertising panels on bus shelters can detract from the visual appearance of protected structures, conservation areas and residential conservation areas, and in these instances will not be permitted."

Reason: Large illuminated advertising panels by their nature detract from the setting of conservation areas and so should not be permitted

Motion

Refers to: Appendix 19 - Outdoor Advertising Strategy

Chief Executive's ResponseIt is considered that a balance is struck in the development plan by using the term ‘generally’ in Appendix 19 (19.4 Advertising on Bus Shelters).

The second sentence of Appendix 19.4 expressly states that in considering applications for bus shelters, that the planning authority will have regard to the particular circumstances of each case, including the effect on the amenities of the area and the streetscape.

Furthermore, the content of Chapter 11 (Culture and Heritage) should be read in conjunction with the range of other standards and criteria in the development plan, which are relevant to the assessing applications for outdoor advertising. For example, Section 11.1.5.4 (Architectural Conservation Areas and Conservation Areas) sets out that the Council will seek to ensure that development proposals within all ACAs and Conservation Areas complement the character of the area, including the setting of protected structures, and comply with development standards. Policy CHC3 is contained in the same section, and states, inter alia, that development within or affecting conservation areas will contribute positively to the character and distinctiveness, and that development will not harm buildings, spaces, original street patterns or other features which contribute positively to the special interest of the conservation area.

Accordingly, as the assessment of advertising proposals on bus shelters is subject to assessment against the criteria and standards set out in Appendix 19 and also as set out elsewhere in the Plan, it is considered that there are adequate safeguards in the plan to allow for an appropriate balance to be struck, so as to allow for the term ‘generally’ to be retained in the text of Appendix 19.4.


378


MotionMotion for change to Appendix 19

Add the following at Sec.19.4: "In conservation areas or in close proximity to protected structures, advertising on bus shelters will not generally be permitted other than in front of buildings that are commercial in nature."Rationale: The intent of advertising is to attract attention and so aims to be visually intrusive. This runs counter to the intent of the conservation designation and protected structure status which require that development not impact on the character and integrity of the area or the structure.

Motion

Refers to: Appendix 19 - Outdoor Advertising Strategy

Chief Executive's ResponseThe content of Appendix 19 should be read in the conjunction with the range of other standards and criteria set out in the development plan, which are relevant to assessing planning applications for outdoor advertising.

For example, Section 11.1.5.4 (Architectural Conservation Areas and Conservation Areas) sets out that the Council will seek to ensure that development proposals within all ACAs and Conservation Areas complement the character of the area, including the setting of protected structures, and comply with development standards. Policy CHC3 for example, states that development within or affecting conservation areas will contribute positively to the character and distinctiveness, and that development will not harm buildings, spaces, original street patterns or other features which contribute positively to the special interest of the conservation area.

In addition, it should also be recognised that the wording of this motion would be unfavourable as a long-term strategy. For example, the wording of the motion could potentially be construed as inferring that, in conservation areas or in close proximity to protected structures, there is a presumption in favour of granting planning permission for advertising on bus shelters in front of buildings that are commercial in nature.

Furthermore, as the assessment of advertising proposals on bus shelters is subject to assessment against the criteria and standards set out in Appendix 19 and also as set out elsewhere in the Plan, it is considered that there are adequate safeguards in the plan to allow for an appropriate balance to be struck.

Accordingly, it is recommended that the wording of Appendix 19.4 is retained as per the content of the Draft plan.


379


MotionAppendix 21, QH32 and Section 16.10.7: To include in the amended land use definition for Student accommodation in Appendix 21 a reference to "professionally managed" as included in QH32 and at 16.10.7.

Reason: To ensure the requirement for professional management of student accommodation as expounded in Policy QH32 and in section 16.10.7 is also referred to in the definition at appendix 21 (as amended).

Motion

Refers to: Appendix 21 - Land Use Definitions

Chief Executive's ResponseThe Development Plan does indeed seek the development of high-quality, professionally managed and purpose-built third-level student accommodation, as set out in Policy QH32 and in Section 16.10.7. It is proposed to amend the definition of student accommodation to include the term “professionally managed” as proposed in the motion.

In reviewing the definition it is considered that the detailed description should be shortened, as the building and amenity requirements are set out in Section 16.10.7. Also the requirement for the scheme to be built in association with an educational institution should be removed as this stems from previous tax incentives for student accommodation. The use of the accommodation is safe-guarded through the definition of student and the requirement for such persons to be “registered with a third-level educational institution which is designated as such by the Department of Education and Science or by ACELS (Accreditation and Co-ordination of English Language Services) under the auspices of the DES”.

Chief Executive's RecommendationMotion adopted.

Further amend the definition of student accommodation in Appendix 21 (in addition to that set out in the CE report page 476) as follows:

From:“A residential building, or part thereof, built in association with the relevant education institution(s) either on or off campus, for the purpose of accommodating students over the duration of the academic year, where accommodation is primarily in the form of study bedrooms with a maximum of 8 bed spaces per ‘house’ unit, sharing a common entrance hall and kitchen/ lounge area”.

To:“A professionally managed residential building, or part thereof, built either on or off campus, for the purpose of accommodating students over the duration of the academic year".

(See also standards for Student Accommodation at Section 16.10.7).

380


MotionThat Dublin City Council includes in the Development Plan protection of the former Magdalene Laundry at the Crescent, Donnybrook as an example of that type of institution that sadly existed in our City and seeks to explore ways as to how an appropriate way to honour the memory of the women who lived there can be developed alongside a possible centre for Women’s studies.

Reason: These Laundries were an important aspect of the Social History of our City and the women who were placed there deserve to have their story told and their memory honoured. This is one of the last – if not the last – virtually perfectly intact example of such a laundry and in that context provides us with the opportunity to achieve the above objective in the most authentic manner.

Motion

Refers to: Additions, Deletions & Amendments to the Record of Protected Structures (RPS)

Chief Executive's ResponseIt is agreed that institutional laundries are an important aspect of the social history of Dublin. Sections 51-57 of the Planning Act provides for the protection of structures which form part of the architectural heritage and which are of special architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, cultural, scientific and social or technical interest.

Proposed additions to the Record of Protected Structures (RPS) merit detailed analysis and assessment, including notification to the owners, the strict statutory timeframe does not afford the opportunity to undertake the same in depth analysis as part of the review of the submissions.Therefore, subsection 11.1.4 The Strategic Approach of the Draft Plan sets out to comprehensively review the Record of Protected Structures on a systematic, phased, priority area based approach, having regard to;.

Proposals received for additions, deletions and amendments to the RPS (including this motion)The recommendations of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht via the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage(NIAH) and its survey of Dublin city, andThe considerations for designating new Architectural Conservations Area’s (ACA’s) and extending existing ACA’s.

In terms of requested candidate additions, deletions or material amendments to the RPS, it is considered both prudent and good practice to await any recommendation regarding these structures to be made by the Minister via the NIAH, arising from the current NIAH survey of Dublin City and to undertake assessment of their special interest in sequence with the Strategic Approach to the protection and enhancement of the city’s built heritage as set out in section 11.1.4 of the Draft Development Plan 2016-2022.

The assessment of requested candidate additions, deletions or material amendments to the RPS is intended to commence in 2017, in association with:

The consideration of recommendations for additions to the RPS by the Minister and published by the NIAH, andThe sequential surveying of 10 priority areas to be considered for potential designation as an Architectural Conservation Area (ACA) as provided in the Strategic Approach, with further areas to follow in phase 2.

The other (remaining) candidate additions, deletions or amendments to the RPS will be

381

considered in due course as and when resources are available, having regard to the recommendations of the Minister or NIAH, the criteria provided in section 11.1.4 of the Draft Plan and the provisions of the Act.

It should be noted that in relation to certain requests set out in the Council motions a number of the sites already have structures included on the RPS; including the Chimneystack at the former Smurfit Printing Works on Botanic Road (added November 2015); as well as the former Magdalene Laundry at the Crescent, Donnybrook, where the Chimney has already been added (May 2013), with remaining structures to be the subject of further assessment.

Chief Executive's RecommendationAll requests for additions to and deletions from the RPS will be assessed as part of a separate process, which includes:

Detailed appraisal of the merits of the structure under Section 51-57 of the Planning and Development Act 2000-2014.Recommendations from the Minister via the NIAHThe strategic approach, beginning with the historic centre, set out in the Draft PlanNotification of the owners of proposed structures for entry on the RPS

382


MotionThis City Council requests that the RTE Aerial be placed on the list of Protected Structures.

Reason: The Aerial is the premier physical manifestation of the development of Broadcasting in Ireland and has become a symbol of the enormous impact that RTE had made to the development of modern Ireland.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseProposed additions to the Record of Protected Structures (RPS) merit detailed analysis and assessment, including notification to the owners, the strict statutory timeframe does not afford the opportunity to undertake the same in depth analysis as part of the review of the submissions.

Therefore, subsection 11.1.4 The Strategic Approach of the Draft Plan sets out to comprehensively review the Record of Protected Structures on a systematic, phased, priority area based approach, having regard to;.

Proposals received for additions, deletions and amendments to the RPS (including this motion)The recommendations of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht via the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (NIAH) and its survey of Dublin city, andThe considerations for designating new Architectural Conservations Area’s (ACA’s) and extending existing ACA’s.




The other (remaining) candidate additions, deletions or amendments to the RPS will be considered in due course as and when resources are available, having regard to the recommendations of the Minister or NIAH, the criteria provided in section 11.1.4 of the Draft Plan and the provisions of the Act.


383



384


MotionThis City Council agrees to ensure that Baggot Street Hospital is included on the list of protected Structures.

Reason: This is an important heritage building and will soon face significant redevelopment. It is absolutely crucial that it be protected to the maximum extent. In the context of anticipated development this matter needs urgent consideration. This is submitted in accordance with the submissions seeking to enhance the Victorian heritage in the Pembroke area of which the Hospital is a premier example.

Motion









It should be noted that in relation to certain requests set out in the Council motions a number of the sites already have structures included on the RPS; including the Chimneystack at the former

385

Smurfit Printing Works on Botanic Road (added November 2015); as well as the former Magdalene Laundry at the Crescent, Donnybrook, where the Chimney has already been added (May 2013), with remaining structures to be the subject of further assessment.





MotionTo insert into the City Development Plan Objective PS6 of the Draft Phibsborough Local Area Plan 2015 – “The red brick chimney shall be preserved on [the Smurfit Printworks] site in accordance with objectives to designate it as a Protected Structure.

Motion


Chief Executive's ResponseThe red brick chimney on the site of the former Smurfit Printing Works at 57-75 Botanic Road, Dublin 9, was added to the Record of Protected Structures on the 2nd November 2015 and is, therefore, (already) a protected structure.

Chief Executive's RecommendationThe motion is noted as the structure is already on the Record of Protected Structures.

386


MotionPage 92 , 11.1.5.1 The Record of Protected Structures:

To insert a new objective that ‘The Poolbeg Chimneys will be included on the Record of Protected Structures

Reason: To protect these iconic structures so that they remain a feature of the Dublin Skyline.

Motion









It should be noted that in relation to certain requests set out in the Council motions a number of the sites already have structures included on the RPS; including the Chimneystack at the former

387

Smurfit Printing Works on Botanic Road (added November 2015); as well as the former Magdalene Laundry at the Crescent, Donnybrook, where the Chimney has already been added (May 2013), with remaining structures to be the subject of further assessment.



388


MotionTo Add ‘Walford’, 24 Shrewsbury Road Dublin 4 to the list of Protected Structures

Reason: architectural and historical interest

Motion











389



390


MotionTo Add to the Record of protected structures; US Embassy - 42 Elgin Road (building only, not recent additions such as railing and gate house)

Reason: architectural interest in original building, however fence and guard house are later additions.

Motion









It should be noted that in relation to certain requests set out in the Council motions a number of the sites already have structures included on the RPS; including the Chimneystack at the former Smurfit Printing Works on Botanic Road (added November 2015); as well as the former Magdalene Laundry at the Crescent, Donnybrook, where the Chimney has already been added

391

(May 2013), with remaining structures to be the subject of further assessment.



392


MotionTo Add to the Record of protected structures Rathmines Fire station, 190a Rathmines Road


Motion










393



394


MotionTo add to the Record of protected structures; 30 Leinster Road West


Motion











395



396


MotionTo Add to the Record of protected structures; the Institute for Advanced Studies, 10 Burlington Road.

Reason: architectural interest

Motion










397




398


MotionTo Add to the record of Protected Structures, 24 St. Stephens Green - The Lisney Building.

Reason: architectural interest

Motion










399



400

2392Councillor(s) Cllr. Patrick Costello, Cllr. Mary Freehill, Cllr. Ruairí McGinley

MotionThat the Rathmines Library, DIT College and Rathmines Town Hall have their Protected Structures listed status reinstated on the “H” zoning Map. They are on the 2005-2011 map and not on 2011-2017 but no decision was ever made to delist them.

Reason: It seems to be an error that they are not on the current Map H zoning map as no decision was ever made to delist them.

Motion










401




402