The following motion which I submitted was voted down at the monthly Council meeting.

"That all new residential areas be designed as 30km/hr zones and have a 30km/hr designation and, if it is necessary to give effect to this for all future planning permissions, that the appropriate Variation to the Development Plan be put on public display, and that the report which the Manager undertook to bring to the September 2005 meeting of the Council in relation to designating 30km/hr zones be brought to the Council without delay." To be honest, I ‘m still not sure why this was voted down.

The Manager’s report referred to the designation of 30km/hr zones in existing areas.  It didn’t refer to the issue of new areas which the motion referred to.

I still don’t know if the motion would need a Variation to the Development Plan to take effect.

Nor do I know if it’s possible to decide to implement a 30km/hr zone when the development is still at planning stage. 

However, I will not let this go.   I still haven’t gotten an answer as to whether the new housing in Stapolin can be designated a 30km/hr zone, which I raised in January.

I have submitted the following question:

"To ask the Manager whether the permitted road designs in the new residential areas in Stapolin, which I understand were granted following inspection of the planning file by the Transportation Department, meet the conditions of the mandatory guidelines published by the Department of Transport, which must be adhered to in the case of 30 km/hr speed limit zones."

Additionally, I will be asking one of the Green TDs to ask the Minister for Transport whether it is intended that new residential areas could be designated before they are built.

The Council agreed new beach bye-laws today.  By a majority of 11 (including all 3 Greens) to 7 the Councillors removed the rather draconian ban on dogs on the beaches during the summer.  We replaced it with a requirement that dogs be on a leash during the summer when they’re in the "Reserved Bathing Areas" on the beaches.  Councillors were unanimous in calling for proper enforcement of the Litter Act against those who fail to pick up after their dogs.

The other Bye-laws which came up were the Jet-ski and fast power boat bye-laws.  These require jet-ski users to get permits and restrict where they can use jet-skis.  These bye-laws have been approved for public display and will be on public display soon with a view to adopting bye-laws at the May Council meeting. 

Many local residents and community organisations participated in the survey carried out late last year in relation to the needs for community facilities on the Peninsula, with support from Fingal County Council.  There was good a good participation rate and the information gathered provide a good basis for developing a strategy.  At the moment, the Howth Sutton Community Council and Howth Community Centre Ltd. are finalising the report on the needs analysis and will be publishing it soon, with a public launch.

The next step is the development of a strategy to provide the
facilities to meet the needs identified.  This will involve the
cooperation of community organisations and the County Council in an
open transparent process.  I will put updates in relation to this
important process on this site as things happen.

A number of areas are designated in the Development Plan as Architectural Conservation Areas, including the historic core of Howth, Nashville Road and Terrace, St. Nessan’s and St Peter’s Terraces,  Howth Castle, two Terraces on Strand Road, Sutton and Baldoyle village.

The Council’s Conservation Officer has been carrying out detailed surveys of these areas. The next step is that the Statement of Characters and survey photos will go on public display.  There will be public consultation on the implications of the conservation area, looking for people’s feedback and input into how the ACA should be implemented.  This is expected to happen in March.  For more information, you can contact the Council’s Conservation Officer, Helena Bergin at 8906709.

Given the high level of development pressure especially in Howth, this work is badly needed and very welcome.

Both applications for development on the Grange Road just east of the railway line were withdrawn by the applicants on 6th February.

The traffic calming proposals for Sutton Park/Downs, Alden Road, Sarto Park, Verbena Avenue, Bayside Walk and Bayside Dart Station have been agreed with a number of changes.

I am not a great fan of ramps, as I think that other forms of traffic calming are safer and create a more pleasant environment.  An essential principle of creating a safe environment for pedestrians including children is taking away the impression that the road is for cars only.  One of the effects of ramps is to reinforce the primacy of cars on residential streets.  Changing the design and layout of streets will often create a better environment for all road users.  This would include widening footpaths, narrowing the carriageway, making the carriageway less straight, pinch points (designed to ensure safe passage for cyclists) etc.  Additionally, I am a strong supporter of the designation of and enforcement of 30 km/hr zones in residential areas.

The most important change I argued for in the proposals was the
inclusion of a raised junction platform at the junction of Bayside Park
and Bayside Walk just outside the Dart Station.  This means that the
carriageway surface will be raised to the level of the pavement, to
facilitate pedestrians crossing the road and emphasise their presence. 
A similar raised platform will be at the junction of Verbena Avenue and
Sarto Park outside Bayside National School.

The original
proposal had ramps on the "railway road" in Sutton Park.  It was
suggested to take these out and I agreed to this mostly because I had
noticed that almost all the cars parked along here are usually parked
on the footpaths.  Parking on the footpath not only diminishes the
space for pedestrians, and discourages them, it also widens the
available carriageway and thereby encourages greater speeds on the
road.  The first step for traffic calming on this road would be parking
on the carriageway not on the pavement.  I would be happy to come back
to traffic calming proposals once the cars are off the footpaths.

Most
of the ramps proposed have heen changed to "speed cushions" which are
easier for cyclists to negotiate, with the exception of a "pedestrian
friendly flat top ramp" just inside the Sutton Park access from Dublin
Road.  Most of the other changes made were in direct response to local
submissions.

Three of the submissions received in response
suggested preventing rat-running through the area by blocking motor
traffic at the western edge of Sutton Park (allowing pedestrians and
cyclists through).  I’m not sure how much support this would have in
the community, but I can see there are arguments for it.  Therefore I
proposed that a plan be drawn up to be put on public display for public
feedback.  This was agreed by the Area Committee.  However, Joan Maher
proposed that it be overturned at the monthly Council meeting. (which
you can see  at http://www.fingalcoco.public-i.tv/site/#pp3915).  The
result is that the proposal will not go to public consultation.

Nonetheless I am interested in any feedback in relation to traffic calming and management in the area.

Following the informal meeting on 23rd November (notes here), a special formal meeting of the Area Cttee has been called to be held at the Council offices in Swords on  Thursday  19th January.   The normal Area Cttee B meeting has been moved to the Wednesday 18th (in Baldoyle Library as always.)

We have been asked to list the issues to be addressed and I have tried to itemise them as follows.  I would welcome comments.
DRAFT:

Issues to be discussed as requested:

1.    New development at Stapolin

a.    roundabout on coast road and road to it from new Stapolin area
i.    what is the planning status of this, a report on the compliance submission, whether the compliance submission reflects what is built on the ground
ii.    why are there two lanes at all of the entrances to a single-lane roundabout and what are the safety implications of this?  What is the Transportation department’s view on the design?
iii.    What is the design purpose of the red footpaths as built?
iv.    What is/will be the arrangement for pedestrians to reach the footpath on the other side of the road?
v.    What are the plans for accessing the planned park from this road by each of the various modes which will be using the road?
vi.    What is the cross-section of the road as built and what is the Transportation Department’s view of it?

b.    Access from Grange Road
i.    What is the planning status of this constructed section of road?
ii.    What is the Transportation Department’s view on the segregated cycle facilities included in the design and apparently constructed?
iii.    What is the Transportation Department’s view on the design as constructed as it affects cyclists?
iv.    What is the Transportation Department’s view on the design as constructed as it affects pedestrians?
v.    What is the planned traffic lights set-up for this junction?

c.    Design of streets and roads in new Stapolin development
i.    Description of design of these streets and roads envisaged in Local Area Plan and Masterplan and applications already granted and applications made.
ii.    Do they meet the criteria for designation as 30km/hr zones?

d.    Pedestrian links through the area
i.    What are the planned pedestrian links in the area?
ii.    Are they designed so as to ensure a quality and safe environment?
iii.    How will the existing pedestrian link to Howth Junction railway station be taken advantage of improved and made more accessible?

e.    Parking in the vicinity of the new railway station
i.    What level of parking demand is envisaged at this location and will parking control be necessary/appropriate?

f.     3 ton limits
i.    Is a 3 ton limit envisaged on the distributor road through the Stapolin development?

2.    Road and path network throughout the area

a.    General road network
i.    What changes are under consideration?
ii.    What are the constraints on the design, whether biodiversity, financial, technical etc.?
iii.    What about providing a segregated cyclepath parallel to the Moyne Road?
iv.    What is intended/under consideration for the junction of Moyne Road and Hole in the Wall Road?
v.    What is intended/ under consideration for the junction of Moyne Road and Coast Road?
vi.    What is intended/ under consideration for Moyne Road?
vii.    What is intended/ under consideration for the Coast Road?
viii.    What is the general intention for the proposed Station Road Boulevard?  (i.e. what does boulevard mean here?)
ix.    What is intended/ under consideration for the railway bridge on Moyne Road?
x.    What is intended/ under consideration for the railway bridge on Station Road?

b.    Pedestrian and cyclist links through the park/green belt
i.    What are these and how do they integrate with the general road network?  If they are not proposed already what is the process by which they will be planned and designed?
ii.    Will the railway alignment be used to facilitate a direct cyclepath between north and south?

c.    Will the existing Baldoyle Area Plan, the draft Portmarnock Area Plan and the Park provide direct and convenient cycle routes including the following:
i.    Between the bus/bicycle/pedestrian bridge over the railway at the new Dart station and the Station Road area so as to facilitate cyclists coming from / going to the North Fringe area?
ii.    Accessing the playing fields on both sides of the Moyne Road from both Baldoyle/Donaghmede and from Portmarnock?
iii.    between Baldoyle and the Station Road area such as to enable secondary school students to access Pobalscoil Neasáin from the Station Road area without coming into conflict with motor traffic?

d.    Coastal walkway and cycle route
i.    What are the design options under consideration?
ii.    What are constraints on the design, whether biodiversity, financial etc.?
iii.    Will the route be on the coastal side for the entire distance from Baldoyle to Portmarnock?

e.    Bus routes
i.    What extra bus routes are under consideration in the area?
ii.    Assuming that bus lanes are not envisaged, what junction designs are envisaged to ensure that buses are not caught in the expected traffic congestion which will result from this development and the North Fringe development?
iii.    What is the interaction between bus routes and the proposals for the general road network?

3.    Draft Portmarnock Local Area Plan

a.    Distributor Road
i.    Is the distributor road through this area intended to be a bus route and if so should the road not be as direct as possible?
ii.    What is the reason for the proposed design?  (It was described as indicative when the draft plan was last on display.)

b.    Roundabouts
i.    Are what appear as roundabouts on the draft plan intended to be roundabouts?  
ii.    If not, can they be marked differently?  (When the draft plan was last on display it was stated that they were not intended to be read as roundabouts.)
iii.    If they are roundabouts, what is the design rationale here and how will pedestrians be facilitated?

Could I also ask that colour versions of the Baldoyle Area Plan map and the Masterplan be made available to cllrs and all departments at the meeting.  At our last Area Cttee meeting Parks were relying on a photocopy which was illegible to me.

I have made a written observation on the proposed development in the corner formed by the railway line and Grange Road where the road rises to cross the railway.
                                   
                                    54, Evora Park,
                                    Howth,
                                    Co. Dublin
                                    01 8324087
                                    verdire@eircom.net
                                    14th January 2006

Planning Department,
Fingal County Council,
Main St.,
Swords
Co. Dublin

Re: Reg. Ref. 05A/1731, Grange Road Baldoyle

A chairde,

I would like to make the following observations in relation to this proposal

1.    The application fails to deal adequately with the design challenge of proximity with Grange Road where it rises to bridge the railway.  The proposal that the bottom floor of the apartment block should be made up of garages and doorways, facing the retaining wall of the road would create an unpleasant and insecure environment.  

One possible improvement in the western part of the site could be  for this area between the building and the retaining wall of the road to be covered over to provide carparking underneath and a 1st floor access to the houses.  The extra carparking gained could remove the need for the ground floor north side of the development to be made up of garages.

2.    The application has been made jointly with Reg. Ref 05A/1799.  The height in that application is clearly excessive, something visible from the photomontages supplied.  It is much harder to guage the visual impact of this proposal but it needs to be considered on its own and not in the context of the unacceptable 1799.

3.    Pedestrian access from the development to Grange Road and bridge over railway.

The application fails to give good pedestrian access to the Grange Road especially for pedestrians travelling west.

4.    Pedestrian and cyclist access from Grange Road to new railway station.  

In addition to the existing station at Howth Junction, a new station is proposed which according to the application is 500m north of the Grange Road.  This site lies along the closest direct line between the Grange Road and the new station.   Therefore provision needs to be made in this application for a pedestrian and cyclists access to the new Station, presumably by a short dedicated link across this application site between Grange Road and the new residential road parallel to the railway line.

5.    Pedestrian and cyclist access to Howth Junction train station.

Although the application makes much of the proximity of Howth Junction Station, it does not refer to the quality of the access to the station.  The developer should be required to contribute to the cost of taking this right of way in charge and bringing it up to a high standard.

6.    Link under Grange Road along railway line.  

Simply improving the existing right of way to Howth Junction will not solve all the problems at this location.  Access to the right of way to Howth Junction from the Grange Road will always be difficult due to the difference in level.  Currently access is by a flight of stairs down from the Grange Road.  If practical, there could be an access at the railway level under the road beside the railway.  If this is possible, the developer should be required to contriute to the cost of this work which will facilitate the development.

7.    Environmental Impact Assessment

The development might need EIA in its own right.  If not, then taken in conjunction with its partner application (shown on the same plans) F05A/1799 and with the adjoining developments to the North within the same Action Area Plan area, it definitely needs EIA.

Finally, I would just note that contrary to what is stated in the application, train services from Howth Junction do not run every 5-10 minutes, (although they will of course remain significantly more frequent than those from the new station when it is built).

I enclose a cheque for €20.

Is mise, le meas,

Cllr. David Healy

In Autumn 2005, Fingal County Council sought comments in relation to traffic management and parking in Howth.  A public meeting was organised by the Community Council which I attended.  There was a general opposition to car parking control/charges at that meeting.  I undertook at that meeting not to support such charging while there was general opposition in the community.

There were good reasons for charging discussed at the meeting.  Additionally, the Transportation Department of the Council is enthusiastic about experience in Malahide, as indeed are a number of the Malahide councillors and I understand community organisations.  I also have become aware of good reasons for such charging; see
http://www.planning.org/bookservice/highcost.htm

Fingal County Council Transport Department believes it will convince Howth residents about the parking scheme.  Information on the scheme in Malahide is here.

I would welcome any feedback.

I attach the submission made to the County Council by the Howth Sutton Community Council.
HOWTH TRAFFIC AND PARKING MANAGEMENT SCHEME

SUBMISSION FROM HOWTH SUTTON COMMUNITY COUNCIL

INTRODUCTION

Howth Sutton Community Council ( HSCC ) is the umbrella group for every significant organisation operating in the Howth Sutton peninsula and there are currently forty member organisations involved.
                                
In addition to the usual residents associations, the Community Council incorporates the Chamber of Commerce, Howth Comhair Iascaire Teo, the main churches, Drug Awareness Group, GAA, Howth Celtic, Howth Golf Club, Howth Yacht Club, Heritage Society, Tidy Towns and Credit Union.  Also represented are the Garda Siochana and Fingal Co Council.   From this it will be seen that proposals emerging from the HSCC are representative and reflective of those of the key business, religious, public and sporting organisations in the area.

HSCC is supportive of the introduction of a Parking and Traffic Plan for the area and wishes to be involved with Fingal Co Council in the development of such a plan. However, it is anxious that any such plan will not be a revenue raising effort but one which is sympathetic to the cultural, historic and touristic environment of the area.  It is also concerned that the plan will take into account the requirements of people who live and work in the area.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

In preparing this submission, the HSCC held a public meeting in the Baily Court Hotel in Howth to discuss the subject.  This meeting was representative of all sections of the community and was well attended.  In addition, two local Fingal councillors attended and addressed the meeting – Joan Maher and David Healy.

The meeting emphasised the importance of local consultation – which did not properly take place in the past – and welcomed the commitment of Fingal officials to ensure that proper consultation would be a feature of any future plan.

The meeting also agreed that any plan should be an integrated one incorporating parking, traffic flow and traffic calming, speed limits, bus and taxi stops, loading bays, handicapped and disability requirements, traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, footpath and safety.

DEPARTMENT OF THE MARINE

The Department of the Marine is responsible for and controls the Harbour area and, therefore, has a substantial role in public amenities, parking, green areas, footpaths, etc in Howth.  It is essential that any plan for Howth should be formulated jointly and agreed with the Department of the Marine.

We are, therefore, requesting that the formulation and agreement of the plan should be a tripartite one –Fingal Co Council, Department of the Marine and the Howth Community.

BACKGROUND

To quote from the introduction to the Fingal County Councils excellent SSAO booklet

“Dublin has one of the most spectacular settings of any Europenan capital and Howth is arguably the brightest jewel in that setting.  The peninsula and nearby Ireland’s Eye contain scenery and habitats as fine as any in the country”.

“The Howth Special Amenity Area Order is a recognition of the quality of the area. To receive this designation an area must be of either outstanding natural beauty or it must have special recreational value or it must be an area where there is a need for nature conservation.”

The main touristic attractions in Howth are the harbour area for its nautical amenities, the village for its traditional appearance, the Summit area for its unspoilt, wild natural beauty and views and the Balscadden and East Mountain areas for its cliff walks and marvellous scenery.

It is within these settings that a parking and traffic plan must fit.

With regard to the Harbour and Village areas, any plan should take the following into consideration.

a.    Howth has an old village traditional ambience and any traffic plan should be sympathetic to this
b.    Howth is an important touristic and visitor centre
c.    Howth is more residential that commercial.  There is no necessity to introduce an element in plan to prohibit access to traffic or cars as, say, in city areas.
d.    Howth is a destination and is not on a main thoroughfare to any other destination
e.    Howth differs substantially from the larger towns in Fingal, such as Swords, Malahide, Balbriggan, Skerries and plans introduced there are not necessarily transferable to Howth.

PARKING

The following elements should be taken into account in any parking review for Howth
i.    Staff parking
ii.    Visitor parking
iii.    Local shopping needs – very short stay
iv.    Local delivery to shops
v.    Church parking
vi.    Park and ride
vii.    Disabled parking
viii.    Harbour commercial requirements
ix.    Boat and yachting parking requirements

CURRENT PARKING SITUATION
The following figures are estimates rather than based on an exact scientific count

i.    There are approximately 320 parking spaces between Teelings Garage and the top of the Upper Main Street (excluding the Harbour but including Harbour Rd car park)
ii.    Approximately 264 of these are from Teelings Garage to the East Pier
iii.    There are only 90 spaces approx between Harbour Rd and the top of Uper Main Street (incl Church Street)
iv.    Apart from Harbour shop and factory staff and customer parking, the Harbour car park is used mainly by DART users and visitors to Yacht Club

PARKING PLAN AND REQUIREMENTS
i.    Essential that Department of Marine is involved in parking plan and that any plan agreed is an integrated one
ii.    There is a necessity to provide an area for staff car parking to free scarce spaces in the Lower and Upper Main Street areas
iii.    Special parking to be allowed around the Catholic Church and St Mary’s at specified times i.e. Mass/Service times, Funerals and Weddings
iv.    Local Delivery;  there are too few spaces available in the village centre for general use to allocate all day loading bays. Loading bays should be confined to commercial vehicles for a limited period e.g 7am – 10.00 am.
v.    Local Shopping:  consideration must be given to facilitate the quick “shop visit” whether this be to newsagent, chemist or shop
vi.    Harbour Parking
a.    Howth is an important sailing venue – boaters need all day parking for cars and trailers
b.    Howth is a commercial harbour – no blockage of fish unloadings or businesses on piers
c.    Harbour is a big day-trip destination, especially on weekends
d.    Park and ride; residents of Sutton, Bayside, Raheny, Portmarnock, Baldoyle and Malahide would not use Howth Harbour for all-day parking if sufficient facilities were provided at their own nearest stations.

PROPOSALS ON PARKING

a.    Residents and business in Howth do not want introduction of Pay and Display
b.    Council should explore with Dept of Marine possibility of extending Harbour Rd Car park
c.    There is a necessity for a major new space – Council should explore Edros site and Council site near Techrete currently owned by Dublin City Council
d.    Strict parking restrictions at churches should be frozen for special occasions – masses/services, funerals and weddings
e.    Parking spaces should be provided on both sides of St Mary’s Place now that bus stop is no longer in use
f.    Lr Thormanby Road parking (at Catholic Church) should be transferred from residential side to Church side of street

DISABLED PARKING

There is a need to revisit the reserved disabled parking spaces around Howth to ensure they are suitable in terms of
a.    proximity to shops
b.    proximity to churches
c.    on flat areas to facilitate exit or entry to/from cars
d.    facilitated by ramp or flat access to footpaths etc, particularly at crossing points

TRAFFIC CALMING

OBJECTIVE ; to slow traffic on Harbour Road, through Howth village centre and on Thormanby Road.

Speeding is not a major issue on Harbour Road, mainly because with parking on both sides, the roadway is extremely narrow – to such an extent that two busses or heavy vehicles cannot easily pass each other.  This attempt at traffic calming creates its own safety issues and should be addressed.

Speeding down Thormanby Road and through the Howth village centre are seen as being issues which need remedy.  

We propose the following initiatives:

a.    Speed limit of 30 km per hour to operate from DART station along Harbour Road, Church Street, Abbey St and Main Street to Church
b.    New low-profile traffic roundabouts to be installed on Thormanby Road at Nashville Road and Asgard Park.  These would both slow traffic down and facilitate exit from these two roads
c.    The slowing of traffic through Howth village centre is treated separately below

TRAFFIC CONTROL – HOWTH VILLAGE CENTRE

The PROBLEM;  
a.    Traffic travelling too quickly on stretch from Church to Health Centre
b.    Problem of safely accessing Upper Main St from Lr Main St
c.    Safety issues involved with cars from Upper Main St merging with cars from Thormanby Road direction at McDermotts Chemist shop

PROPOSAL

We propose the replacement of the current rectangular island in front of Church with a circular floral island which would serve as a traffic island. This would have the following benefits

a.    Slow traffic from all directions
b.    Provide safe traffic access to Upper Main Street
c.    Provide safe traffic from Upper Main St to Lr Main Street.

IMPROVING TRAFFIC FLOW

There are currently some bottlenecks in Howth which should be improved.  We propose the examination of the following;

a.    Introduce one-way traffic only on St Laurences Road (at Spar shop) – traffic flow to be from Lr Main Street to Harbour View
b.    Tucketts Lane – currently unofficially one way during school times by agreement with parents and locals – to be made official
c.    Harbour Road should be widened.  This can be achieved by moving the footpath to behind small concrete railings/wall.  This would also improve pedestrian safety
d.    Explore possibility of widening road at Balscadden to facilitate return to two-way traffic.

IMPROVING SAFETY

a.    Chicanes / Build-outs.  These are currently causing accidents and a danger to safety on both Harbour Road, Main Street and Lr Thormanby Road.  They are difficult to see in dark and wet conditions and create dangerous situations rather than helping safety.  They also make parking difficult if not impossible at times. We propose consideration of the following;
b.    Remove the build-out at the harbour exit to Harbour Road
c.    Remove build-out outside Findlaters opposite exit from harbour
d.    Remove build-out at Library bus stop
e.    Remove build-outs from Library to Asgard Road
f.    Adjust buildout at junction of Church St / Harbour Rd

RIGHT OF WAY AT EAST PIER EXIT

Currently the right of way at the junction of Abbey Street/Harbour Road goes to traffic emerging from the direction of the East Pier.  In essence this gives right of way totraffic emerging from a car park over the main traffic flow.  It is potentially a dangerous situation and we recommend that the right of way revert to traffic from Abbey Street.

RAMPS

We contend that ramps are unsightly and damaging to both car and passenger. They also create problems for cyclists.  We believe these would be out of context within the Howth traditional environment and unnecessary if other measure proposed were introduced.

PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS

Howth is adequately serviced at present and no changes are recommended

TRAFFIC LIGHTS

Howth is adequately serviced at present time and no changes recommended

DISABLED

We request that any survey carried out incorporate a review of the road and footpath infrastructure to facilitate the disabled, handicapped and elderly.

FOOTPATHS

Footpaths should be resurfaced where damaged

TOUR BUSES

There is a necessity to introduce bye-laws limiting areas where these may be parked

BUS DEPOT

Currently Dublin Bus has moved its Howth depot from St Mary’s Place to the Summit.  This is satisfactory within the context of the current schedules.

However, the HSCC is in discussion with Dublin Bus about the possibility of running every second bus clockwise and anti-clockwise aroung the peninsula. This could only be achieved if a suitable village bus depot was provided.

We suggest that the area in front of the DART station would be the most suitable for this. However, this would require that it be a no-parking zone for other vehicles.  We recommend that this form part of the overall study.

                                        END

The Inspector’s report which led to An Bord Pleanála’s refusal of permission for the proposed hotel in the middle of the green belt is now available. The documents can be downloaded from http://www.pleanala.ie/data1/searchdetails.asp?id=477192&caseno=212977.  I have also copied the text of the report below.

          An Bord Pleanála

INSPECTOR’S REPORT

PL 06F 212977

       (HOTEL, SPORTS & LEISURE CENTRE)
DETAILS OF APPEAL

Planning Appeal Ref. No:        PL 06F 212977

Planning Authority:            Fingal County Council

Planning Authority Reg. Ref. No:    F05A/0231

Applicant:                Ballymore Residential Ltd.

Address of Appeal Site:     Mayne Townland, Baldoyle. Dublin 13.

Application Type:            Planning permission.

Nature of Development:    Development comprising 150-bedroom hotel, sports centre, gym, outside sports arena, swimming pool and all associated ancillary site works. (Revised to 100 bedrooms by way of AI)

EIS:    Report submitted.

Decision of Planning Authority:    Grant planning permission – 18 conditions.   

Nature of Appeal:    One Third Party against decision to grant planning permission.   

Appellants:                David Healy, Robbie Kelly,
Joan Maher & Peter Coyle.

Observers:                None.

Inspector:                Karla Mc Bride

Date of site inspection:    20 October 2005
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Site and Location
The appeal site is located within a predominantly rural/coastal area in north county Dublin. The site is located to the north of Donaghmede/Baldoyle and the north urban fringe; to the south of Portmarnock; to the east of the Belfast-Dublin railway line; and to the west of Baldoyle Estuary. It is located on the north side of Mayne Road, a narrow rural road that links the Malahide Road to Sutton Strand Road. There is a detached dwelling to the west at Mayne Lodge with out-buildings to the rear/north and a travellers estate further east on the south side of Mayne Road, which is located opposite the south-east corner of the appeal site. The Mayne Marsh nature conservation area is located to the south-east of the site and a new residential development is site is located to the north-west of the site. The site and surrounding lands comprises an open agricultural landscape, which rises gently in a northern direction towards Portmarnock. Both Mayne Road and the site boundaries are defined by mature native hedgerows and trees, and there is a ditch along the southern road side boundary.
Photographs in Appendix 1 serve to describe the site and location some detail.
1.2 Proposed Development
Planning permission is being sought to develop a 3.75 ha site for tourism and recreational uses, with a stated total gross floor area of 12,147 sq.m. The proposal comprises the following:
(a)    Five-storey hotel building (One floor subsequently omitted by way of AI)
•    Ground floor: bars, restaurants, meeting rooms, smokers terrace, spa, beauty facility administration and offices.
•    First-third floors: 150 bedrooms (revised to 100 bedrooms by way of AI and omission of one floor)
•    Part fourth floor: glazed rooftop level restaurant and terrace.
(b) Two-storey sports centre: Indoor swimming pool/sauna and steam room/gym and fitness facility/dance studio/crèche/snooker room/and 2 squash courts.
(c) Outdoor sport facility: Floodlit, artificial surface, multi-use sports area 2,304 sq.m. in extent with ten 12m high light standards fitted with down light luminaries.
(d) Conference facilities: and banqueting for 350 people.
(e) Parking:  311 cars/ 3 bus parking bays/ cycle parking/service access.
(f) Landscaping: parkland setting, walled entrance forecourt area/pools/terraced gardens/landscaping/garden pavilion/boundary treatments/removal of all existing hedgerows and vegetation.
(g) Other: plant enclosures/ electricity substation/basement level swimming pool plant/keg store/underground surface water attenuation tank/ancillary site works.
(h) Access arrangements: New access road leading north from Mayne Road to provide access to the western side of the proposed development; carriageway alignment and local improvements at the proposed junction on Mayne Road to accommodate a right turning lane.
(i) EIS: A sub-threshold EIS was submitted with the application in line with 1999 Dev. Plan requirements for the “H” zone).
1.3 Additional information
AI was received on 13/05/05 with respect to the following:
a.    Details including phasing, landscaping and delivery of the millennium park and open space area within the Baldoyle Action Plan lands within which the proposed development is located; details of how the proposed development will be integrated into the Millennium Park and surrounding parkland; including cycle/walkways through the site. – The applicant doesn’t own the surrounding lands and the proposal represents a self-contained integrated tourism and leisure facility although the plans have been modified to indicate how the development will integrate with adjoining lands.
b.    Revised plans to reduce the overall height and visual impact of the 5 storey building, which would be located within a sensitive landscape within the Green Belt with protected views from Mayne Road and Golf Links Road to the east; in order to ensure the integrity of the GB area between two urban areas and its important physical and visual relationship with the scenic Baldoyle Estuary area. Applicant requested to omit one floor, reduce the main bulk to 3-storeys and the number of bedrooms to 100, an minimise the projection of the sky restaurant to no more than 1500mm above the main flat roof. – An intermediate floor has been omitted which reduces the height and number of bedrooms.
c.    Revised landscaping, planting and boundary treatment plan. – Submitted.
d.    Demonstrate that the proposal will not impact on Baldoyle Estuary with respect to its environmental designations and surface water discharges. – Report submitted from EcoServe, which indicates that the expected discharge would not have an impact on the estuary.
e.    Details of proposed works to the watercourse along the boundary of the site and to minimise the extent of culverting with full engineering details of culverting where proposed. – Most of watercourse retained and details of culverted elements submitted.
f.    Demonstrate that proposed road works integrate fully with the realigned and upgraded Mayne Road; indicate whether the proposed access road will form part of the distributor road indicated in the Action Area Plan and to provide pedestrian and cycle priority; increase the number of coach parking places and reduce the level of surface car parking; revised car park layout; demonstrate compliance with Dev. Plan parking standards; and submit a Mobility Management Plan. – Details submitted.
1.4 Planning Authority’s Decision
Following the receipt of AI the Planning Authority decided to grant planning permission subject to 18 conditions.
Condition no.3 required the submission of full plans, details and a timescale for the completion of road infrastructure works for the approval of the Transportation Dept. before development commences.
Condition no.7 required that (i) no development should take place until full details are agreed with the PA for a mechanism for the delivery of the parklands, including the Millennium Park, as approved by the Action Area Plan for Baldoyle; (ii) lands to the east of the hotel be available as playing pitches prior to the occupation of the hotel; (iii) the submission of operational details of the parkland gates to the PA for their written agreement. (No reason given)
Condition no.12 required the submission of external finishes and boundary treatment for the PA’s written agreement.
Condition no.15 required the submission of details of external lighting and floodlights to the multi-use games area for the PA’s written agreement.
Condition no.18 required the submission of the proposed mobility management plan and a timescale for review.
This decision reflects the report of the County Planning Officer.
The Water and Drainage Dept. had no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions.
The Roads Dept. requested AI with respect to upgrading Mayne Road.
The Parks Dept. raised serious concerns with regard to the further development of the commercial elements of the Action Area Plan on these lands without any commitment to the development or delivery of the recreational and ecological components of the agreed plan. Landscape proposals too vague for development of this scale and importance.
The Heritage Officer stated that the EIS did not refer to the proximity of the site to Baldoyle Estuary, which is designated as a cSAC among other designations.  AI requested with regard to the impact of the proposal on the Estuary and increased surface water discharges in particular.
Submissions: Two letters of objection received. The Abbey Park and District Resident’s Association raised concerns that the public park has not been delivered with Phase 1 of the development. Objective 177 sought the creation of a millennium park of at least 100 acres and the proposal should be refused PP until the Park has been developed. The second objector raised concerns about material contravention of Dev. Plan; traffic generation/poor public transport; visually obtrusive in a designated sensitive landscape; and increased risk of flooding.

1.5 Planning history
No planning history for the site and the following cases relate to lands in the vicinity. 
Reg. Ref. F02A/0921 – PP granted for extensive residential development on lands covered by the Baldoyle Action Area Plan.
Reg. Ref. F03A/1162 – PP granted for extensive residential development on lands covered by the Baldoyle Action Area Plan.
Reg. Ref.03A/1529 – PP granted for infrastructure works to serve residential lands covered by the Baldoyle Action Area Plan.
Reg. Ref. F04A/1484 – Planning application for a railway station. AI requested.
Reg. Ref. F05A/0108 – Planning application for changing rooms and marketing suite on lands covered by the Baldoyle Action Area Plan. AI requested.

2.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The planning application was lodged with the PA on 25/02/05, assessed with respect to the provisions of the 1999 Dev. Plan and the decision was issued on 08/06/05. The 1999 Dev. Plan has since been replaced by the 2005 Dev. Plan which came into effect on 27/06/05.
1999 Fingal County Development Plan.
Zoning objective: The site is located within an area zoned with the objective “H” which seeks “To provide for a Green Belt and to provide for urban and rural amenities and agriculture.” The site is also located within a designated Sensitive Landscape.
•    Hotels and conference centres are open for consideration in the H zone where the use is subject to the overall zoning objective and specific objectives within that zone but not permitted in sensitive landscapes.
•    An integrated tourism/recreational complex is acceptable in the H zone but only open for consideration in areas designated as sensitive landscape areas.
•    A commercial recreation building is open for consideration in the H zone where the use is subject to the overall zoning objective and specific objectives within that zone but not permitted in sensitive landscapes.
•    A recreational facility/sports club is acceptable in the H zone.
Integrated tourism/recreational complex in GB land: Para 3.6.4 states that the provision of such a complex is open for consideration in green belt areas, which are also designated sensitive landscapes. In particular a complex must have a minimum land area of 80 ha (200ac) and may include a hotel, conference centre, fitness centre, other outdoor tourist/recreational facilities and low-density residential units. Proposals should preserve/conserve the natural amenities and heritage structures on the site and retain the open nature of the lands.  (There is a conflict between Para 3.6.4 and the “H” zoning objective as to what is or is not open for consideration within GB areas, which are also designated sensitive landscapes)
Specific objectives: The site is located within Area Landscape Group 12 where “any further development around the estuary will have an adverse effect on the semi-natural character of the area.” There are Protected Views along Strand Road and along Golf Links Road to the east.
Other designations: Baldoyle Estuary is located to the east and south of the appeal site and the area of land stretching westwards from the estuary has been designated as a candidate SAC, SPA, Statutory Nature Reserve and proposed NHA. The site is also located within the Airport Noise Zone.
Local objectives: Local objectives 142, 152,155 and 177 were incorporated into the Baldoyle Action Area Plan.
Baldoyle & Portmarnock Action Area Plan

The relevant aspects of this Plan, which was adopted on 05/11/01 are set out below:

•    Para 9 requires the preparation of a detailed Master Plan for any development proposals in the Green Belt and an EIS for any related planning applications in the H or G zones.

•    Para. 6 states, with respect to the green belt, that this zone represents the single largest open space and recreational zone in the Action Area and will form the core of the Millennium Park.

•    Local objective 142 states that Baldoyle Estuary and Portmarnock will be jointly considered for designation as a SAAO.

•    Local objective 152 states that only development relating to recreational facilities will be permitted in the H zone between Portmarnock and Baldoyle.

•    Local objective 155 provides for an integrated tourism recreational complex within the parkland in appropriate areas in the vicinity of the appeal site (IT) and to the south of the appeal site in the vicinity of Stapolin which would also include a retirement home.

•    Local objective 177 provides for the creation of a 100-acre millennium park with 22 acres of playing pitches; cycle/walkways; golf course and parkland within the 250/270 acres of open space.

•    Provision of a local N/S distributor road and rail station to the west of the site.

Master Plan

The Master Plan included the provision of an integrated tourism complex in the vicinity of the appeal site.

2005 Fingal County Development Plan
Zoning objective: The site is located within an area zoned with the objective “OS” which seeks “To preserve and provide for open space and recreational amenities.” The site is also located within a designated Sensitive Landscape.
•    The “OS” zoning objective seeks to provide recreational and amenity resources for urban and rural populations subject to strict development controls.
•    Only community facilities and other recreational uses will be considered and encouraged by the PA and recreational facilities /sports clubs are permitted in principle.
•    A wide range of uses are not permitted which include a B&B, public house, residential care home, residential institution, hospital. childcare facility, night club and holiday homes.
•    Hotels are not specifically listed as not permitted in the “OS” zone, however, Policy GBP15 seeks to encourage hotel development in suitable parts of the County and Objective GBO33 states that Local Area Plans should “designate specific key locations throughout the County especially in urban areas for the development of hotel use.”
Integrated tourism/recreational complexes: No criteria listed.
Surrounding zones: The lands to the south-east are zoned as Green Belt and a parcel of land to the north-west is zoned “RS1” which seeks “To provide for new residential communities in accordance with approved local area plans and subject to the provision of the necessary social and physical infrastructure.”
Specific local objectives:  The site is located within an area covered by several local objectives:
•    In close proximity to Baldoyle Estuary Area Landscape Group 12 –where “any further development around the estuary will have an adverse effect on the semi-natural character of the area.”
•    Protected Views along Strand Road and along Golf links road to the east. 
•    Objective 284 stipulates that only development relating to recreational activities to be permitted in the Open Space zoning between Portmarnock and Baldoyle.
•    Objective 318 provides for integrated tourism/recreational complex, public park, and retirement home in the vicinity of the former Baldoyle race course lands.

Local objectives for Baldoyle: The following objectives are of relevance:

•    OB1: To secure the implementation of the Portmarnock/Baldoyle Action Area including the provision of a major public park and a new rail station.

•    OB2: To ensure the viability of the visual break between Baldoyle and Portmarnock urban areas by locating outdoor sport and recreation opportunities within the intervening area.

•    OB7: Within the 250/270 acres of open space to provide for:
(a)    A millennium park of at least 100 acres with 22 acres of playing pitches, natural areas to ensure conservation, cycle/walkways towards Portmarnock, landscape walkways suitable for wheelchairs with benches called after jumps/fences of the old racecourse and dry land for pitches, the public park to be provided in phase 1 of the development, (b) golf course and (c) parkland.
Natural heritage designations: Baldoyle Estuary is located to the east of the appeal site and Mayne Marsh conservation area ids located to the south. The surrounding area of land stretching westwards from the estuary has been designated as a candidate SAC, SPA, Statutory Nature Reserve, Ramsar site and proposed NHA.
•    Objective HO31: requires an appropriate environmental assessment in respect of any proposed development likely to have an impact on a designated or proposed natural heritage site.
•    Policy HP36: seeks to ensure that proposed developments along the coast are sited and designed appropriately having regard to the visual impact on the visual compartment(s) within which they are located.
•    Objective HO41: seeks to consider Baldoyle jointly with Portmarnock for a Special Amenity Area Order
Other designations: The site is also located within the outer airport noise zone.

3.0 APPEAL
3.1 Summary
There is one appeal in relation to this application, which is a Third Party appeal against the decision of the County Council to grant planning permission. The appeal has been lodged by Fingal County Councillors David Healy, Robbie Kelly, Joan Maher and Peter Coyle who raise the following issues.
Zoning:
•    Material contravention of the current 2005 Dev. Plan. The site was zoned as green belt in the 1999 Dev. Plan and now as open space in the 2005 Plan. The proposal does not comply with either zoning objective.
•    Local objectives 155 (1999 Plan) and 294 (2005 Plan) seek to provide for an integrated tourism/recreational complex, public park and retirement home on the site of the former Baldoyle racecourse at the very south east of the parkland/green belt.
•    The proposed development is not an integrated tourism/recreational complex it is a large hotel with swimming pool and tennis courts on a small site. It does not met the criteria for an integrated tourism/recreational complex as set out in 3.6.4 of the 1999 Dev. Plan, which are not replicated in the 2005 Dev. Plan.
•    Both the 1999 and 2005 Dev Plans state that only development relating to recreational activities to be permitted in the OS zoning between Portmarnock and Baldoyle.
Inconsistent with Baldoyle Portmarnock Action Area plan:
•    The Baldoyle and Portmarnock Action Area Plan and Master Plan provide for a small scale integrated tourism/recreational complex in the vicinity of the appeal site and further south in at Baldoyle racecourse.
•    The Planner’s report raised concerns that the proposed facility would not integrate with the surrounding landscape, its proposed uses within the Action Plan and the delivery of a millennium park and requested AI in this regard. The applicant replied that they had no control over the parkland, which is outside their ownership.
•    The Parks Dept raised serious concerns that the current proposal cannot be assessed in isolation and must be considered in the context of the surrounding parkland and the provisions of the agreed Action Plan.  The PA’s condition which requires that no development could take place until agreement is reached on the delivery of the millennium park is unsatisfactory and the hotel proposal will predetermine the design options for the park.
Lack of public transport:
•    Material contravention of Dev. Plan as the appeal site not served by public transport or adjacent to developed areas and 40% of traffic to the hotel will not be by modes other than cars.
Designated sensitive landscape:
•    Material contravention of SL designation and policy HP34 which seeks to “To protect sensitive landscapes from inappropriate development and to reinforce their character, distinctiveness and sense of place.”
•    The height reduction sought by way of AI is inadequate and the proposed development would destroy the visual break between Baldoyle and Portmarnock.
Cycle facility:
•    Proposed cycle tracks are in breach of the DoE/DTO Manual “Provision of cycle facilities national manual for urban areas.”
3.2 First Party response submissions.
The First Party, in a letter received by An Bord Pleanála on 25/07/05 stated the following in relation to the Third Party appeal. The response was lodged by Simon Clear & Associates, Planning & Development Consultants on behalf of the First Party.
•    The source of the Action Area plan is found in the 1999 Fingal Dev. Plan, the Action Plan was approved by the Council, and the provision for its continued implementation are to be found in the specific local objectives of the 2005 Fingal Dev. Plan.  Master Plans are designed to be indicative, flexible, renewable and not specific.
•    Significant progress in the surrounding area with respect to residential and infrastructure development.
•    The provision of a integrated tourism and recreational complex has no negative implications for the parklands identified in the Action Plan and Master Plan, it is exclusive of, but located within the parkland.
•    The Action Plan proposes a new distributor road, DART station, enhanced bus service and cycle/footpaths in the vicinity. Co. CO. granted PP in July 2005 for a new rail station 515m north of Grange Road.
•    The visual impact of the proposed buildings within a sensitive landscape was fully assessed in the EIS and the hotel would be located at the lowest level.
•    Cycle facilities designed to appropriate standards.
3.3 County Council Response submissions
The County Council Planning Department, in a letter received by An Bord Pleanála on 04/08/05 stated the following with respect to the Third Party appeal.
•    Proposal complies with the objectives set out in the Action Area Plan. While the area is zoned for open space, there is a specific objective in the AAP and the Master Plan for a tourist complex in the location proposed.
•    The proposed hotel, bowling, swimming/gym and all weather pitches are appropriate for tourism and recreational uses.
•    The scale and height of the hotel was reduced by way of AI to further increase its integration into the Green Belt Area.
•    The Master Plan referred to is the Stapolin Village Master Plan, which was part of the original application for Phase 1 of the Baldoyle Action Plan lands as required by the Action Plan. The layout of the development permitted to date on the Action Plan lands conform to the Master Plan.
•    The issue of integration with the Millennium Park is addressed by condition no.7. The applicant has sufficient legal interest in these lands to deliver the requirements under condition no.7.
•    The area forms part of the North Fringe Area of Fingal and Dublin City Council where it is proposed to build 16,000 new homes. The Council’s are jointly involved in the planned improvement to the road and public transport facilities in the area, which will be served by increasing levels of public transport including new bus services and DART stations at Portmarnock and Baldoyle.
•    The height, mass and sale of the proposal will not be unduly obtrusive in this setting having regard to the planning objectives.
3.4 Observers. None
4.0 REVIEW OF ISSUES AND ASSESSMENT
The main issues arising in this case are compatibility with 1999 and 2005 Development Plan policies/Action Plan objectives; sensitive landscape/natural heritage/EIS/visual impact; traffic/access/car parking; wastewater treatment/Baldoyle Estuary and Millennium Park.
4.1 Development Plan policies/Action Plan objectives.
The First Party is seeking PP to construct a hotel complex with a swimming pool, childcare facility, and indoor/out door recreational facilities on a site which is located within a large area of open space, which extends northwards from Baldolye to Portmarnock, eastwards to Baldoyle estuary and westwards through Kinsealy to the M1 motorway.
1999 Fingal County Development Plan.
The proposed development would be located within an area zoned with the objective “H” in the 1999 Dev. Plan, which seeks “To provide for a Green Belt and to provide for urban and rural amenities and agriculture.” The site is also located within a designated Sensitive Landscape. Although not normally permitted, hotels and commercial recreational buildings are open for consideration in the “H” zone however they are not permitted within areas which are also designated Sensitive Landscapes. However Para 3.6.4 of the Dev. Plan states that an integrated tourism/recreational complex, which may include a hotel, is open for consideration in “H” zone areas which are also designated as Sensitive Landscapes where the proposed complex must have a minimum land area of 80 ha. and where the open nature of the lands is retained. Irrespective of the conflict between the “H” zoning objective and Para 3.6.4 the proposed hotel and leisure complex on a 3.75 ha site does not comply with the zoning objective and sensitive landscape designation for the area nor the requirements set down under Para 3.6.4 and in my opinion the proposed development would materially contravene both of these provisions.

The 1999 Dev. Plan contains a number of local objectives with respect to the surrounding area of open space located between Baldoyle and Portmarnock, which were subsequently incorporated into the 2001 Baldoyle and Portmarnock Action Area Plan. In particular, Para. 6 and objective 177 states that this area represents the single largest open space and recreational zone in the Action Area and it will form the core of the Millennium Park; objective 152 states that only development relating to recreational facilities will be permitted in the “H” zone between Portmarnock and Baldoyle; objective 155 makes provision for a small scale integrated tourism recreational complex within the parkland in the vicinity of the appeal site (IT) and a larger scale complex and retirement home the south of the appeal site in the vicinity of Stapolin and the former Baldoyle race course. These objectives do not refer to the provision of an hotel in the area but to recreational and tourist uses related to the open space character of the area and the adjoining Baldoyle Estuary. In my opinion the development would materially contravene planning objectives contained in both the 1999 Dev. Plan and the 2001 Action Area Plan.

2005 Fingal County Development Plan.
The proposed development would be located within a designated Sensitive Landscape and area zoned with the objective “OS” in the 2005 Dev. Plan, which seeks “To preserve and provide for open space and recreational amenities” and recreational facilities /sports clubs are permitted in principle. The Dev. Plan vision for this zone seeks to provide recreational and amenity resources subject to strict development controls and only community facilities and other recreational uses will be considered and encouraged by the PA. It should be noted that hotel complexes are not specifically listed as not permitted in the “OS” zone, however this is not an exhaustive list and like uses which are not permitted include B&Bs, public houses, residential care homes, residential institutions, hospitals, childcare facilities, night clubs and holiday homes. Furthermore, Policy GBP15 of the Dev. Plan seeks to encourage hotel development in suitable parts of the County and Objective GBO33 states that Local Area Plans should “designate specific key locations throughout the County especially in urban areas for the development of hotel use.” The proposed development, which comprises a large hotel and leisure complex, does not comply with the zoning objective, which specifically seeks “to provide for open space and recreational amenities”, and in my opinion the proposed development would materially contravene the “OS” zoning objective for the area.
The 2005 Dev. Plan does not contain any specific objectives for the appeal site although it does contains a number of overall objectives for the large area of open space located between Baldoyle and Portmarnock, including the former Baldoyle race course. In particular objective 284 stipulates that only development relating to recreational activities shall be permitted in the “OS” zone between Portmarnock and Baldoyle; objective 318 provides for integrated tourism/recreational complex, public park, and retirement home in the vicinity of the former Baldoyle race course lands; BALDOYLE 1 seeks to secure the implementation of the Portmarnock/Baldoyle Action Area Plan, including the provision of a major public park and a new rail station; BALDOYLE 2 seeks to ensure the viability of the visual break between Baldoyle and Portmarnock urban areas by locating outdoor sport and recreation opportunities within the intervening area; and within the 250/270 acre area BALDOYLE 7 seeks the creation of a 100 acre millennium park and the provision of playing pitches, nature conservation areas, cycle/walkways, landscaped areas, golf course and parkland. These objectives do not refer to the provision of a hotel in the area but to recreational and tourist uses related to the open space character of the area and the adjoining Baldoyle Estuary. In my opinion the development would materially contravene planning objectives contained in both the 2005 Dev. Plan and the 2001 Action Area Plan.
4.2 Sensitive landscape/natural heritage/EIS/visual impact
The proposed development would be located within a large area of open space and a designated Sensitive Landscape in close proximity to Baldoyle Estuary. The lands to the east and south of the appeal site, and the surrounding area of land stretching westwards from the estuary has been designated as a candidate SAC, SPA, Statutory Nature Reserve, Ramsar site and proposed NHA. Objective HO41 of the 2005 Dev. Plan seeks to consider Baldoyle jointly with Portmarnock for a Special Amenity Area Order.

Para 9 of the 2001 Action Area Plan requires the submission of an EIS for planning applications related the 1999 “H” zone and Objective HO31 of the 2005 Dev. Plan requires an EIS for any development proposals likely to have an impact on a designated or proposed natural heritage site.  An EIS has been submitted in line with the  “H” zone requirements and states “Baldoyle Estuary to the east confers a strong coastal influence on the area.” and the effect on flora and fauna will be “minor due to the loss of local habitat as a result of works.” However the document fails to assess the impact of the close proximity of the proposal to the Estuary to the east and the Mayne Marsh Conservation Area to the south or to assess the contribution (if any) of the appeal site lands to the area’s migratory bird population. In my opinion this information is of importance and should have been included.
The proposed “L” shaped 150 bedroom hotel building would be located in the center portion of the site with car parking to the west and outdoor passive/active recreational facilities to the north-east. The main hotel building would be approximately 72m wide, 67m deep and 4 stories high with a roof top restaurant although the height and capacity was reduced to 3 stories and 100 bedrooms by way of AI. The proposed swimming pool/leisure center would be attached to the south-east corner of the hotel building. The contemporary design and use of external materials, which comprise reconstituted concrete, terracotta panellised cladding and glazing units are considered acceptable in terms of design and layout.
The proposed complex would be located within an open and exposed agricultural/coastal landscape which rises gently to the north; within a much larger area of open space/parkland which extends from Baldoyle to Portmarnock and the northern boundary with residentially zoned land; and westerly from the flat and exposed Baldoyle Estuary. The site is located within a designated sensitive landscape, Landscape Group 12 and there are Protected Views along Strand Road and along Golf Links Road to the east. Policy HP36 of the 2005 Dev. Plan seeks to ensure that “proposed developments along the coast are sited and designed appropriately having regard to the visual impact on the visual compartment(s) within which they are located.” The photomontages submitted with the EIS indicate that the proposed building would be visible from Sutton Strand Road to the south-east, Portmarnock sand spit to the east and Portmarnock Park to the north-east. Photographs in Appendix 1 describe the views from Strand Road and the park in more detail.

Notwithstanding the proximity of the residentially zoned land to the north-west of the parkland and proposed hotel complex and the location of a proposed N/S distributor road to the west of the site, in my opinion the proposed development would be visually obtrusive and out of character with the surrounding rural and coastal landscape in which it would be located. The proposed development would seriously injure the visual amenities of this sensitive landscape; it would contravene the objectives of the 2005 Dev. Plan which seek to ensure the viability of the visual break between Baldoyle and Portmarnock urban areas (Baldoyle 2) and the integration of any tourist/recreational proposals with the surrounding open space/parkland. The proposed development would be contrary to the proper planning, and sustainable development of the area.  
4. 3 Millennium Park
I am not satisfied with the proposed arrangements to ensure the delivery of the millennium park as the First Party does not own or exercise control over the surrounding lands. The proposed development comprises a self-contained private hotel/leisure and recreational complex, which would not integrate with the surrounding open space/parkland to provide for public/community based facilities, which is specific requirement of both the Dev. Plan “OS” zoning objective and the Action Area Plan objectives.
4.4 Traffic/access/car parking
The proposed vehicular access would be off Mayne Road and it would be located in the south-east corner of the appeal site and to the west of the proposed N/S distributor road and proposed rail station. The First Party has proposed road and junction improvements, which meet with the satisfaction of the Co. Co.’s Roads Engineer subject to conditions.  The Third Party has raised concerns with respect to the accessibility of the proposed hotel complex by pedestrians and public transport and that the proposed development is premature pending the construction of the rail station, distributor road and implementation of bus network improvements. I would concur with these concerns and having regard to the rural location of the proposed development, in my opinion the preferred means of access would be by private car along a narrow road without footpaths where operational speeds are high. However, the proposed development would provide an acceptable level of car and coach parking although I would have concerns about the proposed cycle/footpaths, which do not fully integrate the site with its open space surroundings.
4.5 Wastewater treatment/Baldoyle Estuary.
The proposed wastewater treatment proposals are acceptable subject to PA conditions, the completed upgrade of the Baldoyle pumping station, protection of the estuary and   compliance with the requirements of the Eastern Regional Fisheries Board with respect to protection the salmonid status of the watercourses in the area.

5.0 RECOMMENDATION
Arising from my assessment of the appeal case I recommend that planning permission should be refused for the proposed development for the reasons and considerations set down below.

        REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

1.    The proposed development would be located within an area covered by the zoning objective “OS” in the current Dev. Plan, which seeks, “To preserve and provide for open space and recreational amenities” which is considered reasonable and where only community facilities and other recreational uses will be considered and encouraged by the PA. The proposed hotel and leisure complex would contravene the zoning objective for the area and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning, and sustainable development of the area.

2.    The proposed development, which would be located in an open and exposed area, which is a designated Sensitive Landscape in the current Dev. Plan, located in close proximity to a candidate SAC, SPA, SNR and proposed NHA, would be visually obtrusive and out of character with the surrounding rural and coastal landscape. The proposed development would seriously injure the visual amenities of this sensitive landscape and it would contravene the objectives of the Dev. Plan, which seek to ensure the viability of the visual break between Baldoyle and Portmarnock urban areas. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning, and sustainable development of the area.  

Karla Mc Bride
Town Planner
10 November 2005