Reports on County Development Plan – Cycling motions

Last month’s County Development Plan meetings discussed a wide range of issues. I’m posting some reports in particular on the motions I submitted. I also supported important motions by my Green colleague Roderic O’Gorman and a range of Councillors from all parties.

The largest batch of motions were those on cycling so I’ll address those first.

One of the results of the public display of the draft plan was the receipt of a range of submissions criticising the inadequacy of the policies contained in the draft as regards cycling.These came from a range of parties, including the National Transport Authority which suggested that the policies in relation to cycling in the plan could be strengthened.

In response to these submissions, I submitted a range of proposed amendments, many of which were directly extracted from the National Cycle Policy Framework (NCPF), particularly the policies and actions identified in the Framework for implementation by local authorities.

In advising the Councillors on the motions submitted, the Council management first claimed that many of the motions submitted were invalid as they didn’t relate to submissions received. This label was applied to 15 of the 21 amendments which I proposed based on the NCPF. When I pointed out their origin this claim did not resurface.

When it came to the discussions, the first two cycling related motions were

  • to mark the cycle routes from the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan on the Development Plan maps the same as the other cycle routes already proposed
  • to provide safe routes to school as part of the process of identifying and procuring new school sites

It was a bit of a surprise that, unfortunately, the Planning Department opposed both of these. The majority of Councillors supported my motion to mark the GDA routes on the maps despite the official advice against it.

However they also opposed my proposal that safe walking and cycling routes would be provided to new schools  as part of the school development process and a slim majority of Councillors voted it down. The media, starting with the cycling journalism website Irishcycle.com, naturally took an interest in this and reported it the following week: Irishcycle.com, TheJournal.ie, DublinLive.ie.

At the following meeting, the officials continued to oppose the cycling motions and a number of other important motions were defeated including a proposal to implement HGV management strategies in urban areas, a proposal to carry out remedial measures to existing cyclist unfriendly urban roads and a proposal to provide safe cycling and walking routes to existing schools during the lifetime of the plan including an audit of all schools. These motions were all based on the National Cycle Policy Framework adopted in 2009, but despite that the officials convinced a majority of Councillors to vote them down.

At a subsequent meeting, the media attention to the vote against safe routes to schools started to have an impact and my motions to provide cycle routes from Holywell, Portmarnock and Balgriffin to Kinsealy to serve the proposed new secondary school there and the existing primary schools were all successful. So overall, a mixture of good and bad news.

 

screen-shot-2016-09-06-at-18-00-52

Proposed greenway style cycle route from Kettle’s Lane to Kinsealy via Abbeville

28690_20160904210055

Proposed greenway style cycle route from Portmarnock to Kinsealy

28694_20160904210613

Proposed greenway style cycle route from Balgriffin to Kinsealy

The amendments to the Draft Plan are on public display until 2nd December. At this stage they are only proposed amendments; they could be overturned following the consultation. So if you agree with any of the amendments, make sure to make a submission!

I’m still following up on the National Cycle Policy Framework (NCPF) issue. The media reports on the motion for safe routes to schools which was defeated, led to me learning from a member of the public of the existence of Planning Circular_pssp_8_2010_on NCPF_and_development_plans. This circular requires the Council to make the Development Plan consistent with the NCPF.

All of the cycling related motions had already been dealt with when I received the Circular but I immediately drew the attention of the next Council meeting dealing with the Development Plan to the obligations placed on the Council by the Circular. The Council officials were unwilling to recognise that the Circular had any significance to the process or to revisit the issues.

I have written to the Minister for Housing and Planning in relation to this.

Amendments to County Development Plan

Fingal County Council is currently preparing the County Development Plan to run from 2017 to 2023. The Draft Plan was on public display between February and April 2016 and a report on the over 900 responses received was supplied to Councillors at the end of July.

As Councillors we had until yesterday, 6th September, to draft proposals to amend the Plan based on the public consultation.  Those  amendments which the Council agrees to will go on public display in November.

I submitted amendments to a wide range of topics in the plan. A copy of my proposed amendments is here. In order to make them easy to navigate I have grouped them into the following topics:

  • On Special Amenity Area Order and Dublin Bay Biosphere Reserve
  • On cycle pedestrian routes to be added to the map
  • On public transport reservation from Clongriffin/Portmarnock – Balgriffin – Belcamp – Clonshaugh to metro reservations south of Dublin Airport
  • In relation to the Moyne Road bypass proposal based on discussions at the previous stage of the Development Plan and in response to submissions by the developer of the adjoining residentially zoned land and Portmarnock Community Association
  • On the zoning of the industrial estates beside Howth Junction railway station based on issues I raised at the previous stage of the Plan and a submission from a local business.
  • On the process for sub-county level plans based on the experience of Fingal councillors and citizens as well as submissions from public authorities including the National Transport Authority
  • Based on Fáilte Ireland’s submission
  • In relation to the circular economy and sustainable resource use
  • In response to the submission by Keep Ireland Open, Fáilte Ireland and others concerned with access to the countryside
  • Based on concerns about Fingal’s approach to open space in high density development, an issue raised both by developers and residents
  • On the transition to a low carbon climate resilient economy, a legal obligation of the Plan under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act and raised in a range of submissions
  • On adaptation to climate change
  • On Ecosystem Services Approach
  • Transport motions based on a range of submissions by local road users and public transport users and the NTA
  • Motion incorporating text from the Dublin City Development plan in relation to cycle parking as recommended by the submission from the National Transport Authority
  • In relation to cycling in response to a wide range of submissions seeking better and safer cycling insfrastructure.
  • Based on text in the National Cycling Policy Framework, to which some of the submissions refer.

Observation to Dublin Airport Authority on proposed removal of nighttime noise restrictions

Dublin Airport Authority carried out a consultation in relation to the Environmental Impact Assessment of a proposal to remove the conditions in a permission they received from An Bord Pleanála which would restrict night time flights in order to enable local residents to sleep soundly. Exactly how they would apply to make such a change has not been explained despite direct questions.

I made the following submission:

1. The public is entitled to know what sort of application DAA is apparently planning to make, especially if we are being consulted on it.
For many months now, residents and public representatives have been hearing that DAA will be applying to change the planning conditions. However, we have not, despite repeated requests been able to understand whether this is a planning application or some other form of application. My request under the Access to Information on the Environment Regulations directed at obtaining this information also failed to clarify it.
Some sort of legal stratagem is presumably being developed. The fact that the public is being asked to participate in a consultation process where relevant details of the overall decision-making process are apparently being withheld is worrying. This is particularly the case when it is the ability of local residents to live normal lives and get a proper night’s sleep that is at stake.
2. DAA should not assume that it will be legally possible to make an application of whatever unspecified form which would relate only to two conditions of its planning permission given the passage of time since the granting of that permission, the fact that it has not commenced work on the permission and the requirements of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive.
3. Analysis of aviation demand must take account of the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions drastically and rapidly in order to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system, as set out in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. Predictions of aviation demand must incorporate anticipated and necessary measures to reduce emissions including measures to control demand and measures which would change the makeup of the fleet using the airport.
4. DAA has misled itself in concluding that it is not subject to the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015.
5. Analysis of demand for night time take off and landing must set out the degree to which this is stimulated or discouraged by pricing as well as the degree to which it results from measures taken at airports elsewhere to protect their neighbours from night time noise.
6. Alternatives examined should include the use of other airports in Ireland as well as technical alternatives, alternative modes of transport, and alternatives to transport.

Submission in relation to identifying Balscadden Beach as a bathing area

Fingal County Council, as required by EU regulation, consulted the public to identify locations where large numbers of people swim, so that the water quality at these locations can be tested.

Friends of Balscadden Bay made a detailed submission. I made the following brief submission:

Balscadden Beach is a historical swimming area in Howth.

It is heavily used by both local residents and visitors.

For the last two summers, at the request of local residents, Fingal County Council has sampled water quality at the beach and found it to be excellent on every occasion sampled.

Local swimmers use the beach every day throughout the year. Naturally it is particularly busy during good weather in the summer.

The beach previously had Victorian bathing cabins and has been visited by daytrippers from Dublin since the railway started in the mid-19th Century.

It is accessed by a public right of way from Balscadden road along steps provided by Dublin Corporation when Howth was within its jurisdiction. It is accessible by public transport (31 bus and Dart) and is near public car parking and toilets at the East Pier.

There is an organised swim and barbeque every summer by Friends of Balscadden Bay. This year, that will take place from 1pm to 4pm on Sunday 7th August.

There is also a long-standing traditional Christmas swim.

I attach some postcards/photographs covering the period from the late 19th century to July 2016. I took the most recent photograph myself.

1 balscadden postcard bw $_57 balscadden waterskiing  cleaning Balscadden Bay (FOBB)_1201Balscadden Bay Howth Saturday 16 July 2016

Response to consultation on draft County Development Plan

My response to the draft Fingal Development Plan and the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for the Plan is here.

The main issues in my consultation response were sustainable development, climate change adaptation and mitigation, transport, car-oriented development, cycling, road proposals, aviation, building energy use, and renewable energy. A recurrent theme under many of these headings was the lack of actual assessment in the SEA report.

As Councillors, we will receive a report on all consultations responses in July and based on that feedback can submit amendments to the plan in August for meetings in September. I would welcome any feedback on the issues in my submission or on or any other aspect of the Development Plan.

“Sustainable Urban Drainage” in Malahide becomes dysfunctional hole dug in open space

IMG_3961The new development Coill Dubh (opposite Malahide Community School) is supposed to have a sustainable urban drainage system in order to prevent runoff from the development causing flooding in the area. The drawings are shown in the planning file (F12A/0242) which was granted by An Bord Pleanála (overruling their inspector who recommended refusal on pedestrian safety grounds.)

It seems that what has been built is in breach of the drawings. Additionally, the landscaping and drainage was required by condition to be finished before the houses were occupied and that certainly isn’t the case.

Below are relevant extracts from the planning application and the conditions imposed by An Bord Pleanála, followed by photographs of what the ‘open space looks like at the moment.Screen Shot 2016-02-27 at 7.31.19 PM Screen Shot 2016-02-27 at 7.31.01 PMScreen Shot 2016-02-27 at 7.35.26 PM  Screen Shot 2016-02-27 at 7.29.54 PM  Screen Shot 2016-02-27 at 7.28.33 PM

IMG_3960 IMG_3954 IMG_3953 IMG_3951 IMG_3950 IMG_3962What has been built is spectacularly different to the original drawings. It is public health and safety hazard and it is a disgrace that it has been put in the middle of a public open space. The Council’s Planning Department must address this immediately.

Legal question over Apartment Standards

We had an extensive discussion during the meetings on the draft Development Plan on the new Apartment Standards which have been centrally dictated by Environment Minister Alan Kelly.

The key advice from officials was that whatever Councillors thought of the standards, we were legally obliged to implement them in the plan. (See webcast at at 1h30 to 2h09 and 2h21 to 2h30).

However, there may be a problem with the legal status of those Standards. I have sent the following note to Fingal’s Chief Executive and as a result, the Council is getting legal advice:

My attention has been drawn to a legal question over the Apartments Standards issued by the Minister for the Environment in December and whether they are covered by the amendment to s.28 of the Planning and Development Act. There is a risk that our discussions last month may have been based on an incorrect understanding of the legislation.

The Apartment Standards of 22nd December​ 2015​ refer specifically to s. 28 of the P&D Act 2000 as amended:

“1.10 These guidelines have been issued by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government under Section 28 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended). Planning authorities and An Bord Pleanála, are required to have regard to the guidelines and to apply any specific planning policy requirements of the guidelines, in carrying out their functions.”

​(They then go on to identify various policies as “specific planning policy requirements”​.)

The Planning and Development Amendment Act 2015 which amended s.28 (to oblige planning authorities to apply “specific planning policy requirements”​) was enacted on 29th December​ 2015​. So the requirements referred to in 1.10 of the guidelines didn’t have the legal significance they claimed​ at the time when they were adopted​.​

​This raises a series of legal questions, including: Must the guidelines be interpreted under the law as it was at the time when they were published? Alternatively, can the law as it is now be correctly used to retrospectively interpret and ​indeed ​make intelligible the guidelines, despite the fact that when they were enacted they actually didn’t mean what they claimed to mea​n? Given that legislation generally cannot be retrospective, is it possible for it to have retrospective effect in this manner? The answer to these questions may raise constitutional​ separation of powers issues​, such as whether the executive​ can​ validly presume what the legislature will do​.

​Obviously this is a matter of some complexity and I think it is essential that legal advice be sought. This has an uncontestable bearing on the validity of the Development Plan process as I know a number of my colleagues voted for amendments to bring the Draft Plan into line with the guidelines specifically due to the advice that we as a Council are legally required to implement the guidelines and not on the substance of the issue covered in the text being amended.