Dublin City Council has produced a design for the QBC from Amiens St., through Fairview and out along Malahide Rd.  The design involves cycle lanes of sub-standard width placed often where cyclists would be at risk from doors being opened by parked cars.  At junctions, it leads cyclists into increased danger by putting them to the left of left-turning traffic.   At other locations, it attempts to squeeze buses past cyclists where there simply isn’t room on the carriageway.

I have made a submission to the City Council; see below.  The deadline for submissions is 16th June.

                                                                                    Councillor David Healy

Green
Party/Comhaontas Glas 

Howth ward
/ Dublin North East

www.davidhealy.com

01
8324087

54,
Páirc Éabhóra, Beann Éadair

54,
Evora Park, Howth

 

 

 

 

Comments on Malahide Road QBC proposals.

 

30th May 2006

By email to
qbnoffice@dublincity.ie

 

 

The following comments are submitted in response to
the public display of the proposed changes to the Malahide Road QBC

 

My comments focus in particular on the safety of
the proposed design for cyclists.  My
comments are made as a cyclist who uses part of the route to access the city
centre myself, and as a Green Party representative for the general Dublin
North-East area for which either all of part of the route constitues the only
effective cycling access to the city centre. 

 

Comments refer to entire route
proposal drawn up, not just that on display at the moment

 

The following comments refer to the design drawings
for the entire route from Amiens St. to Clare Hall, dated 18th August
2005.  I understand that the drawings on
display start with North Strand/ Annesley Bridge and therefore Section 5 below
(Sheet 5 in the full set of drawings) relates to Sheet 1 in the drawings on
display.  I understand also that the
design on display does not go beyond the Artane Roundabout.  Section 17 (Sheet 17 in the full set of
drawings) corresponds to Sheet 13 in the display.  I enclose my comment on all the elements of
the design as I feel this would be most efficient.  Comments which relate only to the elements
currently on display are from Sections 5 to 17.

 

Generally the scheme is not good
for cyclists

 

I note that improving facilities for cyclists is
one of the stated objectives of the scheme. 
Unfortunately it does not achieve that objective.

 

At the Velo-city conference last year, the flaws in
the existing design in Fairview were openly acknowledged by Dublin City Council
staff.  Indeed attendees including myself
were assured that that the City Council have learnt a lot since and would not
make the same mistakes again.

 

Unfortunately, this appears not to be the case. The
design proposed retains almost all the defective elements of the existing
design from the Fairview/Malahide Rd. junction to Amiens St.  It proposes to add many kilometres of
substandard cycle facilities to the route.

 

The potential exists along this route to create a
good quality route, minimising conflicts and risks for cyclists and creating a
pleasant and safe cycle facility along the route.  The current design proposal does not meet
that potential and I urge the members of the City Council to require that it be
redesigned.

 

 

Section 1 Amiens St. (not in
current consultation)

 

1.1 Traffic lights near Foley
St.

The proposal here is to change the northbound cross
section at the traffic lights from

 

• Footpath 3.8m
• traffic lane 2.8m, and
• traffic lane 2.6m

to

• Footpath 2.7m,
• traffic lane 3.5m including cycle lane 1.5m, and
• traffic lane 3m

 

A lane of 3.5 is not wide enough to allow a wide
vehicle to safely pass a cyclist (ref pp. 62-63 of National Manual).  This route has many buses and they can be
expected in this lane.  Painting lanes
with inadequate widths encourages motor vehicles to pass too close to cyclists.

 

The traffic island could be eliminated to provide
adequate cycle lanes.  If this is not
done, it would be better to mark no cycle lane than to paint lanes which
encourage passing where there is insufficient space.

 

1.2 What is the appropriate
cycle lane width?

The proposed design includes cycle lane on the
carriageway  as low as 1.20m before the
Malahide Rd. and 1.08m on the Malahide Road. 
(presumably including half of the adjacent road markings).  According to the National Manual (a document
which is not without its flaws) the “absolute minimum” excluding road markings
should be 1.25m. The “preferred width … is between 1.5m and 2m. …When the
volume of cycle traffic is high, a width of 2m is recommended.”

 

According to the Canal cordon count (http://www.dto.ie/rumr.pdf) 215 cyclists
crossed the Canal southbound at Newcomen Bridge between 8 and 9 a.m.  This is 17% of the total traffic count during
this hour.  It is also the highest number
over any canal bridge during this hour.  It’s
a reasonable guess that this cyclist numbers applies to the stretch between
Malahide Rd. and Connolly Station.  One
could also guess that evening peak numbers, while more spread out, are similar.  Logic dictates that if the reference to high
volumes of cycle traffic in the Manual mean anything, they apply to the route
between Malahide Rd and Connolly Station.

 

1.3 New cycle lane at bottom of
Buckingham St.

Why is the traffic island being set back here to
curve the cycle lane away from the centre of the road?  The important issue for cyclists’ safety at
this location is that they are positioned in the road where traffic waiting to
turn right into Buckingham St. will be looking for oncoming traffic. It is hard
to tell at the scale shown but it seems that the current design will have the
opposite effect.

 

 

Section 2 Amiens St./Portland
Row (not in current consultation)

 

2.1 Buffer shown in
cross-section

The buffer (door zone) is shown 0.6m on northbound
carriageway and 0.8 on southbound in cross-section.  What is your minimum? I would have expected at
least 1m of a buffer zone on a road with such speeds and volumes, enabling the
cyclist to comfortably maintain a passing distance of 1.5m

 

2.2 Cycle lane placed in
door zone                                                                         

However, further south there is no buffer and the
cycle lane passes directly beside parked cars. 
Safe cyclists do not use the cycle lane in this area.  However, inexperienced or trusting cyclists
may do so.  Additionally, markings like
this result in agression to cyclists who do not use them from bus drivers, taxi
drivers and car drivers.

 

2.3. Cycle lane positioning
cyclists to the left of left-turning traffic

Coming into the Five Lamps junction, the cycle lane
keeps cyclists to the left of left-turning traffic.  This is not safe.  I would not position myself to the far left
coming into such a junction.  Road
markings should encourage cyclists to occupy the lane.

 

 

Section 3 North Strand (not in
current consultation)

 

3.1 Width of lanes in
cross-section

Your cross-section diagram shows a bus passing a
cyclist in a 3.7m lane.   p.59 of the
National Manual shows width segments.  In
an area with a maximum 50km/hr the distance from a cyclist to a passing vehicle
should be at least 1.05m.  Applying the
width segments to to this design, the bus, to pass safely within the lane,
would have to be a maximum width of 1.635m, which, as we know, is not the case.  According to the Manual, the necessary width
for buses to pass cyclists is 4.5m.  Widening
this lane to an insufficient width such as 3.7m will encourage buses to try to
get past cyclists where there isn’t space. 
This increases the risk for cyclists. 

 

3.2 Dangerous existing footpath
cycletrack

The southbound design retains the dangerous
cycletrack on the footpath north of the Canal, which requires a cyclist to come
back onto the carriageway into a traffic lane immediately before the Ossory
Road junction.

 

The southbound design also retains the dangerous
cycletrack on the footpath south of the Canal which brings cyclists off the
carriageway over a curb at a dangerous angle, brings the cyclist into conflict
with turning traffic at 3 locations and always has pedestrians walking on
it. 

 

Many cyclists do not use this track because of the
additional risk.  However, inexperienced
or trusting cyclists may do so.  Irish
law requires that cyclists use such facilities, so cyclists are put in a
position where their safety and traffic laws conflict.  Additionally, markings like this are proven
to result in agression to cyclists who do not use them from bus drivers, taxi
drivers and car drivers.

 

This dangerous facility needs to be redesigned.

 

 

Section 4 North Strand (not in
current consultation)

 

4.1 Road markings should direct
cyclists to occupy the lane

Cyclists using this section have to occupy the bus
lane.  It might be appropriate for
advisory road markings to indicate this. 
An assessment of such markings is at

http://www.bicycle.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/dpt/bike/Bike_Plan/Shared%20Lane%20Marking%20Full%20Report-052404.pdf

 

 

Section 5 North Strand/East Wall
Road (Sheet 1 of current consultation)

 

5.1 Dangerous existing junction
with East Wall Road

The dangerous junction at Annesley Bridge and East
Wall Road is to remain unchanged. 
Instead of dealing with the danger, cyclists who, following the design
(as they are legally obliged to do), have been thereby been put in a dangerous
position to the left of left-turning traffic are to be warned by a sign:“Cyclists
beware of HGV’s turning left to East Wall Road.” 

 

The problem here is two-fold:

 

HGVs or any road user who turn left across the path
of another road user are breaking the rules of the road and thereby endangering
the other road user.  Any sign should
warn them to comply with the rules before warning others of the danger they
pose.

 

Secondly, cyclists are in a position to be hit by
such HGVs if they occupy the road position which they are instructed to take by
the cycle lane marking.  The design here
is one which consciously puts cyclists in danger and then attempts to warn them
of the danger!

 

The reasonable solutions are as follows:

1. Ban left-hand turns at this junction (and redesign the junction in
   order to prevent/impede illegal turns.)
2. Direct the cyclist to occupy the lane with markings as referred to at
   4.1 above

 

 

Section 6 Annesley Bridge
Road/Fairview (Sheet 2 of consultation)

 

This is appalling.

 

6.1 Seriously inadequate cycle
lane in door zone

The cross-section shows a cycle lane (at 1.20m below
“absolute minimum width” and far below the recommended 2m) in the door zone of
parked cars.

 

6.2 Substandard cycletrack
against railing with substandard footpath

The design also retains the 1.05 cycletrack on the
footpath on the other side of the road.  According
to the National Manual, a one-way track off the carriageway should be given a
width from 1.75m for a peak hour cycle traffic volume of up to 150, a width of
2.5m for 150 to 750 cyclists and 3.5m for over 750 cyclists.

 

According to the Canal cordon count (http://www.dto.ie/rumr.pdf) 215 cyclists
crossed the Canal southbound at Newcomen Bridge between 8 and 9 a.m.;  it’s a safe estimate that cyclist numbers
along Annesley Bridge Road are similar. 
Therefore the width should be 2.5m

 

This track of sub-standard width is marked to the
left of the pedestrian area of the footpath. 
There is a cycletrack of substandard width directly beside a
railing.  The National Manual requist
that the edge of the cycletrack should be >0.5m from objects such as
lamp-posts etc. and >0.75m from solid walls.

 

Unsurprisingly the pedestrians do not remain in
their minimal 1.05m allocation and walk on the entire footpath.  Additionally, cars park on this footpath,
probably in part because of the difficulty in crossing the road on foot.

 

The cyclist facilities along here are entirely
inadequate.  An aware cyclist would not
use them as they are more risky than using the rest of the carriageway. 

 

The obvious solution is to remove one of the two
northbound general traffic lanes to provide cycle facilities of adquate width
on both sides of the road.

 

 

Section 7 Fairview (Sheet 3 of
consultation)

 

7.1 Seriously inadequate cycle
lane in door zone

The same considerations apply as for Section
6.  The cross-section shockingly shows a
1.25m cycle lane in the door zone of a parked car with a bus passing the
cyclist on a 2.3m bus lane.  The bus in
the diagram is wider than the bus lane. 
How can a design like this be put on public display? 

 

7.2 Unnegotiable angles

The only additional element here are the sharp
angles on the footpath cycletrack westbound. These contravene the absolute
minimum curve radius of 4m in the National Manual.

 

At this location there are two northbound and two
southbound general traffic lanes in addition to the bus lanes.  This 6-lane road completely severs Fairview
Park from its hinterland making a dangerous environment for pedestrians.  It would make sense to take this an
opportunity to reduce the impact of 
traffic on this area and facilitate it’s rejuvenation and improvement.

 

 

Section 8 Fairview /Malahide
Road (Sheet 4 of consultation)

 

8.1 What happens to the existing
straight-ahead cycle lane?

The design is not clear as to what is intended for
the straight ahead eastbound cycle lane at the junction of Marino Road and
Malahide Road.

 

 

Section 9 Malahide Road (Sheet 5
of consultation)

 

9.1 Road markings should direct
cyclists to occupy the lane

Given the carriageway width,
there is no room for overtaking of a cyclist within the lane.  Markings as referred to in 4.1 above should
be considered.

 

 

Section 10 Malahide
Road/Griffith Avenue (Sheet 6 of consultation)

 

10.1 Cycle lane positioning
cyclists to the left of left-turning traffic

Travelling northbound at the Griffith
Avenue/Malahide Road junction, there is a bus lane marked for straight ahead, a
left turning traffic lane to the left of it and a cycle lane to the left of
that.  Is this for cyclists travelling
straight ahead?  The sign coming into
this junction instructs road users that the left lane is for turning left only
and makes no reference to the cycle lane which is to be marked.

 

Cyclists travelling north on Malahide Road turning
onto Griffith Avenue should be facilitated with a cyclelane thorugh the
original alignment of Griffith Avenue. 

Cyclists travelling north through the junction
should occupy the centre of the bus lane and the bus lane should be marked as
such with markings such as those referred to in 4.1 above.  Alternatively a cycle lane of appropriate
width could be placed to the left of the bus lane.  Cyclists coming from Brian Road need to be
facilitated in joining whichever straight-ahead lane is provided for cyclists.

 

10.2 Advanced Stop Lines

All arms of this junction should be provided with
advanced stop lines for cyclists (ASLs).

 

10.3 Inadequate cycle lane width

In the cross-section, the  existing northbound cyclelane at 1.15m are
below the minimum width. There is plenty of room on the northbound carriageway
to increase this about 2m which would be more appropriate given the large
numbers of  buses on this route and the
speeds on the road.

 

 

Section 11. Malahide Road,
Clontarf Golf Club (Sheet 7 of consultation)

 

11.1 Inadequate cycle lane width

These cyclelanes are substandard width and should
all be increased to 2m.  At the cross
section location, there is sufficient space for 2m +3m +3m.  If more space is needed it can be taken from
the traffic island.

 

 

Section 12.  Malahide Road/Donnycarney Road (Sheet 8 of
consultation)

 

12.1 Inadequate cycle lane width

As for Section 11. 
The cross-section northbound proposes a 2.65m bus lane beside a 1.25m
cycle lane.  This would bring a bus
travelling at speed far too close to a cyclist. 
The cycle lane should be increased to 2m.

 

Travelling southbound, the bus lane is to be widened
from the current width but the cycle lane is kept at an inadequate 1.25m
width.  The cycle lane should be
increased to 2m.  Space can be taken from
the bus or general traffic lanes for this. 

 

 

Section 13 Malahide Road /
Collins Avenue (Sheet 9 of consultation)

 

13. 1  Inadequate joint bus and cycle lane

The cross section shows a joint bus and cycle lane
of 3.5m including a cycle lane allocation of 1.25m.  As discussed in 3.1 above, this is not a safe
design for cyclists and is worse than the inadequate current situation.  It is not possible for a bus to safely pass a
cyclist in this design. 

 

A design of 3.5m is shown in the National Manual
for a shared lane (no separate cycle lane is marked in it) with the condition
that bus speeds should be <30km/hr 
and bus and bicycle volumes should be low: “This design can only be used
on roads where buses and cycle traffic have a minor function”. These conditions
do not apply here.  4.5m are
required here.

 

Note that no separate cycle lane is marked within
the 3.5m lane in the Manual.  Marking a
separate inadequate cycle lane within the bus lane will encourage bus drivers
to try to pass cyclists where there isn’t room to safely pass.  It makes an inadequate design worse.   Where there isn’t room to pass, road markings
should direct cyclists to occupy the lane as in 4.1 above.

 

One option here is to take more space from the
footpath.

Another is to only have a bus lane north bound.

Another option within the proposed carriageway
width would be to provide an adequate 2m cycle lane northbound /uphill to
facilitate buses passing cyclists who will be travelling more slowly in this
direction, and providing a joint bus/cycle lane southbound/downhill where
cyclists’ speed is closer to that of buses.

 

13.2 Road markings should direct
cyclists

Coming northbound into the junction of Malahide Rd.
and Collins Ave., cyclists should be guided to occupy the straight-ahead lane
by markings such as those referred to in 4.1 above.  Alternatively a cycle lane of appropriate
width could be placed to the left of the bus lane. 

 

13.3 Is it really necessary to
have 4 north bound lanes?

Widening the northbound entry to this junction will
make it harder for cyclists to turn right here.

 

13.4 Advanced Stop Lines

At the junction of Malahide Rd. and Collins Ave.,
there should be ASLs on all arms.

 

 

Section 14 Malahide Road (Sheet
10 of consultation)

 

14.1 Inadequate joint bus and
cycle lane

As for point 13.1 above.

 

Section 15 Malahide
Road/Killester Avenue Junction (Sheet 11 of consultation)

 

15.1 Inadequate joint bus and
cycle lane

As for point 13.1 above

 

Section 16 Malahide Road/
Kilmore Road Junction (Sheet 12 of consultation)

 

16.1 Inadequate cycle lane width

It is proposed to retain the existing substandard
cyclelane of 1.1m in order to facilitate the southbound buslane.  This brings unacceptable risks to cyclists. There
is not room for a bus lane on the current carriageway nor on the proposed
slightly wider carriageway.   It would be
more appropriate to provide a 2m cycle lane and a 3m general traffic lane in
either direction.  The traffic lights at
Kilmore Road could be use to give priority to buses leaving the junction and
similar priority could be given southbound say at the junction with Daneli Road.

 

 

Section 17 Malahide Road, Artane
Roundabout (Sheet 13 of consultation)

 

17.1 Removal of roundabout
welcome

The removal of the roundabout at this location is
most welcome.  The design seems to be a
considerable improvement on the current situation. 

 

17.2 Width of cycle lanes

The cycle lanes on the road sections need to be of
a decent width considering the speeds of traffic in this area.  The National Manual recommends that the cycle
lanes approaching the jucntion should be 1.75 to 2m.   If road space is tight, this can be taken
from central islands and traffic hatching on all arms.

 

17.2 Straight-ahead cycle lane
starting to the left of a left-turning lane

The cycle lane coming into the junction on Ardlea
Road should start from the main lane on the carriageway not from within a
left-turning lane as shown.

 

17.3 Cyclist traffic lights

There is no indication on the design as to the
locations of the traffic lights. This would be an appropriate location for
cyclist specific traffic lights at a lower level.  To discourage motorists from encroaching onto
the ASLs the main lights should be targetted at the motorists’ stop line.

 

17.4 Bus stop missing?

Is there to be no southbound bus stop at this
junction?

 

17.5 Left-turning filter lane

The left-turning filter lane southbound into the
junction is very long.  What are the
consequences for cyclists using the cycle lane of motorists having the
opportunity to cross their path over a longer stretch like this and
additionally of having motorists joining the filter lane behind them then
passing them to the right potentially at speed?

 

 

Section 18 Malahide Road (not in
current consultation)

 

18.1 An opportunity for a
quality cycle facility

The problems with inadequate width for cyclists
being passed by buses referred to in 13.1 apply here.

 

There is an opportunity to do something quite
pleasant here.

On this road section it would be appropriate to
provide a segregated cycle facility.  The
necessary road space can be taken from the central median.

 

The cross section could be

1. 2m cycle track,
2. 1.5m grass verge including trees
3. 3m bus lane
4. 3m general traffic lane
5. 3m general traffic lane (other direction)
6. 3m bus lane
7. 1.5m grass verge including trees
8. 2m cycle track

 

This is only 0.85m wider between existing grass
verges than the current design.  That
small amount of space could be taken from the existing verges to provide this
quality facility.

 

The bus stops could, with appropriate curves, be on
the new grass verge outside the cycle track. This design would of course
require that cyclists are brought safely back onto the carriageway at relevant
junctions (on adjacent sheets) to prevent conflict with turning traffic.  Unless this can be done safely and
effectively then segregation should not be pursued.

 

 

Section 19 Malahide Road (not in
current consultation)

 

19.1 Opportunity for quality
cycle facility continues.

Most of the same considerations apply as to Section
18.  Here again we have inadequate,
sub-standard and dangerous widths being proposed for cyclists (1.08m cycle lane
beside 3m bus lane).  There is even more
space in the central media here available for a pleasant segregated design as
in 18.1 and it could be easily implemented within the current
carriageway+median width. 

 

The junction with St. Brendan’s Drive and Coolock
Village would need to be designed carefully to bring the cyclists from the
segregated facility onto the carriageway in order to negotiate the junction
safely.  Alternatively or as part of
this, traffic lights might be appropriate here. 

 

Additionally, cyclists will have to be brought onto
the carriageway before the Tonlegee Rd. junction, or the junction redesigned
with cyclist phases in the traffic lights.

 

 

Section 20 Malahide Road/ Oscar
Traynor Road (not in current consultation)

 

20.1  Opportunity for quality cycle facility
continues.

The road section south of the junction is wide and
north of the junction is wide again. 
(For the first time, the design shows cycle lanes of minimum
widths.)  Here again there is an opportunity
for a pleasant segregated design as described under 18.1 above

 

20.2 Advanced Stop Lines

At the junction with Tonlegee Rd. ASLs should be
provided on all arms.

 

20.3 Conflict between cyclists
and left-turning traffic.

On three of the entrances to the junction there is
a risk to cyclists of being crossed by left-turning traffic.  This risk needs to be recognised and designed
for.  Markings as referred to in 4.1
above should be considered.  Another possible
response is for the curb radius of the filter lane to be be low enough to
prevent a fast turn across the cycle lane. 

 

 

Section 21 Malahide
Road/Greencastle Road junction (not in current consultation)

 

21.1 Opportunity for quality
cycle facility continues.

Substandard cycle lanes are again proposed in the
cross-section.

 

The segregated design suggested under 18.1 above would
fit here without difficulty well. 

 

Alternatively, taking a small bit of space from the
central median would allow decent cycle lanes to be provided on the
carriageway. 

 

21.2 Conflict between cyclists
and left-turning traffic.

The junction with Greencastle Road needs to be
considered carefully. The proposal to cut away the curb and facilitate a faster
left turn onto Greencastle Road across a marked cycle lane is worrying,
especially as buses make this turn.  There
should be clear facilities for cyclists travelling straight ahead.  Markings as referred to in 4.1 above should
be considered. 

 

 

Section 22 Malahide Rd., Newtown
cottages (not in current consultation)

 

22.1 Opportunity for quality
cycle facility continues.

Substandard cycle lanes are again proposed in the
cross-section

 

The segregated design suggested under 18.1 above
would fit here without difficulty well. 
The only caveat is that the presence of driveways would require that
traffic turning across the path of cyclists coming either onto or off the
carriageway would need to be made very aware they are crossing another’s right
of way.  Appropriate verge widths would
help to address this as would surfacing and signs.

 

Alternatively, taking a small bit of space from the
central median would allow decent cycle lanes to be provided on the
carriageway. 

 

Section 23 Malahide Road/
Newtown Road (not in current consultation)

 

23.1  Opportunity for quality cycle facility
continues.

Substandard cycle lanes are again proposed in the
cross-section.

 

The segregated design suggested under 18.1 above
would fit here without difficulty well. 

 

Alternatively, taking a small bit of space from the
central median would allow decent cycle lanes to be provided on the
carriageway. 

 

23.2 Left-turning filter lane

The same question arises in relation to the junction
with Newtown Road as in 17.5 above.

 

 

Section 24 Malahide
Road/Priorswood Road (not in current consultation)

 

24.1 Replace roundabout with
traffic lights

This roundabout should be replaced with a normal traffic
lights controlled crossroads.

The proposed roundabout design is a disaster for
cyclists.  There are shart right angled
turns on the cycle track, which it is not physically possible to negotiate by
bicycle.  Cyclists coming from Priorswood
Road to Blunden Drive will have to cross 4 sets of traffic lights.  They will also have to negotiate 6 impossible
sharp right-angled turns.  As with other
similar designs in Dublin, most cyclists will not use it and remain on the
carriageway, dealing with a dangerous roundabout. 

 

The proposed design is also a major inconvenience
for pedestrians, taking them well out of their way in negotiating the junction.  It is not appropriate for a built-up area
where official policy is to encourage and facilitate walking and cycling.

 

This should be replaced with a traffic lights
controlled crossroads as with the Artane Roundabout.

 

 

Section 25 Malahide Road, Grove
Lane (not in current consultation)

 

25.1  Opportunity for quality cycle facility
continues.

Substandard cycle lanes are again proposed in the
cross-section.

 

The segregated design suggested under 18.1 above
would fit here without difficulty well.  Alternatively,
the central median could be retained as is and the necessary space obtained by
only providing one general traffic lane in each direction, giving the following
cross-section:

 

• 2m cycle track,
• 1.8m grass verge including trees
• 3.5m bus lane
• 3m general traffic lane
• 8.85m median
• 3m general traffic lane
• 3.5m bus lane
• 1.8m grass verge including trees
• 2m cycle track

 

Alternatively, taking a small bit of space from the
central median or the verges on either side would allow decent 2m cycle lanes
to be provided on the carriageway. 

 

 

Section 26 Malahide Road / Clare
Hall shops (not in current consultation)

 

26.1  Opportunity for quality cycle facility
continues.

Substandard cycle lanes are again proposed in the
cross-section.

 

Either of the segregated designs suggested under 18.1
or 25.1 above would fit here without difficulty.  This would require a redesign of the junction
with the Clare Hall shopping centre access, which would not be particularly
difficult with cyclists’ traffic lights.

 

Alternatively, taking a small bit of space from the
central median or the verges on either side would allow decent cycle lanes to
be provided on the carriageway. 

 

 

Section 27 Malahide Road / N32
(not in current consultation)

 

27.1 Cycle lane positioning
cyclists to the left of left-turning traffic

The northbound cycle lane leaves the cyclist on the
left edge of the left-turning lane, bringing her /him directly into conflict
with left-turning traffic if (s)he is travelling straight ahead.  This is unacceptable. 

 

 

 

 

 

The developer’s consultants have demonstrated that they don’t know how to design for cyclists.  I attach email correspondence which gives the picture.

Fingal County Council has put three alternative designs for the open space between Castlerosse and Admiral Park on public display.

One is to integrate the open space and provide a planted pedestrian access from Grange Road through the open space to the new park and pitches which are going on the open land between Baldoyle and Portmarnock.

The second is to provide the access through the open space but with railings on both sides, dividing it from Castlerosse and from Admiral Park.

The third is to maintain and strengthen exisiting boundaries.  Castlerosse would be permanently divided from Admiral Park and there would be no access from here to the new park and pitches.  The consultation is on until 5th July. The final decision will be made by the members of the County Council.

I have asked for the plans and information to be put on the Council website.  When it is I will link to it.  In the meantime, I attach the text of the consultation notice and black-and-white copies of the 3 option maps.

I am particularly interested in hearing from children and young people in the area, as your / their voice is often not fully heard on issues which affect them.

Please note that the documents below are at a scale suited for printing and may appear quite large on screen.

COMHAIRLE CONTAE FHINE
GALL
FINGAL COUNTY COUNCIL

Planning & Development Act 2000
Planning & Development Regulations 2001

PROPOSED DESIGN OF OPEN SPACE
BETWEEN CASTLEROSSE AND
ADMIRAL PARK, BALDOYLE

In accordance with Part VIII of the
Planning and Development Regulations 2001, Fingal
County Council hereby gives notice or its intention to develop the open space
located between
Castlerosse Estate. Admiral Park Estate.
Grange Road and the proposed Millennium Park,
Baldoyle.

Three options for the development of the
open space are presented. Members of the public are
invited to make Submission? and Observations
with respect to each of the three options and to
clearly indicate their preferred option
for the proposed development.

Option 1 shows a) the
development of a wide tree lined
boulevard type access from Grange
Road to Millennium park; b) the removal of the existing
palisade fence currently located on
the open space boundary between Castlerosse
Estate and Admiral Park Estate; c) a gated
feature entrance on Grange Road: d) building up of the garden side wall at number
14 Grange
Road; and d) extensive landscape planting, including trees, hedges, bulbs etc. will be used to
enhance this entrance

Option 2 shows
a) the development of a wide tree lined boulevard type
access from Grange
Road to Millennium Park. bounded on both
sides and along Grange Road by new solid bar
railings approximately 2m high; b) a gated feature entrance on Grange Road; c)
link paths and
pedestrian gates in the railings. These gates will provide the option of
direct access to the
boulevard from either estate. They can be locked and unlocked in accordance
with
Millennium Park opening times and will remained locked unless residents decide
otherwise;

d) building up of the garden side
walls to number 50 Castlerosse View and number 14 Grange
Road; e) extensive landscape planting,
including trees, hedges, bulbs etc. will be used to
enhance this entrance.

Option 3 shows a) the replacement of the
existing palisade fence currently located on the
open space boundary between Castlerosse Estate and Admiral Park Estate with new
solid bar
railings approximately 2m high; b) building up of the garden side walls to
number 50

Castlerosse View and number 14
Grange Road; c) landscape improvements and associated
site works.

Submissions and Observations made with regard to the proposed development dealing with
the proper planning and sustainable
development of the area in which the development would
occur may be made in writing to:

Mr John Burke
Administrative Officer
Parks Division
Fingal County Council
County Hall
Main Street
Swords

Submissions may also be made via e-mail
to john.burke@fingalcoco.ie
On or before Wednesday 5th July 2006 (4.00 p.m.){mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}

Dublin City Council will be putting its plans for Fr. Collins’ Park on display for consultation.  The plan, which includes a lake, sports facilities and general parkland, will be on public display until 9th June at the Wood Quay Offices and at Donaghmede Library.  Comments can be made until 23rd June.  The final decision on the plan will be made by the elected Councillors at a meeting of the City Council.

Iarnród Éireann have spent a fortune on building a new station at Howth Junction. Incredibly the new station is now harder to use than the previous station.  The former access to Baldoyle Industrial Estate has been blocked off.  You now have to go out of the station and back over the same bridge on the other side of an internal wall within the bridge.  What was previously simply walking out of the station now involves going up one flight of stairs, down two flights of stairs, up two flights of stairs and down one flight of stairs.  There is no lift alternative for the last up and down, making it inaccessible for many passengers.

I am challenging them on this and have also listed it for the next Area Committee meeting of the Council (18th May at 3pm in Baldoyle Library).  My email to IÉ is below.
A chairde,

It appears that you are now requiring passengers going to and from
Baldoyle Industrial Estate to go over the bridge, out of the station
and back over the bridge again, on the other side of the internal wall
within the bridge.  

Obviously this is a source of frustration even to able-bodied people.  

There are no lifts on the outside part of the bridge. Therefore it is
not possible for many mobility-impaired passengers to use your service
to access the Industrial Estate and Fas.  These passengers previously
had access to and from the central platforms, and now have no way to
access the station.

This is clearly contrary to proper customer service and government
policy.  I also suspect that it is not in keeping with your planning
permission, although I have not had a chance to check that.

I would be grateful if you could contact me as a matter of urgency.

Is mise, le meas,

Cllr. David Healy
Green Party / Howth ward,
Fingal County Council
verdire@eircom.net
+353 1 8324087

At our area committee meeting on 25th April, I had a motion in relation to the junction.  In response, the Transportation Department showed us a redesign which involves removing one of the 3 eastbound lanes entering the junction in order to give more space to westbound traffic.  It is an improvement, but there are some elements which still worry me.  I have written a follow-up letter, below.  I would welcome any comments or feedback.

Dear Peter,

Thank you for showing us the proposed redesign of the junction last week.

In relation to the design, I have the following comments.

I welcome the removal of one of the 3 eastbound lanes coming into the junction, to give more room for westbound traffic.

I am concerned at the design including cycle lanes within an existing
lane. By the design shown, it is not possible for a car or truck to use
this lane without travelling in the cycle lane.  This seems to be the
case northbound entering the junction on the industrial estate road and
eastbound entering the junction on grange road.  It seems to me that
these could have 3 undesirable effects

1.    They are likely to encourage cyclists to stay left at the
junction.  In fact, safe cycling requires that a cyclist travelling
straight on should not stay to the left of the lane as to do so would
risk a car or truck turning left across them.  Safe cyclists will
occupy the centre of the straight ahead lane.
2.    They may encourage cyclists to travel up on the inside of trucks,
which puts cyclists in a particularly dangerous position.
3.    They may encourage motor vehicles to pass cyclists without moving fully into the adjacent lane.

If there is a good reason for this design I would like to hear of it.

I am also concerned at the width of the cycle lane over the bridge. 
The previous situation was a good wide hard shoulder.  The new
situation should not lead to any reduction in safety for cyclists. 
There is a tendency for a motor vehicle user to assume that it is safe
to pass a cyclist on a cycle lane as long as each road user remains in
their lane.  This, of course, is not the case, but it is a consequence
of cycle lane design.  Narrow cycle lanes (especially if associated
with other narrow lanes and markings such as central hatching) can
encourage motor vehicle users to pass closer than they would otherwise
have done.   In this case, we are talking about a road with high levels
of HGVs, making safe passing even more important for cyclists’ safety
and cyclists’ perceptions of safety. The width of the lane was not
marked on the plan.  However, there is a tendency for road engineers to
incorrectly assume that a width of 1.5m is standard.  In this case, a
width of at least 2m would be appropriate

Is mise, le meas,

David Healy

The construction and demolition waste transfer station in Baldoyle Industrial estate has been operating since 2004. It has no planning permission, but the Council Planning Department has not taken action against it because the operators claim they have been operating since 1997.

I have just seen the monitoring results which prove that it is in breach of its waste permit as I detail in the letter below, which I sent today.

Email to Gilbert Power, Director of Services, Environment Section, Fingal County Council

Dear Gilbert,

I refer to the above site.  Due to ongoing complaints from residents, Fingal County Council required Barnmore to carry out noise and dust monitoring on site.  A monitoring report dated 8th September 2005 reports on monitoring undertaken in July 2005.  

1. Respirable dust
 
The results here are compared to occupational exposure limits of 4 mg/m2. However, the measurements are being made out of doors at a site in the immediate vicinity of houses and workers in other businesses, for whom an occupational exposure limit is not appropriate.  The respirable dust levels are measured between 0.5 and 3.8 mg/m3.  

There is no current standard for exposure of the public to respirable dust. However there are standards for PM10  – an average of 20 μg/m3 or 0.02 mg/m3 daily limit of 50 μg/m3 or 0.05 m3  (SI 271 of 2002) . PM10 stands for Particulate Matter sampled with a 50% upper cut-off for particles of aerodynamic diameter of 10 μg/m3 .   There is also a PM2.5 standard to be introduced by EU in the next few years

Respirable dust by ISO standard is PM4.  Therefore a gravimetric measurement of respirable dust would always be lower than a measurement of PM10 from the same ambient air. In a case such as this, with very high levels of dust deposition, it would be expected to be much lower.  

The high levels of respirable dust measured completely validate the concerns and complaints of local residents about dust from the site and additionally give cause for concern that local residents are probably being exposed to particulate matter levels substantially in excess of the standard set in SI 271 of 2002.

2 Dust deposition
 
The report shows very high levels of dust deposition – over 3 times the level of 350mg/m2/day often used by the EPA.  This is consistent with repeated complaints from residents of Carndonagh road of dust and grit deposition on their houses, windows, garden furniture and cars.  There is clearly a breach of the licence condition.

3. Noise

Please note there is no time-weighting, averages, deciles or other statistical formulae in the condition in the licence.  (The above crossed-out sentence was in the original letter but is mistaken.  The limits in the licence are (Leq 1 hour limits).  Unfortunately the monitoring in the report isn’t expressed as hourly values.) The limits in the licence are 65 dB(A) between 0830 and 1700 Monday to Friday and 0830 to 1300 on Saturday, and 45 dB(A) at other times.

The noise levels described in the report will lead to noise levels at the houses in excess of the 65 dB(A) limit.  This is experienced from the operation of the trommel and from the movement of waste by diggers.  

Additionally, work is carried on on Saturday afternoons leading to a breach of the 45 dB(A) limit.

There is no indication on the copy of the monitoring report I have as to when this was received by the Council.  However, I take it it was some time ago.  I am shocked that there appears to have been no action, and that a report was made to the area committee in March with no reference to this monitoring report. (copy attached)

The purpose of requiring this monitoring was to investigate the complaints of the residents. The report has clearly validated those complaints. I would request that the Council immediately require cessation of operations on site in the light of the nuisances experienced and as provided for in the terms of the waste permit.
 

4. Quantities of waste accepted.

The waste permit restricts the operations on site to 5000 tonnes per year.  Indeed, any more than 5000 tonnes would require a waste permit.  It is the view of local residents that the operation on site must be exceeding this.  This should be clear from the AER which was required to be submitted in February. I would be grateful for a copy of the AER and if you would also examine this.
 

5. Health and Safety

I would be grateful if you could send a copy of the report to the Health and Safety Authority to bring their attention to the dust and noise issues on site.

Is mise, le meas,

 

Cllr David Healy

The attempt to rehabilitate the reputation of nuclear power continues.  The latest effort was by Edward Walsh in the Irish Times, seeking to compare it to coal.  In fact anything looks good compared to coal.  I wrote the following letter to the Irish Times on the day the opinion piece appeared, but as they’ve had it for over a week and haven’t printed it, I’m putting it up here.
A chara,

I was surprised by Dr. Edward Walsh’s opinion piece on the safety of nuclear energy.  He chose to compare it to coal and large-scale hydroelectric, two approaches to meeting electricity needs which are environmentally and socially disastrous.  

Dr. Walsh emphasised the human death toll of coal.  He is right to do so.  In fact, he barely scratched the surface.  In relation to coal, he mentions only the deaths from coal-mining in China.  These are dwarfed by the deaths from coal-derived air pollution.  In its 2002 report Reducing Risks, Promoting Healthy Life, the World Health Organisation estimated that air pollution is responsible for 600,000 premature deaths worldwide every year.  Coal is a primary culprit in these deaths.  Even in an industrialised country where coal-burning is primarily for electricity generation, it’s death toll is appalling; the report Dirty Air, Dirty Power: Mortality and Health Damage Due to Air Pollution from Power Plants, published in 2004, estimated 24,000 premature deaths per year in the USA due to coal-fired power plants.

The first priorities for electricity and other forms of energy are conservation and efficient use.  Neither of these appeared as options in the article.  There is no death toll from energy efficiency.  In fact it is quite the reverse.  As John Healy and Peter Clinch of UCD have demonstrated, surplus winter deaths in Ireland occur because many of our citizens cannot afford to heat their poorly-insulated houses.  Energy efficiency will save lives.

The next priorities are renewable sources of energy – wind, solar, wave and biomass.  Of these, solar, wave and biomass get no mention at all in the article.  Wind is brushed over and the article makes no reference to the safety record of wind power.

Dr. Walsh’s consideration of whether nuclear is safer than coal or large dams is futile.  They are straw men.  Nuclear, coal and large-scale hydroelectric all have one thing in common – they are all irrelevant to energy security for Ireland.  Ireland has no uranium reserves, no coal reserves and no potential for further large-scale hydroelectric.  The real options available to us are energy efficiency and renewable energy.  Thankfully they are far safer than nuclear, coal and large dams.  Surely they are what we should be discussing?

Is mise, le meas,

 

Councillor David Healy

Green Party/Comhaontas Glas

Howth ward / Dublin North East

www.davidhealy.com

01 8324087

087 6178852

54, Páirc Éabhóra, Beann Éadair

54, Evora Park, Howth

At the Area Committee meeting on 25th April,  my motion about the design of the new junction on Grange Road came up.  Local cyclists have expressed their concern to me about the current design, which removed the hard shoulder going up over the bridge.  Additionally, it included a cycle lane coming off the bridge on the inside of a left-turning lane, which is not where a cyclist should be.  A new design was shown to us. I have some concerns about it and have put them in writing to as below.  I will include a further update when available.

To: Peter Caulfield, Transportation Department, Fingal County Council
by email

Dear Peter,

Thank you for showing us the proposed redesign of the junction last week.

In relation to the design, I have the following comments.

I welcome the removal of one of the 3 eastbound lanes coming into the junction, to give more room for westbound traffic.

I am concerned at the design including cycle lanes within an existing lane. By the design shown, it is not possible for a car or truck to use this lane without travelling in the cycle lane.  This seems to be the case northbound entering the junction on the industrial estate road and eastbound entering the junction on grange road.  It seems to me that these could have 3 undesirable effects

   1. They are likely to encourage cyclists to stay left at the junction.  In fact, safe cycling requires that a cyclist travelling straight on should not stay to the left of the lane as to do so would risk a car or truck turning left across them.  Safe cyclists will occupy the centre of the straight ahead lane.
   2. They may encourage cyclists to travel up on the inside of trucks, which puts cyclists in a particularly dangerous position.
   3. They may encourage motor vehicles to pass cyclists without moving fully into the adjacent lane.

If there is a good reason for this design I would like to hear of it.

I am also concerned at the width of the cycle lane over the bridge.  The previous situation was a good wide hard shoulder.  The new situation should not lead to any reduction in safety for cyclists.  There is a tendency for a motor vehicle user to assume that it is safe to pass a cyclist on a cycle lane as long as each road user remains in their lane.  This, of course, is not the case, but it is a consequence of cycle lane design.  Narrow cycle lanes (especially if associated with other narrow lanes and markings such as central hatching) can encourage motor vehicle users to pass closer than they would otherwise have done.   In this case, we are talking about a road with high levels of HGVs, making safe passing even more important for cyclists’ safety and cyclists’ perceptions of safety. The width of the lane was not marked on the plan.  However, there is a tendency for road engineers to incorrectly assume that a width of 1.5m is standard.  In this case, a width of at least 2m would be appropriate

 
Is mise, le meas,

 
David Healy

 

Amendments to the draft Portmarnock Local Area Plan from Cllrs. David Healy, Robbie Kelly and Joe Corr, to be taken at the Council meeting on 8th May.  The area the plan relates to is at the north end of the Green belt between Baldoyle and Portmarnock, beside Portmarnock train station.
MOTION NO. 1

That the following be included in the draft Local Area Plan:

Approach

Fingal County Council is committed as a priority to encouraging more sustainable development through energy end use efficiency, and increasing the use of renewable energy, in all new building projects in the designated area within the Portmarnock Local Area Plan.  

It will achieve this by:

·         Encouraging responsible environmental management in construction
·         Promoting sustainable approaches to housing developments by spatial planning, layout, design and detailed specification
·         Ensuring high standards of energy efficiency in all housing developments under its remit, and encouraging developers, owners, and tenants to improve the environmental performance of the building stock, including the deployment of renewable energy
·         For housing, specifically applying an improvement of 60% relative to prevailing norms as represented by the Building Regulations Part L
·         For other buildings, specifically applying an improvement of 60% relative to prevailing norms as represented by the Building Regulations Part L
·         Anticipating the operational implementation of the EU Directive on the Energy Performance of Buildings (EPBD) by encouraging the energy rating and labelling of building energy performance, so as to give visible recognition to such improvements.

The specific approach proposed for developers is to set a target, accompanied by a menu of design and technology options, including renewable energy technologies, as a means of offering flexibility towards meeting that target in the most technically and economically feasible manner on a case by case basis.

As an initial step towards achieving greater environment sustainability, Fingal County Council is proposing the introduction of a performance based CO2 Emissions Target (CET) for new buildings being constructed within the Portmarnock Local Area Plan.  

Targets

All new buildings within the designated area will represent a significant improvement in energy and associated environmental performance relative to prevailing practice.  The following conditions apply:

Housing:

A collective average reduction of at least 60% in CO2 emissions deriving from energy usage for space and water heating within the housing development, relative to a baseline of prevailing regulatory and design practice.  This initial baseline of comparison is to be represented by the provisions of Technical Guidance Document L (TGD L) to the Building Regulations, 2002 using a conventional gas fired heating boiler with an assumed seasonal efficiency of 75%.  The calculation is to be carried out for the time being using the Heat Energy Rating Method in TGD L, pending adoption of the official national methodology for determining energy performance of housing for the purposes of the EU Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD).

In meeting this CO2 performance target, the development shall include:
·         A collective average reduction of at least 60% in energy consumption for space and water heating , relative to the baseline of existing regulatory and design practice and using the methodology outlined above; and
·         A contribution of 30% by renewable energy supply systems to meet the collective space and water heating requirements within the housing development.  

Non-residential:

A collective reduction of at least 60% in CO2 emissions deriving from total energy usage (space heating, water heating, lighting, other) arising from all services within the development, relative to a baseline of existing regulatory and design practice.  This initial baseline of comparison is to be represented by the provisions of TGD L to the Building Regulations, 2006.  In the absence of an official national methodology for determining the energy performance of non-domestic buildings, this calculation is to be carried out using a method compliant with the draft European Standard prEN 13790.

In meeting this CO2 performance target, the development shall include:
·         A collective average reduction of at least 60% in energy consumption for all services , relative to the baseline of existing regulatory and design practice and using a methodology as outlined above; and
·         A contribution of 30% by renewable energy supply systems to meet the collective energy requirements within the development.  

To illustrate the above, using the Heat Energy Rating methodology, the baseline energy performance of new housing is typically 125 kWh/m2/year for space and water heating when constructed to the minimum requirements of Building Regulations, 2002, and using a boiler with a seasonal efficiency of 75%.  This translates into a CO2 performance of 23.7 kg/m2/year using a gas fired heating system.

Fingal County Council requires that new housing developments should achieve a 60% reduction in CO2 emissions associated with space and water heating (i.e. to below 9.5 kg/m2/year), which must include a reduction in energy use for this purpose (i.e. to below 50 kWh/ m2/year) and a contribution of at least 30% by renewable energy systems to meet the collective space and water heating requirements within the development.

Menu of options

In pursuit of these targets, a strong menu of superior design and specification options will include the following:

·                     Site layout and associated bio-climatic/ passive solar design measures
·                     Enhanced levels of insulation in walls, roofs, floors, glazing and doors
·                     Reduced uncontrolled air infiltration losses
·                     Use of healthy and controllable ventilation systems
·                     Heat recovery systems
·                     Use of daylight
·                     Water conservation measures
·                     More sustainable building materials
·                     Improved heat generation appliance efficiency, e.g. condensing boilers
·                     Intelligent heating system configuration and time/ temperature/ zone/ function controls
·                     Efficient provision of domestic hot water
·                     Fuel switching to low or zero CO2 emitting fuels
·                     Energy efficient lighting systems
·                     Incorporation of renewable energy systems, e.g. active solar, heat pumps, biomass
·                     Provision of appropriate group or district heating systems.

In the case of non-domestic buildings, additional options include:

·                     Heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems and controls
·                     Electrical energy use including motive power
·                     Efficient lighting systems and controls
·                     Building Energy Management Systems
·                     Occupancy controls
·                     Monitoring and Targeting systems
·                     Combined Heat and Power (CHP).

Other measures which can contribute to the energy efficiency and renewable energy targets can also be considered.

This menu approach enables specifiers and developers to adopt approaches which are responsive to site and client circumstances and constraints, and offers the flexibility to explore and employ different mixes of options on a case by case basis, to maximise technical and economic feasibility.

MOTION NO. 2

That the following be included in the draft Local Area Plan:

“The buildings will be required to incorporate provisions for reducing water use including low flow fittings (toilets, taps, shower heads) and provisions for reuse of rainwater and/or greywater for flushing toilets etc.”
 

MOTION NO. 3

That the following be included in the draft Local Area Plan:

“Existing adjacent housing (with septic tank drainage) will be facilitated by connection to the main foul drainage system.”

MOTION NO. 4

That the following be included in the draft Local Area Plan:
              
“The Public Open Space Master Plan and the Urban Development Master Plan will be submitted to the Malahide/Howth Area Committee / elected Council for approval.”

MOTION NO. 5

That the following be included in the Local Area Plan:
 
“That the phasing be altered to provide that the coastal walkway/cycleway be started prior to any development commencing and that the coastal walkway/cycleway be completed as part of Phase 1 of the development.”

MOTION NO. 6
 

That under Footpaths and Cycleways in the document, the paragraph be amended to read

“As roads in the area will be designed for and have a speed limit of 30 km/hr, it is intended that they will provide a good environment for pedestrians and cyclists. Additional separate facilities will be provided for pedestrians and or cyclists where appropriate to further facilitate efficient, safe and pleasant movement through the area, linking residential areas with public transport, recreational facilities and adjoining areas. These separate facilities will be designed to minimise potential conflict and will be safely designed and built for their purposes. All roads, whether ordinary roads or cycleways, will have names and signs and all necessary directional signs to facilitate pedestrians and cyclists finding the shortest routes will be provided.”

(*”cycleway”, in Irish law, is  defined as a public road or proposed public road reserved for the exclusive use of pedal cyclists or pedal cyclists and pedestrians.)

MOTION NO. 7

That under Station Road Boulevard the “improvement of the roundabout at Coast Road” be amended to “improvement of the junction of Coast Road and Station Road to facilitate safe pedestrian movements.”
 

MOTION NO. 8

“That the Bus network section be amended to reflect known or committed bus routes and not make claims for which there is no evidence.”
 

MOTION NO. 9

That the indicative road through the area be shown as in the Baldoyle Action Area Plan and that an objective be included in the text of the plan to read “the precise route and design of this road is to be selected to suit the provision of a bus route through the site and to ensure that a safe and pleasant environment is provided for pedestrians in what is to be a walkable community.”
 

MOTION NO. 10

That as part of the LAP the size of the car park at Portmarnock Station be increased and the car park be managed to relieve parking pressure in adjoining areas.
 

MOTION NO. 11

That the section in the LAP which reads

“In order to ensure that the Council’s polices and objectives are achieved an ecological assessment shall be carried out to
(a)  examine the impact of the development of the LAP lands, and the associated open space on the designated sites in Baldoyle Bay and
(b)  to make recommendations for avoiding, reducing, or compensating for potential adverse impacts on these designated areas.

This will take place prior to the creation of detailed design proposals and will inform the design process.

The ecological assessment will include an examination of the use of these lands by birds, the potential impacts of surface water drainage on the Bay and the impacts of the proposed footpath/cycleway.”

be amended to read

“In order to ensure that the Council’s polices and objectives are achieved an ecological assessment shall be carried out to
a)     examine the impact of the development of the LAP lands, and the associated open space on the designated sites in Baldoyle Estuary and
b)     make recommendations for avoiding, reducing, or compensating for potential adverse impacts on these designated areas.
c)     make recommendations for measures to be taken to improve the biodiversity of the site and in particular create effective wildlife corridors between and along the Moyne and Sluice Rivers
d)     consider whether a “green bridge” or other form of wildlife crossing should be included across the redesigned Moyne road where it goes beneath the railway

This will take place prior to the creation of detailed design proposals and will inform the design process.

The ecological assessment will include an examination of the use of these lands by birds, otters, foxes, bats and other species,  the potential impacts of surface water drainage Baldoyle estuary, Sluice River and pNHA Sluice Marsh, streams and ditches, and proposed designated areas including consideration of alterations in salinity on areas with evidence of saltmarsh vegetation and impacts thereby on the Sluice Marsh and the impacts of the proposed footpath/cycleway.”

 
MOTION NO. 12

“That the last sentence in Section 8 be amended to read “Ecological assessments shall be carried out by a suitably qualified professional(s), commissioned by the local authority, at the developer’s expense.”
 

MOTION NO. 13

That the conservation reports referred to in response to the question in relation to the draft LAP at the March Malahide/ Howth Area Committee be listed in the LAP.
 

MOTION NO. 14
 
“That the following be included in the draft Local Area Plan:

“The Masterplan will provide for a public library, on land within the neighbourhood centre designation, within the limits set by the 2005 Public Safety Zones Report.”

MOTION NO. 15

That the LAP be amended by amending the section in relation to surface water which currently reads:

“An assessment shall be carried out by a suitably qualified professional, in consultation with the local authority of the effect of the discharge of surface water on the character and Biodiversity of the estuary.”

to read:

“An assessment shall be carried out by suitably qualified professionals, in consultation with the local authority of the effect of the discharge of surface water on the character and Biodiversity of the estuary and on flooding risks in all areas potentially affected.”