I have submitted a number of motions to amend the proposed Variation, informed by the responses to the public consultation on the Variation. They reflect the following:

I support the bringing forward of the development of the Dunsink lands and Iarnród Éireann’s proposal that higher densities should apply near rail stations.

The Council made some important decisions in the last County Development Plan process, to rezone brownfield employment-only sites for mixed or residential use. This approach was good and it should inform our response to this Variation.

Unfortunately the Executive has decided to recommend the rezoning of Green Belt land rather than brownfield sites. I consider that this advice is contrary to national, regional and local policy, and contrary to proper planning and sustainable development.

I support the proposals in two of the submissions for residential or mixed use zoning on land currently zoned for employment-only uses. One is the brownfield former Wavin site in Balbriggan identified in this submission, the other land to the west of Navan Road Parkway railway station (some, but not all of the land identified in this submission.) The Balbriggan site is 9.65ha and the Navan Road Parkway site is 18.7ha. Taking account of the national guidelines, these parcels could be expected to accommodate over 500 units and 1700 units respectively. Those density estimates are very approximate; actual densities would depend on whether residential-only or mixed use zonings are applied, and would be subject to detailed analysis of specific local impacts and capacities. My motions seek the initiation of a variation process to change the zoning of these pieces of land, a process which would include consideration of those issues.

The Settlement Capacity Audit, undertaken before the draft Variation was proposed, underestimated the current settlement capacity of the county. It omitted 1511 housing units on brownfield sites currently used as car parks in Blanchardstown and Santry for which planning permission has been granted, and the Kellystown Local Area for which the Local Area Plan indicates indicates between 1065 and 1610 units. Taken together, the total underestimate is between 2500 and 3000. There is more detail on this in in my submission to the public consultation.

My motions are as follows:

1. That, in light of the the desirability of maintaining green belt and rural zonings elsewhere in the county, and of redeveloping underused urban and brownfield sites, especially locations in close proximity to public transport and sevices, and the desirability of improving walking and cycling access in the town of Balbriggan, to achieve consistency with national and regional planning policies, the Chief Executive bring forward a Variation to zone the lands identified in Submission FIN-C906-812, and marked on the attached map which is extracted from that submission, as RA with a local objective to improve walking and cycling access.
2. That, in light of the the desirability of maintaining green belt and rural zonings elsewhere in the county, and of redeveloping underused urban and brownfield sites, especially locations in close proximity to public transport and services, and the desirability of improving walking and cycling access in the town of Balbriggan, to achieve consistency with national and regional planning policies, the Chief Executive bring forward a Variation to zone the lands identified in Submission FIN-C906-812, and marked on the attached map which is extracted from that submission, as RA. 
3. That, to achieve consistency with national and regional planning policies as regards facilitating and prioritising active travel and transport-oriented development, a local objective to improve walking and cycling access be attached to the lands identified in Submission FIN-C906-812, and marked on the attached map which is extracted from that submission.
4. That in light of the the desirability of maintaining green belt and rural zonings elsewhere in the county, of developing locations in close proximity to public transport and sevices, and of protecting local wetlands, to achieve consistency with national and regional planning policies, and in light of submission FIN-C906-606, the Chief Executive bring forward a Variation to zone the lands currently zoned HT between Navan Road Parkway train station and the Travelodge marked on the attached map as MRE.
5. That in light of the the desirability of maintaining green belt and rural zonings elsewhere in the county, of developing locations in close proximity to public transport and sevices, and of protecting local wetlands, to achieve consistency with national and regional planning policies, and in light of submission FIN-C906-606, the Chief Executive bring forward a Variation to zone the lands currently zoned HT between Navan Road Parkway train station and the Travelodge marked on the attached map as RA.
6. That in light of the the desirability of maintaining green belt and rural zonings elsewhere in the county, and of developing locations in close proximity to public transport and sevices at higher densities, to achieve consistency with national and regional planning policies, and in light of the recommendation in the submission by Iarnród Éireann which reads “IÉ suggests that, with the provision and proximity of a high-capacity rail network, the density and design of development provided for at the Dunsink area should be at the upper end of densities provided for in the Sustainable Residential Development and Compact Settlement Guidelines and with provision of high quality active travel and accessible routes to train stations.” the Variation be amended to include the following Local Objective on the Dunsink lands: “With the provision and proximity of a high-capacity rail network, the density and design of development provided for in the Dunsink area shall be at the upper end of densities provided for in the Sustainable Residential Development and Compact Settlement Guidelines and shall include provision of high quality active travel and accessible routes to train and light rail stations”
7. That in light of the additional settlement capacity represented by sites not included in the Settlement Capacity Audit, which already hold planning permissions or are zoned and ready for development based on existing or imminent infrastructure as identified in submissions, and the feasibility of housing zoning on other sites with current employment zonings as identified in submissions, and the desirability of maintaining green belt and rural zonings, to achieve consistency with national and regional planning policies, the variation be amended by not rezoning site 4.1.
8. That in light of the additional settlement capacity represented by sites not included in the Settlement Capacity Audit, which already hold planning permissions or are zoned and ready for development based on existing or imminent infrastructure as identified in submissions, and the feasibility of housing zoning on other sites with current employment zonings as identified in submissions, and the desirability of maintaining green belt and rural zonings, to achieve consistency with national and regional planning policies, the variation be amended by not rezoning site 5.1.
9. That in light of the additional settlement capacity represented by sites not included in the Settlement Capacity Audit, which already hold planning permissions or are zoned and ready for development based on existing or imminent infrastructure as identified in submissions, and the feasibility of housing zoning on other sites with current employment zonings as identified in submissions, and the desirability of maintaining green belt and rural zonings, to achieve consistency with national and regional planning policies, the variation be amended by not rezoning site 6A.1.
10. That in light of the additional settlement capacity represented by sites not included in the Settlement Capacity Audit, which already hold planning permissions or are zoned and ready for development based on existing or imminent infrastructure as identified in submissions, and the feasibility of housing zoning on other sites with current employment zonings as identified in submissions, and the desirability of maintaining green belt and rural zonings, to achieve consistency with national and regional planning policies, the variation be amended by not rezoning site 6A.2.
11. That in light of the additional settlement capacity represented by sites not included in the Settlement Capacity Audit, which already hold planning permissions or are zoned and ready for development based on existing or imminent infrastructure as identified in submissions, and the feasibility of housing zoning on other sites with current employment zonings as identified in submissions, and the desirability of maintaining green belt and rural zonings, to achieve consistency with national and regional planning policies, the variation be amended by not rezoning site 9.1.
12. That in light of the additional settlement capacity represented by sites not included in the Settlement Capacity Audit, which already hold planning permissions or are zoned and ready for development based on existing or imminent infrastructure as identified in submissions, and the feasibility of housing zoning on other sites with current employment zonings as identified in submissions, and the desirability of maintaining green belt and rural zonings, to achieve consistency with national and regional planning policies, the variation be amended by not rezoning site 9.2.
13. That in light of the additional settlement capacity represented by sites not included in the Settlement Capacity Audit, which already hold planning permissions or are zoned and ready for development based on existing or imminent infrastructure as identified in submissions, and the feasibility of housing zoning on other sites with current employment zonings as identified in submissions, and the desirability of maintaining green belt and rural zonings, to achieve consistency with national and regional planning policies, the variation be amended by not rezoning site 9.3.
14. That in light of the additional settlement capacity represented by sites not included in the Settlement Capacity Audit, which already hold planning permissions or are zoned and ready for development based on existing or imminent infrastructure as identified in submissions, and the feasibility of housing zoning on other sites with current employment zonings as identified in submissions, and the desirability of maintaining green belt and rural zonings, to achieve consistency with national and regional planning policies, the variation be amended by not rezoning site 9.4.
15. That in light of the additional settlement capacity represented by sites not included in the Settlement Capacity Audit, which already hold planning permissions or are zoned and ready for development based on existing or imminent infrastructure as identified in submissions, and the feasibility of housing zoning on other sites with current employment zonings as identified in submissions, and the desirability of maintaining green belt and rural zonings, and the risk that developing this site could increase local flood vulnerability, to achieve consistency with national and regional planning policies, the variation be amended by not rezoning site 9.5.
16. That in light of the additional settlement capacity represented by sites not included in the Settlement Capacity Audit, which already hold planning permissions or are zoned and ready for development based on existing or imminent infrastructure as identified in submissions, and the feasibility of housing zoning on other sites with current employment zonings as identified in submissions, and the desirability of maintaining green belt and rural zonings, to achieve consistency with national and regional planning policies, the variation be amended by not rezoning site 13.1.
17. That in light of the additional settlement capacity represented by sites not included in the Settlement Capacity Audit, which already hold planning permissions or are zoned and ready for development based on existing or imminent infrastructure as identified in submissions, and the feasibility of housing zoning on other sites with current employment zonings as identified in submissions, and the desirability of maintaining green belt and rural zonings, to achieve consistency with national and regional planning policies, the variation be amended by not rezoning site 13.2.