The Council has drawn up a proposal to refurbish and extend the Casino. It is intended to use it to house the Fry model railway (formerly in Malahide Castle outbuildings) and provide exhibition space. The drawings are for the refurbishment and extension are on public display until 26th August on Fingal County Council’s consultation website.
Proposals in Malahide Demesne for a Forest Adventure Area and an Extension to the Bridgefield Car Park
Late last year a proposal was brought before the Councillors for a “Forest Adventure Area and Multi-use Reinforced Grass Area.”
In principle I think a canopy walk or similar somewhere in Malahide Demesne could be an excellent proposal. However it would depend on the design and details of the proposal including its environmental impact and its impact on park users.
That information is not available because it doesn’t yet exist.
I pointed out the inadequacies in the information supplied at the December Area Committee meeting, saying I expected that detailed information would be in the proposal put on public display. I didn’t receive a reply to that comment at the meeting and unfortunately it didn’t happen. I also pointed out that they proposal appeared to be two separate and distinct proposals and suggested they be put to consultation separately. The joint proposal was nonethless put on display as presented to the Councillors:
So I checked the applicable legislation to establish what is legally required to be put on display. The regulations provide as follows:
83.(1) A local authority shall make available for inspection in accordance with article 81(2)(d)(i)—
(a) a document describing the nature and extent of the proposed development and the principal features thereof, including-
(i) where the proposed development would consist of or comprise the provision of houses, the number of houses to be provided,
(ii) where proposed development would relate to a protected structure or a proposed protected structure, an indication of that fact,
(iii) where the proposed development would comprise or be for the purposes of an activity requiring an integrated pollution control licence or a waste licence, an indication of that fact,
(b) a location map, drawn to a scale of not less than 1:1000 in built up areas and 1:2500 in all other areas (which shall be identified thereon) and marked or coloured so as to identify clearly the land on which it is proposed to carry out the proposed development,
(c) except in the case of development of a class specified in article 80(1)(b) or (c),—
(i) a site layout plan, drawn to a scale of not less than 1:500, showing the boundary of the site on which it is proposed to carry out the proposed development and the buildings or other structures, and roads or other features, in the vicinity of the site, and
(ii) such other plans and drawings, drawn to a scale of not less than 1:100, as are necessary to describe the proposed development,
(d) in the case of development of a class specified in article 80(1)(b), such plans and drawings drawn to a scale of not less than 1:2500, as are necessary to describe the proposed development,
(e) in the case of development of a class specified in article 80(1) (c), such plans and drawings drawn to a scale of not less than 1:200, as are necessary to describe the proposed development.
The requirements which I have highlighted in bold have not been met.
At the May Area Committee meeting I asked the officials to confirm that the above is the applicable legislation, which they did. The Committee then agreed to my proposal to ask the Law Agent for advice, to be received before the June meeting. As of today (Monday 30th May) that advice has not yet been received by the Councillors.
The Parks Department have confirmed that they are trying to get an approval before the design is done.
It is clear to me that it would not be legal for the Councillors to give Part 8 approval to a project which hasn’t been designed and for which the information required to be put on public display has not been made available. I will be most surprised if the Law Agent advises otherwise.
It may be less convenient, but the correct procedure, as for any one else making another type of planning application, is to produce a design, put that design on display and make a decision on the basis of the design and the public consultation.
As for the Car Park extension, this was originally presented to Councillors as a multi-use area. It later became clear from the Planning Department that they see it as a car park extension. Such a proposal should only be considered, if at all, in the context of overall changes to traffic and parking in the town – which to date have not been proposed.
UPDATE 31st May:
This afternoon the Councillors received the Law Agent’s advice which sets out the legal requirements which have not been met and warns that going ahead with the project would be vulnerable to legal challenge. I expect that the current process will be abandoned.
I hope the Parks Department will continue to work on the idea of a forest adventure area with a view to coming up with a clear proposal which everyone would welcome.
UPDATE 1st July:
The Councillors at the June Howth/Malahide Area Committee voted 5 to 3 against approving the project, all of the majority asking for the two proposals to be separated from each other and for proper design and analysis to be done on the forest adventure area, which we all would like to see in principle.
The Parks Department have indicated that notwithstanding the vote at the Area Committee, they will be asking the full Council meeting on 11th July to approve the project.
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
The 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.
What 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 mean? 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.
County Development Plan open to Public Consultation from today
Fingal County Council’s draft County Development Plan 2017-2023 is on display for public consultation from today until 4.30pm on 29th April. The draft Plan is online and available in all Fingal libraries. There will also be public meetings as part of the consultation process.
There are a number of aspects of the plan which need to be changed to bring it more into line with a transition to a sustainable low-carbon climate resilient Fingal. I will be working to make these changes.
The next stage of the plan will be to consider the response to the public consultation at a series of meetings in the Autumn.
Email to Transport Minister on Greater Dublin Area Draft Transport Strategy
I have written to the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport in relation to the draft Greater Dublin Area Transport Strategy. The Strategy was drawn up in order to address congestion and addressing climate change was not one of the objectives in developing the Strategy. This is contrary to the obligations which all public bodies now have under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Bill. I pointed this out in my response to the public consultation in relation to the Strategy, but the Strategy has now been sent to the Minister essentially unchanged. This latest draft was supplied to the Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly for our comments. My email of 9th January to Minister Donohoe (attaching my response to the consultation) is below.
Mr. Pascal Donohoe,
Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport,
Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport,
44 Kildare Street,
Dublin 2
Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport,
44 Kildare Street,
Dublin 2
Re: Compliance with Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 in the development of and adoption of a Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area.
Dear Minister Donohoe,
I refer to the draft Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2016 to 2035 which has been sent to your office by the National Transport Authority.The purpose of my letter is to draw your attention to the obligations which now apply to you and all other relevant bodies under section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 and to highlight the relevance of these obligations to the adoption of a Transport Strategy.
The draft Transport Strategy which has been submitted to you envisages a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions from transport in the Dublin area during more than half of the time period specified in the Act for transition to a low carbon, climate resilient and environmentally sustainable economy. As documented in the accompanying documentation, the strategy would lead to a minimal reduction compared to a ‘business as usual’ scenario.
The reason the Strategy has this minimal effect is that, as confirmed to me by the National Transport Authority (NTA), greenhouse gas emissions abatement was not one of the objectives which drove the development of the Strategy.
I pointed out in my submission to the NTA in response to their public consultation on the draft Strategy that, on the enactment of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, adoption of the strategy as drafted would be illegal due to its failure to comply with the obligations in s.15 of the Act. From my reading of the subsequent draft submitted to you, my observation seems not to have been taken account of. I attach a copy of that submission for your information.
Manifestly, it would not be lawful for you to approve the draft Strategy without fundamental alterations aimed at bringing transport in Dublin in line with transition to a low carbon climate resilient and environmentally sustainable economy.
I am at your disposal to clarify any of the above or anything in the attached and hope to hear how you will comply with the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act.
Best regards,
Cllr. David Healy
@davidhealyv
Submission on railway timetable consultation
I have made the following response to Iarnród Éireann’s public consultation on proposed new timetables.
The increase in service frequency on the Dart and other routes is very welcome. However, I am concerned about some aspects of the timetable changes proposed.
1. The timetable planning process
I asked about the use of the National Transport Authority’s transport model to evaluate this timetable change. Iarnród Éireann’s reply is that the model is used only to evaluate infrastructure changes rather than timetable changes. It is my understanding that the model includes information on interchange and intermodal trips and therefore could be used to evaluate timetable changes including the breaking of existing connections such as are proposed.
2. Interchange between rail and rail and between rail and bus
I am concerned that the timetable is not designed to facilitate interchange between rail lines or between rail and bus. The essential aspect of a quality public transport system is that it operates as a network not simply a collection of non-integrated lines.
At the moment, connections between the Howth line and the Malahide /Drogheda line are irregular, with some connections offering a reasonable interchange time and others offering a time too short or too long. Many Drogheda trains stop at Howth Junction giving access both to the Howth line and to the orbital 17a bus route which travels from Howth Junction Station across the Northside as far as Blanchardstown.
The proposed timetable has a number of negative aspects as regards interchange:
2a No interchange with Drogheda trains at Howth Junction
This proposed timetable no longer has Drogheda trains stopping at Howth Junction, meaning a trip from Donabate to Beaumont (by train and bus) or to Howth (by train) or vice versa would require two changes, not one, a significant drop in service.
2b Long waits for interchange between Howth and Malahide line trains.
The timing of trains through Howth Junction means that passengers between Howth line stations and Malahide line stations will have an interchange of 20 minutes. Such a wait in an unwelcoming station is long enough to deter many passengers. As mentioned above, it is my understanding that the NTA’s model could be used to explore how this timetabling would affect the quality of the trip for passengers and the relative desirability of public transport compared to other modes.
Irish Rail should copy the practice of other railway companies, such as the Swiss Federal Railways, who provide standard interchange times of 6 minutes for non-adjacent platforms.
3. Services to Portmarnock and Clongriffin
It is proposed that Drogheda trains will no longer stop at Portmarnock and Clongriffin. This will particularly affect peak hours with a reduction in the current frequency and the loss of some faster trains from these stations to the city centre. Given the role of Portmarnock in particular as a park and ride, some of these halts should be retained, especially at peak hours.
4. Bus timetables
Please confirm that Dublin Bus will adjust the timetables of connecting services such as the 102 and 17a to provide timely interchange with the new rail timetable.
Reponse to Development Levy consultation
I made the following response to the Public Consulation on Development Levies in Fingal.
- The list of projects in Appendix II to be funded by the scheme should include the following:
- Full implementation of those elements of the Greater Dublin Area cycle network which are in Fingal (https://www.
nationaltransport.ie/ publications/transport- planning/gda-cycle-network- plan/ ); - Road and street redesign to to ensure compliance with the Design Manual for Urban Streets and Roads;
- Works to improve access to and amenity at beaches.
- Full implementation of those elements of the Greater Dublin Area cycle network which are in Fingal (https://www.
- The costs in Appendix I should be adjusted accordingly.
- The proposal is that development contribution rates remain unchanged. This is predicted to lead to a shortfall of €31m or about 10%. If this happens then infrastructure which we have identified as essential will be unfunded. This is not acceptable; the Scheme should provide for full funding of the required infrastructure.
- Commercial/industrial and residential development are levied at different rates. When I asked why this was I was told because they require different levels of infrastructural expenditure. In fact the commercial/industrial rate is simply 78% of the residential rate for all of the types of infrastructure (transport, surface water, parks) to be funded. That this is not related to the associated infrastructure cost is demonstrated by the fact that the same surface area of development attracts different charges for provision of surface water infrastructure depending on whether its residential or commercial. At a first glance it seems daft that at a time of housing demand in Dublin and when we have large quantities of derelict/empty commercial property we would effectively subsidise commercial at the expense of the residential.Therefore the same contribution should be required for commercial/industrial and for residential.
- Car parking is proposed to be either exempt, or in the case of ‘stand-alone commercial car parks’ levied at 50% (10(i)(j)). Given that transport policy both nationally and locally seeks to achieve significant and rapid modal shift away from cars, all car parking should pay development contributions at the normal rate.
Response to public consultation on Greater Dublin Area Transport Strategy
My response to the consultation on a Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area focusses on the complete failure of the Strategy to address emissions of air pollution and greenhouse gases.