Both applications for development on the Grange Road just east of the railway line were withdrawn by the applicants on 6th February.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issues to be discussed as requested:

1.    New development at Stapolin

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.    Road and path network throughout the area

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

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

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

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

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

3.    Draft Portmarnock Local Area Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

A chairde,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.    Link under Grange Road along railway line.  

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

7.    Environmental Impact Assessment

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

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

I enclose a cheque for €20.

Is mise, le meas,

Cllr. David Healy

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

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

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

I would welcome any feedback.

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

SUBMISSION FROM HOWTH SUTTON COMMUNITY COUNCIL

INTRODUCTION

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

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

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

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

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

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE MARINE

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PARKING

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

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

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

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

PROPOSALS ON PARKING

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

DISABLED PARKING

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

TRAFFIC CALMING

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

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

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

We propose the following initiatives:

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

TRAFFIC CONTROL – HOWTH VILLAGE CENTRE

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

PROPOSAL

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

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

IMPROVING TRAFFIC FLOW

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

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

IMPROVING SAFETY

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

RIGHT OF WAY AT EAST PIER EXIT

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

RAMPS

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

PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS

Howth is adequately serviced at present and no changes are recommended

TRAFFIC LIGHTS

Howth is adequately serviced at present time and no changes recommended

DISABLED

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

FOOTPATHS

Footpaths should be resurfaced where damaged

TOUR BUSES

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

BUS DEPOT

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

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

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

                                        END

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

          An Bord Pleanála

INSPECTOR’S REPORT

PL 06F 212977

       (HOTEL, SPORTS & LEISURE CENTRE)
DETAILS OF APPEAL

Planning Appeal Ref. No:        PL 06F 212977

Planning Authority:            Fingal County Council

Planning Authority Reg. Ref. No:    F05A/0231

Applicant:                Ballymore Residential Ltd.

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

Application Type:            Planning permission.

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

EIS:    Report submitted.

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

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

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

Observers:                None.

Inspector:                Karla Mc Bride

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Master Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

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

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

Karla Mc Bride
Town Planner
10 November 2005

Replies to questions at today’s Area Committee.
MALAHIDE/HOWTH AREA COMMITTEE MEETING
(Services A – Transportation, Environment & Water Services)
 
Thursday 5th January, 2006

ITEM NO.  7

RESTORATION OF BOLLARDS AT LANEWAY BESIDE
SCOIL MHUIRE ON GRACE O’MALLEY DRIVE

Question: Councillor D. Healy

“To ask the Manager to restore the bollards on the laneway beside Scoil Mhuire on Grace O’Malley Drive and the laneway joining the lower and the middle sections of Balkill Park, some of which were removed by ESB when burying cables?”

Reply:

The ESB has been contacted and has been asked to restore the bollards at the above location as soon as possible.

ITEM NO.  8

REPLACEMENT OF BARRIER ON LANEWAY FROM ST. PETER’S
TERRACE BESIDE SCOIL MHUIRE

Question: Councillor D. Healy

“To ask the Manager to replace the barrier on the laneway from St. Peter’s Terrace beside Scoil Mhuire which used to control vehicular access to the disused basketball courts there?”

Reply:

The Traffic section has been asked to examine the provision of a height restriction barrier at the location referred to in the question.

A further reply will issue to the Councillor.

There has been considerable confusion in relation to the open space between Castlerosse and Admiral Park. I have been contacted by a number of residents who are opposed to the joining of the two sections of open space currently divided by a fence.  I understand from them and from the Parks Department that there are also residents who want the fence removed but I have not heard from these residents myself.

Unfortunately there have been numerous contradictory statements by the Parks Department and the full planning file referred to has not been sourced within the Council.

Therefore, I contacted An Bord Pleanála myself to get access to the file.  The file number 06F.100596 was retrieved from the archives and made available to me in the Board’s offices.  Anyone else can also inspect it.

In order to put the facts in the public domain, I am putting as many relevant documents as practical on my website. 

The story essentially is as follows:

In 1996 the developer of Castlerosse applied to extend the estate down to its current full extent.  The Castlerosse Action Group objected to this on a number of grounds, including the proposed integration of the Admiral Park open space with the open space for the new section of Castlerosse. 

Fingal County Council decided to grant permission.  The Castlerosse Residents’ Action Group employed O’Neill Associates to appeal on their behalf.

An Bord Pleanála’s Inspector recommended that the permission be granted.  In relation to the open space he said:

"It is argued  that the joining of the open space areas between Castlerosse and Admiral Park would create a security hazard. I consider this to  be  a positive planning proposal, and do not agree that it would result in a security hazard."

The Board’s decision following the Inspector’s report includes the following condition:

"The developer shall  pay  a  sum  of  money  to Fingal County  Council  as   a   contribution   towards   the expenditure that is  proposed  to  be  incurred by the Council in respect of the provision of piping the main water  drainage channel  adjacent  to  the  site,  the removal of temporary  fencing  and  the completion and integration  of  open  space  areas  facilitating  the proposed development. The  amount  of the contribution and the arrangements  for  payment  shall be as agreed between the developer  and  the Council or, in default of agreement, shall be determined by An Bord Pleanála."

I have scanned the main documents from the file and they are in order
below.  Following them are the Board’s decision and the Inspector’s
report on which it is based, in the somewhat mangled format I received
them in.
{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}{mosimage}
PLANNING PERMISSION GRANTED BY AN BORD PLEANÁLA

.F3,0

______________________________________________________________

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

L………………….L………………R……………..M……………….

PL 06F.100596          An Bord Plean la   Page PPPL of QQQL

AA AAAAAAAAAA          AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA   AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

C…………………………………………………….M……………..

                      AN  BORD  PLEAN LA

                      BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

 

C…………………………………………………….M……………..

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT) ACTS, 1963 TO 1993

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

 

                        County Fingal

                        AAAAAA AAAAAA

 

        Planning Register Reference Number: F96A/0227

        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

 

J…………………………………………………….M…………M….

APPEAL by Castlerosse  Residents  Action Group care of O’Neill

AAAAAA

and Associates of  Harbour  Road, Howth, County Dublin against

the decision made  on  the  4th  day  of  October, 1996 by the

Council of the County of Fingal to grant subject to conditions

a permission to  Tower  Homes Limited care of John F. O’Connor

and Associates of 11A Greenmount House, Harold’s Cross, Dublin

for development comprising  the  erection  of  18  number four

bedroom houses, comprising an extension to Castlerosse housing

development on lands to the side of 32 Castlerosse View and to

the  rear of  14  to  36  Grange  Road,  Baldoyle,  Dublin  in

accordance with plans  and  particulars  lodged  with the said

Council:

 

DECISION:  Pursuant to  the  Local  Government  (Planning  and

AAAAAAAAA

Development) Acts, 1963 to 1993, it is hereby decided, for the

reason  set  out  in  the  First  Schedule  hereto,  to  grant

permission for the  said  development  in  accordance with the

said  plans  and   particulars,   subject  to  the  conditions

specified in the  Second  Schedule hereto, the reasons for the

imposition of the said conditions being as set out in the said

Second Schedule and  the  said  permission  is  hereby granted

subject to the said conditions.

 

C…………………………………………………….M……………..

                        FIRST SCHEDULE

                        AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

J…………………………………………………….M……………..

Having regard to  the zoning objective for the site as set out

in the current development plan for the area, the scale of the

proposal,  the  existence   of   a  suitable  access,  and  to

availability of public  services,  it  is  considered that the

proposed  development,  subject   to   compliance   with   the

conditions set out  in  the  Second  Schedule hereto, would be

acceptable in terms  of  traffic safety and convenience, would

not be seriously  injure the amenities of existing residential

property in the  vicinity, and would be in accordance with the

proper planning and development of the area.

 

 

C…………………………………………………….M……………..

                       SECOND SCHEDULE

                       AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..

1.      The development shall  be  carried  out  in accordance

        with  the  plans  and  particulars  submitted  to  the

        planning authority on  the  4th day of April, 1996, as

        amended by additional  information  submitted  to  the

        planning authority on  6th  day of June, 1996, and 7th

        day of August,  1996,  save  as  may be amended by the

        following conditions.

 

        Reason: In order  to  clarify the development to which

        AAAAAAA

        this decision relates.

.P

2.      This  permission  does   not   include   the  proposed

        pedestrian  access  to   the  adjoining  Saint  Mary’s

        school.

 

        Reason: To clarify  the  extent  of  the  development,

        AAAAAAA

        having  regard  to   the  nature  of  the  development

        proposed.

 

3.      Prior to commencement  of  development  details of the

        following matters shall  be  agreed  with the planning

        authority;

 

L…….L……J……………………………………….M……………..

        (a)    All external finishes.

 

        (b)    Surface water drainage proposals.

 

        (c)    Foul drainage proposals.

 

        (d)    Construction  and  alignment  of  the  proposed

               service road extending through the site.

 

        (e)    Undergrounding of the  existing  overhead  line

               which traverses the site.

 

        (f)    Provision of public  lighting which shall be

               to the requirements of the planning authority.

 

        (g)    Front garden boundary treatment of the houses.

 

L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..

 

        Reason: In the  interest  of visual amenities, orderly

        AAAAAAA

        development and the proper planning and development of

        the area.

 

4.      Prior to commencement  of  development  details  of  a

        comprehensive landscaping plan  for  the  entire  site

        shall be submitted  to  the  planning  authority. This

        shall include details of the specifications and siting

        of a protective  fence  by the main water channel, the

        levelling, seeding and  landscaping  of the area shown

        as open space and a time scale for the implementation

        of all landscaping works.

 

        Reason: In the  interest  of  residential amenity, and

        AAAAAAA

        the proper planning and development of the area.

 

5.      All  public  services  to  the  proposed  development,

        including electrical, telephone  cables  and equipment

        shall be located  underground  throughout  the  entire

        site.

 

        Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

        AAAAAAA

 

6.      Prior to the  commencement  of  development, proposals

        for an estate/street  name, house numbering scheme and

        associated signage shall  be submitted to the planning

        authority for agreement.

 

        Reason: In the interest of orderly development.

        AAAAAAA

 

.PP=0003==========L/P=062/FFF T=003 W/O 0/0      .S   1.00 .C .~………..===

 

7.      The developer shall  pay  a  sum  of  money  to Fingal

        County Council as  a  contribution towards expenditure

        that was and/or that is proposed to be incurred by the

        Council in respect  of  the  provision of public water

        supplies  and  sewerage  facilities  facilitating  the

        proposed development. The  amount  of the contribution

        and the arrangements  for  payment  shall be as agreed

        between the developer  and  the Council or, in default

        of agreement, shall be determined by An Bord Pleanla.

 

        In the case  of  expenditure  that  is  proposed to be

        incurred, the requirement  to pay this contribution is

        subject to the  provisions  of section 26(2)(h) of the

        Local Government (Planning  and Development) Act, 1963

        generally, and in particular, the specified period for

        the purposes of  paragraph  (h) shall be the period of

        seven years from the date of this order.

 

        Reason: It is considered reasonable that the developer

        AAAAAAA

        should contribute towards  the  expenditure  that  was

        and/or that is  proposed to be incurred by the Council

        in respect of  the  provision of public water supplies

        and  sewerage  facilities  facilitating  the  proposed

        development.

 

8.      The developer shall  pay  a  sum  of  money  to Fingal

        County  Council  as   a   contribution   towards   the

        expenditure that is  proposed  to  be  incurred by the

        Council in respect of the provision of piping the main

        water  drainage channel  adjacent  to  the  site,  the

        removal of temporary  fencing  and  the completion and

        integration  of  open  space  areas  facilitating  the

        proposed development. The  amount  of the contribution

        and the arrangements  for  payment  shall be as agreed

        between the developer  and  the Council or, in default

        of agreement, shall be determined by An Bord Pleanla.

 

        Payment  of  this   contribution  is  subject  to  the

        provisions of section 26(2)(h) of the Local Government

        (Planning and Development) Act, 1963 generally, and in

        particular, the specified  period  for the purposes of

        paragraph (h) shall  be  the  period of ten years from

        the date of this order.

 

        Reason: It is considered reasonable that the developer

        AAAAAAA

        should contribute towards  the expenditure proposed to

        be  incurred  by  the  Council  in  respect  of  works

        facilitating the proposed development.

.PP=0004==========L/P=062/FFF T=003 W/O 0/0      .S   1.00 .C .~………..===

 

9.      Prior  to  the   commencement   of   development,  the

        developer shall lodge  with  Fingal  County  Council a

        cash deposit, a bond of an insurance company, or other

        security  to secure  the  provision  and  satisfactory

        completion and maintenance  until  taken  in charge by

        the Council of  roads,  footpaths, watermains, drains,

        public  open space  and  other  services  required  in

        connection  with  the  development,  coupled  with  an

        agreement  empowering  the   Council   to  apply  such

        security  or  part   thereof   to   the   satisfactory

        completion  or  maintenance   of   any   part  of  the

        development. The form and amount of the security shall

        be as agreed between the Council and the developer or,

        in default of  agreement,  shall  be  determined by An

        Bord Pleanla.

 

        Reason: To ensure  the  satisfactory completion of the

        AAAAAAA

        development.

 

 

 

L…………………L…………………………………M……………..

 

                      _______________________________________

                      AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

L…………………L…………………………………M……………..

                      Member of An Bord Plean la

                      AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

                      duly authorised to authenticate

                      AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

                      the seal of the Board.

                      AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

 

L…………………L………….L………………..L….M……………..

                      Dated this    day of               1997.

                      AAAAAAAAAA    AAAAAA               AAAAA

INSPECTOR’S REPORT

J…………………………………………………….M……………..

.F3,0

______________________________________________________________ÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

L………………….L………………R……………..M……………….

PL06F.100596           An Bord Pleanála   Page PPPL of QQQLÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAA           AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA   AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

 

 

J……………………….J…………………………..M……………..

 

Development:                 Extension to Castlerosse  Housingÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAA

                             Development on lands  to the side

                             of 32 Castlerosse View and to the

                             rear   of  14-36   Grange   Road,

                             Baldoyle comprising 18  no.  four

                             bedroom semi-detached houses.

 

Development:                 Third   Party   -v-    Grant   ofÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAA

                             Permission

 

Reg. Ref.:                   F96A/0227ÿ

AAAAAAAAAA

 

Planning Authority:          Fingal County Councilÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

Applicants:                  Tower Homes Limitedÿ

AAAAAAAAAAA

 

Appellants:                  Castlerosse    Residents   Actionÿ

AAAAAAAAAAA

                             Group

 

Date of Site Inspection:     7th February, 1997.ÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

 

 

 

 

J…………………………………………………….M……………..

 

INTRODUCTIONÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAA

 

I have read  the  file,  inspected  the  site,  considered the

grounds of appeal, and assessed the proposal in the context of

the proper planning and development of the area.

 

This report contains  summaries  of  submissions  made  to the

Board.  It is  recommended  that  these submissions be read in

full in conjunction with this report.

 

 

SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTIONÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

The site is  located  north of Grange Road, and to the east of

the newly constructed  Castlerosse housing development. Access

to the site  is  proposed  along  Castlerosse  View;  there is

currently a cul-de-sac  with a turning bay close to the end of

this.

 

To the west  the  side  adjoins  Castlerosse  View  and school

grounds. To the  south the site adjoins the rear of Nos. 14-36

(inclusive) Grange Road. To the east is open space attached to

Admiral Park housing scheme.

 

The houses on  Castlerosse  View  are two-storey semi-detached

with brick frontages.  At the end of the cul-de-sac there is a

kerb and a  landscaped  strip.   This is bounded by a low wall

and railing.  The  carriageway  on  Castlerosse  View measures

approximately 6.5m.  There  are  32  houses  fronting onto the

road, and there is a grassed open space on the opposite side.

 

The appeal site appears as an open field.  The boundary within

the school grounds is marked by a palisade fence.

 

I attach photographs taken at the time of inspection.

 

 

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

The  proposal is  for  an  extension  to  Castlerosse  housing

development on lands  to  the side of 32 Castlerosse View, and

to the rear  of 14-36 Grange Road, Baldoyle, comprising 18 no.

four bedroom semi-detached  houses. The site area is stated to

be 1.81 acres,  and  the floor area of each dwelling is stated

to be 120 sq. metres.

 

The proposed finishes include brick and vertical tile cladding

to  front walls,  sand  cement  render  to  other  walls,  and

concrete tiles to roof.

 

 

PLANNING AUTHORITY’S DECISIONÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

To grant permission subject to 19 conditions.

 

The conditions relate to the following:-

 

L…….L……J……………………………………….M……………..

        1.     Standard compliance.

 

        2.     Financial  contribution  of   £11,160   towards

               public services.

 

        3.     Financial contribution of  £25,000  towards the

               cost of piping  the  main  water channel on the

               site,  removal  of   temporary   fencing,   and

               completion and integration of open space areas.

 

        4.     Financial contribution of  £2,500  towards  the

               development of public open space.

 

        5.     Financial  contribution  of   £18,000   towards

               traffic management in the Baldoyle area.

 

        6.     Financial security.

 

        7.     Surface water drainage requirements.

 

        8.     Foul drainage requirements.

 

        9.     Road provision requirements.

 

        10.    Landscape plan.

 

        11.    Undergrounding of existing overhead lines.

 

        12.    Undergrounding  of  public   services   to   be

               provided.

 

        13.    Public lighting requirements.

 

        14.    No dwelling to  be  occupied until services are

               connected.

 

        15.    Levelling, soiling, seeding  and landscaping of

               open space area.

 

        16.    Sanitary services requirements.

 

        17.    Street naming and house numbering.

 

        18.    Construction and maintenance requirements until

               development taken in charge.

 

        19.    Main water channel  to  be  kept  clear  at all

               times, and the  banks  of  the  channel  to  be

               graded.

 

J…………………………………………………….M……………..

The  Planning Authority’s  decision  was  made  following  the

submission of additional  information  on  the 5th June, 1996.

This included the following:-

 

L…….L……J……………………………………….M……………..

        1.     Open space provision  of  0.30  acres meets the

               Development Plan requirement  exactly.   It  is

               proposed to link  Castlerosse  and Admiral Park

               open space areas.

 

        2.     Survey of lands in the vicinity of the school –

               copy of layout  plan  showing levels.  Proposed

               to continue the  wall  and  railing  along  the

               northern boundary of Admiral Park.

 

        3.     Landscape specification to  be  submitted  upon

               receipt of a  favourable  determination  of the

               application.

 

J…………………………………………………….M……………..

Clarification of additional  information  was submitted on the

6th August, 1996 and this included the following:-

 

L…….L……J……………………………………….M……………..

        1.     Retaining wall, if  necessary,  to  be built at

               the  end  on   the  hammerhead  to  secure  its

               foundations.  600mm high  concrete  bollards to

               be placed at  the  end  of  the hammerhead, and

               water channel to  be  fenced  with  a 2.0m high

               chain link fence pending the piping and filling

               of the channel.   Level of the open space to be

               generally 150mm above road level.

 

        2.     Landscape specification to  be  submitted  upon

               receipt of a  favourable  determination  of the

               application.

.P

J…………………………………………………….M……………..

GROUNDS OF APPEALÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

These are submitted  by  O’Neill  &  Associates  on  behalf of

Castlerosse Residents Action  Group,  and may be summarised as

follows:-

 

L…….L……J……………………………………….M……………..

        1.     The   proposed   extension    of    Castlerosse

               cul-de-sac would create  serious traffic hazard

               for existing residents  as public open space is

               across   the   road    serving   the   proposed

               development.    Young   children    would    be

               particularly at risk. The proposed access would

               materially contravene the  previous  permission

               for Castlerosse housing  development under Ref.

               PL6/5/83933.  The proposed  access  road  would

               devalue all of  the properties in the immediate

               area.

 

        2.     The proposed development  is  contrary  to  the

               zoning  objective  set  for  the  area  in  the

               Statutory   Development  Plan.    This   is   a

               substandard form of  development as a number of

               the proposed houses directly overlook adjoining

               properties to the side, and there is inadequate

               provision of open  space.   The  access road is

               only 5 metres  wide.  It is proposed to include

               an access to  the  existing  primary school off

               the  proposed  cul-de-sac   extension.    These

               elements  would  seriously   detract  from  the

               residential amenities of the area.

 

        3.     The proposed development  would  cause  serious

               disamenity to No. 32 Castlerosse View, as there

               would be four houses backing onto the site wall

               only 8 metres away.  There would be overlooking

               of all the  private open space at No. 32.  This

               would lead to a devaluation of that property.

 

        4.     The public newspaper  or  site  notice does not

               refer to the  opening  of  an  entrance  to the

               adjoining  primary  school   grounds.  The  new

               access would lead  to  an unacceptable increase

               in through traffic  in  the Castlerosse Estate.

               This would constitute  a road hazard, and would

               cause  serious  residential   disamenity.   The

               access  should  either   be   omitted   or  the

               applicant should be requested to re-publish the

               statutory notices appropriately worded.

 

        5.     At the very  least the building line created by

               Castlerosse View should  be  continued  in  the

               proposed development, and brick finishes should

               be used to  complement the existing residential

               development.   Alternatively  the   development

               should be served from a different access point.

               Three of the  houses  could be omitted in order

               to provide for open space requirements; if Nos.

               32 to 35 (inclusive) were omitted, No. 36 could

               be re-orientated in a north/south direction.

.P

J…………………………………………………….M……………..

 

OBSERVERSÿ

AAAAAAAAA

 

There are two  separate observations submitted to the Board as

follows:-

 

L…….L……J……………………………………….M……………..

        (a)    Observation  from Colette  Sadlier,  Secretary,

               Castlerosse  Residents  Association,  including

               letters from the following:

 

               Paul  and  Caroline   Doolin,   18  Castlerosse

               Crescent

 

               Dermot   Maddan  and   Helen   McGuinness,   31

               Castlerosse View

 

               Laurence Ennis, 26 Castlerosse View

 

               Marie Moss, 30 Castlerosse View

 

               Garry Brown, 3 Castlerosse View

 

               Ciara and Michael Walsh, 6 Castlerosse View

 

               James McDonagh, 5 Castlerosse View

 

               Colette  and  John   Sadlier,   12  Castlerosse

               Crescent

 

               Petition   from   Castlerosse    Action   Group

               containing 59 signatures  representing 31 of 32

               houses  on  Castlerosse   View,  50  signatures

               representing  35  of   37  occupied  houses  on

               Castlerosse   Crescent   and    47   signatures

               representing 28 houses on Castlerosse Drive.

L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..

 

        This submission may be summarised as follows:-

 

L…….L……J……………………………………….M……………..

        1.     The proposed development would present a danger

               to young children.   There  are  already enough

               cars and lorries  driving  through  the estate.

               The  proposed development  would  constitute  a

               traffic hazard.

 

        2.     The purchasers of  the  houses  in  Castlerosse

               View were led  to believe that this road was to

               remain a cul-de-sac.

 

        3.     The proposed school  entrance  would  result in

               Castlerosse being used  as  a  short  cut. This

               would create a security hazard.

 

        4.     The proposed development  would lead to traffic

               chaos.

 

        5.     The  proposed  development   would   result  in

               intolerable increased pressure  on the existing

               drainage scheme.

 

        6.     Overlooking of existing dwellings.

 

        7.     The linking of  Admiral  Park  and  Castlerosse

               estate would become a major security problem.

 

        8.     Devaluation of property.

 

        9.     Dust  and  dirt   resulting  from  construction

               traffic would lead to disamenity.

 

        10.    The creation of  a  third 90 degree bend within

               the estate would be hazardous.

 

 

        (b)    Mary Heaslip and  John  Owens,  32  Castlerosseÿ

        AAA

               View.

L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..

 

        This may be summarised as follows:-

L…….J……J……………………………………….M……………..

 

        1.     Castlerosse  View  is   a   very   narrow  road

               incapable of supporting  any  more traffic. The

               proposed  road  layout   would  create  further

               danger.

 

        2.     Castlerosse View separates  the houses from the

               open  space.  The  proposed  development  would

               increase the hazard to children.

 

        3.     The merging of  Admiral  Park  and  Castlerosse

               green spaces would  greatly reduce security.

 

        4.     The  objectors  main  problem  relates  to  the

               proposed Nos. 33-36  (inclusive).   Their house

               would  be  directly   overlooked  by  four  new

               houses,  leading  to  a  loss  of  privacy  and

               devaluation of property.

 

 

J…………………………………………………….M……………..

FIRST PARTY RESPONSE TO GROUNDS OF APPEALÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

This may be summarised as follows:-

 

L…….L……J……………………………………….M……………..

        1.     There would be no traffic hazard.  The proposed

               two 90 degree  bends  would reduce the speed of

               traffic.

 

        2.     The  proposed  development  complies  with  the

               zoning objective.  The  layout  is conventional

               and accords with  the  standards set out in the

               County Development Plan.

 

        3.     The separation from  No. 32 Castlerosse View is

               more  than twice  the  minimum  required.   The

               proposed development would  not detract from or

               impair the amenities of No. 32.

 

        4.     The  open space  provisions  meets  Development

               Plan standards.  The linking of Castlerosse and

               Admiral Park will  create  a  parkland  area of

               five acres.

 

        5.     The proposed house  types  are  the  same as in

               Castlerosse.  There will  be  no devaluation of

               property in Castlerosse.

 

        6.     The Castlerosse estate road is 6.5 metres wide,

               and not 5  metres.  There  will  be  no trafficÿ

                   AAA

               hazard or congestion.

 

        7.     The proposed school  entrance  is  intended  to

               facilitate children in the proposed development

               and   Castlerosse  development.    Some   other

               children may use  it.   The  proposed  entrance

               would be in accordance with the proper planning

               and development of the area.

 

        8.     This is the  last  piece of residentially zoned

               land north of the Grange Road between the coast

               road  and  the   railway  line.   The  site  is

               derelict.   The  proposed   development   would

               improve the amenities of the area.

 

J…………………………………………………….M……………..

 

PLANNING AUTHORITY’S RESPONSE TO OBJECTORSÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

This may be summarised as follows:-

 

L…….L……J……………………………………….M……………..

        1.     This  is  a   reasonable  development,  and  is

               acceptable  subject  to   the   19   conditions

               attached by the Planning Authority.

 

        2.     Castlerosse View  has   a  carriageway  of  6.5

               metres.   The  proposed   cul-de-sac  extension

               would be 5.5  metres with a 1.5 metre footpath,

               and  a 1.85  metre  grass  verge.   A  standard

               hammerhead was conditioned,  as  was a standard

               speed control curve.

 

        3.     The Roads Department  sees  no objection to the

               proposed pedestrian entrance to the school.

 

 

J…………………………………………………….M……………..

DEVELOPMENT PLANÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

The site is  in  an  area  zoned  A  –  to protect and improve

residential amenity.

 

 

PLANNING HISTORYÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

Ref. 6/5/83933 –  permission granted on appeal for development

comprising the erection  of  92 houses at this location.  This

included Castlerosse View,  which was indicated as ending in a

cul-de-sac.  The front  garden  of  No. 32 was shown extending

partly across the  width  of the cul-de-sac between it and the

site boundary.  A  footpath also appears to be indicated.  The

cul-de-sac head as constructed is different from that shown on

the  submitted  drawings.    No   conditions  in  the  Board’s

decisions relate specifically  to  No. 32 Castlerosse View, or

the adjoining cul-de-sac.

 

 

PLANNING ASSESSMENTÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

This is a  vacant  residentially  zoned  site  adjoining older

residential development to the south, and recently constructed

housing  to  the   west.   I  submit  that  it  is  suited  to

residential development in  principle, and that the density of

development proposed is reasonable.

 

There is a third party appeal against the Planning Authority’s

decision to grant  permission.  The main grounds of appeal may

generally be listed under the following headings:-

 

L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..

        Material contravention of zoning objective.

L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..

        Material contravention of an earlier permission.

L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..

        Traffic hazard, Substandard development.

L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..

        Serious    disamenity    to    existing    residential

        development.

L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..

        Inadequate public notices.

 

J…………………………………………………….M……………..

Other grounds of objection include the following:-

 

L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..

        Devaluation of property.

L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..

        Security hazard.

L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..

        Inadequate drainage and water supply.

 

J…………………………………………………….M……………..

I address each of these in turn.

 

Zoning Objectiveÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

The zoning objective  for  this site as set out in the current

Development Plan is  A  –  to  protect and improve residential

amenity.  I consider  that  the  proposed  development  is  in

general accordance with this objective.

 

Earlier Permissionÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

Under Ref. 6/5/83933  the  Board  granted  permission  for the

development of 92  houses at this location.  This included the

Castlerosse  housing  development.    Castlerosse   View   was

indicated as ending  in a cul-de-sac, with the front garden of

No. 32 extending  partly  across  the  width of the cul-de-sac

between it and  site boundary.  A footpath also appeared to be

indicated.  The cul-de-sac  head  as  constructed is different

from that shown  on  the  submitted  drawings.   There were no

conditions  relating  specifically   to  this  aspect  of  the

proposed development.

 

I do not  consider  that  the  proposed development would be a

material contravention of  the  previous permission granted by

the Board. While  the  development  as  constructed  does  not

appear  to  strictly   conform   with  the  layout  for  which

permission was granted  under  Ref.  6/5/83933, the amendments

appear to be  of  a relatively minor nature. The strip of land

between the cul-de-sac  head  and  the  site  boundary was not

shown as public  open  space, but appeared to form part of the

front garden attached  to  No. 32. There does not appear to me

to be any  reason  why the first party should not be permitted

to now seek  permission  for  an  extension of the Caselerosse

View cul-de-sac road.

 

Traffic Hazardÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

The grounds of  appeal  can  be interpreted as indicating that

the Castlerosse View  road  has  a  carriageway of 5 metres. I

measured  the  carriageway   width   and   found   it   to  be

approximately 6.5 metres.  The main open space area associated

with Castlerosse View is on the opposite side of the road from

the houses.  Having  regard  to  the relatively small scale of

the proposed development  (18  houses)  I  consider  that  the

additional traffic generated  would  not  constitute a traffic

hazard.

 

Attention has been  drawn to the fact that the layout proposed

includes provision for  a  pedestrian  access  to the existing

primary school. It  is  stated  that  this would substantially

increase traffic along  Castlerosse  View.  The primary school

also has a  main  vehicular access onto the Grange Road.  I do

not  consider that  the  traffic  generated  by  the  proposed

pedestrian  entrance would  constitute  a  traffic  hazard  on

Castlerosse View.

 

Substandard Developmentÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

I submit that the layout proposed is not substandard, and that

the proposals for open space provision are satisfactory.

 

Disamenity to Existing Developmentÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

There is objection  to  the  proposed  development  because it

includes provision for  four  houses  backing onto the side of

the existing 32  Castlerosse  View.   It  is stated that these

houses are within  8  metres  of No. 32 Castlerosse View.  The

proposed rear garden lengths of the subject houses measured to

the main back wall of the house can be detailed as follows:-

 

L…….L…………J………………………………….M……………..

        No. 33       18 metres approximately

L…….L…………J………………………………….M……………..

        No. 34       18 metres approximately

L…….L…………J………………………………….M……………..

        No. 35       22 metres approximately

L…….L…………J………………………………….M……………..

        No. 36       22.5 metres approximately.

 

J…………………………………………………….M……………..

I consider that  these  rear  garden  lengths  are  such  that

serious disamenity resulting from overlooking would not occur.

 

There is an  aspect of the proposed layout which I draw to the

attention of the Board.  No. 33 extends beyond the established

front building line  of  the  houses  on  Castlerosse View.  I

consider this to  be an undesirable element in the layout, and

would recommend the  omission  of  this  house in the event of

permission being granted.

 

Public Noticesÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

It is argued  that  the  public  notices  did not refer to the

provision of a  pedestrian  entrance  to  the adjoining school

grounds.  This does  appear to be a significant element of the

proposal, and the  Board  may  consider  that a revised public

notice should be submitted.

.P

Other Mattersÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

It is argued  that  the  proposed  development would lead to a

devaluation of property  in  the  general area. I do not agree

with this, and  consider that no substantial evidence has been

submitted in support of this argument. Subject to the omission

of house No. 33 I consider that there would be no serious loss

of amenity to No. 32 Castlerosse View.

 

It is argued  that the joining of the open space areas between

Castlerosse and Admiral Park would create a security hazard. I

consider this to  be  a positive planning proposal, and do not

agree that it would result in a security hazard.

 

It is argued  that the proposed development would put pressure

on  inadequate  drainage  and  water  supply.   No  convincing

evidence has been submitted in support of this argument.

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

I recommend that  the  first  party  be  requested to submit a

revised newspaper notice to include reference to the provision

of a pedestrian entrance to the primary school.

 

Should the Board  consider that a revised public notice is not

necessary, I recommend that planning permission be granted.

 

With  regard  to   the  conditions  imposed  by  the  Planning

Authority I comment as follows:-

 

L…….L………….J…J……………………………..M……………..

        Condition 1   –   Reasonable

 

        Condition 2   –   Financial  contribution towards  the

                          provision  of  public   services  is

                          reasonable.

 

        Condition 3   –   It appears to me that the main water

                          channel referred to  is  not  on the

                          subject site.  The  piping  of  this

                          channel would however facilitate the

                          integration of the open space areas.

                          Accordingly, the Board  may consider

                          that this condition is reasonable.

 

        Condition 4   –   This   does   not   appear   to   be

                          reasonable as under  Condition  10 a

                          detailed    landscaping   plan    is

                          required,  and  under  Condition  15

                          specified works have  to  be carried

                          out to the open space.  The Planning

                          Authority has not  demonstrated  how

                          there is a  shortfall  in open space

                          provision.

.P

        Condition 5   –   I recommend that  this  condition be

                          deleted.  The condition relates to a

                          current    proposal   for    traffic

                          management in the Baldoyle area, but

                          details of this are not given.

 

        Condition 6   –   Reasonable.

 

        Condition 7   –   Include in a general condition.

 

        Condition 8   –   Include in a general condition.

 

        Condition 9   –   Include in a general condition.

 

        Condition 10  –   Landscaping plan is reasonable.

 

        Condition 11  –   Reasonable.

 

        Condition 12  –   Reasonable.

 

        Condition 13  –   Reasonable.

 

        Condition 14  –   Not necessary.

 

        Condition 15  –   Reasonable.  Include in  a condition

                          relating to a landscaping plan.

 

        Condition 16  –   Not necessary.

 

        Condition 17  –   Reasonable.

 

        Condition 18  –   Not necessary.

 

        Condition 19  –   This   does   not   appear   to   be

                          appropriate  as  the  channel  would

                          appear  to  be   outside   the  site

                          boundary.

 

 

C…………………………………………………….M……………..

FIRST SCHEDULEÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

J…………………………………………………….M……………..

Having regard to  the zoning objective for the site as set out

in the current  Development  Plan  relating  to this area, the

scale of the proposal, the existence of a suitable access, and

to availability of  public services, it is considered that the

proposed  development,  subject   to   compliance   with   the

conditions set out  in  the  Second Schedule hereto, would not

endanger public safety  by  reason  of a traffic hazard, would

not  be seriously  injurious  to  the  amenities  of  existing

residential  property  in   the   vicinity   or  result  in  a

devaluation of property,  and  would be in accordance with the

proper planning and development of the area.

.P

 

C…………………………………………………….M……………..

SECOND SCHEDULEÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..

1.      The development shall  be  carried  out  in accordanceÿ

AA

        with  the  plans  and  particulars  submitted  to  the

        Planning Authority on  4th  April, 1996, as amended by

        additional  information  submitted   to  the  Planning

        Authority on 6th  June,  1996,  and  7th August, 1996,

        save as may be amended by the following conditions.

 

        Reason:  In order  to clarify the development to whichÿ

        AAAAAAA

        this decision relates.

 

2.      The proposed layout  shall  be amended by the omissionÿ

AA

        of  house  No.   33.    Only  three  houses  shall  be

        constructed on the  plot  shown  as 33-36 (inclusive).

        Details of a  revised  layout including this amendment

        shall be agreed  with  the Planning Authority prior to

        the commencement of development.

 

        Reason:  In the  interests  of  visual and residentialÿ

        AAAAAAA

        amenity, and to  enable the established front building

        line of houses on Caselerosse View to be maintained.

 

3.      Before development commences  details of the followingÿ

AA

        matters shall be  agreed  with the Planning Authority,

        or in default  of  agreement shall be as determined by

        An Bord Pleanála:-

 

L…….L……J……………………………………….M……………..

        (a)    All external finishes.ÿ

        AAA

 

        (b)    Surface water drainage.ÿ

        AAA

 

        (c)    Foul drainage.ÿ

        AAA

 

        (d)    Construction  and  alignment  of  the  proposedÿ

        AAA

               service road extending through the site.

 

        (e)    Undergrounding of the  existing  overhead  lineÿ

        AAA

               which traverses the site.

 

        (f)    Provision of public  lighting which shall be toÿ

        AAA

               the requirements of the Planning Authority.

 

        (g)    Front garden boundary treatment of the houses.ÿ

        AAA

 

L…….J……………………………………………..M……………..

 

        Reason: In the  interest  of visual amenities, orderlyÿ

        AAAAAAA

        development and the proper planning and development of

        the area.

.P

4.      Before   development   commences    details    of    aÿ

AA

        comprehensive landscaping plan  for  the  entire  site

        shall be submitted  to  the  Planning Authority.  This

        shall include details of the specifications and siting

        of a protective  fence  by the main water channel, the

        levelling, seeding and  landscaping  of the area shown

        as open space, and a time scale for the implementation

        of all landscaping works.

 

        Reason:  In the  interests of residential amenity, andÿ

        AAAAAAA

        the proper planning and development of the area.

 

5.      All  public  services  to  the  proposed  development,ÿ

AA

        including electrical, telephone  cables  and equipment

        shall be located  underground  throughout  the  entire

        site.

 

        Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.ÿ

        AAAAAAA

 

6.      An acceptable street naming and house numbering schemeÿ

AA

        shall be submitted  to  and  agreed  with the Planning

        Authority before any of the houses are first occupied.

 

        Reason: In the  interests of  the  proper planning andÿ

        AAAAAAA

        development of the area.

 

7.      Financial contribution towards the provision of publicÿ

AA

        services.

 

8.      Financial contribution towards  the cost of piping theÿ

AA

        main water channel  adjacent  to the site, the removal

        of   temporary  fencing   and   the   completion   and

        integration of open space areas.

 

9.      Bond/financial security.ÿ

AA

 

 

 

 

 

 

L…………………………………………………….M……………..

_________________________________ÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

DES JOHNSONÿ

AAAAAAAAAAA

SENIOR PLANNING INSPECTORÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

 

 

                 February 1997ÿ

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

 

 

 

mps

The proposal which originally was one ramp and two sets of speed cushions was varied at Thursday’s Area Cttee. meeting.  The agreed design is now for a flat-top ramp (continuing footpath level across the road from the laneway to the open space and for two sets of speed cushions further up the hill.

Following public consultation which led to a lot of responses, mostly in favour of the ramps proposed, the Area Cttee. today approved a traffic calming scheme.  There were a number of changes; the largest were:

1. A full platform at the junction of Bayside Park and Bayside Walk, outside Bayside Dart Station to facilitate pedestrians
2. A full platform at the junction of Sarto Park and Verbena Avenue outside Bayside National School
3. Deletion of the ramps on the railway road of Sutton Park. (I should note that my reason for agreeing to this deletion was the fact that I have noted that almost all the cars parked on this road are parked (illegally) on the footpath.  This facilitates traffic travelling at speed.  Parking legally on the carriageway is a more effective means of traffic calming than the nuisance of ramps.)
4. Deletion of a number of other ramps because of proximity to the junction platforms referred to above
5. Use of speed cushions instead of ramps in all locations where this is possible.

Three of the submissions recommended blocking motor traffic through the area by closing either 2 or 3 roads to motor traffic.  In response to this, I recommended that the proposal of blocking the road to motor traffic a) between Sutton Downs and Sutton Grove, and b) between Bayside Park and Sutton Park be put on public display. This was agreed by the Area Cttee but only by my casting vote as Chair.  I think people are entitled to
express their views and I look forward to the public discussion on this proposal.

Additionally, the public consultation brought forward many requests for traffic calming on other roads.  As there was no consultation on these proposals, they could not be agreed as part of this phase of traffic calming; the Transportation Department will be looking at these suggestions.