Applicant: Ballymore Residential Ltd Fonthill House, Old Lucan Road, Palmerstown, Dublin 20
Proposed
\nDevelopment: Development on a site of
\n3.75 hectares. The development will consist of a hotel 4 storeys
\nin height, plus a roof-top level restaurant with terrace; with three
\nstoreys of bedrooms containing 150 bedrooms over ground floor level
\nbars, restaurants, meeting rooms; smokers terraces; spa, wellness and
\nbeauty facility; part ground floor mezzanine for administration
\noffices; 2 storey sports centre with indoor swimming pool, sauna and
\nsteam room; gymnasium and fitness facility with juice bar, dance
\nstudio, creche; snooker\/billiard room; 2 no. square courts, floodlit
\noutdoor artificial surface multi-use sports area, 2,304 square metres
\nin extent, with 10no. 12 metre high light standards fitted with
\ndownlight luminaires; Conference;Banqueting facility for approximately
\n350 people; car parking for 311 cars; 3 no. bus parking bays; cycle
\nparking and service access; walled entrance forecourt area, pools,
\nterraced gardens, landscaping, garden pavilion and boundary treatments;
\nplant enclosures, electricity substation; basement level swimming pool
\nplant and keg store; underground surface water attenuation tank; and
\nall associated ancillary works. The development proposal provides
\nfor the construction of a new access road leading north from Mayne
\nRoad, providing vehicular access to the western side of the proposed
\ndevelopment; and for carriageway realignment and local improvements at
\nthe proposed junction on <\/p>\n
Mayne Road<\/address>\nto accommodate a right turning lane.<\/p>\n
A chairde, <\/p>\n
We wish to appeal the above decision on the following grounds:<\/p>\n
1. The application is a material contravention of the zonings in the current Development Plan.
<\/strong><\/p>\nIt
\nhas been suggested that it is in compliance with a Local Area Plan or a
\nMaster Plan for the area. In fact, it is not, as evidenced
\nfrom the plans themselves and from the reports of the Planning
\nDepartment and Parks Department of Fingal County Council.
\nHowever, in law, neither of these can override the statutory
\nDevelopment Plan. <\/p>\n
This site is zoned OS To provide
\nfor open space and recreational amenities. It was formerly zoned
\nGreen Belt. The proposed hotel development is not in
\nkeeping with either of these zonings.<\/p>\n
This is not the
\nlocation indicated in the Development Plan for an “integrated
\ntourism\/recreational complex (excluding housing component), public park
\nand retirement home”. Please note that the location for this
\nobjective (Objective 155 on 1999 plan and objective 294 on 2005 plan)
\nis on the former Baldoyle Racecourse at the very south east of the
\nparkland\/green belt.<\/p>\n
In any event, the development applied
\nfor is not an “integrated tourism\/recreational complex”. It is a
\nhotel with a swimming pool and tennis courts. It’s primary use
\nwill be standard hotel uses with “leisure facility” uses added
\non. The Council even considered (Additional Information
\nRequest) that
“<\/strong>the scale of the hotel, … is …
\ndisproportionate to the recreational facilities provided” This is not
\nthe same thing as an integrated tourism recreational complex. The
\napplication is essentially for a standard large hotel complex on a
\nsmall site. It does not meet the criteria for an integrated tourism\/recreational complex set out at 3.6.4 of the 1999 Development Plan<\/em>, criteria which I cannot find in the 2005 Plan<\/p>\nThe
\nproposed hotel would also be a material contravention of both the 1999
\nDevelopment Plan and the 2005 Development Plan, both of which state:<\/p>\n
“Only development relating to recreational activities to be permitted in the OS zoning between Portmarnock and Baldoyle.”<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
2.
\nThe application is not part of a coherent plan for the entire
\narea. As such it is in breach of the requirements of the Area
\nPlan.
<\/strong><\/p>\nWe have met with considerable confusion in relation to the existence and status of various local plans for the area.<\/p>\n
The following documents exist:<\/p>\n
“Baldoyle Portmarnock Action Plan, October 2000”
<\/em>We think this is in fact a draft plan. It does not specify locations for Integrated Tourism\/Recreational Complex”<\/p>\n“
Fingal<\/em> County<\/em> Council Baldoyle and Portmarnock Action Area Plan<\/em>”.
\nThis was adopted in November 2001. It appears to be derived from
\nthe 2000 plan but there are significant changes from that (draft) plan,
\nthe most important of which are the identification of two sites for
\nIntegrated Tourism Recreation Complex Components (as well as one site
\nfor Retirement Home), one of which is the current site.<\/p>\n “Master Plan”
<\/em>This
\nis referred to in the Planner’s report (p. 7) but Fingal County Council
\nis unable to find a copy. However, there is a map in the EIS
\napparently extracted from this master plan. This shows something
\nvery different to the development proposed in the application.
\nThere is a small building on part of the site with 56 car parking
\nspaces, linked to the new Stapolin area by a footpath and cycleway,
\nshowing a minor access road and no road access north. This is
\nsignificantly different to the current application which occupies the
\nentirety of the site and has 311 car parking space, plus 3 bus parking
\nspaces. <\/p>\nWhat is shown on the Master Plan map
\nextracted in the EIS is in keeping with the normal meaning of the words
\n“Integrated Tourism and Recreation Complex.” It would be
\ninstructive to learn when the interpretation of these words changed.<\/p>\n
The planner’s report states (p.7)<\/p>\n
“In
\nshort, while the designation is for an integrated tourism\/recreational
\nfacility, the proposed development does not appear to be in any way
\nintegrated into the surrounding landscape and its proposed uses within
\nthe Action Plan This is contrary to the intention of the Action
\nPlan and the application should be requested to demonstrate how the
\nproposed development would be integrated into the parkland area and
\ninto the residential aspect of the action plan.”<\/p>\n
“The
\ndelivery of the millennium park has not yet been agreed with the
\nPlanning Authority and this is the cause of some concern. The
\nproposal to further develop the lands without any plan in place for the
\nmillennium park could be considered as premature…. To ensure that the
\nproposed development is not premature and is developed in the context
\nof the millennium park i.e. within the parkland, the applicant
\nshould be requested to submit additional information indicating the
\nproposed phasing of development including the parkland and open space
\nareas, all within the applicant’s control.”<\/p>\n
This additional
\ninformation was sought and the response to this was that the current
\napplicant has no control over the parkland which is owned by another
\nperson.<\/p>\n
The Parks Department correctly point out that “The
\ncurrent proposals cannot be assessed in isolation and must be
\nconsidered in the context of the surrounding parkland and the
\nprovisions of the agreed Action Plan”<\/p>\n
The planner’s response to the additional information was <\/p>\n
a)
\nto note that the original application indicated with a blue line the
\n“overall landholding”, including all or almost all of the parkland area
b)
\n to recommend that a condition be inserted that no development
\nwould take place until such time as agreement has been reached with the
\nCouncil on the mechanism for delivery of the Millennium park. <\/p>\n
The
\nproblem with addressing this by condition is that the granting of the
\npermission for the hotel will predetermine many design options for the
\npark, the design of which has not yet been considered. Indeed
\nthere has as yet, as detailed by the Parks Department in their report
\nof 27
th<\/sup> May, been no consultation with the Council or local
\nresidents and other relevant associations in relation to the design of
\nthe park.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n3. The application is at a
\nlocation not served by public transport and not adjacent to developed
\nareas. As such it is a material contravention of the Development
\nPlan.
<\/strong><\/p>\nThis also results in it being a contravention of the Development Plan.<\/p>\n
There
\nis a suggestion that 40% of the traffic to the hotel will be by modes
\nother than cars. There is no public transport access to the site.
\nThe site is distant from any centres of population. Pedestrian
\naccess is by rural roads with fast traffic and no footpaths. An
\nBord Pleanála might like to compare this prediction with current modal
\nsplit at other isolated hotels in Fingal (such as Roganstown House in
\nSwords), in order to determine how ridiculous it is.<\/p>\n
The
\nsiting of this hotel at this location not served by public transport is
\nin clear conflict with the ABC location policy of the County
\nDevelopment Plan, set out on Table 4.9 of the Plan. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
4.
\nThe application is large and visually obtrusive in a designated
\nsensitive landscape. As such it is a material contravention of
\nthe Development Plan.
<\/strong><\/p>\nThe site is part of a
\nspecifically designated sensitive landscape, which means that it is
\nsubject to the policy HP34 “To protect sensitive landscapes from
\ninappropriate development and to reinforce their character,
\ndistinctiveness and sense of place.”
<\/p>\nThe planner’s report states<\/p>\n
“The
\napplicant should be requested to reduce the height of the hotel to no
\nmore than three storey and to submit revised visual impact
\nassessment\/photomontage” <\/p>\n
What was actually sought as additional information was <\/p>\n
“the
\napplicant is requested to omit one floor from the hotel development.
\nThis will reduce the main bulk of the building to three storeys in
\nheight and will reduce the number of bedrooms in the hotel to
\napproximately 100. The applicant is also requested to minimise
\nthe proposed projection of any sky restaurant to no more than 1500mm
\nabove the main flat roof. This will have the effect of reducing
\nboth the height of the building and the scale of the hotel, which is
\nconsidered to be disproportionate to the recreational facilities
\nprovided”<\/p>\n
So no revised photomontages were requested or supplied. The original EIS contains only 3 photomontages.<\/p>\n
To
\nallow such a large development in the middle of this green belt would
\ndestroy the visual break between Baldoyle and Portmarnock, undermining
\nthe basis of the Green Belt designation at this area. It is worth
\nnoting that the Development Plan specifies that
“the visual impact on the Green Belt of this new housing in Baldoyle will be minimised by its siting design and by planting.”<\/p>\n
The
\nfact that it did not make any reference to the more severe visual
\nimpact of this hotel development is, of course, due to the fact that
\nthe Development Plan did not envisage any such hotel development in the
\nGreen Belt.
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n5. The design of the “cycle facility” is in breach of the DoE Manual
<\/strong><\/p>\nThe
\nproposed cycle-tracks shown on the plans are in breach of the
\nDepartment of the Environment\/DTO Manual “Provision of Cycle
\nFacilities National Manual for Urban Areas”. The planning
\nauthority, and An Bord Pleanála on appeal, are responsible for ensuring
\nthat the road design meets appropriate standards and are safe for road
\nusers.<\/p>\n
We enclose the appropriate €210 fee and
\nacknowledgement of Cllr. Healy’s submission to the Council in relation
\nto the application.<\/p>\n
Is sinne, le meas,<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Cllr. David Healy<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Cllr. Robbie Kelly
<\/p>\n
Cllr. Joan Maher<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Cllr. Peter Coyl<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/em><\/strong><\/div>\n
<\/em><\/strong><\/div>\n
<\/em><\/strong><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/strong><\/div>\n
<\/strong>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Despite my objection (see website entry in March 2005), Fingal County Council has decided to grant permission for the proposed Hotel in the middle of the Green Belt. I have appealed this decision to An Bord Pleanála, with fellow councillors Robbie Kelly (Green) Joan Maher (FG) and Peter Coyle (Labour) appealled the decision (read here). […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=41"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=41"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=41"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=41"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}