{"id":42,"date":"2005-07-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-07-06T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","slug":"Draft_Local_Area_Plan_for_Portmarnock","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/?p=42","title":{"rendered":"Draft Local Area Plan for Portmarnock"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Planning Department has produced a draft Local Area Plan for the
\nland south-east of Portmarnock Railway Station.  Together with
\nRobbie Kelly the Green councillor for Malahide ward, I have prepared a
\nsubmission which points out that the draft fails to address many of the
\nmost important issues in the area.  A copy of our submission
\nfollows <\/p>\n

Submission in relation to Portmarnock local area plan<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
Cllrs. David Healy and Robbie Kelly, Green Party<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
           
\n           
\n           
\n           
\n            \n<\/div>\n
\n
\nWe
\nare making this submission at this early stage because we believe that
\nthere is a considerable amount of further work to do in relation to the
\nLocal Area Plan. This is work shich we as councillors are not in a
\nposition to do ourselves.  Additionally, given the statutory
\nframework within which we must work, amendments to the draft Plan must
\nbe made within a tight timeframe which would not allow for a process of
\nfurther research to develop those amendments.  \n<\/div>\n
\n
\nOn
\nthis basis we are making this submission in the hope that the necessary
\nresearch will be carried out in time to make the changes we believe are
\nnecessary.\n<\/div>\n
\n
\nIn general we feel that the Local Area Plan is
\nlacking in important details in a number of significant respects. 
\nWe deal below with various thematic areas, but in general we feel that
\nmost of what is in the plan is of itself good, but is insufficiently
\ndetailed and clear.  In fact, the plan contains very little
\nadditional to the County Development Plan.  Given that the area is
\nzoned RS1, the obligation to make a plan must mean doing something
\nsignificantly more detailed than the County Development Plan.  We
\nnote from the meeting held between the planning department and the
\nlandowners on 23rd September 2004, that the landowners have had input
\ninto this plan.  We are not clear to what extent and would be
\ngrateful if this could be clarified.  Some of the suggestions such
\nas that on “coastal aspect” appear to contravene provisions of the
\nCounty Development Plan.\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n1.        
\nBiodiversity – Do biodiversity surveys and use the information gathered
\nin order to draw up the design of the local area plan and of the
\nadjacent parkland\/green belt area.\n<\/div>\n
\n
\nThe area is being
\nconverted from farmland to medium density residential.  If
\nproperly planned this can lead to an increase in biodiversity and have
\na positive effect on the area.  \n<\/div>\n
\n
\nHowever, without
\nplanning this will not necessarily be the case.  There is a risk
\nthat unless biodiversity sites are identified, they could  be
\nobliterated in the building process.  Additionally, simple
\nrecreational pressure could impact on biodiversity in the surrounding
\narea.  If the amenity areas surrounding the housing are not
\nplanned, then people will create their own walking routes, which could
\nput pressure on biodiversity.  The development has the potential
\nfor negative impacts on surface water systems, including the local
\nrivers and wetlands which are otter\/salmonid habitat and on water
\nquality and bird activity in Baldoyle Estuary which is subject to
\nmultiple designations because of its ecological importance.\n<\/div>\n
\n
\nTherefore
\nit is essential that the full biodiversity studies and subsequent
\ndesign work for this area and for the Millennnium Park go ahead
\nnow.  The carrying out of such studies is mandated to be part of
\nthe development of Local Area Plans in Action 70 of the Fingal Heritage
\nPlan, adopted by the Council on 11th July 2005.\n<\/div>\n
\n
\nThere is no
\nplan for the Millennium park area, no plan for the northern part of the
\nhigh amenity area.  Insofar as there are areas of the Green Belt
\nwhich are not to be part of the Millennium Park, there is no plan as to
\nwhat their planned uses are.\n<\/div>\n
\n
\nThe plan should identify
\nbiodiversity features for retention\/ incorporation in open space and
\nwildlife areas in the plan. This includes streams, hedgerows, bat
\nhabitats, badger setts, etc.  The value of the railway as a
\nwildlife corridor should be considered and the ecological links between
\nthe green belt area, the Sluice Marsh and Baldoyle Estuary should all
\nbe part of the biodiversity component of the Local Area Plan.\n<\/div>\n
\n
\nLocal
\nseeds should be gathered in autumn 2005 and\/or autumn 2006 for use in
\nplanting on finished development. We understand that Forest Friends and
\nConservation Volunteers Ireland, among other NGOs are involved in seed
\ncollection and might be able to assist.\n<\/div>\n
\n
\nNow is also the
\ntime for contact with NGOs such as Birdwatch in relation to maximising
\nthe amenity value of the parkland and coastal walk for the general
\npublic, including birdwatchers, while protecting birds on the Estuary.\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n2.        
\nVisual impact – Do land contour maps and visibility analysis to
\ndetermine appropriate site ground levels and building heights in order
\nto meet the Development Plan Objective 234\n<\/div>\n
\n
\nSpecific
\nObjective 234: “The visual impact on the Green Belt of this new housing
\nin Portmarnock will be minimised by its siting, design and by planting”\n<\/div>\n
\n
\nThe
\nnecessary information must be mapped and analysed in order to meet this
\nobjective.  Post –development ground levels and building heights
\nat various locations within the area must be determined using analyses
\nof visibility from various locations, in order to maintain the visual
\nbreak between Baldoyle and Portmarnock.\n<\/div>\n
\n
\nWe note that the
\nminutes of the meeting between the planners and the landowners
\nregarding Portmarnock Action Area Plan held on 23rd September 2004
\ninclude the following:\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n“The planners stated that a section
\non Design needs to be incorporated into the LAP, to include;- building
\nheight 2 storey with some 3\/3 ½ at visual locations, boulevard design
\nof the streets (not roads) in the development, also design of open
\nspace and how the development addresses the edges of the LAP (open
\nspace, roads, train track etc.)\n<\/div>\n
\n
\nUnfortunately this has not
\nbeen done.   However the draft LAP does refer to maximising
\nviews from the houses, which would appear to be in contravention of
\nObjective 234 above.\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n3.        
\nBuilding designs – Require high standards of design and construction to
\nmeet energy efficiency, renewable energy, water efficiency and other
\nsustainability criteria.\n<\/div>\n
\n
\nWe propose inclusion of provisions such as the following:\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n“The
\nresidential development will attain high standards of energy efficiency
\nand environmental sustainibility, including the following:
\n–    bio-climatic site design,
\n–    water conservation,
\n–    ventilation,
\n–    energy efficient strategies for housing design,
\n–    daylight analysis,
\n–    design of group heating system.
\n–  high insulation standards\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n“All
\nnew buildings will meet the minimum low energy performance standards
\n(as defined below) as a prerequisite to receiving planning approval
\n(calculation report to be submitted with the planning application).
\nEach building’s energy performance calculation must be demonstrated on
\nthe basis of a simple approved method (e.g. EN 832) carried out by
\nqualified or accredited experts.  Low energy buildings are defined
\nas building with an annual heating requirement (space and  water
\nheating) not exceeding 50 kWh\/m2 of useful floor area.\n<\/div>\n
\n
\nThe
\ndevelopment will utilise renewable energy supply systems to meet at
\nleast 30% of the buildings space and water heating requirements as
\ncalculated on the basis of an approved method carried out by qualified
\nor accredited experts.”\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n
\n
\nThe buildings should be
\nrequired to incorporate provisions for reducing water use including low
\nflow fittings (toilets, taps, shower heads) and provisions for reuse of
\nrainwater and\/or greywater for flushing toilets etc.\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n4.        
\nTransport – Display proposed street network for all road users as well
\nas specific extra provision for pedestrians and cyclists where
\nappropriate.\n<\/div>\n
\n
\nWe would point out the overriding importance
\nof creating a walkable community in order to build social capital and
\npublic health (Leyden, 2003).\n<\/div>\n
\n
\nThe correct transport approach for a new residential area is set out quite effectively in the
\nDevelopment
\nPlan in terms of giving priority to pedestrians and cyclists. It is not
\nso much about providing segregated facilities as about ensuring that
\ntraffic speeds and volumes are low.  \n<\/div>\n
\n
\nHowever, this
\nis not being implemented in many of the designs proposed by
\ndevelopers.   If the Development Plan is to be made
\neffective, the Local Area Plan should include the street layout. 
\nIt is only by seeing a layout that statements such as that in the draft
\nplan that \n<\/div>\n
\n
\n“All new residential units within the plan area will be within 10 minutes walking distance of the station”\n<\/div>\n
\n
\ncan be believed.\n<\/div>\n
\n
\nThere should be no roundabouts, as these discourage pedestrians.\n<\/div>\n
\n
\nThe suggestion that the existing bus routes in the area will continue to use the Coast Road (not <\/p>\n
Strand Rd.<\/address>\n

as stated) and new bus routes will serve the development is not credible.\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n5.         Drainage\n<\/div>\n
\n
\nThe
\nSUDS-based drainage to be used in the area should be developed to an
\noutline stage for the Local Area Plan, not just stated as a generality
\nwith no more details than in the County Development Plan.\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n6.         (Farmers’) Market\n<\/div>\n
\n
\nThe
\nplan should specifically incorporate provision for a marketplace, on
\npublic land taken in charge by the County Council, as this is one of
\nthe traditional functions of a local authority and an essential element
\nof strengthening the local food economy.\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n7.         Shops\n<\/div>\n
\n
\nThe
\ntotal area of shops planned for should be specified in the plan at a
\nlevel to meet the needs of the expected number of residents.  We
\nsupport the clustering of these shops at the Dart Station.\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n
\n
\nReferences\n<\/div>\n
\n
\nLeyden,
\nKevin, 2003, Social Capital and the Built Environment: The Importance
\nof Walkable Neighborhoods Am J Public Health.2003; 93: 1546-1551\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n
\n
\nCllr.
\nDavid Healy       
\n           
\n           
\n           
\n           
\nCllr. Robbie Kelly\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n12th July 2005\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<\/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":"

The Planning Department has produced a draft Local Area Plan for the land south-east of Portmarnock Railway Station.  Together with Robbie Kelly the Green councillor for Malahide ward, I have prepared a submission which points out that the draft fails to address many of the most important issues in the area.  A copy of our […]<\/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\/42"}],"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=42"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=42"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=42"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/davidhealy.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=42"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}