Search
Proposed Amendments to Variation no 2.- Adamstown SDZ West - Page 48 Motion: This Council agrees to amend Variation No. 2 (Amendment No.10) to read: 'Development should only proceed following the construction of a shared pedestrian/cycle connection from the junction of the Celbridge Rd/New Celbridge Link Rd to the junction of the Celbridge Rd/Cooldrinagh Lane.' Reason: This being an 'Active Travel' improvement measure to the west, enabling newer communities to travel safely via the new Celbridge Link Rd-Celbridge Rd-Cooldrinagh Lane-N4 Footbridge-Cooldrinagh Ln Nth-Leixlip Rd/Village/St Catherine's Park and beyond.
"This Area Committee acknowledges that some remedial works have recently been undertaken in response to concerns raised by residents of Mac Uilliam Lane. However, significant issues remain unresolved. Therefore, this Area Committee calls on Management to engage with residents, carry out a comprehensive inspection of the building, and develop a clear action plan to address the outstanding concerns?"
MOTION: That this Council retains the RU zoning on the Edmondstown lands (Proposed Amendment no. 7)
REASON: Rezoning of this site from RU to RES does not meet the brief of providing "deliverable" housing under this plan, as the current owners have clearly stated their opposition to the rezoning given their lack of intention to sell or develop the site, and their desire to continue to farm their land.
Co-signed by: William Carey; Louise Dunne; Daniel Loftus; Niamh Whelan
To ask the Chief Executive how SDCC justifies allowing sports teams from outside of SDCC to book the county's public all weather football facilities?
"Can the Manager report on road repairs in the Tallaght area as some estates are in bad condition with pot holes?"
Amendment 19 Add SLO text to site as follows - That any development on these lands provide operational electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure at a minimum requirement of 20% of all on-street parking spaces within the development and furthermore, that the design and installation of this infrastructure includes the necessary capacity to facilitate future expansion of EV charging provision to additional parking spaces, as demand increases. Reason: This supports Ireland's Climate Action Plan target of 30% of the private car fleet being electric by 2030. Co-Sponsored: Cllr. David McManus, Cllr. Sarah Barnes
Motion: To add the following SLO to Amendment 14 Foxhunter: That no development on these lands be permitted vehicular access through the Hermitage Estate.
Reason: To protect the existing residential development in Hermitage estate from additional through-traffic and potential rat-running from the N4.
Co-signed by Cllr Helen Farrell and Cllr Liona O'Toole
Amendment No. 2 Add SLO text to site as follows - That any development on these lands provide operational electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure at a minimum requirement of 20% of all on-street parking spaces within the development and furthermore, that the design and installation of this infrastructure includes the necessary capacity to facilitate future expansion of EV charging provision to additional parking spaces, as demand increases.
Reason: This supports Ireland's Climate Action Plan target of 30% of the private car fleet being electric by 2030.
Co-Sponsored: Cllr. David McManus, Cllr. Sarah Barnes
To ask the Chief Executive for a detailed report into what measures are being put in place to contain the white-clawed crayfish plague outbreak at Corkagh Park lakes and the Camac. When will these measures be put in place?
Motion: To add the following SLO to Amendment No. 16 Liffey Valley MRC (p537): Any residential development must include community facilities, arts facilities, public recreational facilities, primary care provision and public green spaces. Reason: In the interest of sustainable planning and to ensure that residents have access to public facilities rather than exclusively private facilities in the immediate area. Also, it should be acknowledged that the Liffey Valley LAP 2008 included civic amenities in this location which were never developed.
Motion: That the Amendment No 11 Coldcut Road (p. 453) be excluded from the Variation and that the zoning remain as Open Space. Reason: 1. The lands have an historical use as amenity space and with increased population this land is required to provide additional public amenities such as allotments, community and sports facilities. 2. The Liffey Valley LAP 2008 identified the Metro West and Lucan Luas as 'essential elements of the longer term success of the fledging Town Centre.' The lands at the Coldcut were not rezoned for Residential in the Development Plan 2009 with the Chief Executive report for the Draft plan outlining: 'The proposed rezoning of the land is not considered to be warranted at this time in the absence of public transport improvements and given the existence of the substantial town centre mixed use zoned lands to the north of the site.' While it is recognised that some public transport improvements have been delivered, and are being planned through BusConnects they are not adequate to the needs of the existing community and would require significant investment before further residential development is constructed. 3. The council has exceeded the strict required baseline target of 11,699 units by an estimated 5,238 units. This brings the total provision to 16,937 units, which is within the maximum of up to 50% "additional provision" headroom permitted under national guidelines to secure long-term housing delivery up to 2030. However, the 'additional provision' of up to 50% is not an absolute requirement and for that reason the lands at Coldcut Road can be omitted while remaining within the guidelines of directive. In addition, the Office of the Planning Regulator's recommendation to 'continue to progress the zoning of additional residential zoned lands, identified as amendments no. 1 to no.16 of the proposed Variation' is over-prescriptive in a similar manner to Mount Salus Residents Owners Management Company Limited By Guarantee v. An Bord Pleanála [2026] IECA 28 and by recommending all the sites for rezoning is not allowing the council the flexibility granted by the NPF Implementation Guidelines of 'up to 50% additional provision'. 4. The rezoning is contrary to 2 major EU directives : -2016/2284: reduction of 5 pollutants 2 of which are sources of nitrogen oxides and fine particulates matter. Increased traffic will add pollution which is already at high levels due to the proximity of the M50. -2024/1991 Article 8: Restoration of urban ecosystems which states that 'By 31 December 2030, Member States shall ensure that there is no net loss in the total national area of urban green space and of urban tree canopy cover in urban ecosystem areas, determined in accordance with Article 14(4), compared to 2024'. The rezoning of this land would significantly reduce the urban green space in this area and remove its potential for use for a significant increase in canopy cover in this area. According to South Dublin County Development Plan 2022-28 Chapter 4 page 153 the lands in question have less than 10% tree canopy cover, meaning it is covered by Article 8. 5. The rezoning is contrary to the County Development Plan 2022-28 because the lands form part of a Primary Green Infrastructure Corridor as per the Green Infrastructure map on page 163 of the County Development Plan. A number of Objectives relate to the area of these lands including 'To enhance connectivity between existing parks and open spaces on either side of the M50 corridor.', 'To investigate EU funding mechanisms for nature-based solutions to climate change, exploring the feasibility of developing or retrofitting an eco-bridge or eco-tunnel across the M50 to provide ecological connectivity between Collinstown Park and Green space at Cloverhill Road.' and 'To promote habitat improvement at Collinstown Park.' The rezoning of the lands will make those objectives more difficult to meet.
Amendment No.15 - Ninth Lock Road
To include an SLO on the lands as follows: ‘No bulk purchases on units built on these lands only individual private purchases permitted as stipulation on planning permission’.
REASON: Aimed to avoid bulk purchases ie pension funds, government department's, investors. To prioritise family's and first time buyers becoming owners.
Amendment No.16 - Liffey Valley MRC
To include an SLO on the lands as follows: ‘No bulk purchases on units built on these lands only individual private purchases permitted as stipulation on planning permission’.
REASON: Aimed to avoid bulk purchases ie pension funds, government department's, investors. To prioritise family's and first time buyers becoming owners.
Amendment No.13 - Rathcoole
To include an SLO on the lands as follows: ‘No bulk purchases on units built on these lands only individual private purchases permitted as stipulation on planning permission’.
REASON: Aimed to avoid bulk purchases ie pension funds, government department's, investors. To prioritise family's and first time buyers becoming owners.
Amendment No.14 - Foxhunter
To include an SLO on the lands as follows: ‘No bulk purchases on units built on these lands only individual private purchases permitted as stipulation on planning permission’.
REASON: Aimed to avoid bulk purchases ie pension funds, government department's, investors. To prioritise family's and first time buyers becoming owners.
Amendment No.12 - Cherryfield Way
To include an SLO on the lands as follows: ‘No bulk purchases on units built on these lands only individual private purchases permitted as stipulation on planning permission’.
REASON: Aimed to avoid bulk purchases ie pension funds, government department's, investors. To prioritise family's and first time buyers becoming owners.
Amendment No.11 - Coldcut Road
To include an SLO on the lands as follows: ‘No bulk purchases on units built on these lands only individual private purchases permitted as stipulation on planning permission’.
REASON: Aimed to avoid bulk purchases ie pension funds, government department's, investors. To prioritise family's and first time buyers becoming owners.
Amendment No.10 - Stonewall
To include an SLO on the lands as follows: ‘No bulk purchases on units built on these lands only individual private purchases permitted as stipulation on planning permission’.
REASON: Aimed to avoid bulk purchases ie pension funds, government department's, investors. To prioritise family's and first time buyers becoming owners.
Amendment No.9 - Knockmeenagh Framework Site
To include an SLO on the lands as follows: ‘No bulk purchases on units built on these lands only individual private purchases permitted as stipulation on planning permission’.
REASON: Aimed to avoid bulk purchases ie pension funds, government department's, investors. To prioritise family's and first time buyers becoming owners.
Amendment No.8 - Kiltipper Road
To include an SLO on the lands as follows: ‘No bulk purchases on units built on these lands only individual private purchases permitted as stipulation on planning permission’.
REASON: Aimed to avoid bulk purchases ie pension funds, government department's, investors. To prioritise family's and first time buyers becoming owners.