COMHAIRLE CONTAE ÁTHA CLIATH THEAS
SOUTH DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL
MEETING OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN MEETING
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
MOTION NO. 36
MOTION: Councillor T. Gilligan
| that the following paragraph – “In the development of such lands, average net densities at least in the range of 30-50 dwellings per hectare should prevail and the objective of retaining the open character of the lands achieved by concentrating increased densities in selected parts (up to 70 dwellings per hectare where appropriate).” Is amended to read: “In the development of such lands, average net densities at least in the range of 15-25 dwellings per hectare should prevail and the objective of retaining the open character of the lands achieved by concentrating increased densities in selected parts (up to 35 dwellings per hectare where appropriate).” |
REPORT:
This motion refers to Section 1.2.14.iv Policy H4 ‘Public Transport Corridors Densities’.
The objectives and policies contained within the Draft Plan relating to densities are from national guidance and in particular the Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas, 2009 document. To deviate from the figures contained within this current document would be contrary to national guidance and Government policy.
Furthermore the effect of this motion would be to subvert the core strategy, undermine national programmes for the provsion of public infrastructure and would require the rezoning of substantial lands in order to maintain capacity. This is not considered appropriate for the detailed reasons below.
Density of 25 dwellings per hectare (10 dwellings per acre) combined with an average county family occupancy of 2.7 persons per household will result in a population of 27 persons per acre. This density will not support any form of public transport including buses. It will not support local shops, doctors or dental surgeries or other local facilities. At this density, development will continue to cause urban sprawl increasing the need for individual car-journeys to work, school and leisure, worsening carbon emissions in disregard of our legal national commitments to the Kyoto Agreement and contributing to global warming. Low densities militate against walking and cycling contributing to obesity and poor health across all ages. Low density promotes low intensity development which damages economic activity and the generation of a mixed economy necessary to produce job-growth. The levels of density proposed at the different levels proposed here will reduce the type and diversity of dwellings developed, eliminating choice for new home-buyers, single persons and people of retiring age.
At 15 dwellings to the hectare (6 dwellings to the acre) the density is equivalent to the edge of a rural village – each house on 1/6th of an acre. This is not an option in an urban area like Dublin city.
The densities proposed in the Development Plan are low in normal European urban terms and are the minimum necessary to generate viable public transport, local services and community facilities and a mixed use neighbourhood with options for all its residents. The Council is required to comply with Government standards on Residential Density Guidelines. The densities proposed in the amendments range from 15 per hectare (6 to the acre) at the lowest – each house on 1/6th of an acre – to 25 dwellings per hectare (10 to the acre) at the average highest – this is the density of a standard suburban estate of the late 1970’s/early 1980’s. The reduction to these levels will devalue existing land, militate against development and job-creation and continue the sprawling/dull suburban world which has caused to many social and physical problems.
SEA RESPONSE:
Such a restriction will result in less units per hectare, particularly on brownfield or infill sites. Such a restriction would be inefficient in instances where such sites are in town, district or local centres, and/or sites which are proximate to services and public transport. This would also result in development which could not be located on sustainably serviced sites being developed in alternative, less well serviced locations within or outside the county. This would spread urban sprawl and would not be in accordance with the preferred development alternative as contained within the Environmental Report.
Manager’s Recommendation:
That this motion not be adopted.