COMHAIRLE CONTAE ÁTHA CLIATH THEAS
SOUTH DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL

MEETING OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN MEETING

Thursday, June 18, 2015

MOTION NO. 250

MOTION: Councillor W. Lavelle

To amend Table 11.24 outlining ‘Maximum Parking Rates (Residential Development)’ to remove the column for ‘Zone 2’ and to apply the ‘Zone 1’ rates to all residential development.

Co-sponsored by Cllr’s Brophy, Casserly, Dermody, Egan, Higgins, Donovan

REPORT:

The current County Development Plan permits parking at the rate of a minimum of 1-2 spaces per dwelling.  This figure is given as a guideline only, with the Planning Authority determining the final rate based on a number of criteria such as the number of bedrooms/design of dwelling and the proximity to services (i.e. public transport, local shops, employment).  In areas well served by public transport or alternative means of access the car parking standards are taken to be the maximum.

The approach proposed within the Chief Executives Draft is not likely to differ significantly in practice from that of the current development plan.  The proposed approach within Section 11.4.2 offers a more comprehensive level of guidance and add greater certainty to the planning process by defining the lower rate (zone 2) as applicable to:

‘town and village centres, within 800 metres of a Train or LUAS station and within 400 meters of a high quality bus service(including proposed services that have proceeded to construction)’.

There is a long established link between the availability of parking, car ownership and car use.  The removal of the Zone 2 rates raises concerns that the application of more generous parking rates in areas serviced by public transport will reduce the viability of such services and result in increased traffic congestion throughout the road network. 

It is also of concern that the application of excessive car parking standards will seriously undermine the function of the County's Town and Village Centres, where it isn't possible to provide high levels of car parking and car parking space is more expensive to provide.  In particular, retail and employment development will be forced to the periphery resulting in unsustainable travel demand.

This would also conflict with the several Policy/Policy Objectives within the draft Plan, namely:

TM Policy 7 Car Parking:  It is the policy of Council to take a balanced approach to the provision of car parking with the aim of meeting the needs of businesses and communities whilst promoting a transition towards more sustainable forms of transportation.

TM2 Objective:  To generate additional demand for public transport services through integrated land use planning and

maximising access to existing and planned public transport services throughout the network.

TM5 Objective 1:  To effectively manage the flow of through traffic along the strategic road network and maximise the efficient use of existing road resources.

TM5 Objective 3:  To minimise the impact of new development on the County road and street network.

The application of more generous parking rates may also result in conflicts with Items 45043, 45072, 45073, 45254, 45266 which seek to reduce the impacts of traffic within the county road network.

To address concerns related to the lower rate, the Zone 2 requirements could be revised for residential development to only include those areas within town and village centres and within 400m (i.e. 5 minutes walk) of high quality public transport services (i.e. luas, train, high frequency bus)

Recommendation

It is recommended that this motion is adopted with amendment. 

That Section 11.24 be amended to define Zone 2 rates as being applicable to residential development within:

‘town and village centres, within 400 metres of a high quality public transport service (includes a train station, LUAS station or bus stop with a high quality service)’.