COMHAIRLE CONTAE ÁTHA CLIATH THEAS
SOUTH DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL

MEETING OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN MEETING

Thursday, February 04, 2016

MOTION NO. 144

MOTION: Councillor W. Lavelle

Coolamber site, Lucan

That a Specific Local Objective to be included, applying to the Coolamber site at Lock Road, Lucan as follows: "Notwithstanding any other policies or objectives outlined in this Plan, it shall be an requirement to firstly maintain a complete, unbroken boundary comprising railings along the eastern boundary of the site adjoining Finnsview; and secondly to provide for permeability with the Finnstown neighbourhood centre to the north of the site."

Co-sponsored by Cllr. Casserly

REPORT:

An Application to for the demolition of the gate lodge, construction of 74 no. residential units and all associated site works on a 2.47 hectare site on the Lock Road, also known as the Coolamaber site, was received by Council on 6 February 2015.  A request for Additional Information was issued on 4 June 2015.  Following the Applicants response, a Split Decision to Grant/Refuse the proposed development was issued.  The decision was appealed to An Bord Pleanala (APB) on 28 July 2015, and on 4 January 2016 a decision to refuse the development was issued by the Board.   A draft Tree Preservation Order was also made on the 25 April 2015 in response to the passing of an emergency motion at the Lucan Area Committee meeting. 

The Request for Additional Information raised a number of concerns in relation to the proposed layout of the development, quality of open space, lack of linkages to adjoining areas and the removal for a number of trees to the north-east of the site.  In response to these concerns, the Applicant amended the layout of so that the main area of open space was located to the north-east of the site.  This enabled the proposed area of open space to be consolidated with an area of open space to the east within the adjacent residential estate.   

A link between the two areas of open space was requested in order to expand the areas open space network.  This would enable both existing and future residents direct access to a larger quantum of open space.   The link would also reduce walking distances for residents of Finnsview, Finnsgreen and Finnscourt  to bus services along the Newcastle Road, and when combined with another proposed link, to Finnstown neighbourhood centre.   

This draft Tree Preservation Order however meant that a lager proportion of the site could no longer be developed.  As a result the proposed link to Finnsview was omitted. 

Concerns regarding the proposed link between Finnsview and the proposed development were raised in a number of Appeals/Observations to ABP.  In response to these concerns the Inspectors report states: 

‘With regard to the urban design guidelines set out in the development plan, and with particular regard to DMURs, I would therefore consider that it is vital that any development of the appeal site be fully ‘permeable’ with regard to pedestrian and cycling movement in order to allow safe movements, especially for children walking and cycling. For this reason, I would fully concur with the general objective of the planning authority to ensure that open space within the site connect fully and seamlessly with adjoining areas of open space and the adjoining neighbourhood shopping area, and that where possible all walls and barriers next to cul-de-sacs and existing open spaces be removed. I would consider this to be not just a matter of general amenity, but essential to reduce the risk to children created by the location of the main road and the poor location of crossings and entries to the local neighbourhood centre and local estates and links to schools and public transport nodes’

The Reason and Considerations given by the Board in regards to its decision to refuse the proposed development also make reference to ‘the lack of permeability for pedestrians and cyclists’.

The proposed SLO would directly contradict the approach taken by Planning Authority in relation to the development of the site and the assessment of the ABP Inspector and the decision of the Board.  The SLO would also directly contradict a number of Policy Objectives within the Draft Plan, namely: 

TM3 Objective 1:

'To create a comprehensive and legible County-wide network of cycling and walking routes that link communities to key destinations, amenities and leisure activates'

 TM3 Objective 2:

'To ensure that connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists is maximised in new communities and improved within existing areas in order to maximise access to local shops, schools, public transport services and other amenities, while seeking to minimise opportunities for anti-social behaviour and respecting the wishes of local communities'

For these reasons the proposed SLO cannot be supported. 

Recommendation

It is recommended that this motion is not adopted.