COMHAIRLE CONTAE ÁTHA CLIATH THEAS
SOUTH DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL

South Dublin County Council Crest

MEETING OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN MEETING

Monday, May 16, 2016

MOTION NO. 19

MOTION: Councillor K. Egan

That the Council retain the EE zoning at Moneenalion Commons Upper and Collegelands as per the zoning in the Draft Development Plan and; that the Specific Local Objective IE3SL0:1 be retained for the subject lands  (i.e. to require the preparation of a site and catchment specific Flood Risk Assessment and Mitigation Strategy, prepared by a qualified person(s), to be submitted with any proposal for development on these ‘EE’ zoned lands”).

The rationale for the subject EE zoning on the subject lands was provided during the preparation of the Draft Development Plan and that rationale still stands.  A detailed submission on the proposed material amendments has been made by John Spain Associates on behalf of MLEU Dublin  Ltd.  This submission sets out a detailed rationale including a full Justification Test for Development Plans for the retention of the EE zoning and SLO IE3SLO:1 on the subject lands.  I refer specifically to the conclusions of this submission set out in Section 4 of the submission which I believe sets out clearly the rationale for the EE zoning and provides a reasonable justification for the retention of the EE zoning and the specific local objective IE3SLO:1.

REPORT:

The subject motion relates to Material Alteration Refs:

In relation to these proposed Material Alterations, the Chief Executive’s Report recommends that the lands remain zoned Rural (RU) (as displayed at public consultation) and the SLO be removed (both in written text and the mapping icon).

The subject motion refers to the submission from MLEU Ltd and outlines that the submission sets out a detailed rationale including a full Justification Test for Development Plans for the retention of the EE zoning and SLO IE3SLO:1 on the subject lands.

Summary of the Chief Executive’s decision making on the recommendation for Rural (RU) zoning of the lands:

Flood Risk

As part of the County Development Plan and SEA process 2016-2022, a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) to inform the Draft Plan was carried out for the County, with a further specific report on flood risk also carried out subsequently due to the lands located at Moneenalion Commons being identified in the County study as having a potential risk. Additionally, the Eastern CFRAM study mapping identifies the area as having a potential risk. The foregoing studies incorporate the best available data and provide an evidence base on flood risk in the County. The studies identify a significant portion of the lands in question as being in Flood Zone A, with ‘a high probability of flooding’.

The Guidelines for Planning Authorities on Flood Risk Management (2009) advises in relation to Flood Zone A that ‘most types of development would be considered inappropriate in this zone’ and that ‘development in this zone should be avoided and/or only considered in exceptional circumstances, such as in city and town centres, or in the case of essential infrastructure that cannot be located elsewhere’. These 'exceptional circumstances' require all parts of a Development Plan Justification Test in the Guidelines to be met.

Section 4 of the Flood Risk Guidelines relates specifically to "existing, undeveloped, zoned areas at risk of flooding" and Sections 4.26 & 4.27 state that “future flood risk assessments required to support the development plan process may highlight existing, undeveloped areas which, on their own merits, were zoned for development in previous development plans but which new information indicates may now, or in the future, be at risk of flooding”. The Flood Risk Guidelines advise that in the these cases “planning authorities should reconsider the zoning objective” and following this reconsideration, “may decide to:

Given the extent and sporadically dispersed nature of the flood risk zone A on the lands in question, it is considered that the retention of a Rural (RU) zoning, as the lands are undeveloped, is the most appropriate course of action. This is in line with the 'precautionary approach', which requires planning authorities to consider possible future changes in flood risk including the effects of climate change. The intensive development of this area will displace the flood zone and may impact on the residents of existing dwellings downstream.

Development Plan Justification Test

The Guidelines for Planning Authorities on Flood Risk Management (2009) advises in relation to Flood Zone A that ‘most types of development would be considered inappropriate in this zone’ and that ‘development in this zone should be avoided and/or only considered in exceptional circumstances, such as in city and town centres, or in the case of essential infrastructure that cannot be located elsewhere’.

These 'exceptional circumstances' require all parts of a Development Plan Justification Test to be met. The Flood Risk Guidelines provide a set of criteria under Box 4.1 for the assessment of the Justification Test and outlines that where, as part of the preparation and adoption of a development plan, a planning authority is considering the future development of areas in an urban settlement that are at moderate or high risk of flooding, all of the following criteria must be satisfied:

Criteria 1.

  1. The urban settlement is targeted for growth under the National Spatial Strategy, Regional Planning Guidelines, statutory plans as defined above or under the Planning Guidelines or Planning Directives provisions of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended.

Criteria 2.

  1. The zoning or designation of the lands for the particular use or development type is required to achieve the proper planning and sustainable development of the urban settlement and, in particular:

Criteria 3.

  1. A flood risk assessment to an appropriate level of detail has been carried out as part of the Strategic Environmental Assessment as part of the development plan preparation process, which demonstrates that flood risk to the development can be adequately managed and the use or development of the lands will not cause unacceptable adverse impacts elsewhere.

N.B. The acceptability or otherwise of levels of any residual risk should be made with consideration for the proposed development and the local context and should be described in the relevant flood risk assessment.

As part of the submission, MLEU Ltd outline that the zoning of the subject lands complies with the Development Plan Justification Test by way of strategic location within the Dublin Metropolitan Area, proximity to the N7 and Dublin City Centre. The submission identifies the whole of South Dublin County as a key urban settlement in the Dublin Metropolitan Area and proposes that this satisfies Criteria 1 of the Justification Test. The submission extrapolates this assumption to provide a context for the proposed rationale to satisfy Criteria 2 & 3 above. 

The Chief Executive considers that the subject lands do not comply with the Justification Test for Development Plans of the Flood Risk Management Guidelines (2009). The Justification Test requires that the lands are within an urban settlement targeted for growth under the Regional Planning Guidelines. The Settlement Hierarchy as defined within ‘Table 8 – Settlement Typology and Hierarchy’ of the Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area (RPGGDA) indicates that Dublin City Centre and immediate suburbs are the ‘Gateway Core’, while Tallaght, Clondalkin and Lucan are the defined ‘Metropolitan Consolidation Towns’.  No ‘Large Growth Towns’ 1 or 2, or ‘Moderate Sustainable Growth Towns’ are defined in South Dublin.  Tallaght, Clondalkin and Lucan are therefore the ‘urban settlements’ targeted for growth within the effective Regional Planning Guidelines for the County.

Section 4.6 of the RPGGDA defines the ‘Metropolitan Area’ as:

Dublin City Centre, its immediate suburbs and the built up areas outside of Dublin City Centre, including a number of proximate major existing towns which are strongly integrated and connected with the built up area of Dublin. 

Furthermore, the policy emphasis for the Metropolitan Area is:-

To gain maximum benefit from existing assets – public transport, social, infrastructural – through the continuation of consolidation and increasing densities within the existing built footprint of the City, suburbs and Consolidation and Large Growth towns. 

In assessing the suitability of these lands on an identified floodplain for zoning, it is noted that the lands are located in the Baldonnell area of the County which is unconnected either physically or in terms of intensive development zoning to any of the identified RPGGDA urban settlements of Tallaght, Clondalkin or Lucan.  The lands do not form part of land required for the consolidation or strengthening of these South Dublin ‘urban settlements’ as defined in Table 8 of the RPGGDA.  The submission has incorrectly identified the whole of South Dublin County as a key urban settlement and attempts to justify the development of the lands as part of the overall development of South Dublin, however the Regional Planning Guidelines has identified three distinct Consolidation Towns as being the ‘urban settlements’ designated for growth within South Dublin. It is therefore considered that the identified lands are not part of an urban settlement targeted for growth under the NSS or the Regional Planning Guidelines and do not fall within Criteria 1 & 2 of the Justification Test as defined within Box 4.1 of the Guidelines. 

It is considered that on the basis of the information currently available to the Planning Authority, the Development Plan Justification Test cannot be met in respect of the subject lands.

The subject lands are:-

(a) Not located within Lucan, Clondalkin or Tallaght, which are identified urban settlements targeted for growth under the Regional Planning Guidelines.

(b) Not essential to facilitate regeneration and/or expansion of the centre of an identified urban settlement,

(c) Is not significant previously developed or underutilised lands within the urban settlement,

(d) Is not within or adjoining the core of an established and designated urban settlement,

(e) Will not be essential in achieving compact and sustainable urban growth of the urban settlement, and

(f) There are suitable alternative lands for the particular use or development type, in areas at lower risk of flooding.

Therefore the zoning of the identified floodplain, which is not proximate to any identified urban centres designated for growth under the Regional Planning Guidelines, for non-essential uses, would not be in accordance with the Flood Risk Guidelines or the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Recommendation

It is recommended that this motion is not adopted.