COMHAIRLE CONTAE ÁTHA CLIATH THEAS
SOUTH DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL

MEETING OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN MEETING

Wednesday, June 22, 2022

MOTION NO. 6

MOTION: Councillor B. Lawlor, Councillor K. Egan, Councillor David McManus, Councillor S. O'Hara

Material Amendment 2.20 and 9.4 To reject the Chief Executive's Recommendation in relation to Recommendation 1 of SD-C226-65 submitted by the Office of the Planning Regulator, and therefore makes the Plan with Material Amendments 2.20 and Motion 9.4, as previously adopted by the elected members. Prosposed by Cllr Kenneth Egan, Brian Lawlor, David McManus and Shirley O Hara.

REPORT:

Amendment 2.20 relates to the rezoning of land located north and east of the Greenogue Business Park from RU to EE while amendment 9.4 provides for an associated SLO for the same lands which reads:

To ensure development on lands within Greenogue Business Park will be subject to site specific flood alleviation measures forming part of any future planning application for these lands

Employment Zones:

The Draft Plan under EDE1 Objective 3 looks to ensure that there is sufficient supply of zoned and serviced lands at suitable locations to accommodate a range of enterprise and employment development types and to promote growth by strengthening the integration between employment, housing and transportation.

Under Section 2.6.8 Employment Lands, an analysis is provided of available lands which have potential to generate jobs. The purpose of this analysis was to ascertain whether sufficient employment lands are zoned to provide for the projected additional workforce for the Plan period up to 2028. Based on the analysis, there is a total capacity, excluding REGEN lands, to develop 624 hectares to facilitate further employment. This would more than meet the projected employment growth of 18,336 jobs over the Plan period set out in section 2.6.8 of the Core Strategy in the Draft Plan.

The OPR welcomed the evidence-based approach that has informed the strategy in the Draft Plan and considered the lands zoned for employment uses to be compliant with the RSES Guiding Principles for the Dublin Metropolitan Area and employment land and consistent with RPO 4.3 which states:

‘Support the consolidation and re-intensification of infill/brownfield sites to provide high density and people intensive uses within the existing built-up area of Dublin City and suburbs and ensure that the development of future development areas is co-ordinated with the delivery of key water infrastructure and public transport projects.’

Following Amendment 2.20, the OPR’s submission to the Material Amendments states that there is no evidence base or strategic justification to support the rezoning of these lands for a significant quantum of additional EE uses, noting the Greenogue Business Park is not identified as a strategic employment area in the RSES and the zoning is not consistent with RPO 5.6which states:

‘The development of future employment lands in the Dublin Metropolitan Area shall follow a sequential approach, with a focus on the re-intensification of employment lands within the M50 and at selected strategic development areas and provision of appropriate employment densities in tandem with the provision of high-quality public transport corridors.’

As the proposed site is not located within the M50 or at a selected strategic development location, the rezoning of this land for EE is premature. The OPR submission also indicates that the site in question is also isolated from a high-quality public transport corridor.

Flood Risk

The Office of Public Works (OPW) submission identified that the uses provided for under the EE zoning are classified as ‘less vulnerable’ under the Guidelines on the Planning System and Flood Risk Management (DECLG/OPW, 2009). Less vulnerable uses cannot be located within Flood Zones A or B, which these lands are, unless they satisfy the criteria for the Plan Making Justification Test set out in the Guidelines. The lands do not satisfy all of the relevant criteria. This was outlined in the CE Report on the Draft Plan submitted to the Elected Members on 7th December 2021 and was further discussed at the meetings which considered the Draft Plan in March 2022. The OPR also stated that the revised Justification Test which formed part of the Material Amendments acknowledges the flood risk in the general area of Greenogue/Baldonnel.

Regarding Flood Attenuation acting as a flood defence, Section 2.25 of the ‘The Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines’ states:

‘The provision of flood protection measures in appropriate locations, such as in or adjacent to town centres, can significantly reduce flood risk. However, the presence of flood protection structures should be ignored in determining flood zones. This is because areas protected by flood defences still carry a residual risk of flooding from overtopping or breach of defences and the fact that there may be no guarantee that the defences will be maintained in perpetuity…’.

Though flood attenuation can mitigate against flooding, the guidance on this issue clearly states that all flood protections should be ignored in determining flood zones. As this is the case, the Amazon flood defences cannot be taken account of in determining the flood zones and the CFRAM mapping correctly identifies Flood Zones A and B on the lands proposed for rezoning to EE.

Impact on National Road/Rail and Public Transport Access:

The current access to the site is located from the N7. The OPR and TII have noted that the subject lands are located in proximity to Junction 4 of the N7, where the council should be mindful that any development proposals shall be subject to the requirements under Section 2.7 of the DoECLG Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidance. It states:

‘Planning authorities must exercise particular care in their assessment of development/local area plan proposals relating to the development objectives and/or zoning of locations at or close to interchanges where such development could generate significant additional traffic with potential to impact on the national road. They must make sure that such development which is consistent with planning policies can be catered for by the design assumptions underpinning such junctions and interchanges, thereby avoiding potentially compromising the capacity and efficiency of the national road / associated junctions and possibly leading to the premature and unacceptable reduction in the level of service available to road users.’

The proposed rezoning, of approximately 53 hectares (130 acres), is a significant addition to the existing zoning in this area adjacent to and reliant on Junction 4 of the N7. The scale of potential new development is likely to give rise to significant additional traffic movements both from workers getting to and from the site and from transport related enterprise, to and from this junction which is already subject to capacity constraints. Having regard to the submissions from TII and the OPR on junction capacity, the fact that no assessment has been carried out on the impact on local and national roads, and the lack of public transport, the rezoning is not considered to be in the interests of proper planning and sustainable development. This is particularly in light of policy within the RSES which indicates that development within the metropolitan area should be carried out sequentially, whereby lands which are, or will be, most accessible by walking, cycling and public transport – including infill and brownfield sites – are prioritised. For all of the reasons outlined above, it is considered inappropriate to rezone the lands at Greenogue as proposed within Amendment 2.20 and 9.4.

Conclusion

Having regard to the above and to National Strategic Outcome 1 (Compact Growth), National Policy Objective 11 of the NPF, Regional Policy Objectives 5.3 and 5.6 of the RSES, Guidelines on the Planning System and Flood Risk Management (DECLG/OPW, 2009), Section2.7 of the ‘Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2012) and the ‘Development Plans, Guidelines for Planning Authorities: Draft for Consultation (2021), it is considered inappropriate to rezone the lands as proposed by Amendment 2.20 with the associated SLO Amendment 9.4.

CE Recommendation:  Make the Plan without Amendments 2.20 and 9.4 for proposed rezoning at Greenogue Business Park and retain the RU zoning objective ‘To protect and improve rural amenity and to provide for the development of agriculture’ in the Draft Plan.