23 & 24/11/2010 COMHAIRLE CATHRACH BHAILE ÁTHA CLIATH · 23 & 24/11/2010 COMHAIRLE CATHRACH BHAILE...

23 & 24/11/2010 COMHAIRLE CATHRACH BHAILE ÁTHA CLIATH

Miontuairiscí Chruinniúl Speisialta a tionóladh ar 23 Samhain 2010 (cuireadh ar ath-

lo go 24 Samhain 2010) i Seomra na Comhairle, Halla na Cathrach, Cnoc Chorcaí ag 6.45 i.n.

I Láthair an tArdmheara, An Comhairleoir Gerry Breen sa chathaoir.

1. The Lord Mayor opened the meeting by informing the Members that he was adjourning the meeting for ten minutes to allow them time to peruse documents circulated by the Ethics Registrar on foot of a complaint received suggesting that there had been a breach of the Code of Ethics by a Member during the process of the preparation of this Development Plan. For full text of the documents, see attached Appendix A, B, C and D to these minutes. On resumption of the meeting, the Lord Mayor informed the Members that the Ethics Registrar had made his ruling and it was contained in the aforesaid documents (Appendix A, B C & D). Several Members spoke on the issue, saying that while they wished to hear the Law Agent’s advice on whether there was any

Comhairleoir: Comhairleoir: Comhairleoir

Paddy Bourke Tom Brabazon Christy Burke Eric Byrne Aine Clancy Joan Collins Michael Conaghan Emer Costello Pat Crimmins Dessie Ellis Mary Fitzpatrick Declan Flanagan Mannix Flynn Killian Forde Mary Freehill John Gallagher

Oifigigh John Tierney Michael Stubbs Terence O’Keeffe Vincent Norton Jim Keogan

Deirdre Heney Kevin Humphreys Vincent Jackson Sean Kenny Dermot Lacey John Lyons Ray MacAdam Paul McAuliffe Ruairí McGinley Séamas McGrattan Marie Metcalfe Louise Minihan Andrew Montague Rebecca Moynihan Eoghan Murphy Críona Ní Dhálaigh Eileen Quinlivan Michael Rossiter John O’Hara Vivienne Byrne Siobhan O’Connor

Catherine Noone Jim O’Callaghan Aodhán Ó Ríordáin Damian O’Farrell Naoise O Muirí Claire O’Regan Mary O’Shea Larry O’Toole Maria Parodi Cieran Perry Oisín Quinn John Redmond Nial Ring Brid Smith Bill Tormey Henry Upton Edie Wynne Dick Gleeson Elaine Fitzpatrick Carmel Walsh Tom Vaughan Oonagh Casey

23 & 24/11/2010 obstruction to proceeding with the process of making the Development Plan, they themselves were adamant that they had not been influenced in any way by any other Member of the City Council when coming to decisions and that most decisions were agreed in party groups. Councillor K Humphreys said that he welcomed the comments of the other Members of the City Council, that the decisions in question were not site-specific, that they were general issues and that all 52 Councillors make up their own minds on issues. Councillor O Quinn said that he welcomed the discussion and noted that the decision of the Ethics Registrar was that there had been no breach of the Code of Ethics in this case. The Law Agent then informed the Members that, in his opinion, there was no reason not to proceed with the meeting and finish the process of making the Development Plan 2011 – 2017.

2. Submitted Report No. 385/2010 of Assistant City Manager (M. Stubbs). It was proposed by Councillor B Tormey and seconded by Councillor V Jackson “That Dublin City Council notes the contents of Report No 385/2010”. The motion was put and carried.

3. Consideration of the Proposed Amendments, the Manager’s Report and

Recommendations on submissions and observations received on the proposed amendment to the Draft Dublin City Development Plan 2011 – 2017, Members Motions, the Manager’s Report and Recommendations on Motions (Report No. 386 / 2010) and consideration of the Manager’s responses and recommendations on submissions and observations received in relation to the Amendment on which no Motions were received – see Appendix E for full list of Motions and decisions thereon.

For details of Manager’s Recommendations referred to in minutes, see Report No. 386/2010. The same reference numbers have been used for the motions in the minutes as used on the summons for the meeting. All motions were deemed to be proposed by the Councillor(s) in whose names they were submitted and all were seconded by Lord Mayor Gerry Breen.

In relation to Motions 3059 to 3077 inclusive and 3081 to 3092 inclusive, a composite motion on density, plot ratio and height, tabled by Councillor K. Humphreys and seconded by Councillor R. McGinley, was put before the Council. The meeting was adjourned to allow time for all Members to consider this motion. On resumption of the meeting, the motion was carried following a roll call vote (see Appendix F for the wording of this motion and Appendix G for the roll-call vote). Motions 3059 to 3077, inclusive and 3081 to 3092, inclusive were then declared to have fallen. An amendment to this motion proposed by Councillor D. Lacey and seconded by Councillor M. Freehill was defeated following a roll call vote (see Appendix H for the wording of this motion and Appendix J for the roll-call vote ). A 2nd amendment to Councillor Humphrey’s agreed motion, proposed by Councillor J. O'Callaghan and seconded by Councillor T. Brabazon, was defeated following a roll call vote (see Appendix K for the wording of this motion and Appendix L for the roll-call vote). A 3rd amendment to Councillor Humphrey’s agreed motion, proposed by Councillor P. McAuliffe and seconded by Councillor D. Heney, was defeated (see Appendix M for the wording of this motion ).

23 & 24/11/2010

4. Adoption of the Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017. The following motion was proposed by Councillor M Flynn and seconded by Councillor R McGinley “It is hereby resolved that the City Council, being the Planning Authority for the City of Dublin, having complied with the provisions of Part II of the Planning and Development Act 2000 as amended:

Reviewed the Dublin City Development Plan 2005-2011 relating to the administrative area of the City of Dublin,

Considered the Manager’s Report on submissions and observations received during the Draft Development Plan Consultation Stage,

Issued directions to the Manager regarding the preparation of the Draft Development Plan,

Considered the Proposed Draft Development Plan at meetings held on 25th November, 2009 and 2nd and 3rd December 2009 and resolved on 3rd December 2009 that the Draft Plan was now prepared and that notice of the preparation of the Draft Plan was to be published and put on public display,

Considered the Report of the Manager on Submissions and Observations received on the Draft Development Plan,

Published Proposed Amendment to the Draft Development Plan on 18th August 2010 agreed by the Elected Members at meetings held on 26th, 27th, and 28th July 2010.

Considered the Proposed Amendment to the Draft Development Plan and the Report of the Manager at meetings held on 23rd and 24th November 2010.

hereby adopts for the purpose of making the Dublin City Development Plan 2011 – 2017,

o The document titled Draft Dublin City Development Plan 2011 – 2017 including ten (10) maps lettered A – H and J - K,

o The document titled Proposed Amendment to the Draft Dublin City Development Plan 2011 –2017 including ten (10) maps A – H, and J - K,

o The Environmental Report and Appropriate Assessment of the Draft Plan and Proposed Amendment of Draft Plan,

o The Report of the City Manager on the Submissions on the Proposed Amendment to the Draft Development Plan, together with the Manager’s recommended changes, as further amended by the Members at the City Council Meeting on 23rd and 24th November, 2010.

hereby makes the Dublin City Development Plan 2011 – 2017 and it is further resolved that the seal of the Council be affixed to the documents and ten (10) maps lettered A – H and J - K incorporating the original draft and all the agreed amendments which together are the Dublin City Development Plan 2011 – 2017 and that the necessary notices of the making of the Dublin City Development Plan 2011 – 2017 be published in accordance with the said Acts.” The motion was put and carried.

5.

The Lord Mayor and Members thanked the City Manager, Assistant City Manager and all their staff for the efficiency in carrying out the review of Dublin

23 & 24/11/2010 City Development Plan 2005 – 2011 and preparing the current Development Plan 2011 – 2017.

The City Manager thanked the Lord Mayor and previous Chairs for their skill-full handling of all the Special Meetings of the City Council dealing with the review and all the Members of the Council for their contributions and commitment in the course of the Special Meetings in bringing it forward to a resolution. He also thanked the Assistant City Manager, Michael Stubbs and all his staff for their hard work and dedication over the 2 year process.

Councillors Humphreys, O’Muirí, McGinley, O’Toole, Fitzpatrick, Flynn, Kenny, Jackson and Lacey paid tribute to the Lord Mayor for the efficient manner in which he chaired all the meetings dealing with the review. They also expressed their appreciation to the members of the public for their meaningful engagement with the process and for all their comments and submissions. They also thanked the Manager and his staff for their dedication in the course of the review and for the co-operation shown to the Members at all times.

The meeting on the 23rd November 2010 was adjourned at 10pm in accordance with Standing Orders and all items remaining on the Agenda were deferred to the next night, Wednesday, 24th November at 6pm. The meeting on the 24th November finished at 8.15pm when all business on the agenda had been concluded.

Correct. ________________________ _________________________ LORD MAYOR MEETINGS ADMINISTRATOR

23rd November 2010

On 19th November 2010 I received a complaint which related to the submission by Cllr.

Oisin Quinn of a resolution in respect of height issues in Dublin 2, where he owns a

property. It is claimed that this motion sought to influence a decision of the authority in

breach of the Local Government Act 2001.

Furthermore, it is alleged that through Cllr. Quinn speaking positively to and voting for,

resolutions in December 2009 and July 2010 which would have allowed increases in

height across the Inner City including his own property he also sought to influence a

decision of the Authority.

Cllr. Quinn did not leave the Council Chamber following his disclosure at the July 2010

meeting of his interest in a property in Dublin 2 nor did he refrain from voting on the

composite motion agreed which was moved in the name of Cllr. Humphreys and

seconded by Cllr. McGinley and carried by a roll call vote (31 for, 12 against, 1 absentee).

Item 04b, Appendix C (page 411) provided for among other issues for height in the inner

city area at six storeys residential and seven storeys office (19 metres – 28 Metres).

As Ethics Registrar, I sought and received from a response Cllr. Oisin Quinn and was

satisfied that there were insufficient grounds to substantiate the complaint made against

him. I also sought legal advice in this regard.

The issues have now been referred to the Standards in Public Office Commission and

Dublin City Council have been asked to suspend consideration of this part of the Draft

Development Plan pending resolution of this matter by the Standards in Public Office

Commission. The have given us notice that if Dublin City Council proceeds to adopt the

amended Draft City Development Plan and the relevant votes are not re-taken that they

might take legal action in the High Court seeking recission of the Plan.

I am still satisfied that there are insufficient grounds to substantiate the complaint against

Cllr. Quinn.

Vincent Norton

Executive Manager

APPENDIX A: MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD ON 23rd & 24th NOVEMBER 2010

APPENDIX B: MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD ON 23rd & 24th NOVEMBER 2010

Appendix C: Minutes of Special Meeting held on 23rd & 24th November 2010

1

From: [email protected] on behalf of Michael Smith [[email protected]]Sent: 23 November 2010 15:48To: [email protected]: urgent re Dublin City Development Plan and Cllr Oisín Quinn. Cc City Legal agentAttachments: revised sipo complaint quinn; 1122_Michael Smith and Cllr C Perry_6 Ormond Quay

Upper-3.pdf

6 Ormond Quay Upr Dublin 7 23 November 2010 Mr John Tierney Dublin City Manager Civic Offices Wood Quay Dublin 8 Dear Manager, We have today delivered the enclosed complaint to the Standards in Public Office Commission about the handling of resolutions relating to height in Dublin City in theprocess of the Development Plan Review currently coming to an end in Dublin CityCouncil. We now call on you to suspend consideration of this part of the development plan pending resolution of this matter by the Standards in Office Commission and hereby give notice thatif Dublin City Council proceeds to adopt the amended Draft Dublin City Development Plan- and the relevant votes are not re-taken and the Development Plan returned to the Draftstage for debate without Councillor Oisín Quinn’s input - we reserve the right to take legal action in the High Court seeking its rescission. We have asked SIPO to consider and resolve this complaint in all its aspects within four weeks of today’s date, to enable us, if necessary and appropriate, to use the decision toground a legal action seeking rescission of relevant parts of the development plan on the back of its decision, within the time limit of eight weeks from adoption of the developmentplan. We ask you to submit this letter for the attention of all City Councillors in advance of theirdeliberations today 23rd November. Can you kindly please acknowledge receipt. Yours faithfully, Michael Smith Councillor Cieran Perry 6 Ormond Quay Upr

Appendix D: Minutes of Special Meeting held on 23rd & 24th Nov 2010

2

Dublin 7 23 November 2010 The Secretary The Standards in Public Office Commission 18 Lower Leeson St Dublin 2

Re: Section 177 of the Local Government Act 2001 and section 3 of the Code of Conduct for Councillors 2004; and Councillor Oisín Quinn’s stance in Dublin City

Council on resolutions in November and December 2009 and July 2010, which sought to define the term ‘low-rise’ in the Dublin City Development Plan

Dear Secretary, We are making this complaint under section 4 (1) (b) of the Standards in Public Office Act 2001 and under section 180 (2) (a) of the Local Government Act 2001 which states that the Ethics in Public Office Acts and ‘the powers of investigation and report’ conferred on the Standards in Public Office Commission apply to ‘a member of a local authority’. On December 2 2009 Councillor Oisín Quinn proposed resolution 1063 (which passed 26: 18 with six abstentions) on the then Draft Dublin City Development Plan defining low-rise height in Inner City Dublin, at a level which exceeded the accepted global definition of low-rise, at 25m for office developments. He spoke persuasively to the resolution. He voted for his resolution. His resolution passed. We wish formally to complain about his involvement in this resolution. During a July 2010 debate the City Councillors actually decided to increase the height in the now-prevailing amended Draft Development Plan further to 28m for office development in the Inner City. Councillor Quinn spoke persuasively to the resolution. He voted for the resolution. The resolution passed. We wish formally to complain about his involvement in this resolution too. The resolution was a composite motion (we believe it is described in Appendix E to the Council’s minutes of the meeting of 27 July stated todeal with ‘height, density etc’ – though Mr Norton considers another vote entirely) which comprehended a number of other resolutions, only two of which proposed increases in the definition of low-rise in the Inner City; and many of which proposed reductions. One of the resolutions proposing an increase, which fell, was Councillor Quinn’s – suggesting, since the composite too proposed an increase, that his resolution was a significant contributor of the substance of what was after all described as a ‘compromise’ composite. We wish formally to complain about his involvement in this resolution too.


50513

Stamp

3

Before the debate, Councillor Oisín Quinn had thought the height should be increased even further – at least for part of the Inner City. He consequently had submitted a motion for the July 2010 debate on the Draft Plan (motion 2597) which sought an increase from a “low rise” maximum of 6 office-storeys to a maximum of 8 office-storeys (i.e. 32/33m - the equivalent of c.11 residential storeys), in Dublin 2 (but excluding the Georgian Core lands there, zoned Z8). The motion also indicated that development should, as is normal, comply with the other more general standards set out in the Development Plan. Recordings of all the debates are available from Dublin City Council and on its web-site. Councillor Oisín Quinn has an interest in a substantial and valuable Inner City property, the Revenue Commissioners’ Building, stretching from Nos 85 to 93 Lower Mount Street, Dublin 2; and in 84 Mount St. He has disclosed this in writing to the Council, as required. He also disclosed his interest at the City Council meeting in July 2010. He seems to believethis, particularly when combined with the apparent blind imprimatur of the manager andlegal agent (in July 2010 though not in December 2009) about whom we also officiallycomplain - constituted compliance with the ethics provisions of the Local Government Act. However, section 177 (1) of the Local Government Act 2001 says that a Councillor, such as Councillor Quinn, who has a pecuniary or other beneficial interest in the matter should:

(i) disclose the nature of his or her interest, or the fact of a connected person's interest at the meeting, and before discussion or consideration of the matter commences, and

(ii) withdraw from the meeting for so long as the matter is being discussed or considered,

and, accordingly, he or she shall take no part in the discussion or consideration of the matter and shall refrain from voting in relation to it.

The clauses are conjunctive not disjunctive; and they are clear. No credit is given under the Act for disclosures without ‘withdraw[al]’, ‘tak[ing] no part in the discussion or consideration’, and ‘refrain[ing] from voting’. Furthermore – and crucially to this complaint - section 177 (4) of the Act makes it clear that the standard is so stringent that a Councillor, such as Councillor Quinn, should not just take no part in discussion and refrain from voting but also not influence or seek to influence the decision (as for example by submitting a motion):

A member of a local authority or of any committee, joint committee or joint body of a local authority shall neither influence nor seek to influence a decision of the authority in respect of any matter which he or she has actual knowledge that he or she or a


4

connected person has a pecuniary or other beneficial interest in, or which is material to, any matter which is proposed, or otherwise arises from or as regards the performance by the authority of any of its functions under this or any other enactment.

This complaint is that Councillor Quinn has breached the ethics provisions of the Local Government Act 2001 and the associated code of conduct for councillors (sections 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of the code. Also section 3.7 which notes the standard to apply is 'whether a member of the public knowing the facts of the situation would reasonably think that the interest concerned might influence the person in the performance of his or her functions'. And Section 4 of the Code which emphasises the importance of scrupulousness on the part of councillors in dealing with planning matters [such as the making of the development plan]: ‘extra care must therefore be observed in dealing with planning matters’. We say that he breached these provisions in three ways: First, through his submitting the resolution (which admittedly was not taken) relating to Dublin 2, the very submission of which amounted to ‘seeking to influence’ a decision of the authority in breach of the 2001 Act. Also, through his speaking persuasively to, and voting for, other resolutions in, second, December 2009 (when he also actually proposed the motion) and, third, July 2010 which would have allowed increases in heights across the Inner City including for his own property on Lower Mount Street. Councillor Quinn made no disclosure before the 2009 meeting and his disclosure before the 2010 meeting was not accompanied by his leaving the chamber and refraining from voting. We submit that while the area covered by the resolutions to which he spoke was many times greater than the more confined area of Dublin 2 [minus the Z8-zoned areas), that the areas referred to in the resolutions discussed in 2009 and 2010 and the resolution submitted by Councillor Quinn in 2010 are both identifiable enough as restricted geographical areas so that he should have complied with the Act – and refrained from seeking to influence, speaking or voting. While Councillor Quinn has informed us that he does not believe it is reasonable to expect every single property owner in Dublin City to absent themselves from the meeting for the composite resolution, elements of which affect the whole city, we submit as an aside that this is a very good reason for not allowing extraordinarily wide-ranging and anti-democratic composite resolutions to be taken. Furthermore we submit the provisions might reasonably be deemed to apply only to Councillors whose property interest was subject to a change that would affect their pecuniary interest – a far smaller, indeed an insignificant, number. In any event, the July resolution and the resolution regarding Dublin 2 (minus core Georgian areas) which fell would not have triggered the ethics provisions for a significant number of councillors since they were more geographically restricted. The Dublin 2 Resolution, in particular, effected possible increases in height for a very small area. Docklands is subject to a different regime, Temple Bar has traditionally benefited from a presumption against permissions for offices and the Georgian areas are expressly excluded by the terms of the


5

resolution. This left a remarkably small area affected by the resolution. Councillor Quinn’s interest was not remote or abstract. A complaint along these lines was rejected on 22 Nov by Dublin City’s Ethics Registrar, Chief Executive Officer in the Department of the Manager, Mr Vincent Norto,n who decidednot to forward the complaint to the SIPO commission. We enclose this rejection. Since the City Manager worked very closely with Councillor Quinn on matters relating to height in Dublin City and was involved in giving dubious advice to the Councillor about theneed for a disclosure in July 2010 – we submit that this complaint – itself about conflicts ofinterest - should have been dealt with by another official, with less of a perceived conflict ofinterest than Mr Norton. Clearly the registrar did not have adequate time to deal with the matter. He does not deal with the three separate heads of our complaint, he does not deal with the complaint aboutthe Dublin 2 resolution at all and seems to have dealt with a resolution on 26 July 2010rather than the one dealing with ‘height, density etc’ that was considered on 27 July. The amended Draft Dublin City Development Plan which will determine the scale of all development in the city until 2017, is due for final debate by City Councillors on 23rdNovember. This amended Draft Plan is tainted by the influential input of Councillor Quinn, whichappears to have swayed the votes of many councillors especially those of his Labour Partycolleagues – enough to have swung the majority vote in both (most clearly) December 2009and July 2010. We ask the SIPO commission to consider recommending the rescission ofthese tainted resolutions, if they prevail at today’s meeting. We ask the commission to consider and resolve this complaint in all its aspects within fourweeks of today’s date, to enable us, if necessary and appropriate, to use the decision toground a legal action seeking rescission of the relevant parts of the development plan on the back of its decision, within the time limit of eight weeks from adoption of the developmentplan. Yours faithfully, Michael Smith Councillor Cieran Perry


23 November 2010

Chapter 3 Development Plan Vision and Core Strategy

Section 3.2.7.1 Area - Specific Plans

3001 Cllr. Aine Clancy, Cllr. Emer Costello, Cllr. Claire O'Regan

That the City Council accepts the manager‟s report to remove the Navan Road from the Pellettstown LAP and instead calls for a separate LAP be drawn up for the Navan Road area which would address issues such as environment, community, planning, precinct improvements and traffic calming. (Manager‟s report page 11)

Motion

It was agreed to remove the Navan Road from the Pelletstown LAP and to include the Navan Road in Objective SC09 as part of a Village Improvement Plan.

3002 Cllr. Brid Smith, Cllr. Joan Collins

That this Council amends Table 5 of Section 3.2.7.1 to include “Crumlin”

Motion

The report and recommendation of the Manager was AGREED

Section 3.3.2.2 Revitalising the City's Economy

3003 Deputy Lord Mayor, Cllr. Edie Wynne

This Council resolves to omit reference to RTE and St Vincent‟s Hospital at Par. 3.3.2.2 of the Amended Draft Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017 where it states: “Southwards from Trinity College to UCD, primarily as a knowledge and innovation corridor including RTE as the national media centre and St. Vincent‟s Hospital”.

So that it reads “Southwards from Trinity College to UCD, primarily as a knowledge and innovation corridor”.

Motion


Chapter 4 Shaping the City

Section 4.4.1.1 Approach to the Inner City (see glossary)

3004 Cllr. Jim O'Callaghan

This Council agrees to reinstate policy SC5A as a policy in the Dublin City Development Plan which provides that it shall be a policy of the Council:

“to promote the reinstatement of the Georgian façade of the sixteen Georgian houses on Fitzwilliam Street Lower which were demolished in 1965”.

Councillor O. Quinn declared an interest in this item and withdrew from the Chamber.

Motion

The motion was put and carried

APPENDIX E: MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD ON 23rd & 24th NOVEMBER 2010

23 November 2010

Section 4.4.1.2 Approach to the Docklands and Port

3005 Cllr. Nial Ring

That in relation to Dublin Port:

That the Dublin City Development Plan recognises the important regional and national role played by Dublin Port in facilitating the movement of goods and people into and out of this trading state.

That the Development Plan also recognises the continued and increasing importance of imports and exports in this small open economy and the need to support the provision of efficient distribution channels in the interest of national competitiveness.

That the Development Plan recognises that Dublin Port plays a major role in passenger travel and support the need for adequate ferry terminal services.

That the Development plan recognises the importance of Dublin City and Bay as an amenity and the ports crucial links with both

That the Development Plan acknowledges Dublin Port‟s role as the largest employer of local people in the Port area

That the Development Plan recognises the importance of Dublin City Council and Dublin Port Company entering into a dialogue around their mutual remits, within which issues such as co-location, cooperation and coordinated development can be discussed.

with the following additional paragraph,that Dublin City Council recommends Dublin Port as a major source of employment in the area as well as the need for ferry terminal service and linkages to the natural amenities of Dublin Bay and include national and regional in the first line.

Motion


Chapter 5 Connecting and Sustaining the Citys Infrastructure

Section 5.1.4.3 Public Transport

3006 Cllr. Oisín Quinn

Insert Policy SI5 as follows:

“It is the Policy of Dublin City Council not to provide for a Luas line along Brighton Square or Brighton Road in view of the negative impact same would have on the residential amenity and conservation and heritage character of these residential roads. Dublin City Council will seek to influence the alignment of the potential Luas BXD line in a way which facilitates the provision of this transport service without negatively impacting on areas of heritage and amenity value."

Motion



23 November 2010


It is the policy of Dublin City Council to oppose any Luas Line that would adversely impact on the Brighton Square/Brighton Road Residential Conservation Area

Motion



This Council resolves to amend the Draft Dublin City Development Plan to the inclusion of the following as policy SI5 of the Development Plan:“To oppose any Luas line that would adversely impact on the Brighton Square/Brighton Road residential conservation area”

Motion


3009 Cllr. Mary Freehill

DCC rejects Manager‟s recommendation to omit SI5. To oppose any Luas Line that would adversely impact on the Brighton Square/Brighton Road Residential Conservation area

Motion


3010 Cllr. Dermot Lacey

This Council agrees to retain Policy SI5 as is in the Plan adopted in July relation to LUAS and Brighton Square and rejects the Manager‟s Recommendation

Motion


3011 Cllr. Eoghan Murphy

That the Manager‟s recommendation to omit policy SI5 be rejected (pg. 22)

Motion



23 November 2010

Section 5.1.4.4 Cycling

3012 Cllr. Andrew Montague

That the manager changes the last bullet point in SIO10:From:A new cycle parking strategy to provide guidance on the nature, quantum andlocation of cycling parking facilities in the city to address cycle parking needs at public transport stops and interchange and other key destinations and attractions

To:A new cycle parking strategy to provide guidance on the nature, quantum andlocation of cycling parking facilities in the city to address cycle parking needs at public transport stops and interchange, other key destinations and attractions and at all new and existing publicly accessible buildings such as shops, hotels, health centres, theatres, cinemas etc.

And adds an additional bullet point in this section:Where existing shops and publicly accessible buildings do not have parking provision for cyclists, it shall be an objective in any development proposal, to secure adequate parking facilities for bikes.

Motion

This motion was ruled OUT OF ORDER


That the manager changes 5.1.4.4 From:CyclingCycling is a healthy, efficient and environmentally friendly form of transport that has the potential to transform quality of life in the city and improve the health and well being of citizens. The vision for cycling is to make Dublin a city where people of all ages and abilities have the confidence, incentive and facilities to cycle so that by 2017, 25-30% of all new commutes within the city will be by bike. Infrastructure works will concentrate on improving cycle safety, access, parking and developing and improving the Dublin Cycle Network (See Appendix 7 for Strategic Cycle Network).

To:CyclingCycling is a healthy, efficient and environmentally friendly form of transport that has the potential to transform quality of life in the city and improve the health and well being of citizens. The vision for cycling is to make Dublin a city where people of all ages and abilities have the confidence, incentive and facilities to cycle so that by 2017, 15% of all commutes within the city will be by bike. Infrastructure works will concentrate on improving cycle safety, access, parking and developing and improving the Dublin Cycle Network (See Appendix 7 for Strategic Cycle Network).

Motion



23 November 2010

Section 5.1.4.8 Road Capacity Improvements


That the following sentence be added at the end of policy SI17, as per submission 4028 and referenced by the Manager in his report (pg. 23): The Proposal has not been costed and is not part of Transport 21. A link to the National Roads network via the Port tunnel already exists.

Motion


Section 5.2.4.6 Wastewater


That the following clarifying additional language be included as part of the proposed amendment on the wastewater section, ending „upgrade existing treatment plants to their ultimate capacity‟: The Poolbeg/Ringsend waste water treatment plant is already operating at capacity. (pg. 25, and pg. 46 Proposed Amendments)

Motion

The City Council agreed to permit Cllr to withdraw this motion

Chapter 6 Greening the City

Section 6.4.2 Landscape

3016 Cllr. Christy Burke, Cllr. Mary Fitzpatrick, Cllr. Aine Clancy, Cllr.

Mary O'Shea, Deputy Lord Mayor, Cllr. Edie Wynne, Cllr. Kevin

Humphreys, Cllr. Marie Metcalfe, Cllr. Emer Costello, Cllr. Claire

O'Regan

This Council resolves to amend Objectives GCO5A and GCO8 to include the Phoenix Park in the areas proposed as Special Amenity Areas

Motion



That the wording „and existing green spaces‟ be reinstated in policy GC9 (pg. 28, and pg. 53 Proposed Amendments).

Motion


Section 6.4.4 Rivers, Canals, and the Coastline


Section 6.4.4 proposed GC17A, to include after the first sentence:It is the policy of Dublin City Council to seek an overall Liffey River Authority, an example would be the Lagan River Authority.

Motion

This motion was defeated


23 November 2010


That the manager change 6.4.4From:as per the IFI's recommendations: River walks can be developed in the riparian zone if sensitively designed and implemented in consultation with Inland Fisheries Ireland. The creation and / or enhancement of riparian buffer zones is recommended where possible which, if sufficiently large and managed appropriately will: maintain or create habitat necessary for fish and other aquatic life; filter out pollutants and sediments from overland surface runoff; provide significant amenity and recreational value, and enhance flood alleviation

To:as per the IFI's recommendations: River walks and cycleways can be developed in the riparian zone if sensitively designed and implemented in consultation with Inland Fisheries Ireland. The creation and / or enhancement of riparian buffer zones is recommended where possible which, if sufficiently large and managed appropriately will: maintain or create habitat necessary for fish and other aquatic life; filter out pollutants and sediments from overland surface runoff; provide significant amenity and recreational value, and enhance flood alleviation.

Motion



That the following clarifying language be inserted in to policy GC20 (pg. 55 Proposed Amendments): with full regard to the Dublin City Biodiversity Action Plan, Special Amenity Areas, and the Birds and Habitats Directive.

Motion


Section 6.4.7 Sport, Recreation and Play

3021 Cllr. Mary Fitzpatrick

It is an objective of Dublin City Council to promote sporting activities in Dublin City. The Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017 will undertake a survey of all sporting facilities in Dublin City and invite all current users and representative sporting organisations active in the city for a statement of their projected needs for the life of the plan and amend the plan to reflect those requirements.

Motion



23 November 2010

Chapter 7 Fostering Dublin’s Character and Culture

Section 7.2.5.3 Conservation Areas

3022 Cllr. Mary Freehill, Cllr. Eoghan Murphy

This Council resolves to amend the suggested new policy FC38A recommended by the Manager to omit the underlined word as follows:“To promote sensitive reinstatement or redevelopment of infill or other appropriate sites in Georgian or other areas of architectural or historical merit with a design style and architectural language that is compatible with context enhances existing character and safeguards against the development of pastiche, unimaginative interventions in the urban fabric of the city."

And to insert the underlined words as follows: “To promote sensitive reinstatement or redevelopment of infill or other appropriate sites in Georgian or other areas of architectural or historical merit with a design style and architectural language that is compatible with context, enhances existing character, accurately replicates original elevation and roof profile detail, and safeguards against the development of pastiche interventions in the urban fabric of the city”

Motion


Section 7.2.5.6 Dublin City Heritage Plan


In order to correspond to that which was agreed at the 2nd of December 2009 Meeting, the underlined words need to be omitted, and, in order to correct the typo in question, the underlined year needs to be changed: FC57To preserve, repair and retain in situ, where possible, historic elements ofsignificance in the public realm including railings, milestones, city ward stones, streetfurniture, ironmongery, and any historic kerbing and setts identified in Appendices 12and 13 of the Development Plan, and promote high standards for design, materialsand workmanship in public realm improvements. Works involving such elementsshall be carried out in accordance with the Historic Street Surfaces in DublinConservation Study and Guidance Document (2008)

To read as follows: FC57To preserve, repair and retain in situ historic elements ofsignificance in the public realm including railings, milestones, city ward stones, streetfurniture, ironmongery, and any historic kerbing and setts identified in Appendices 12and 13 of the Development Plan, and promote high standards for design, materialsand workmanship in public realm improvements. Works involving such elementsshall be carried out in accordance with the Historic Street Surfaces in DublinConservation Study and Guidance Document (2009)

and bring it back to the full Council as quickly as possible thereafter.

Motion

The Manager agreed to bring this motion to the first meeting of the SPC after Christmas


23 November 2010

Chapter 9 Revitalising the City's Economy

Section 9.4.4 Clusters and Corridors


That the following clarification be added to the end of the proposed amendment (pg. 81 Proposed Amendments): In this context and in the interests of clarity, the innovation corridors have no additional implications for zonings or standards, in particular those pertaining to height, density, plot ratio and site coverage.

Motion



That this council is satisfied with section 9.4.4 policy RE17 and supports it as it stands. The Council does not support the proposed management amendment.

Motion


Section 9.4.7 Tourism: Visitors, International Education and Conventions

3026 Cllr. Mannix Flynn

Add additional examples to policy RE28 as follows:

To promote and facilitate the optimum benefits (including the international marketing benefits) to the city of the Convention Centre Dublin, as well as the National Cultural Institutes, the Abbey Theatre, The Chester Beatty Library, the National Archives, IMMA, Collins Barracks, the Phoenix Park, the National Gallery, the Hugh Lane Gallery, the Guinness Storehouse, the Georgian Squares and other major tourist attractions and to promote the Convention Centre Dublin area as a major business, tourism, hotel, entertainment and leisure destination of international standard. And to encourage developement of further tourist attractions and cultural developments and facilities.

Motion


Chapter 10 Strengthening the City as the National Retail Destination

Section 10.5.1 General Retail

3027 Cllr. Cieran Perry

That this Council reinstates policy RD9A which prohibits the further expansion of off licenses or part off licenses except in areas where a compelling case can be made. Any application for an off license should include a map of all off licenses located within 1km radius of the proposed development.

Motion



23 November 2010

3028 Cllr. Aine Clancy, Cllr. Henry Upton, Cllr. Emer Costello, Cllr.

Claire O'Regan

That the City Council rejects the Manager‟s Report to omit policy RD9A from the Development Plan and reinstates RD9A;Policy RD9A states: To prohibit the further expansion of off-licenses or part off-licenses except in areas where a compelling case can be made, any application for an off-licence should include a map of all the off-licenses located within a 1 km radius of the proposed development. (Manager‟s Report page 45)

Motion


Chapter 11 Providing Quality Homes in a Compact City

Section 11.4.2 Sustainable Residential Areas


In view of the Omission of policy QH7 from Section 11.4.2 on Sustainable Residential Areas, which omitted the policy of encouraging the subdivision of larger suburban houses, this Council resolves to include a new policy QH7 as follows:

“To discourage any substantial changes or additions to a residential property which fundamentally alter the residential nature of the residential property or if same conflicts with the residential character of the adjoining area or if same substantially decreases the likelihood of the property remaining primarily in residential use”.

Motion


Chapter 15 Land Use Zoning

Section 15.2 Challenges


Amend bullet point on Zoning Principles, Section 15.2

To:“The need to ensure that there is an adequate amount of Resource Lands available in the city both in existing established areas and regeneration/development areas, given the capacity for an additional 67,000 residential units in the city and the fact that the majority of land zoned Z15 is in active use and given that in many areas these facilities do not have the capacity to meet existing needs (in terms of school places and access to health and recreational facilities) and to ensure that there is capacity to meet the needs of existing and future residential communities, in particular for schools, hospitals and recreational activities."

Motion



23 November 2010

Section 15.7 Relaxation of Zoning Objectives for Protected Structures

3031 Cllr. Christy Burke, Cllr. Mary Freehill, Deputy Lord Mayor, Cllr.

Edie Wynne, Cllr. Marie Metcalfe

This Council resolves that the decision taken by Councillors to omit Section 15.7 „Relaxation of Zoning Objectives for Protected Structures‟ from the original text in the Draft Development Plan be observed and we reject the Manager's Recommendation that Section 15.7 be reinstated.

Motion



This Council rejects the manager‟s report to reinstate 15.7 in relation to the relaxation of zoning for protects structures and agrees that this section be omitted (Manager‟s Report p. 49)

Motion


Section 15.10.9 Amenity / Open Space Lands / Green Network - Zone Z9

3033 Cllr. Dr. Bill Tormey, Cllr. Mary O'Shea

The following wording should be reinstated at par. 15.10. 9

“Zone Z9 – Amenity/Open Space Lands/Green Network”:That in the case of sports facilities in private ownership, Dublin City Council recognises that a number of such facilities are under pressure to relocate so as to release resources for the maintenance and development of the club or sports facility. In highly exceptional circumstances, where it is considered to be required to secure, protect and consolidate the sporting and amenity nature of the lands and retain the facility in the local area, some limited degree of residential development may be permitted, on such sites on a once off basis and subject to the primary use of the site being retained for sporting/amenity use.”

Motion



23 November 2010

3034 Cllr. Christy Burke, Cllr. Mary Fitzpatrick, Deputy Lord Mayor,

Cllr. Edie Wynne, Cllr. Marie Metcalfe

This Council resolves that the decision taken by Councillors to omit wording from Section 15.10.9 of the original text in the Draft Development Plan be observed and we reject the Manager's Recommendation that the following wording of Section 15.10.9 be reinstated.

Specifically, residential development shall not be permitted on public or privately owned open space apart from limited once off development on lands accommodating private sports facilities as detailed below. In the case of sports facilities in private ownership, Dublin City Council recognises that a number of such facilities are under pressure to relocate so as to release resources for the maintenance and development of the club or sports facility. In highly exceptional circumstances, where it is considered to be required to secure, protect and consolidate the sporting and amenity nature of the lands and retain the facility in the local area, some limited degree of residential development may be permitted, on such sites on a once off basis and subject to the primary use of the site being retained for sporting/amenity use.

Motion


3035 Cllr. Dermot Lacey, Cllr. Jim O'Callaghan, Cllr. Mary Freehill

That section 15.10.9 should read:The provision of public open space is essential to the development of a strategic green network. The policy chapters, especially chapters 6 and 17, detailing the policies and objectives for landscape, biodiversity, open space and recreation and standards respectively, should be consulted to inform any proposed development.

Generally, the only new development allowed in these areas, other than the amenity/recreational uses themselves are those associated with the open space use.

Motion



23 November 2010


Dublin City Council agrees to re-insert section 15.10.9 as per the original text in the Draft Development Plan:

FromThe provision of public open space is essential to the development of a strategic green network. The policy chapters, especially chapters 6 and 17, detailing the policies and objectives for landscape, biodiversity, open space and recreation and standards respectively, should be consulted to inform any proposed development. Generally, the only new development allowed in these areas, other than the amenity/recreational uses themselves are those associated with the open space use.

ToThe provision of public open space is essential to the development of a strategic green network. The policy chapters, especially chapters 6 and 17, detailing the policies and objectives for landscape, biodiversity, open space and recreation and standards respectively, should be consulted to inform any proposed development. Generally, the only new development allowed in these areas, other than the amenity/recreational uses themselves are those associated with the open space use. Specifically, residential development shall not be permitted on public or privately owned open space apart from limited once off development on lands accommodating private sports facilities as detailed below.

In the case of sports facilities in private ownership, Dublin City Council recognises that a number of such facilities are under pressure to relocate so as to release resources for the maintenance and development of the club or sports facility. In highly exceptional circumstances, where it is considered to be required to secure, protect and consolidate the sporting and amenity nature of the lands and retain the facility in the local area, some limited degree of residential development may be permitted, on such sites on a once off basis and subject to the primary use of the site being retained for sporting/amenity use.

Motion


Section 15.10.13 Institutional Land (Future Development Potential) - Zone Z12

3037 Cllr. Dermot Lacey, Deputy Lord Mayor, Cllr. Edie Wynne

With reference to Section: 15.10.13 Dublin City Council agrees that:

On Z12 lands the minimum 20% public open space shall not be split up into sections and shall be comprised of soft landscape suitable for relaxation and children‟s play. Where existing significant landscape features and the particular recreational or nature conservation requirements of the site and area dictate, these features should be maintained in addition to the aforementioned requirement for a minimum 20% Public open space.

Motion



23 November 2010


DCC rejects the Managers amendment and resolves to delete all after -"OnZ12 lands the minimum 20% public open space shall not be split up into sections and shall be comprised of soft landscape suitable for relaxation and children's play." Ref Page 53 Manager's Report.

(The following Motion No's 3039 to 3041 were taken together and defeated. See Appendix N for roll call vote)

Motion


Section 15.10.15 Resource Lands (Education, Recreation, Community and Health) - Zone

Z15

3039 Lord Mayor,Cllr. Gerry Breen

Support the Manager‟s Recommendation to reinstate “residential” as a use “open for consideration” under the Z15 zoning objective.

Motion


3040 Cllr. Declan Flanagan, Cllr. Deirdre Heney, Deputy Lord Mayor,

Cllr. Edie Wynne

1. Support the Manager‟s Recommendation to reinstate “residential” as a use “open for consideration” under the Z15 zoning objective.

2. Modify the text under Section 15.10.15 of the Proposed Amendments to the Draft Plan as put on Public Display in August 2010 as follows.

A. Modify Paragraph 5 in the Proposed Amendments to read;

In the event that it is demonstrated to the planning authority that the lands are not required for their current community and institutional uses and that the lands zoned Z15 are to be redeveloped, in whole or in part, then a masterplan in accordance with the requirements set out will be required. (See Masterplan Requirements below).

B. Modify Paragraph 6 in the Proposed Amendments to read;

A masterplan is not required in the case of minor developments associated with the existing use; where the development proposed relates to extensions to the existing community and institutional use and would enhance the facilities.

C. Delete Paragraph 7 in the Proposed Amendments.

Motion



23 November 2010

3041 Cllr. Ruairi McGinley

That the 2011 Development Plan retain the Z15 zoning as defined in 2005 Development Plan.

The 2005 definition has functioned well and is the best means of ensuring the retention of the current institutional and social uses of these lands for the period 2011 - 2017.

Motion


3042 Cllr. Brid Smith, Cllr. Cieran Perry, Cllr. Joan Collins

That this Council confirms that the word „residential„ remains omitted from the Educational, Recreational, Community & Health Z15 zoning.

Motion



Further amend the Manager‟s recommendation in relation to the wording for the Z15 zoning as set out on in the Manager‟s report at page 58 as follows:

(i) Increase the percentage of the site required for public open space and /or community facilities in the Masterplan Requirements section to 30%

(ii) Provide that the aforesaid requirement applies as a percentage of the entire site and not, for the avoidance of doubt, as a percentage of the portion of the site being proposed for development.

Motion

This motion fell


Further amend the Manager‟s recommendation in relation to the wording for the Z15 zoning as set out on in the Manager‟s report at page 58 as follows:

Add the following sentence to the wording: “It must be demonstrated that there is an adequate plan in place to secure the viability of the uses/facilities in place in these circumstances and that the proceeds and or gains from the once off development are for the purpose of the provision of the uses/facilities. In addition, the limited degree of development referred to above, should not compromise or undermine the provision of the uses/facilities or the capacity of the site to provide such facilities/uses in any significant way.”

Motion

This motion fell


23 November 2010

Section Site Specific Zonings


Map B, ma3, land enclosing Santry River

That the plot of land that encloses Santry River in Map B that is designated ma3 be rezoned from Z14 to Z9 to ensure that the integrity of public open space along the Santry river is maintained.

Motion


3046 Cllr. Christy Burke, Cllr. Marie Metcalfe

Map E, ma2, Grangegorman lands

This Council rejects the recommendation in the Manager‟s Report at Ref. No. ma2 Map E of the Draft Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017 relating to the rezoning of Grangegorman from zoning designation Z12 to Z14 and resolves to retain the Z12 zoning designation of the Grangegorman lands.

(See Appendix P for roll call vote)

Motion



Map G, ma3, 103 - 105 Crumlin Road

That this council does not accept the proposed Z1 zoning for Map G, ma3, and that it remains at Z9 zoning.

Motion



Map H, ma2, St. Louis High School

That this Council supports the Manager in his recommendation for the lands at St. Louis High School, Rathmines, as follows: That the proposed amendment (ref. ma2) to Z9 should be deleted and zone all the lands as Z15 as proposed in the Draft Development Plan.

Motion

The City Council agreed to permit Cllr to withdraw this motion


23 November 2010

3049 Cllr. Dermot Lacey, Cllr. Mary Freehill

Map H, ma2, St Louis School Rathmines

DCC consider sports and therefore playing fields to be essential to our educational system and propose that the Managers recommendation be amended to retain the Z9 on the St Louis School Rathmines site ref. Submissions 4048 Page 67 of Manager's report.

Motion



Map H, ma2, St Louis School Rathmines

Retain St Louis High School pitch as Z9 (Map H Ref. Ma2)

Motion


3051 Cllr. Kevin Humphreys

Map H, ma6, Donnybrook (Area beside Garda station)

Request to rezone from Z4 to Z9.Rezoning of the area beside the Garda station in Donnybrook from Z4 to Z9 as this is theonly open civic space area in the village. This should also be declared the villages Civil & Focal Point and have a monument.

Motion

This motion fell

3052 Cllr. Christy Burke, Deputy Lord Mayor, Cllr. Edie Wynne, Cllr.

Marie Metcalfe

Map H, ma7, Leinster Rugby Grounds

This Council resolves to omit the site specific objective for the Leinster Rugby Grounds, Donnybrook, Dublin 4 which states that:

“these lands (Leinster Rugby Grounds, Donnybrook, D4.) can include student halls of residence.”

Motion



23 November 2010


Marie Metcalfe

Map H, ma10, RTÉ lands

This Council resolves to reject the proposed rezoning of RTÉ lands Reference Number ma10 Map H to Z12 and resolves that the lands in question retain the Z15 zoning designation of the current Dublin City Development Plan. The Council also resolves to omit the site specific objective for the RTÉ lands as the Z15 zoning designation already facilitates RTÉ institutional use.

Motion



Map H, ma 10, RTÉ Lands

This Council believes that the proposed rezoning of the RTE grounds is premature and accordingly rejects the proposed rezoning and agrees to retain the present Zoning until full consideration of a detailed Masterplan and its impact on the area is considered.

Motion



Map H, ma11, O'Shea's Pub

Retain zoning at Z3 and Z9 as in the current Development Plan 2005-2011

Motion



Map H, ma11, O'Shea's Pub

Retain zoning at Z3 and Z9 as in the current Development Plan 2005-2011with no diminution of the area zoned Z9

Motion


Chapter 16 Guiding Principles

Section 16.3.1 Strategic Development and Regeneration Areas

3057 Cllr. Maria Parodi

This Council resolves that the text for Bullet Point 11 for the guiding principles for Poolbeg (SDRA6) is retained as existing and that we reject the insertion of new text proposed in the Manager‟s Recommendation.

Motion



23 November 2010


That proposed amendment point 3 in relation to Poolbeg (SDRA 6) be deleted (pg. 69, and pg. 117 Proposed Amendments).


That the word „expansion‟ be deleted from proposed amendment point 5 in relation to Poolbeg (SDRA 6) (pg. 69, and pg. 117 Proposed Amendments).




That the following language be included in proposed amendment point 10 in relation to Poolbeg (SDRA 6): including the Habitats Directive. (pg. 69, and pg. 118 Proposed Amendments).

That the Manager‟s recommendation to insert the qualifying additional language at the end of point 11 for in relation to Poolbeg (SDRA 6) be rejected (pg. 71, and pg. 117 Proposed Amendments).

Motion


Chapter 17 Development Standards

Section 17.3 Density Standards


This Council agrees to omit the new wording for 17.3.0 in the Manager‟s Report (Manager‟s Report page 75)

Motion

This motion fell

3060 Cllr. Christy Burke, Cllr. Mary Fitzpatrick, Deputy Lord Mayor,

Cllr. Edie Wynne, Cllr. Maria Parodi, Cllr. Catherine Noone, Cllr.

Marie Metcalfe

This Council resolves that the amendment of Section 17.3 of the Draft Development Plan (relating to residential densities) adopted by Councillors be retained as agreed and we reject the insertion of all the new text proposed in the Manager‟s Recommendation.

Motion

This motion fell


23 November 2010


That the Manager‟s recommendation to include additional text to the amended text under 17.3 be rejected (pg. 74).

Motion

This motion fell


That this Council retains all densities as per the DoEHLG Sustainable Residential Development Guidelines.

Motion

This motion fell

Section 17.4 Plot Ratio


Marie Metcalfe

This Council resolves that plot ratio standards included in the Amended Draft Development Plan 2011 – 2017 at Section 17.4 be amended as follows:

Z12 Institutional Short Term 0.5 - 2.0

Motion

This motion fell


This Council resolves that plot ratio standards included in the Draft Development Plan 2011 – 2017 at Par.17.4 be omitted, be replaced with the following: Zones Z1 and Z2 (Outer City) Indicative Plot Ratio 0.25-1.0:1 Zones Z1 and Z2 (Inner City) Indicative Plot Ratio 0.5-1.50:1Zone Z3 Indicative Plot Ratio 1.0 -1.5:1Zone 4 Indicative Plot Ratio 1.0 -2.0:1Zone 5 Indicative Plot Ratio 2.5-3.0:1 Zone Z6 Indicative Plot Ratio (Outer City) 1.0 -1.5:1Zone Z6 Indicative Plot Ratio (Inner City) 1.5 -2.0:1Zone Z7 Indicative Plot Ratio 1.0 -3.0:1Zone Z8 Indicative Plot Ratio 1.0 – 1.5:1Zone 10 Indicative Plot Ratio 1.0 -2.0:1Zone 12 Indicative Plot Ratio 0.25-1.0:1Zone 14 Indicative Plot Ratio 1.0- 2.0:1Zone Z15 Indicative Plot Ratio 0.25-1.0:1

Motion

This motion fell


23 November 2010

Section 17.6.1 Areas Identified as Appropriate for High Buildings

3065 Cllr. Oisín Quinn, Cllr. Kevin Humphreys

Omit the reference to “and Luas Stations” proposed in the Manager‟s Report in respect of 17.6.1 (ii)(b) on page 77.

Motion

This motion fell


That the Manager‟s recommendation to include „and Luas‟ as identified rail infrastructure in relation to maximum height outside the identified areas be rejected (pg. 77)

Motion

This motion fell


That this Council rejects the manager‟s report to amend 17.6.1 and reinstates the original wording as follows;“Within 500m of existing and proposed mainline, Dart, Dart Underground and Metro Stations” (Manager‟s Report page 77)

Motion

This motion fell


Retain the 500m radius in the current draft Plan in respect of Section 17.6.1

Motion

This motion fell


This Council resolves to amend the wording of Section 17.6.1 (ii)(b) of the Amended Draft Dublin City Development Plan as follows;“Within 500meters of existing and proposed mainline, Dart and Metro Stations.”and does not accept the Manager‟s report

Motion

This motion fell


That this Council retains the public transport corridors zones to 500m (17.6.1)

Motion

This motion fell


23 November 2010


This Council resolves to amend the Draft Dublin City Development Plan and Manager‟s recommendation in respect of Section 17.6.1.(ii)(b)

From:“within 1km of existing and proposed mainline, Dart, Dart underground, metro and Luas stations”; To:“within 500 metres of existing and proposed mainline, Dart, Dart underground and metro stations.”

Motion

This motion fell


That the Manager‟s Recommendation to extend the maximum height outside the identified areas as far as areas within 1km of identified rail infrastructure stations are concerned be rejected (pg.77).

That the amendment to extend the maximum height outside the identified areas as far as areas within 1km of identified rail infrastructure stations are concerned be modified so that the area is limited to „within 250m‟ (pg. 77, and pg.126 Proposed Amendments).

Motion

This motion fell


Dublin City Council agrees to amend the wording of Section 17.6.1 (ii) b) of the Amended Draft Dublin City Development Plan as follows:“Within 200 metres of existing and proposed mainline, DART, and Metro Stations: 6 storey residential / 6 storey office”

Motion

This motion fell


Council agree to uphold original decision in relation to 17.6.1.(ii)(b) Within 1km of existing and proposed mainline, Dart, Dart Underground, Metro and Luas Stations:

Proposal motion That this Council Upholds the decision made Section 17.6.1(ii) b should read:Within 100m of existing and proposed mainline, Dart, Dart Underground and Metro Stations ONLY 6 storey residential/6 storey office

Motion

This motion fell


23 November 2010

3075 Cllr. Christy Burke, Cllr. Mary Fitzpatrick, Cllr. Catherine Noone,

Cllr. Marie Metcalfe

This Council resolves to amend the wording of Section 17.6.1(ii)(b) of the Amended Draft Dublin City Development Plan as follows;“Within 100 meters of existing and proposed mainline, DART and Metro Stations: 6 storey residential/6 storey office”

Motion

This motion fell


This Council resolves to amend the wording of Section 17.6.1 (ii) b) of the Amended Draft Dublin City Development Plan as follows:“Within 100 metres of existing and proposed mainline, DART, and Metro Stations: 6 storey residential / 6 storey office”

Motion

This motion fell


This Council agrees to amend the provisions for height adjoining the main railway routes to:Heights of up to six storeys shall be allowed within 200 metres and heights of up to four storeys shall be allowed in the area between 200 metres and 500 metres of the railway hubs.

Motion

This motion fell

3078 Cllr. Ruairi McGinley

Page 126 refers The requirement to comply with the definition of height will not necessarily apply in the event that the development is replacing a higher building. ..add the following

'Furthermore, it shall be an objective of Dublin City Council to support the generation of employment and therefore where there is a proposal for the development of an office building that has a strong economic or employment-generating capability, and where this proposed office building is located within the established commercial areas of the inner city, excluding all conservation areas, is within the Metro North Section 49 catchment area, and is within 1 kilometre of DART, Luas or Metro, this office building may be considered for permission to reach eight stories, subject to it also demonstrating a high quality of architecture and design, a contribution to the streetscape and vitality of the surrounding area, and compliance with all standards and criteria set out elsewhere in this plan.'

Motion

Refer to Economic Development, Planning and International Affairs Strategic Policy Committee


23 November 2010

3079 Cllr. Christy Burke, Cllr. Mary Fitzpatrick, Cllr. Aine Clancy, Cllr.

Mary O'Shea, Deputy Lord Mayor, Cllr. Edie Wynne, Cllr. Maria

Parodi, Cllr. Catherine Noone, Cllr. Marie Metcalfe, Cllr. Emer

Costello, Cllr. Claire O'Regan, Cllr. Eoghan Murphy

This Council resolves to omit the sentence at Section 17.6 which states:

“The requirement to comply with the definition of height will not necessarily apply in the event that the development is replacing a higher building”

Motion


3081 Cllr. Aine Clancy, Cllr. Emer Costello

That this Council:a) rejects the Manager‟s Report to amend the low-rise category for the outer city area andb) amends the low rise category for the inner city as follows:

17.6.1 ii c Amend as follows: Inner City Low Rise: Up to 6 Res / 5 Office Outer City Low rise: Up to 4 res / 4 Office (as per July amendments)

Motion

This motion fell

3082 Cllr. Mary Fitzpatrick, Cllr. Jim O'Callaghan

This City Council agrees to amend the Dublin City Development Plan so that low rise buildings are defined as buildings which in the inner city are six storeys and lower, and in the outer city are four storeys and lower, unless they are buildings within the areas which the Development Plan has designated as being appropriate for mid or high rise buildings.

Motion

This motion fell

3084 Cllr. Dermot Lacey, Cllr. Christy Burke, Cllr. Declan Flanagan,

Cllr. Mary Freehill, Deputy Lord Mayor, Cllr. Edie Wynne, Cllr.

Catherine Noone, Cllr. John Gallagher, Cllr. Marie Metcalfe

This Council resolves to amend the Table at Sec 17.6.2 Definition of a High Building and any other related sections of the Draft Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017 as follows:From:“Inner City Up to 6 res/7 office Below 19m/28m”To:“Inner City Up to 6 res/5 office Below 19m”

Motion

This motion fell


23 November 2010


That this Council amends the Section 17.6.2 - Definition of a High Building and any other related sections of the Draft Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017 from 7 storey office height to 5 storey office height in the Inner City.

Motion

This motion fell


DCC rejects the Managers recommendation on Page 81 and therefore proposes that on low rise category for the outer city that "To Up to 5 res/4offices, below 16m" be omitted.

Motion

This motion fell


That the Manager‟s recommendation to amend the low-rise category for the outer city area from 4 storey residential to 5 storey residential be rejected (pg. 81).

Motion

This motion fell


That this Council rejects the Manager's Recommendations in relation to the increased height of the low-rise category for the outer city to 5 storey residential and retains the 4storey residential guide.

In addition, this Council rejects the Manager's Recommendation on section 17.6.1(ii)(c) which again increases the height to 5 storeys.

Motion

This motion fell


23 November 2010

Section 17.6.2 Definition of a High Building

3080 Cllr. Nial Ring

That Section 17.6.1 of the amended Draft Development Plan is further amended as indicated in bold to allow consideration of increased building heights on Z6-Inner and Z10 Inner City sites which are strategically important regeneration sites:

Low-rise relates to the prevailing local context*

Inner City - Up to 6 res/ 7 office - Below 22/30m

Rail Hubs - Up to 6 res/6 office - Below 22/26m

Outer City - Up to 4 res/4 office - Below 16/18m

*Note: Where the prevailing local context in the Inner City is not Low rise, i.e. there are buildings which exceed the maximum heights, a building of up to a maximum of 2 storeys over that stipulated may be permitted on Z6-Inner and Z10 sites, provided it can be clearly demonstrated that the overall development meets the objectives of RE20.

Motion


3083 Cllr. Mary Fitzpatrick, Cllr. Jim O'Callaghan

This Council resolves to amend the Draft Dublin City Development Plan and its definition of low rise building as follows:

Outer CityFrom“Up to 5 res/4 office, below 16 metre”To“Up to 4 res/4 office, below 13/16 metre”

and to amend Section 17.6.1.(ii)(c) and the definition of low rise as follows:

Outer CityFrom“5 storey residential/4 storey office”To“4 storey residential/4 storey office”

Inner CityFrom“7 storey office/6 storey residential”

To“6 storey office/6 storey residential”.

Motion

This motion fell


23 November 2010

3089 Cllr. Oisín Quinn, Cllr. Mary Freehill

This Council resolves to amend the Table at Sec 17.6.2 Definition of a High Building as follows:Omit: “Low-rise relates to the prevailing local context”

And replace it with:“Low-rise is defined by the prevailing local height and context”

Motion

This motion fell

3090 Cllr. Brid Smith, Cllr. Mary Fitzpatrick, Cllr. Aine Clancy, Cllr.

Mary O'Shea, Cllr. Joan Collins, Cllr. Jim O'Callaghan, Deputy

Lord Mayor, Cllr. Edie Wynne, Cllr. Kevin Humphreys, Cllr.

Catherine Noone, Cllr. Emer Costello, Cllr. Claire O'Regan

This Council resolves to amend the Table at Section 17.6.2 Definition of a High Building as follows;From (Omit)“Low rise relates to the prevailing local context”

To (and replace it with)“Low rise is defined by the prevailing local height”

Motion

This motion fell


That the table at 17.6.2 (p128 Proposed Amendments) is modified so that „low-rise‟ is explained as „is defined by the prevailing local height‟ (see also pg.78 of the Manager‟s Report)

Motion

This motion fell


To amend Section 17.6.2 to read“Low rise is defined by the prevailing local height”

Motion

This motion fell


23 November 2010


17.6.2. To read as follows:For all areas in the Development Plan identified as either mid-rise or high-rise a Local Area Plan shall be prepared, except where section 25 Planning Scheme or an SDZ is prepared. In high-rise area, the Local Area Plan, where applicable, shall determine the maximum height of buildings. All applicable areas shall remain low-rise until Local Area Plan is approved.

Section 17.6.2 at the end of Para 1 after Box of Definition of Heights to read as follows;

For all areas in the Development Plan identified as either mid-rise or high-rise, a Local Area Plan shall be prepared, except where an up to date Section 25 Planning Scheme or an SDZ is proposed and in place. In high-rise areas, the Local Area Plan, where applicable, shall determine the maximum height of buildings. All applicable areas shall remain low-rise until a Local Area Plan is approved.

Motion

Amended motion carried

3094 Cllr. Maria Parodi

This Council resolves that Section 17.6.2 at the end of Para 1 after the Box of Definition of Heights be retained as existing and that this Council rejects the insertion of new text proposed in the Manager‟s Recommendation.

Motion

This motion fell


That in order to facilitate the redevelopment of Liberty Hall, this Council resolves to amend 17.6.3

FromIn recognition of the national, social and cultural importance of the Libery Hall site, the height limitations set out in the Development Plan will be set aside in considering a proposal for the redevelopment of the site which will provide for the continuation of its national historic, social and cultural status

To

In recognition of the national, social and cultural importance of the Libery Hall site, the height limitations set out in the Development Plan may be relaxed in considering a proposal for the redevelopment of the site which will provide for the continuation of its national historic, social and cultural status (Manager's Report, pg 81)

Councillors E. Costello and A. Montague declared their interest in this item and did not take part in discussion.

Motion



23 November 2010

3096 Cllr. Christy Burke, Cllr. Dr. Bill Tormey

Amend the reference to Liberty Hall in Section 17.6.3 to read:

In recognition of the national, social and cultural importance of the Libery Hall site, the height limitations set out in the Development Plan may be set aside in considering a proposal for the redevelopment of the site which will provide for the continuation of its national historic, social and cultural status. Any such proposal will be considered against the relevant standards set out at section 17.6.3, Assessment Criteria for High Buildings

Motion


Section 17.9.5 Backland Development

3097 Cllr. Dermot Lacey, Cllr. Mary Freehill

Amend:17.9.5From:Dublin City Council will allow for the provision of comprehensive backland development where the opportunity exists. Backland development is generally defined as development of land that lies to the rear of an existing property…….

To:Dublin City Council will not encourage the provision of comprehensive backland development even where the opportunity exists. Backland development is generally defined as development of land that lies to the rear of an existing property…….

Motion


Section 17.10.2 Development within the Curtilage of a Protected Structure

3098 Cllr. Mary Freehill, Cllr. Eoghan Murphy

In order to protect and encourage mature landscaping within the city environs it is an objective of the City Council that the removal of rear gardens to facilitate construction of underground accommodation will be only allowed in limited circumstances. In such cases where underground accommodation is permitted a sufficient garden appropriate to the size of the structure should be maintained.

The total removal of historic boundary features or subdivision of original communal front gardens or rear gardens will not be permitted. Furthermore the removal of historic boundary features or subdivision of rear gardens or original communal front gardens will not be permitted.

Motion



23 November 2010


That the Manager‟s recommendation in relation to Section 17.10.2 (pg. 82) be approved but that the final sentence of the paragraph be modified so as to read:The removal of historic boundary features or subdivision of rear gardens or original communal front gardens will not be permitted

Motion



Amend the Manager‟s recommendation at Section 17.10.2

To:In order to protect and encourage mature landscaping within the city environs it is an objective of the City Council that the removal of rear gardens to facilitate construction of underground accommodation will be only allowed in limited circumstances. In such cases where underground accommodation is permitted a sufficient garden appropriate to the size of the structure should be maintained. The total removal of historic boundary features or subdivision of rear gardens or original communal front gardens will not be permitted.

Motion


Section 17.10.8.1 Development in Conservation Areas


Amend Section 17.10.8.1 to:“All applications for development in Georgian, Victorian or Edwardian areas, or in the vicinity of such areas, shall be accompanied by an appraisal of the distinctive character of the area adjoining the site and an illustration of how the design of the proposed development response to and compliments that character.”

Motion



In relation to Section 17.10.8.1 “Development in Conservation Areas this Council resolves to adopt the following statement to more accurately reflect what was already adopted by Councillors;“All applications for development in Georgian, Victorian or Edwardian areas, or in the vicinity of such areas, shall be accompanied by an appraisal of the distinctive character of the area adjoining the site and an illustration of how the design of the proposed development response to and compliments that character.”

Motion



23 November 2010


This Council resolves to amend Section 17.10.8.1 as follows;“All applications for development in Georgian, Victorian or Edwardian areas, or in the vicinity of such areas, shall be accompanied by an appraisal of the distinctive character of the area adjoining the site and an illustration of how the design of the proposed development responds to and compliments that character” In order to protect the character of these areas and not just conservation areas

Motion



That the new language inserted after the first sentence in Section 17.10.8.1 (pg 135 Proposed Amendments) be modified to include the following;“All applications for development in Georgian, Victorian or Edwardian areas, or in the vicinity of such areas, shall be accompanied by an appraisal of the distinctive character of the area adjoining the site and an illustration of how the design of the proposed development responds to and compliments that character”

Motion


3105 Cllr. Christy Burke, Cllr. Mary Fitzpatrick, Cllr. Mary Freehill,

Deputy Lord Mayor, Cllr. Edie Wynne, Cllr. Kevin Humphreys,

Cllr. Catherine Noone, Cllr. Marie Metcalfe

This Council resolves to amend Section 17.10.8.1 to accurately reflect what was already adopted by Councillors. The wording agreed was not intended to be restricted to Conservation areas, nor was it intended to be inserted in this section. The agreed wording was as follows:

“All applications for development in Georgian, Victorian or Edwardian areas, or in the vicinity of such areas, shall be accompanied by an appraisal of the distinctive character of the area adjoining the site and an illustration of how the design of the proposed development responds to and compliments that character.”

Motion



23 November 2010


Add the following wording to the changes made to Section 17.10.8.1:

“In particular, applications for development in Conservation Areas which are predominantly residential in character must have regard to the need to ensure that the property is not so altered so as to reduce the long-term residential amenity of the property or the likelihood of the property remaining primarliy in residential use.”

Motion


Appendix 11 Proposed Architectural Conservation Areas

Section Proposed Architectural Conservation Areas


This Council agrees to add “Sandymount Village and its Environs” to the list of areas for potential ACA designation.

Motion


Appendix 12 Stone Setts to be Retained, Restored or Introduced

Section Stone Setts to be Retained, Restored or Introduced

3108 Cllr. Christy Burke, Cllr. Cieran Perry, Cllr. Ray McAdam

Remove Castleforbes Road from Appendix 12 Stone Setts to be Retained, Restored or Introduced.

Motion



That this Council calls for Castleforbes Road to be removed from the RPS (Manager‟s Report, page 86)

Motion



This council resolves to rehabilitate and restore Castleforbes road within the first year of the Development Plan.

Motion



23 November 2010

Appendix 25 Outdoor Advertising Strategy

Section Outdoor Advertising Structures


This council resolves to devise a planning policy for “light projection” advertising in the City Council area.

Motion


Glossary of Terms and Phrases

Section Glossary of Terms and Phrases

3112 Cllr. Jim O'Callaghan, Cllr. Mary Freehill

That the inner city be defined as that area between the two canals

Motion


3113 Cllr. Christy Burke, Cllr. Marie Metcalfe

This Council resolves to amend the definition of the Inner City as follows:

“On the north side the Inner City is bounded by the canal”

Motion


3114 Cllr. Oisín Quinn, Cllr. Christy Burke, Deputy Lord Mayor, Cllr.

Edie Wynne, Cllr. Kevin Humphreys, Cllr. Maria Parodi, Cllr.

Catherine Noone, Cllr. Marie Metcalfe

This Council resolves to amend the definition of the Inner City as follows:

“On the south side the Inner City is bounded by the canal”.

Motion



This Council agrees that the traditional and understood definition of the Inner City on the South side of the City as being the area the Grand Canal and the Liffey be retained and be reflected in all aspects of this Development Plan

Motion



23 November 2010


That the Manager‟s Recommendation in relation to the definition of the inner city in the glossary of terms and phrases (pg. 88) be rejected.

That the definition of inner city in the glossary of terms and phrases be modified in keeping with the definition of inner city as per previous plans, while taking in to account new developments, so that the inner city boundary in the south east follows the canal as far as Grand Canal Street Upper, diverting east to South Lotts Rd, north to Ringsend Rd, terminating at Ringsend Bridge where Fitzwilliam Quay meets the Liffey.

Motion

The recommendation of the Manager was Agreed. It was also agreed to amend Map K accordingly.

Record of Protected Structures

Section Submissions Requesting Buildings be Added to the RPS


This Council agrees to recommend the inclusion of the Poolbeg Chimneys on the list of Protected structures and request the Manager to take the necessary steps to advance this.

Motion



23 & 24/11/2010 COMHAIRLE CATHRACH BHAILE ÁTHA CLIATH · 23 & 24/11/2010 COMHAIRLE CATHRACH BHAILE...

Documents

Transcript of 23 & 24/11/2010 COMHAIRLE CATHRACH BHAILE ÁTHA CLIATH · 23 & 24/11/2010 COMHAIRLE CATHRACH BHAILE...