To the Lord Mayor and Report No.141/2017 of the Members of the Dublin City Council Chief Executive

Chief Executive’s Report on submissions received from the public display of the

Poolbeg West Draft Planning Scheme.

April 2017

Chief Executive's Report on Submissions from Public Display of the Poolbeg West Draft Planning Scheme

Table of Contents

Section Topic Page 1. Introduction to Chief Executive’s Report

1

2. Process to Date and Next Steps

3

3. Summary of Submissions Received by State Agencies

5

4 Summary of Issues Raised, Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations

9

Chapter 1 Introduction And Background 9 Chapter 2 Vision & Key Principles 10 Chapter 3 A New Residential Neighbourhood 12 Chapter 4 Community Development 18 Chapter 5 Economy & Employment 21 Chapter 6 Movement 31 Chapter 7 Infrastructure & Utilities 42 Chapter 8 Environment, Green Infrastructure And Open Space 55 Chapter 9 Land Use & Phasing 59 Chapter 10 Public Realm 66 Chapter 11 Urban Structure & Design 72 Chapter 12 Implementation & Monitoring 83 4.1 Other Issues/ Miscellaneous 86 5 Public notifications

87

5.1 Copies of Newspaper notices 87 5.2 Copy of pre-draft letter sent to interested groups 90 5.2 Copy of PPN newsletter page 92 6 List of Submissions Received

93

1. Introduction This Report forms part of the statutory procedure for the making of a planning scheme in relation to a designated Strategic Development Zone (SDZ), as required by the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended) Strategic Development Zone Designation A Strategic Development Zone (SDZ) is an area of land that is proposed to contain developments of economic or social importance to the state. The designation of a site as an SDZ is a decision of the Government, following a proposal by the Minister of the Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government. The Government designated the lands at Poolbeg West as a Strategic Development Zone (SDZ) and specified Dublin City Council as the Development Agency (SI No.279 of 2016) in May 2016. Draft Planning Scheme On designation of a site or area as a Strategic Development Zone (SDZ), a draft planning scheme must be prepared not later than two years after the making of an order. A Draft Planning Scheme (DPS) for an SDZ must consist of a written statement and a plan indicating the manner in which it is intended that the site is to be developed. In this instance, Dublin City Council is the relevant Planning Authority and Development Agency. The Poolbeg West Draft Planning Scheme was on public display for a six weeks period from 24th January to 8th March 2017. This Chief Executive’s Report relates to the submissions received by the City Council on the Draft Planning Scheme and is submitted to the Members for their consideration. Chief Executive’s Report The Report contains the following:-

1. A summary of the issues raised by the submissions/observations (Section 3.1), the Chief

Executive’s Response to the issues raised. and the Chief Executive’s Recommendation to the issues raised

2. A list of the persons or bodies who made submissions/observations (Section 5.0)

Submission issues are grouped by topic and each topic is dealt with by way of a summary of issues, the Chief Executive’s response, and then the Chief Executive’s recommendation(s). The submission topics generally accord with issues as they arise in the Draft Scheme. In accordance with the Planning Acts, the issues raised in the submissions by the Environmental Authorities and other Prescribed Authorities are dealt with separately to other submissions received (section 3.0) Minor typographical errors or discrepancies will be amended in the final Planning Scheme. Similarly, where draft plans or policy documents, have been up-dated or approved during the preparation process, these will be amended accordingly in the final Planning Scheme. Submissions 108 submissions were received on the Draft Planning Scheme during the public display period. The Council wishes to express its appreciation to those who reviewed the draft scheme and made submissions. A list of the submissions is set out in Section 4.0. Each submission was fully considered and has been summarised in the Chief Executive’s Report. The full text of all the written submissions/observations received during the public display period is available to view on Sharefile. A hard copy of each submission is also available to view on request in the Planning Department.

1

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) & Appropriate Assessment (AA) An Environmental Report and an Appropriate Assessment Report accompanied the public display of the Draft Planning Scheme. The Chief Executive’s Report on submissions received includes a summary and consideration of all submissions on these documents and/or the process of SEA/AA. In addition, any amendments proposed arising from the Chief Executive’s Recommendations have been screened and assessed for the purposes of SEA and AA. Amendments have also been reviewed taking into consideration the need for additional mitigatory measures, where applicable. As part of the Chief Executive’s report, a report outlining the Environmental Assessments of the proposed amendments for the SEA and AA will be submitted for consideration. An SEA Statement and an AA Statement will be prepared on final adoption of the scheme, demonstrating how environmental and ecological considerations have been integrated into the Planning Scheme.

2

2. Process to Date The process for preparing the Draft planning scheme commenced in July 2016 with the invitation of ideas, comments and consultation with the local community. To coincide with the above consultation period, a series of public information sessions were organised in the local area during July (see Table below). All community groups registered on the Public Participation Network were informed of the consultation process when notification of procedure and public sessions was set out in the PPN newsletter in early July ( please refer to newsletter extract in section 4.3). Community groups within the Dublin 2 and Dublin 4 areas were also notified by separate email. Date Time Public Information Session Location 19/07/2016 17.00 - 19.00 Dublin Docklands Offices, Custom House Quay, Dublin 1 21/07/2016 12.30 - 14.30 Ringsend Library, Fitzwilliam Street, Dublin 4. 28/07/16 18.00 - 20.00 Ringsend Library, Fitzwilliam Street, Dublin 4. 29/07/16 12.30 - 14.30 Dublin Docklands Offices, Custom House Quay, Dublin 1 The public observations and feedback received during the pre draft consultation stage informed the preparation and focus of the Draft planning scheme. Those who wished to seek a meeting with staff of the Planning Departments dedicated team to discuss the content of a submission were given the opportunity to request such a meeting. Following a drafting phase, Dublin City Council published the Draft Planning Scheme for Poolbeg West on the 24th January 2017. This coincided with the commencement of a 6 week public consultation period. A public display and time period for public submissions was facilitated for six weeks between 24th January 8th March 2017. For the duration of this period, a permanent display of the plan was provided at the Civic Offices in Wood Quay and at Dublin Docklands office, Dublin 1. A dedicated website at www.poolbegwest.ie was created and the draft planning scheme document, the accompanying Environmental Reports and details on how to make a submission were made available to the public on the site. In addition to the display, five public information Drop-in Sessions were held (see table below) in the local area to coincide with the consultation period to assist the local community in explaining the SDZ Planning Scheme process, the content of the draft planning scheme and explain how to make submissions. Public Information Drop-in Session Date Time Number attending

as documented

Pearse Street Library, Pearse Street, Dublin 2

Wednesday, 1st February

12.30-15.30 11

Ringsend Irishtown Community Centre,

Thorncastle Street, Ringsend, Dublin 4

Thursday, 2nd February

12.30-15.30 15

Docklands Office, Custom House Quay, Tuesday, 7th 12.30-15.30 8

3

Docklands ,Dublin 1 February

Ringsend Irishtown Community Centre, Thorncastle Street, Ringsend, Dublin 4

Thursday, 9th February

17.30-20.30 32

Christchurch Hall, Sandymount Green, Dublin 4

Tuesday, 21st February

18.00-20.30 47

Total attendance at drop in sessions 113

Monthly information updates and presentations were provided to the South East Area Committee of Dublin City Council throughout the preparation period of the Draft planning scheme. A presentation of the Draft planning scheme was given to interested members of the full council on the 8th of February 2017. Next Steps The Members will consider the Draft Planning Scheme and the Manager’s Report on the consultation phase at a Special Meeting of the City Council to be held on Thursday May 18th 2017. Prior to the Special Council Meeting, an information session will be held for councillors on Wednesday 19th April. The closing date for receipt of motions from the members is 5.00pm on Friday 28th April 2017. By Friday May 12th, the Chief Executive will then prepare and circulate a report on the Councillors Motions. Having considered the draft Scheme and the Chief Executive’s report the members may, by resolution, make, subject to variations and modifications, the Planning Scheme or decide not to make the Planning Scheme. Any proposed amendments will be screened for Strategic Environmental Assessment & Appropriate Assessment as required. The Planning Scheme for the Poolbeg West Strategic Development Zone (SDZ) will come into effect four weeks from the date that it is made, unless an appeal is brought to An Bord Pleanála. The scheme as adopted by the City Council may be appealed to the Board by any person who has made a submission on the draft scheme, provided this appeal is made within 4 weeks of the decision by the City Council. The appeal process may include an oral hearing to be held by the Board. The final decision may be issued up to 26 weeks from the initial appeal date If approved, Dublin City Council must grant permission for development that is consistent with the Planning Scheme and must refuse permission for development which is not consistent with it. Recommendation to City Council It is recommended that the City Council, having regard to the submissions received on the Draft Scheme and the Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations set out in this document, should by resolution make the Planning Scheme.

4

3. Summary of Submissions Received by State Agencies Submissions received from the following are summarised hereunder.

• Department of Housing, Planning, Community & Local Government • Eastern and Midlands Regional Assembly • National Transport Authority • Transport Infrastructure Ireland • Environmental Protection Agency • Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs

Department of Housing, Planning, Community & Local Government (DHPCLG) Submission number 1072 The DHPCLG considers the draft SDZ Planning Scheme to be a rational and reasonable response to a strategically important site which can make a dramatic contribution to enhancing housing supply, at an appropriate mix of tenure and affordability, through the creation of a new city quarter displaying compact innovative design, and new approaches to building heights and energy management. The DHPCLG will support the City Council and housing providers and the local community in achieving this new neighbourhood of at least 3000 homes. The Department supports the range of building heights from 4 to 16 storeys, as a means of creating a new skyline, countering urban sprawl and enabling residents to live close to work and facilities. The Department notes the designated SDZ is crucial in the future development of Dublin Port, in support of the national economy. As such it is recommended that further consideration be given to the inclusion of more detail in the Planning Scheme that supports the type and scale of port-related activities planned for and to ensure the final Planning Scheme is an effective decision making tool. To accord with “Rebuilding Ireland”; the Department considers the Planning Scheme should be amended to enable implementation of new models for the maximisation of a mixed tenure approach. In addition to the 10% social housing requirement under the Planning Acts, it is suggested the scheme could include a policy mechanism whereby, on an agreed basis, up to a further 10% of housing could be provided which would be accessible to households on an average industrial wage. The Department considers it crucial that people who need social housing and key workers can avail of affordable housing in places like Poolbeg. The Department also suggests that in order to enhance viability and housing yield up to possibly 3500 units, consideration be given to further increasing height e.g. along the south side of some blocks. In relation to employment, the DHPCLG supports the range of office, hotel related and media related activities provided for in the SDZ Planning Scheme. The Department would encourage DCC to proactively work with landowners, including Dublin Port, to realise the potential for media related development in this area commensurate with the need to first and foremost maximise housing delivery and secure the development of Dublin Port as Ireland’s most strategic port. Eastern and Midlands Regional Assembly (EMRA) Submission number 1029 EMRA is responsible, inter alia, for the preparation of Regional Spatial and Economic Strategies (RSES), which replace the Regional planning Guidelines (RPGs) 2010 – 2020. EMRA expect to commence the formulation of the RSES in 2017. EMRA notes that the RPGS support the development of housing and employment in strategic growth areas within the Metropolitan Area, such as Poolbeg West SDZ. The regeneration of Poolbeg West

5

provides for a mixed use development at an approx rate of 80% residential / 20% commercial, plus port related activities, which will provide c3000 residential units (equating to a population of 7000) and c80,000 of commercial floor space(equating to 8000 workers) plus supporting educational, recreational, retail and service uses. In the RPGs and Retail Strategy Poolbeg is designated as a Level 3- District Centre. EMRA suggests that the retail should be at a level commensurate with the local catchment, and to ensure the ongoing viability of surrounding local retail centres. The RPGs support the provision of the infrastructure needed to regenerate Poolbeg West and improve connectivity with the City, including flood management, new Dodder Bridge and the district heating network. In addition the RPGS propose strategic transport investment for the GDA, including the continued reservation of the corridor for the Eastern By-Pass, improvements to Dublin Port to facilitate growth needs, the development of the South Port Access Route (SPAR) and the future extension of Luas south of the Liffey. EMRA notes that the Planning Authority has carried out a Strategic Environmental Assessment, Appropriate Assessment and Flood Risk Assessment, setting out how environmental considerations have been integrated into the Planning Scheme. The RPG supports the protection of Dublin Bay and the integration of sustainable design principles into the Scheme. EMRA considers that the regeneration of the brownfield lands will contribute to the proper planning and sustainable development of the wider area. National Transport Authority (NTA) Submission Number 1090 The National Transport Authority is generally supportive of the Draft Planning Scheme and makes the following recommendations in order to ensure consistency with the National Transport Authority’s Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2016-2035: In relation to protecting a corridor for the Eastern Bypass, a note “subject to the requirements for the eastern bypass” should be inserted into the zoning legend in figure 9.1, or an equivalent statement could be inserted into the text of 11.3.2 (section on the commercial buffer). The table showing the phasing for area ‘A’ (Chapter 9) should be amended to include bus priority measures on Sean More Road., and point 4 should be altered to read “Bus services and priority measures are agreed with the NTA and delivered in tandem with development”. In relation to Phasing Area B, it should be clarified that the proposal to deliver an interim short term solution for access to the south port from Pigeon House Road is a standalone project unrelated to medium and long term objectives. Also, the South Port Access Route, which would also be a standalone project, would be capable of being integrated into the possible future development of an Eastern Bypass. The scheme would either terminate at Sean Moore roundabout or at a new junction further east. Because its alignment and scale are not yet determined, no detailed descriptions should appear in the planning scheme. Therefore, the following amendments are proposed to the table for area B: Point to be amended to read “Opening of new road link to Block B1” Points 5 and 6 removed and replaced by new point 5 “Design of South Port Access Route complete” New point 6 to state “Land requirements for the eastern bypass have been determined” The first section to be named “short term” and a new section inserted as follows; Medium Term Expansion and some intensification of operations within Poolbeg Peninsula and within SDZ lands, with traffic generation implications assessed and addressed

Completion of Southern Port Access Route

DCC/NTA/TII/Dublin Port

6

In relation to Chapter 11, the National Transport Authority considers that Figure 11.3 should be removed as the requirement for bus lanes is yet to be determined. The Authority would be satisfied if traffic management arrangements (including bus gates) were implemented. Figure 11.9 should be amended to include bus lanes in both directions along Sean Moore Road, or removed.

Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) Submission Number 1043 Transport Infrastructure Ireland is generally supportive but seeks the following amendments: Eastern Bypass including South Port Access Route (SPAR) The role of three routes is unclear in the text of the draft scheme: i.e. Eastern Bypass, SPAR, and ‘alternative access route’. Also, different methodologies are promoted to deliver the national road element of the eastern bypass. To assist with clarifying the above, the following amendments are suggested: Section 6.2: Omission of the third bullet point, with the exception of the last sentence, replacement with the following: “The Eastern By-Pass reservation corridor needs to be accommodated within the SDZ to comply with the NTA Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2016-2035. However, in the case of the Eastern Bypass, the section of the route from the southern end of the Port Tunnel to the South Port area, is to be delivered within the lifetime of the NTA Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area.” It is recommended that text changes are made to paragraph 6.5 to reflect the above clarifications. It is also recommended that the phasing table (p55) be amended by separating the medium and long term elements, so that SPAR is complemented at the ‘medium’ stage. Small changes to text in paragraph 2.4.2 and 5.4.3 are recommended to provide for future transport schemes in the SDZ. The National Transport Authority considers that in relation to area G (industrial and port zone), current formats for the urban design and land-use proposals in chapters 9 and 11 and in appendices 2 and 3, are premature pending outcomes of future decisions. The proposals have the effect of altering the function of these routes/improvement schemes, and could increase land acquisition costs. On this basis it is recommended:

1. The commercial area in figure 9.1 should be reclassified as “Buffer Potential” as this area is subject to the outcome of future studies.

2. Urban design proposals in Fig 11.2, under section 11.5, and in appendices 3 and 4 need to be revised to omit structures indicated in area B1. The nature and use of potential buffer structures in this area cannot be determined at this time.

Environmental Protection Agency Submission Number 1062 The submission acknowledges that the Plan includes detailed commitments to provide transport infrastructure, service infrastructure, employment related infrastructure, social/community infrastructure, educational facilities, amenity/recreation infrastructure and green infrastructure/open space to meet the needs of the population within the Plan area. It is submitted that a reference to the Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy for the Eastern and Midland Region (replacing the Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area) which will be adopted over the lifetime of the Plan should be incorporated into the Plan.

7

In relation to economy and employment section of the plan, it is submitted that Objective EC-3 be amended to include sustainability. The Plan should also include commitments to ensure that surface water quality is protected in the construction and maintenance of enhanced drainage systems, to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Water Framework Directive. The EPA has referred Dublin City Council to their recent publication on common framework for determining contamination risk of groundwater. It is stated that the scheme should include a commitment that any contaminated material will be managed in a manner that removes any risk to human health and ensures that the end use will be compatible with any risk. The submission welcomes the objectives in chapter 8 of the draft planning scheme and suggests an amendment to GI5. Considerations should be given to including the summary of the key environmental sensitivities within and adjoining the plan area. The requirements of the Water Framework Directive, Floods, EIA and Habitats Directives should be complied with as relevant during the implementation of the plan. It is submitted that it would be useful to include a summary of the key issues raised during the scoping consultation and to clarify how these were addressed in the Plan or SEA ER, as appropriate. The EPA advises that Dublin City Council should determine whether the implementation of any proposed amendments would or would not be likely to have significant effects on the environment. Following the adoption of the plan an SEA statement should be prepared. Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs Submission Number 1089 It is submitted that the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) notes the high potential for the survival of buried archaeological features and structures in the SDZ and it is recommended that a new mitigation measure be included in the environmental report relating to Wreck Inventory Database and archaeological impact assessment. The department also notes some deficiencies in the Natura Impact Report and recommends that the Natura Impact Statement is amended to include issues to ensure that any decision reached is robust using best available scientific data. It is advised that an assessment must include complete and precise findings and a conclusion capable of removing all reasonable scientific doubt as to the effect of the Plan on the qualifying interests of the Natura 2000 sites in light of their conservation objectives. Any reports quoting conservation objectives should give the version number and date, so that it can be ensured and established that the most up-to-date versions are used in the preparation of Natura Impact Statements and in undertaking appropriate assessments. The department does not agree with the screening out of certain sites, where bird flight paths are involved and the issue of cumulative effects with other plans and projects has not been adequately assessed in the NIS. The issue of biodiversity and the species mentioned at the meeting held with Dublin City Council have not been comprehensively dealt with in the Strategic Environmental Assessment. It is not clear whether the rare plant database has been consulted or not.

8

4 Summary of Issues Raised, Chief Executive’s Response and Recommendations. Chapter 1. Introduction and Background Submission Numbers: 1029, 1055, 1062, 1087, 1108 Summary of Issues It is submitted that a reference to the Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy for the Eastern and Midland Region (replacing the Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area) which will be adopted over the lifetime of the Plan should be incorporated into the Plan. New text under section 1.1 relating to mix tenure type residential units should be added The draft planning scheme did not reference the existing Dublin port tenants (John Bissett and Rushfleet) in the SDZ. Chief Executive’s Response The observation to reference the Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy for the Eastern and Midland Region is welcomed. The existing Dublin Port tenants’ uses will be included in section 1.2 of the draft planning scheme. Section 1.1 refers at a strategic level to the matters to be addressed in the scheme including the potential to provide significant levels of private and public housing. There is no objection to replace this with “mixed tenure housing”

Chief Executive’s Recommendation: Insert text in the third bullet point in chapter 1.1 The potential of the location to support a vibrant mixed-use urban quarter, attract inward investment and provide significant levels of private and public housing mixed tenure housing, employment, schools, community and recreational facilities. Insert text in the third and fourth paragraph in chapter 1.2 The eastern portion of the SDZ lands comprises a 10.7 hectare site, which is the last area owned by Dublin Port yet to be developed for Port related purposes. The majority of this site is open with the western third occupied by concrete production facilities and smaller miscellaneous industrial uses including an engineering facility. The southern edge is adjacent to Dublin Bay and the northern edge is bounded by the major utilities installations located in the centre of the peninsula. The northern portion of the SDZ lands comprises a 7.5 hectare site, owned by Dublin Port and is in active use as a storage, maintenance and refurbishment of shipping containers trailer and container storage area to serve the Dublin Port Load on Load off (LoLo) shipping facility. Whitebank Road runs south west to north east through this portion of SDZ lands. Insert text in the third paragraph in chapter 1.5 The Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area 2010-2022(RPGs) which will be replaced by the forthcoming Regional Spatial and Economic

Strategy translates the national strategy to the regional level with a similar emphasis on Dublin as the driver of national development and the need to physically consolidate the growth of the Metropolitan Area. The RPGs settlement hierarchy seeks to prioritise and focus investment and growth to achieve integration of infrastructure, employment and new housing. In this case, the SDZ would facilitate the consolidated growth of the Metropolitan Area, while at the same time allowing for the provision of infrastructure; employment and new housing (see Paragraph 15.1.1.9 of Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022).

(Please note: changes to this chapter are also recommended in other chapters below in relation to the issues arising)

9

Chapter 2. Vision & Key Principles Submission Numbers: 1001, 1005, 1007, 1008, 1010, 1012, 1013, 1015, 1019, 1032, 1033, 1035, 1036, 1038, 1041, 1042, 1044, 1045, 1048, 1055, 1056, 1058, 1066, 1069, 1076, 1079, 1084, 1086, 1088, 1093, 1095, 1096, 1107 Submissions Summary A number of submissions expressed support for the overall Vision and Key Principles of the Draft SDZ Planning Scheme, noting that Poolbeg West had the potential be one of the great waterfront developments and an exemplar in smart, innovative and sustainable urban design. Concerns were however raised that Key Principles were not sufficiently demonstrated within the SDZ Planning Scheme or that the surrounding area would be protected and enhanced. A number of requests to alter the wording of the Key Principles were received seeking references to: Existing residents not being adversely affected by any proposed developments. The provision of future required transport schemes. A greater emphasis on mixed tenure housing. Green connections to be developed in accordance with the Ringsend Irishtown Village Local Environment Improvement Plan. Dublin Bay Studio. Chief Executive’s Response The Vision and Key Principles were developed following a period of research, analysis and consultation. Common themes emerged to provide stronger transport, social and economic connections with the City, create a new high quality ‘place’ that is unique and protect the surrounding environment and ongoing functions of the port and municipal facilities. The themes of ‘Connect’, ‘Create’ and ‘Protect’ are reflected throughout all chapters of the Draft SDZ Planning Scheme, via tangible objectives relating to sustainable transport links, local green connections, new and enhanced areas of open space, employment opportunities, community infrastructure, place-led design solutions and environmental protections. With regard to the specific issues raised in relation to the Vision and Key Principles: Section 2.4.3 of the Draft SDZ Planning Scheme ‘Protect and Enhance the Amenity of Residents’ states ‘Key Principle: To ensure that the well being and safety of residents is not adversely affected by nearby industries and the threats of Climate Change and that the amenities of existing and future residents are protected and enhanced’. The section title does not distinguish between existing residents or future residents. Nevertheless, in the interests of clarity, the Key Principle can be amended. The protection of future transport schemes is consistent with the Objectives of the Draft SDZ Planning Scheme. Housing Objective 6 states: To create a socially integrated neighbourhood which encourages tenure diversity and creates a good mix of housing types integrated into the area. A further reference to mixed tenure can also be incorporated into the relevant Key Principal. The proposal for a film studio is discussed in further detail in Sections 5 and 9 of this Report below. Film studios are a permissible use under the objectives of the Z14 zoning, as Industry (light) or Media-Associated uses, depending the form and/or scale of any such proposal. It is not appropriate to specify a particular use to an employment zone. The Draft SDZ Planning Scheme was developed with regard to the Ringsend Irishtown Village Local Environment Improvement Plan. This is demonstrated for example by the ‘local green connections’ that provide a direct link from the SDZ to Ringsend Park.

10

Recommendation Amend Section 2.3.1 Key Principle: Establish a new urban neighbourhood, with a mixed tenure, that sustains the future population and workforce of Poolbeg West and complements and enhances the services available in surrounding communities. Amend Section 2.4.2 Key Principle: Ensure that the development of Poolbeg West and the ongoing operations of Dublin Port, and municipal facilities and future transport schemes are mutually taken in account and integrated into the urban structure of the city. Amend 2.4.3 2.4.3 Protect and Enhance the Amenity of Existing and Future Residents Key Principle: To ensure that the well being and safety of residents is not adversely affected by nearby industries and the threats of Climate Change and that the amenities of existing and future residents are protected and enhanced.

11

Chapter 3 A New Residential Neighbourhood Submission Numbers 1001,1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1012, 1013,1019, 1027, 1029,1032,1033, 1035 , 1036, 1037, 1040, 1041, 1044, 1045, 1048, 1055, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1059, 1061, 1066, 1068 1069, 1072, 1074, 1078, 1082, 1084,1086, 1091, 1092, 1093, 1095, 1097 , 1101, 1102, 1103, 1104, 1107, 1108 Summary of Issues Note: Because of the range of submissions received, summaries of submissions, responses and Chief Executive’s recommendations are provided for each chapter subsection hereunder Section 3.2 Challenges and Opportunities Summary of issues A number of submissions state that amenity is poor due to heavily trafficked roads. One submission states that the cumulative impact of the Port masterplan, SDZ and LEIP has not been considered. Some submissions see the scheme as unambitious in relation to scale and quantum. There is a need to maximise the potential of this area. A further comment was that the development will meet only one years housing requirements for Dublin City Councils area, and this is insufficient. Clanna Gael Fontenoy CLG (Cumann Luath-chleas Gael) are concerned at proximity of residential uses to their site. Additional text is sought by IGBHAG at the start of section 3.2, which emphasises the need to allow for medium and lower income people to make their home in the area in their existing communities. Chief Executive’s Response The Council is mindful of the existing poor level of amenity on main roads. The planning scheme objectives aim to improve this situation in tandem with new development The (Draft) Port masterplan, SDZ and LEIP have been considered. The Port Masterplan is not yet finalised. Its public consultation phase ran in parallel with the draft planning scheme consultation. The quantum of development deliverable must take account of site constraints. This considered, there is some scope for limited additional quantum of development in areas where amenity safeguards are ensured (see Chapter 11 amendments hereunder) Clanna Gaels concerns have now been taken into account – particularly in relation to block layout (see chapter 11) Dublin City Council is mindful of the extent of the housing problem in the City and the need for measures to address it. Existing text already refers to this challenge. Chief Executive’s Recommendation No changes recommended

12

Section 3.3 Planning for an appropriate mix of housing (section 3.5 also); Summary of issues DHPCLG: In order to accord with “Rebuilding Ireland”, the DHPCLG considers the Planning Scheme should be amended to enable implementation of new models for the maximisation of a mixed tenure approach. In addition to the 10% social housing requirement under the Planning Acts, the Dept suggests that the scheme could include a policy mechanism whereby, on an agreed basis, up to a further 10% of housing would be provided which would be accessible to households on an average industrial wage. The Department also considers it crucial that people who need social housing and key workers can avail of affordable housing in places like Poolbeg. A submission from the Green Party calls for 33% social, 33% affordable cost-rental, and 33% private housing. The Party considers that the area can be a test site for cost rental, managed by a housing association or the local authority. A submission from the Iveagh Trust states that at least 30% social provision is required. The trust has experience in housing management and support services. In addition, the tenure mix should be spread across the area. One submission states that the Scheme fails to include as a specific objective, the objective to secure the implementation of the Housing Strategy (Green Party). This is fundamental. A submission from the ‘IGB Housing Action Group’ (IGBHAG) seeks a new concept in urban living, whereby housing units are affordable and suited to a broad range of needs. It seeks that social housing will not be subject to private landlords, and that the IGB site be transferred to Dublin City Council for provision of a socially sustainable scheme. Approved housing bodies should have more power to build and manage units. A statutory instrument should set out the requirements for mixed tenure to include social housing, affordable housing, co-housing and co-operating housing models. It will be necessary to engage with the receiver. In relation to text at section 3.3, it is argued that the ‘build to let’ section should be removed and amended to ‘affordable rental’. The student accommodation section should be omitted and replaced by ‘senior citizen and support living’ (IGBHAG submission) Other submissions state that the site is an opportunity to deliver a vibrant urban residential mix Planning for an appropriate mix of housing Housing types Irishtown Residents Group state that there is demand for 2 bed units wanted with gardens – suited to starter homes or for those downsizing. Apartments should be low rise with pitched roofs. The IGB Housing Action Group seeks changes to the mix of units such that 3 beds + account for 25% plus, 1 beds at 15% minimum, and 2 beds become the balance. The number of 1 beds is considered too high Submission from Sean Moore Road Residents Association states that no bedsits should be allowed and an increase in 3-bed provision is required. Some submissions including one from the Green Party seeks many more family homes in the area. Build to rent: The quantum of build to rent units allowable in each of the four blocks should be increased to 200 units, from 150. The requirement for this to be balanced across 4 blocks should be omitted, such that they can be provided anywhere in the scheme (Becbay/Fabrizia submission) Objective H5 should be amended to reflect this. Build to rent and student accommodation shoud be removed (Sean Moore Road Residents Assocn) Table 3.2

13

Amendents recommended for flexibility include the omission of the text ‘shared living (30% max)’ in the top line and replacement instead with an esterisked reference to this maximum. (Becbay/Fabrizia submission) Chief Executive’s Response In response to the DHPCLG submission, it is considered that additional text should be added, seeking up to a further 10% of housing would be provided which would be accessible to households on an average industrial wage (see below) The above changes the context for the Green Party’s submission, yet 33% private housing is considered unacceptably low. Dublin City Council will work with available models and the advice of the DHPCLG. This response is also relevant to the content of submissions from IGBHAG and the Iveagh Trust. Dublin City Council as a local Authority is not in a position to issue statutory instruments but does support a mix/variety of tenure in order to achieve a balanced residential community. ‘Build to let’ and ‘affordable rental’are not interchangeable terms. ‘Build to Let’ or ‘Build to Rent’ is a model of purpose built professionally managed private-rental accommodation with a long-term horizon. The provision of an element of student accommodation is considered reasonable and there is a student population of 80,000 the City. There is potential to reduce pressure from student occupation in the private rental sector. It is correct to ensure an objective to secure the implementation of the Housing Strategy, as this is a requirement under section 168 of the Plannign and Development Act ( As amended by amendment refer F315 in 2015). Text at Objective H5 already addressed this, stating ‘All residential development shall comply with the provisions of Dublin City Councils Housing Strategy as set out in the City Developemnt Plan’. This is consided sufficient. The mix of units sought has been carefully devised, based on best practice/expertadvice, and with due consideration to the importance of implementing the recently adopted housing strategy. Professional advice points to the need for a large proportion of of 2 bed units, and it remains the the mix sought is appropriate following analysis. On review, the proprtion of 1 beds is not considered excessive. Studio type units are allowable under recent legislation. No particular evidence is available to suggest that 3 bed provision at 15% minimum is insuffcient. In relation to ‘family homes’, typical household composition is changing and 2 bed units for example often constitute appropriate family homes in this city context. Providing units with gardens is not practical if we want to achieve sustainable densities with supporting services including high frequency public transport. Comments on ‘low rise’ are not based on any definition of same, but in any case, considerable height is needed to achieve the desired densities to best make use of available lands. Chief Executive’s Recommendation Insert the following text at end of first para under heading ‘social housing provision’ in section 3.5, p12: 10% of the housing yield of the planning scheme area must be delivered as social housing. In addition, and on an agreed basis, delivery of up to another 10% of its housing yield should be accessible (in economic

terms) for households on average industrial wages.

The same text above to be added to the end of Objective H6 (p13) 3.4 Building heights and block layout: Submissions summary Submissions received relating to this section generally focus on the quantum of residential proposed & its relationship with height.

14

The DHPCLG states it will support the City Council and housing providers and the local community in achieving this new neighbourhood of at least 3000 homes. The DHPCLG also suggests that in order to enhance viability and housing yield up to possibly 3500 units, consideration be given to further increasing height eg. along the south side of some blocks. Other submissions state that 3000 units is not enough and more can be provided. EMRA notes that the RPGS support the development of housing and employment in strategic growth areas within the Metropolitan Area, such as Poolbeg West SDZ. NAMA supports the delivery of significant new residential development and sustainable use of the land. This is consistent with Government Policy including the Action Plan for Housing and Homelesness (ie ‘Rebuilding Ireland’ 2016). The Government has identified a number of major urban sites for housing delivery and one of these is within the Strategic Development Zone (ie for 3000 units). Some modifications are recommended in order to improve certainty.

• New homes sought should be in the range 3000-3500. This is necessary to reflect variances that arise.

• A review of the practical workability of the indicative block layouts is needed, and heights should be reviewed.

A number of submissions state that higher buildings required as this is a suitable location for them and it will reduce commuting. Some see heights proposed as unimaginative and conservative. Other submissions are concerned regarding excessive height and related impacts on views and overshadowing. The British Irish Chamber of Commerce submission suggests there is too much emphasis on low rise buildings and scope for more height over 12 storeys Ballymore Group recommend changes to the building layout on foot of previous masterplanning. Recommendations are made in relation to larger block sizes, which can in turn facilitate greater height. Chief Executive’s Response Increasing the number of deliverable units, given the urban design context, needs careful consideration having regard to the heights already proposed and amenity implications arising from additional height. It is not a matter of simply selecting the desired number of units, as the matter is largely one for consideration in the context of urban structure and design, which has been reassessed in this document in chapter 11. The outcome is that a minimum of 3000 units can be planned. Up to 3,500 units can be accommodated dependent on the details of individual applications, such as unit mix, amenities, solar access, and other design considerations (see chapter 11). The support of EMRA and NAMA is appreciated, and the figures sought by NAMA are supported by the above text. As previous, heights have been re-evaluated in chapter 11 with regard to relevant safeguards. Some modifications are recommended, yet these do not require alterations to text in section 3.4. Other variables such as block sizes are also addressed. Chief Executive’s Recommendation Text in section 1.3 of chapter 1 (page 3, towards top of second column) to be modified as follows; The residential potential within the 34 HA of available lands, on the basis of the ratio used in the Grand Canal Dock and North Lotts SDZ, the 34 HA of available lands can accommodate approximately is for between 3000 and 3500 additional residential units at a net gross residential density of upto 238 units per hectare (uph) on lands to the south of South Bank Road. The estimated housing yield equates to a a residential population of circa 7000 8000.

15

Section 3.5: Creating an inclusive and socaily balanced community Summary of issues Changes are sought to the text in regard to student housing, such that ‘any such proposal should be small in relation to each urban block’ is omitted in favour of a refence to over-concentration. Secondly, a submission states that text should be added to state that student accommodation will be excluded from the housing mix required under Tables 3.1 and 3.2. (Becbay/Fabrizia submission) It is submitted that social housing should be incorporated into each building rather then being isolated Different opinions in relation to social and affordable proportions; some suggest this should be 50%, other 30%. There should be a social mix. More housing is required instead of an extra power station. Another submission sought that the estate be privately managed. Submissions sought that the following services should be provided: a crèche, shops, cafes. Need to ensure the quantum of development makes Luas viable A number of comments related to the residential/employment balance. Job creation was considered necessary to balance the area. Many jobs in the area are not suited to the needs of local communities. Other submissions support Dublin Bay studios which would integrate well into the residential area and have a positive impact by way of catalysing investment. The idea of balanced employment and residential development is supported. The studios need not compete with housing. Submission on behalf of DublinBay Studios states that the studio proposal would enable the development of a sustainable quarter where people can both live and work. Sufficient land would be available for residential development. An interactive science and climate change centre in this area could catalyse consultation and community conversation – looking at technology and improvements to sustainable living. Creating identity: the area needs a name and identity other than Poolbeg West (Cllr Flynn) IGBHAG submission states in relation to the text, it is argued that the following tenure mix should be added: 25% market led, 25% Local Authority/ approved housing bodies social housing, 25% approved housing association dwellings/mix, and 25% affordable/co-housing schemes. Special consideration to be given to co-housing schemes or similar user-led initiatives. (IGBHAG submission). Changes recommended to specific objectives are as follows: H1: Remove the word ‘student’ H2: Add in “supporting physical and social infrastructure” H4: Public realm should be managed by Dublin City Council H5: Remove “build to rent and studio accommodation” H6: Add “and affordable housing” after words ‘All social housing’. Include the words ‘tenure diversity’ and ‘economic diversity’ Chief Executive’s Response The draft scheme is clear that student accommodation, if any is proposed, will only be a small component of the overall scheme, and must not dominate any urban block. Requirements relating to student accommodation are reasonable and appropriate. All proposals must comply with development plan standards. Large scale provision could dominate an urban block whereas an overall integtrated mix is preferable. In relation to the comment that student accommodation should be excluded from the housing mix required under Tables 3.1 and 3.2, it should be noted that purpose built student accommodation has a specific format, largely comprising “home units” between 3 and 8 bedspaces and as such they are included in the standard 1/2/3 bed residential land use. On this basis it is considered that the text is satisfactory in expressing the desired intention. Social and affordable housing

16

Section 3.5 of the scheme seeks tenure diversity and social housing provision. In this regard text will be modified by text as recommended in section 3.3 above (on foot of DHCPLG submission). The entire estate shoud not be privately managed as areas of public realm may require public management. Services are adequately provided for in the plan. The quantum/density of development, in compbination with the surrounding area, will support efficient public transport including Luas. Employment/residential mix It is considered that the draft planning scheme provides sufficient land-use clarity to demonstrate that there would be a fair balance of employment and residential uses. Chapter 5 deals comprehensively with this aspect of the development. For purposes of this chapter, it is not intended to redefine any residential land use primarily for employment uses. In relation to the comment that more housing is required, the land uses have been carefully defined by providing employment and port related uses in areas generally less suited to residential. In regard to the idea of a climate change centre in the area, such a use could be accommodated within the scheme subject to feasibility. In regard to the comment that the area needs a name and identity other than ‘Poolbeg West’, it should be noted that the ‘Poolbeg West’ title is for the SDZ scheme and there is scope for revisiting the naming of developments in this area. For present purposes the title is adequately descriptive basd on the historic placename. In relation to IGBHAG’s recommendations for specific objectives: H1: The provision of student accommodation as part of a sustainable area of housing is appropriate H2: Physical infrastructure is provided for elsewhere in the plan H4: Dublin City Council cannot manage all Public realm but does where it is feasible. However, it should be fully accessible to the public and of a quality that can be taken in charge. H5: Allowing for “build to rent” and “studio accommodation” is reasonable given the legislative and best-practice context. H6: The change sough is addressed to some degree in the recommendation below. The words ‘tenure diversity’ are already in cluded and ‘economic diversity’ is not necessary in this context. Chief Executive’s Recommendation Retain existing text.

17

Chapter 4 Community Development Submission Numbers: 1008, 1010, 1012, 1013, 1019, 1020, 1028, 1032, 1033, 1035, 1036, 1037, 1041, 1044, 1048, 1049, 1051, 1055, 1056, 1058, 1059, 1066, 1082, 1091, 1093, 1095, 1096, 1098, 1107, 1108 Summary of Issues The planning scheme should be integrated into the existing neighbourhood and a community centre is critical to the success of the SDZ. A vibrant community should be considered in terms of employment, recreation and services. It is submitted that community and social development can only be achieved if the residential quantum in the SDZ is increased and communities having access to employment for which they are either qualified or for which they can qualify following training.

There is support for a film studio and it is stated in submissions that it would complement the housing planned for the area very well – helping to create a living working community where people can live and work side by side. It is submitted that communities can only thrive though employment and that a film studio can offer that to local communities. Persons working in the film area are ideal for integration into existing communities.

It is submitted that there should be a much greater level of detail regarding the amenities and community services that are to be provided to support sustainable community development in the area of the SDZ. Community development in the SDZ should include a gym, all weather sports facility, crèches, school, other educations & childcare services, community hall, radio station, church or chapel and on the exact manner in which these will be developed and provided. It is stated that that the plan should ensure that the school built as part of the plan is multi-denominational to encourage diversity in the SDZ. It is submitted that a secondary school be considered for the area. Ensuring age friendly services particularly the needs of the elderly will require public transport to access public services. In terms of the cultural and artistic space in the SDZ, it is submitted that objective CD8 should be amended to state require social, cultural, creative and artistic space be provide in addition to the provision of the community space. The requirement for allocation of space at ground floor level for social, cultural, creative and artistic purposes should be included in the land use and phasing objectives. That the provision of 5% social, cultural, creative and artistic should be compulsory in both residential and commercial developments. It is also submitted that the objectives in the current Dublin City Development Plan relating to community development should be applied to the SDZ.

It is submitted that Dublin City Council should work with the existing communities in the area and there should be collaboration in the delivery of community services in the SDZ. There should also be engagement with the long term tenants of Dublin Port in the SDZ. Chief Executive’s Response

It is the aim of the planning scheme to provide housing, employment, recreation, social and commercial services, in a sustainable manner in the SDZ. The Council recognises the real value of any neighbourhood is its community with people, individually and collectively, being the city’s strongest asset. Community development in the planning scheme will ensure optimum use of community services in both the SDZ and existing neighbourhood thereby integrating the new residents with the existing communities. The draft plan will support a mix of commercial uses including media, film production type uses that would create a vibrant community. Chapter 4 of the draft plan underlines people focus, which will remain at the core of all proposals for design and land use provision with an improvement in the quality of life for the new residents’ and the established residents around the SDZ. Dublin City Council through its Department of Community and Development has assumed responsibility for Community Development, Social Inclusion, Children’s Services, Integration and an

18

Age Friendly City. The council will actively pursue a Community and Social Development agenda that will support and underpin the SDZ objectives in chapter 4. Dublin City Council will promote the development of local community, cultural and recreational uses such as gym, dance hall, sports facility, crèches, school, community hall, radio station, church or chapel in the SDZ as set out in Objective CD1 of the draft planning scheme, having regard to existing facilities in the locality Dublin City Council has published a Draft Dublin Docklands Social Infrastructure Audit in 2015 and adopted the city Local Economic and Community Plan 2016-2021. Proposals for large scale developments in the SDZ area must be accompanied by a community infrastructure statement comprising of audits of existing facilities in the area. This audit must show a proposal will contribute to the range of supporting community infrastructure and how it will deliver key social infrastructure element. The delivery of community infrastructure in the SDZ area will be through the compliance statement in chapter 12 of the draft planning scheme. 5% social, cultural, creative and artistic spaces is for the whole of docklands area and all developments in the SDZ will contribute to this figure in tandem with needs identified through community audits. Community audit submitted by large development proposals shall provide specific range community facilities required for the area. Objective CD 8 should be amended to include all developments. The proposed ground floor level for uses for social, cultural, creative and artistic spaces is already contained in the Land Use & Phasing section of draft planning scheme, see page 48. Dublin City Council has a Cultural Strategy in place for the city and it is considered that, developers should consult with the Art office to devise social, cultural, creative and artistic uses that will best match the needs of the new community and the city. Dublin City Council has been engaging the Department of Education and Skills all through the plan process and it is the objective of the planning scheme to provide primary school(s) in the SDZ. Department of Education have recently purchased the former Rehab site in Sandymount Dublin 4 to locate a secondary school. In terms of childcare services, Dublin City Council participates on the Dublin City Childcare Committee. The needs of SDZ can be assessed under this existing structure. Regarding concerns of local employment and training, it is the objective of the draft planning scheme to facilitate employment and training initiatives for residents of all ages in the Poolbeg and the surrounding area, see objective EC10 and EC11 of the draft planning scheme. See also chief executive response on Economy and Employment. It is the objective of Dublin City Council to engage with cultural, community and corporate stakeholders in the Poolbeg area to develop inclusive strategies for community infrastructure provision (Objective SNO1 of the Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022). All planning applications must comply with the objectives in the SDZ planning scheme and where policies, objectives, principles or standards are not specifically addressed in the SDZ planning scheme, those in the Dublin City Development Plan shall apply, see section 12.3 of the draft planning scheme. Chief Executive’s Recommendation Insert text after the first paragraph in chapter 4.1 introduction: Dublin City Council through the Department of Community and Social Development has assumed responsibility for Community Development, Social Inclusion, Children’s Services, Integration and an Age Friendly City. Amend CD 8 from To require the provision of social, cultural, creative and artistic purposes in the SDZ to contribute to the 5% allocation of such spaces in the docklands area. This space can be provided in tandem with community needs identified through community audits to achieve viable economies of scale. The

19

space can also be achieved through existing or other planned community spaces within and close to the SDZ, subject to the approval of Dublin City Council. to

1. To require all developments over 50 residential units/5000m2 provide the provision of social, cultural, creative and artistic purposes in the SDZ to that contribute to the 5% allocation of such spaces in the docklands area. This space can be provided in tandem with community needs identified through community audits (see CD 9 below) to achieve viable economies of scale. The space can also be achieved through existing or other planned community spaces within and close to the SDZ, subject to the approval of Dublin City Council.

2. Developers to consult with the Arts Office of Dublin City Council, Local communities and residents in developing the social, cultural, creative and artistic needs of the SDZ

20

Chapter 5 Economy & Employment Submission numbers: 1003, 1005, 1008, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025, 1028, 1029, 1032, 1033, 1034, 1035, 1036, 1038, 1039, 1042, 1044, 1045, 1046, 1047, 1049, 1051, 1052, 1053, 1055, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1059, 1060, 1062, 1064, 1065, 1069, 1071, 1072, 1073, 1075, 1077, 1078, 1079, 1081, 1082, 1083, 1085, 1088, 1093, 1094, 1095, 1096, 1097, 1098, 1099, 1100, 1101, 1105, 1106, 1107, 1108

A submission was received from the Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government (DHPCLG) which states: - Port Related Activities

The Government Order recognises that the appropriate development of port related activities within the designated SDZ is necessary and of wider national importance, particularly to the health of national economy. This also applies to the wider Dublin port lands of which the Poolbeg area forms one part. In view of the wider development of Dublin port including a more intensive use of its available landholdings, it is recommended that further consideration be given to the inclusion of more detail in the Planning Scheme that supports the appropriate type and scale of port related activities within the SDZ area. This is in order to further reinforce and support the eventual final planning Scheme as an effective decision making tool for adjudicating on the appropriateness of any future port related activity development proposals within the designated SDZ lands.

- Employment and Media Related Activities

The draft planning scheme appropriately supports commercial, particularly office based activities mainly within the northern part of the SDZ area in line with its broader objectives of securing a mixed living and working sustainable community which is fully in line with Government policy. To maximise the vibrancy and animation of the area as a new city quarter and reflective of general government policy to expand Irelands creative sector, the draft planning scheme appropriately identifies the potential of media sector activities to contribute to its long term aims. The Department considers that the area has potential to deliver locations for media sector specific developments and would encourage Dublin City Council to proactively work with landowners, including Dublin Port to realise the considerable potential for media related development in this area commensurate with the need to first and foremost maximise housing delivery and secure the strategic development of Dublin Port as Ireland’s most strategic and largest port.

A submission was received from Dublin Bay Studios, which put forward a proposal to provide space for film, TV and digital content production studios, located in the north east Port Area of the SDZ. The proposed development in the site comprises an eight stage studio with total capacity of 180,000 square feet (c. 16,725 sq m). The submission states that 4,600 + Jobs will be created; it will be a catalyst for the regeneration of Poolbeg; it will support the provision of housing; it would be compliant with Planning Policy; it would generate Tourism and Cultural Hub The submission also states that the proposal will not impede on Dublin City Council’s ability to provide the much needed residential accommodation within the City, but rather enable the development of a sustainable and resilient quarter where people can live and work, including both private residential and social housing units. The proposed development only relates to one part of the entire SDZ ensuring that sufficient land is available for residential development. A number of submissions were received supporting the proposal from Dublin Bay Studios. One submission received stated that as expansion of the city so far out is required by National Policy, then far more than 3,000 homes should be built in Poolbeg due to its closeness to the city centre. Much of the land for 8,000 jobs should be devoted to housing. A low density film studio should be located further out on the periphery of Dublin in view of the desperate need for accommodation in the centre.

21

A number of submissions received were content with the existing text in Section 5.4.2 of the Draft which states “Dublin City Council supports uses associated with media/digital media and film production. There may be an opportunity for these and associated uses to locate within the proposed area of commercial/office buildings.” These submissions stated that the existing text quoted above is adequate to allow for media/digital media and film production, ensuring that the use put forward by Dublin Bay Studies could potentially be accommodated in the future, with the agreement of the landowner (Dublin Port Company). One submission received requested that the important economic role of Dublin Port should be recognised clearly in the draft planning scheme and that the ongoing use and development of Dublin Port and the wider port area should be recognised, maintained and facilitated. A submission was received from the Eastern Midlands Regional Assembly, within which it is suggested that the retail element proposed should follow the Retail Planning Guidelines (RPG’s) for planning authorities 2012 in providing for retail at a commensurate level for the local catchment and to ensure the ongoing viability of surrounding local centres. A submission was received from the Green Party stating: - The objectives should be re-ordered so that the protection of Dublin Port is not the priority

objective. The areas in the SDZ used for current port activities or reserved for future development of the port should be developed at the same time as the Irish Glass Bottle site is developed. This is to ensure a coherent development and efficient use of new transport and community infrastructure.

- New objectives relating to Economy and Employment should be added, in particular: o The Green Party support the building of a world class film and television studio in Dublin

Bay, as a dedicated site with specific zoning. The ideal location would be the Port East Area. The Green Party do not support the building of this project in areas zoned for the provision of housing.

o That priority should be given to indigenous social enterprise, green and creative industries who are seeking premises in the SDZ.

o That a full audit of commercial needs should be carried out in advance of commercial development in the Poolbeg SDZ.

o That all planning and development applications should be subject to an updated audit of requirements for office typology.

A submission was received from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which requested amending Objective EC3 to include the word sustainable as follows: Objective EC3 To protect the role of Dublin Port as a nationally important strategic asset of the State, and to provide for future sustainable growth of the port within the SDZ in line with economic recovery, and in tandem with investment in transport infrastructure as needed. A number of submissions received stated that the proposed SDZ is not ambitious enough. These submissions request that higher densities be considered, providing a greater quantum of both commercial to attract invest and residential to provide additional housing units. One submission received raised concern with regard to the public consultation process associated with the SDZ process. Several submissions received requested that the SDZ allow for energy efficient buildings, with sustainable employment based around the vicinity so as to reduce traffic. A number of submissions received accept that the SDZ will benefit the local economy and provide for much needed housing in the area, but raise concern with regard to the impact of traffic generated by the scheme on the existing road network. A submission received requested that space for small local shops and local businesses should be provided within the SDZ. A submission received requested that a Post Office and at least 2 ATM’s should be provided as part of any proposal for retail within the SDZ.

22

One submission received from Ringsend and Irishtown Community Centre requested the inclusion of text in Section 5.4.4 of the draft planning scheme ensuing that a local employment charter and training scheme during the construction and operation phases be put in place to promote local employment as a community benefit scheme linked to Dublin Port with the acknowledgement that the port are the fulcrum on which this hinges. The RICC would be happy to work in collaboration with Dublin Port on realising this. One submission was received from the Eastside and Docklands Local employment service (LES). The submission seeks the inclusion of the following: - A provision to ensure that there is a local labour element attached to the planning process and

that developers be required to engage with the Local Employment Service for the area (Eastside + Docklands) as part of the planning compliance process.

- To have the Local Employment Service for the area (Eastside + Docklands LES) as the key driver of employment opportunities for the SDZ project in both the construction phase and the on-going employment situation.

- That the Local Employment Service for the area (Eastside + Docklands LES) be charged with coordinating training opportunities with the state sector providers.

A number of other submissions were received requesting that objectives for employment, as well as a training and education fund and mentoring scheme be included in the SDZ. A submission was received, which stated that Dublin Port Company should not be allowed excessive industrial development, such as the storage of container handling, roll on roll off ferries or other such heavy industrial port activity in Poolbeg West. The submission goes on to state that Dublin Port Company should be encouraged wherever possible to relinquish land to Dublin City Council for residential development and cultural enterprises such as Dublin Bay Studios. The submission also states that employment is extremely important for the Irish economy and there is a great opportunity here to create a new local employment model, but that the area should be primarily residential and be protected as such. A number of submissions were received supporting the general text and objectives contained within Chapter 5 (Economy and Employment) of the Draft Planning Scheme. Several submissions received requested that the SDZ must include a clear plan and timeline for the front loading of infrastructure to facilitate not only the residential development but the proposed Commercial Zone. One submission received requested that high speed fibre to the home broadband should be made available to all buildings within the SDZ to facilitate working from home. Several submissions were received requesting that a incubator/working space with hot desks and meeting rooms be provided for start ups, sole traders and small businesses to work from in their early years. A submission was received from Becbay Ltd. (In Receivership), and Fabrizia Developments Ltd. (In Receivership), acting through the Statutory Receiver. The submission requests the following amendments to Chapter 5 (Economy and Employment): - Section 5.4.1: The retail area should accommodate between 1-2 supermarkets and a range of

supporting retail and retail services up to a maximum of 5,000 sq. m, unless a justifiable case is made. To supplement the above, the provision of small scale retailing at the junction of Sean Moore Road and the Central Boulevard is supported provided it can be demonstrated that it would not detract from the successful delivery of village centre retailing. This has potential to provide a service for those accessing the future LUAS station. Any supplementary retail area provided at the junction of Sean Moore Road and the Central Boulevard, and along the coastal promenade of up to 2,000 sq m is in addition to the 5,000 sq. m. retail space at the Neighbourhood Centre. A small number of at grade parking spaces can be provided adjacent to the 1-2 supermarkets. Any ground floor retail accommodation will be designed to be flexible and to suit other uses.

23

- Section 5.4.2: In relation to the volume of office type development within the Planning Scheme, an analysis of the size and depth of blocks required to act as an adequate buffer between South Bank Road and the residential area, the scale of office development appropriate is in the range 80,000 – 120,000 sq m (based on an 80/20 split).

- Objective EC1 To provide for between 80,000 and 120,000 sq m new commercial office/enterprise space in the Planning Scheme, in a mix of office types and scales, incorporating flexible building formats and adaptable to range of uses including incubator spaces, enterprise, media and port/international shipping offices, and hotel uses. Up to 50,000 sq. m. of commercial is also provided for north of South Bank road in the long term, when the final routing of the Eastern By-Pass is finalised; to allow for a more urban character to South Bank Road.

One submission received requested clarification as to whether the provision of 5,000 sq.m floorspace is a net floorspace rather than a gross floorspace figure. The same submission requests that the proposed Block Form and Layout as outlined in Fig. 11.2 should be indicative only and that retailers/developers should be allowed bring forward proposals that will comply with the operational requirements of conveniences store operators. The submission notes that the Planning Scheme outlines the potential for flexible frontages, but states that this approach is limited in its current form and may not provide sufficient variation to facilitate the required quantum and orientation of floorspace for a modern supermarket. If such floorspace is not provided, it may result in convenience retailers not being attracted to the area and this could be detrimental to the development of this new community. The submission also requests that in relation to block form and layout, consideration is given to the location and accessibility of such service areas. It is also highlighted in this submission that a retail convenience use would also be appropriate in the commercial area of the scheme; as such a use would provide a necessary service for office workers in this area. Such an approach would allow for multiple retail options at different locations throughout the area of the Draft Planning Scheme, thus ensuring a range of options at different locations to meet demand. One submission received raised concern with regard to the following: - The commercial edge to south bank road has the potential to lead to an inanimate edge in the

evening (outside of normal working hours) and at weekends. There is also concern that the rational for the provision of this commercial edge is based on environmental factors (to create a buffer between port related activates and the residential area) rather than market demand/research. Providing residential or a mixed use approach in each urban block along South Bank Road would be a way to ensure animation at all times.

- Overall quantum of office/commercial development appears to be very optimistic. A submission was received from Peel Ports, who request to be formally consulted about any planning applications to develop close to their operational land holdings. The submission also shows support for Objective EC3 and Paragraph 5.4. One submission received requests the insertion of text in Section 5.4 requiring the provision of mixed use buildings where possible, with retail on ground floor, office on the next 2-3 floors and residential on top. A submission received request the establishment of a centre for discovery (museum) within the SDZ. One submission received raised concern with regard to the impact of the SDZ on existing businesses, who have leases within the Dublin Port area of the scheme. The SDZ should provide clarity with regard to the future development of the port lands. There is concern regard the sterilisation of lands due to the proposed Eastern Bypass. It is considered in this submission that the port lands are excessive and that Rushfleet and other sites to the north of the SDZ are not required for port activities and should not be zoned as such. Chief Executive’s Response In relation to the submission received from the Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government, Chapter 11 (Urban Structure & Design), in particular Figure 11.2 (Block Form and Layout), this will be amended to provide mode detail with regard to the appropriate scale of development on the port lands. Please refer to the Chapter 11 section of this report for more detail.

24

With regard to realising the considerable potential for media related development in this area commensurate with the need to first and foremost maximise housing delivery and secure the strategic development of Dublin Port as Ireland’s most strategic and largest port, it is considered that the Draft Planning Scheme adequately ensures firstly, the provision of housing, secondly, the safeguarding of the strategic development of Dublin Port as Ireland’s most strategic and largest port and thirdly, the possibility for media related development/media-associated uses, which is a permissible use within the SDZ, by the inclusion of the text in section 5.4.2, which states: “There may be an opportunity for these and associated uses to locate within the proposed SDZ commensurate with the need to first and foremost maximise housing delivery and secure the strategic development of Dublin Port as Ireland’s most strategic and largest port.” In relation to the submission received from Dublin Bay Studios, it is considered that the priority within the SDZ as highlighted in the submission from the Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government, is the provision of housing and the safeguarding of the strategic development of Dublin Port as Ireland’s most strategic and largest port. Accordingly, the potential for media related development in this area is not a priority but is acknowledged and encouraged in the Draft Planning Scheme, by having media-associated uses as a permissible use within the SDZ and the inclusion of the additional text in section 5.4.2, as set out in the above paragraph With regard to the request that the important economic role of Dublin Port should be recognised clearly in the draft planning scheme, the existing text in Section 5.4.3 (Dublin Port) recognises the important economic role of Dublin Port, stating: Dublin City Council fully supports and recognises the important national and regional role of Dublin Port in the economic life of the region and the consequent need in economic competitiveness and employment terms to facilitate port activities. Dublin Port will have a significant role to play in the future development and growth of the Poolbeg West area as well as the wider city. With this in mind, this planning scheme recognises the importance of retaining port uses and port related activities on site.”, while Objective EC3 recognises the ongoing use and development of Dublin Port and the wider port area by stating: “To protect the role of Dublin Port as a nationally important strategic asset of the State, and to provide for future growth of the port within the SDZ in line with economic recovery, and in tandem with investment in transport infrastructure as needed.” In relation to the submission received from the Eastern Midlands Regional Assembly, within which it is suggested that the retail element proposed should follow the Retail Planning Guidelines (RPG’s) for planning authorities 2012 in providing for retail at a commensurate level for the local catchment and to ensure the ongoing viability of surrounding local centres, it should be noted that Section 5.4.1 (Commercial Uses) states: “Taking into account the scale of existing retail in the adjoining villages, and the proposed scale of development in the Planning Scheme and surrounding areas, it is considered that this district centre is of the smaller scale; catering primarily for local convenience needs and some additional services as well as restaurants and café uses. This will ensure the ongoing viability of surrounding local retail centres.” It is considered that the existing text within Section 5.4.1 (Commercial Uses) of the Draft Planning Scheme is appropriate and in keeping with the Retail Planning Guidelines (RPG’s) for planning authorities 2012 in providing for retail at a commensurate level for the local catchment and to ensure the ongoing viability of surrounding local centres. With regard to the submission received from the Green Party requesting that the objectives should be re-ordered so that the protection of Dublin Port is not the priority objective, it should be noted that the submission from the Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government (DHPCLG) states “The Government Order recognises that the appropriate development of port related activities within the designated SDZ is necessary and of wider national importance, particularly to the health of national economy. This also applies to the wider Dublin port lands of which the Poolbeg area forms one part.” The submission from the DHPCLG recommends that further consideration be given to the inclusion of more detail in the Planning Scheme that supports the appropriate type and scale of port related activities within the SDZ area. This is considered appropriate and will be addressed in Chapter 11. With regard to the request from the Green Party that the areas in the SDZ or reserved for future development of the port should be developed at the same time as the Irish Glass Bottle site is developed, it should be noted that Chapter 9 (Land Use & Phasing) deals with this issue, in particular

25

Section 9.4 (Sequencing of Development), which states that the character of the area is currently in two very different forms, with the port and utility related industry operating on most of the lands designated for such purposes and with the housing and amenity lands currently vacant sites. Because of this environment, a traditional phased approach is not practical or appropriate for this SDZ. The phasing plan addresses three key areas (i) ensuring that new housing provided is adequately buffered; (ii) that the transport requirements for each phase are fully considered and linked to development and (iii) that the differing time-lines that affect each major land use is addressed. The phasing plan therefore is shaped by two streams of phasing, one related to the commercial, residential, retail and community uses on the southern portion of the site and the second related to the port and port related and industrial activity zonings to the north and east of the SDZ. It is considered that the phasing plan proposed is in the best interests of the coherent, sustainable development of the overall Poolbeg West SDZ area. In relation to the Green Party support for the building of a world class film and television studio in Dublin Bay, as a dedicated site with specific zoning ideally as part of the Port Lands, as stated previously, it is considered that the priority within the SDZ is the provision of housing and the safeguarding of the strategic development of Dublin Port as Ireland’s most strategic and largest port. Accordingly, the potential for media related development in this area is not a priority but is acknowledged and encouraged in the Draft Planning Scheme, by having media-associated uses as a permissible use within the SDZ and the inclusion of the text in section 5.4.2, which states: “Dublin City Council supports uses associated with media/ digital media and film production. There may be an opportunity for these and associated uses to locate within the proposed SDZ commensurate with the need to first and foremost maximise housing delivery and secure the strategic development of Dublin Port as Ireland’s most strategic and largest port.” With regard to the submission that priority should be given to indigenous social enterprise, green and creative industries who are seeking premises in the SDZ, the following objectives contained in Chapter 5 (Economy and Employment) state: - Objective EC8 to encourage and facilitate a range of office and enterprise typologies to cater for

the key growth areas and to meet business life-cycle needs from start-up to growth phase and maturity, and to provide for a range of employment opportunities in the SDZ.

- Objective EC9 to promote the provision of incubator space and start-up facilities as part of conventional office development to foster synergies between companies of different sizes and across different sectors, together ensure the availability of small scale offices and incubator space within the SDZ,

It is considered that incubator space and start-up office typologies required to comply with the above objectives could be used by various indigenous social enterprises, green and creative industries. In relation to the request that a full audit of commercial needs should be carried out in advance of commercial development in the Poolbeg SDZ, it should be noted that the commercial uses proposed within this planning scheme have two main elements (i) neighbourhood district level retailing (having regard to the Retail Strategy of the City Development Plan) and (ii) office and enterprise/start up uses. It is anticipated that the commercial hub of Poolbeg West will serve the new population of the SDZ- workers and residents, as well as providing additional services to the area to the benefit of the wider docklands community. It will be well served by public transport, and within an easy and legible route to walk or cycle to. The number of new dwellings proposed in this Scheme will result in a self sustaining urban village, providing the critical mass (customers and workers) to serve the commercial area, while at the same time reducing trip generation. Audits are normally carried out when providing additional commercial floorspace in an existing, established urban centre, so as to clearly establish the demand for such uses. Poolbeg west is a brown field site (no existing development on site), which will accommodate upwards of 3,000-3,500 residential units, which equates to a residential population of approximately 7,000-8,000. Therefore the quantum of commercial proposed is based on the projected population of Poolbeg West, while also complying with the Retail Strategy of the Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022 as well as the Retail Planning Guidelines (RPG’s) for planning authorities 2012. With regard to the comment that all planning and development applications should be subject to an updated audit of requirements for office typology, it should be noted that Objective EC8 encourages and facilitates a range of office and enterprise typologies to cater for the key growth areas and to

26

meet business life-cycle needs from start-up to growth phase and maturity, and to provide for a range of employment opportunities in the SDZ. This will be monitored through the planning application process. The submission from the EPA requested amending Objective EC3 to include the word sustainable. This is considered appropriate. With regard to the submissions that the proposed SDZ is not ambitious enough in relation to housing provision, commercial space and overall densities, it should be noted that on foot of an urban design review, it is proposed to increase some heights at specific locations. This is discussed in more detail in the Chapter 11 (Urban Structure & Design) section of this report. In relation to the submission which raised concern about the public consultation process, it should be noted that the public consultation process, as carried out by Dublin City Council is a statutory process which must be carried out in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended). With regard to the submissions which requested that the SDZ allow for energy efficient buildings, with sustainable employment based around the vicinity so as to reduce traffic, it should be noted that Objective IU15 seeks to promote energy efficiency, energy conservation, and the increased use of renewable energy in the SDZ, while Objective EC2 seeks the development of a new commercial area within the Planning Scheme, to meet two key principles of the Scheme of protecting and creating quality new places by (i) provision of a buffer of development between the residential and port uses; and (ii) provide local employment within the Scheme that will reduce trip generation, and provide for two directional commuting on public transport between the City core and the Scheme and also bring vitality and trade to the area. Several submissions accept that the SDZ will benefit the local economy and provide for much needed housing in the area, but raise concern with regard to the impact of traffic generated by the scheme on the existing road network. Issues relating to traffic will be dealt with in the Chapter 6 (Movement) section of this report. In relation to the submission received that requested that space for small local shops and local businesses should be provided within the SDZ, it should be noted that Section 5.4.1 (Retailing) states that the retail area should accommodate between 1-2 supermarkets and a range of supporting retail and retail services up to a maximum of 5,000 sq.m. This will allow for a mix of local shops and local businesses to cater for future residents of the area. With regard to the request that a Post Office and at least 2 ATM’s should be provided as part of any proposal for retail within the SDZ, it is considered that this level of detail cannot be provided in the planning scheme, as an SDZ is a strategic document, identifying potential broad level land uses at appropriate locations. With regard to the submissions received in relation to local employment requesting: - that a local employment charter and training scheme during the construction and operation

phases be put in place to promote local employment as a community benefit scheme - a provision to ensure that there is a local labour element attached to the planning process and

that developers be required to engage with the Local Employment Service for the area (Eastside + Docklands) as part of the planning compliance process.

- to have the Local Employment Service for the area (Eastside + Docklands LES) as the key driver of employment opportunities for the SDZ project in both the construction phase and the on-going employment situation.

- that the Local Employment Service for the area (Eastside + Docklands LES) be charged with coordinating training opportunities with the state sector providers.

- that objectives for employment, as well as a training and education fund and mentoring scheme be included in the SDZ,

It is considered that objective EC10, which seeks to liaise with agencies and organisations working in the Poolbeg/Ringsend area to maximise educational opportunities and support access to employment for local residents of Poolbeg and the surrounding area and objective EC11, which seeks to facilitate agencies and organisations, in particular those engaged in employment and training initiatives in

27

Poolbeg, to work together in a co-ordinated manner in order to maximise employment, volunteer and training opportunities for residents of all ages in Poolbeg and the surrounding area, are adequate to ensure access to education, training and employment for the residents of Poolbeg and surrounding areas. This objective is similar to that in the existing North Lotts and Grand Canal Dock SDZ scheme. With regard to the submission requesting that Dublin Port is not the priority objective, it should be noted that the submission from the Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government (DHPCLG) states that the Government Order recognises that the appropriate development of port related activities within the designated SDZ is necessary and of wider national importance, particularly to the health of national economy. This also applies to the wider Dublin port lands of which the Poolbeg area forms one part. The submission from the DHPCLG recommends that further consideration be given to the inclusion of more detail in the Planning Scheme that supports the appropriate type and scale of port related activities within the SDZ area. This is in order to further reinforce and support the eventual final planning Scheme as an effective decision making tool for adjudicating on the appropriateness of any future port related activity development proposals within the designated SDZ lands. It is therefore deemed appropriate for the Draft Planning Scheme to have a significant focus on the Port lands and for the Port to be the priority objective along with the provision of housing. With regard to the request that the SDZ include a clear plan and timeline for the front loading of infrastructure to facilitate not only the residential development but the proposed Commercial Zone, a phasing plan for the front loading of infrastructure is provided on Page 50 of the Draft Planning Scheme with this issue discussed in more detail in the Chapter 9 (Land Use & Phasing) section of this report. With regard to the submission received requesting that high speed fibre to the home broadband should be made available to all buildings within the SDZ to facilitate working from home, it should be noted that objective IU6 in the draft planning scheme requires the provision of ducting for information communication technology within individual new residential and commercial developments. With regard to the submissions received requesting that a incubator/working space with hot desks and meeting rooms be provided for start ups, sole traders and small businesses to work from in their early years, it should be noted that objective EC8 To encourage and facilitate a range of office and enterprise typologies to cater for the key growth areas and to meet business life-cycle needs from start-up to growth phase and maturity, and to provide for a range of employment opportunities in the SDZ and objective EC9 To promote the provision of incubator space and start-up facilities as part of conventional office development to foster synergies between companies of different sizes and across different sectors, together ensure that a incubator/working space with hot desks and meeting rooms be provided for start ups, sole traders and small businesses to work from in their early years. With regard to the request from Becbay Ltd. (In Receivership), and Fabrizia Developments Ltd. (In Receivership), acting through the Statutory Receiver for the following amendments to Chapter 5 (Economy and Employment): - Section 5.4.1: The retail area should accommodate between 1-2 supermarkets and a range of

supporting retail and retail services up to a maximum of 5,000 sq. m, unless a justifiable case is made. To supplement the above, the provision of small scale retailing at the junction of Sean Moore Road and the Central Boulevard is supported provided it can be demonstrated that it would not detract from the successful delivery of village centre retailing. This has potential to provide a service for those accessing the future LUAS station. Any supplementary retail area provided at the junction of Sean Moore Road and the Central Boulevard, and along the coastal promenade of up to 2,000 sq m is in addition to the 5,000 sq. m. retail space at the Neighbourhood Centre. A small number of at grade parking spaces can be provided adjacent to the 1-2 supermarkets. Any ground floor retail accommodation will be designed to be flexible and to suit other uses.

It is considered that the figure of 5,000sqm of retail is a maximum, in line with the anticipate future population of Poolbeg West, while also complying with the Retail Strategy of the Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022 as well as the Retail Planning Guidelines (RPG’s) for planning authorities 2012, providing for retail at a commensurate level for the local catchment and to ensure the ongoing viability of surrounding local centres. Accordingly the amendment recommended by

28

Becbay Ltd is not supported and it is recommended that the text as per the Draft Planning Scheme remain. In relation to the request that an analysis of the size and depth of office blocks required to act as an adequate buffer between South Bank Road and the residential area and that the range should be between 80,000-120,000 sq.m rather than 80,000 – 100,000 sq.m, the capacity of the commercial area has been revisited and it is now considered that it is not reasonably possible to accommodate the additional area without compromising the ability to deliver 3000-3,500 residential units (see report on chapter 11). On this basis, 100,000 sq m should remain the upper limit. In relation to the submission received requesting clarification as to whether the provision of 5,000 sq.m floorspace is a net floorspace rather than a gross floorspace figure. This is a net figure and the Planning Scheme will be amended accordingly. The same submission requests that the proposed Block Form and Layout as outlined in Fig. 11.2 should be indicative only and that retailers/developers should be allowed bring forward proposals that will comply with the operational requirements of conveniences store operators. The submission notes that the Planning Scheme outlines the potential for flexible frontages, but states that this approach is limited in its current form and may not provide sufficient variation to facilitate the required quantum and orientation of floorspace for a modern supermarket. It is also highlighted in this submission that a retail convenience use would also be appropriate in the commercial area of the scheme; as such a use would provide a necessary service for office workers in this area. These issues relate to Chapter 11 (Urban Structure & Design) and will be dealt with in the Chapter 11 section of this report. With regard to the submission raising concern that the commercial edge to South Bank Road has the potential to lead to an inanimate edge outside of normal working hours and at weekends, it is considered that a balance needs to be struck between the need to cluster retail activity in the new village green centre, and towards Sean Moore Road (to serve existing and new residents, and the risk of dispersed retail activity resulting in lack of viability/vacancy. With regard to the concern raised that the rationale for the provision of the commercial edge is based on environmental factors (to create a buffer between port related activates and the residential area) rather than market demand/research and that the quantum is very optimistic, it is considered that the proposed commercial edge will adequately serve a dual purpose of being an environmental buffer, but also providing a viable retail and commercial core providing a range of local services and new employment locations. With regard to the concern raised that the overall quantum of office/commercial development appears to be very optimistic, it is considered that the maximum figure of 100,000 sq.m of office development is appropriate and well thought out having regard to the analysis of the size and depth of blocks required to act as an adequate buffer between South Bank Road and the residential area and the urban design response to facilitate that, while also ensuring a viable retail and commercial core providing a range of local services and new employment locations. DCC’s experience of recent commer4cial applications in the Docklands indicates there will be a market for the range of commercial floorspace proposed within the SDZ. With regard to the submission from Peel Ports requesting that they be formally consulted about any planning applications, there is a separate, statutory public notification process that will be followed in relation to planning applications. With regard to the request that text be inserted in Section 5.4 requiring the provision of mixed use buildings where possible, with retail on ground floor, office on the next 2-3 floors and residential on top, it should be noted that objective EC6 in Chapter 5 (Economy and Employment seeks to encourage the provision of mixed-use developments incorporating retail, office, residential and live-work units in appropriate locations, and the creation of small start-up units. It is considered that this objective is in line with the content of the submission received. In relation to the submission that requested the establishment of a centre for discovery (museum) within the SDZ, it should be noted that cultural/recreational building and uses is a permissible use within the SDZ, with both museum and exhibition hall falling under this permissible use.

29

In relation to the submission received raising concern with regard to the impact of the SDZ on existing businesses, who have leases within the Dublin Port area of the scheme, it should be noted that these business, provided they are lawfully established on site, have existing use rights and can remain at their current locations for the duration of their lease, or longer should another lease agreement be entered into. With regard to the request that the SDZ should provide more clarity with regard to the future development of the port lands, it is proposed that chapters 9 (Land Use& Phasing) and 11 (Urban Structure & Design) be amended accordingly, providing more detail as to how the port lands will be development. With regard to the concern raised in relation to the sterilisation of lands due to the proposed Eastern Bypass, the SDZ scheme aims to reconcile the corridor reservation with the objectives of the designation. In relation to the statement that the port lands are excessive and that Rushfleet and other sites to the north of the SDZ are not required for port activities and should not be zoned as such, it should be noted that only lands owned by the port are shown for port related activity. The Government Order recognises that the development of port related activities within the designated SDZ is necessary and of wider national importance, particularly to the health of national economy. This also applies to the wider Dublin port lands of which the Poolbeg area forms one part. Accordingly, it is considered that while sites to the north of the SDZ are not required for port activities presently, these sites are required to allow for the future expansion of the port, which is anticipated to grow from 30 million tonnes throughput to 77 million tonnes per annum by 2040. Chief Executive’s Recommendation (1) Amend text in paragraph 5.4.2 (page 21) of the draft to: Dublin City Council supports uses associated with media/ digital media and film production. There may be an opportunity for these and associated uses to locate within the proposed SDZ commensurate with the need to first and foremost maximise housing delivery and secure the strategic development of Dublin Port as Ireland’s most strategic and largest port. from: Dublin City Council supports uses associated with media/digital media and film production. There may be an opportunity for these and associated uses to locate within the proposed area of commercial/office buildings. There may also be similar opportunities in the nearby pigeon house precinct. (2) Amend Objective EC3 on page 22 to: EC3 To protect the role of Dublin Port as a nationally important strategic asset of the State, and to provide for future sustainable growth of the port within the SDZ in line with economic

recovery, and in tandem with investment in transport infrastructure as needed.

from: EC3 To protect the role of Dublin Port as a nationally important strategic asset of the State, and to provide for future growth of the port within the SDZ in line with economic recovery, and in tandem with investment in transport infrastructure as needed. (3) Add the following text at the end of second last paragraph of Section 5.4.2 on page 21: It should be noted that all of the above floorspace caps refer to net and not gross retail floorspace as defined in this planning scheme.

30

Chapter 6 Movement Submission Numbers: 1090, 1043 (National Transport Authority + Transport Infrastructure Ireland), 1001, 1002, 1008, 1013, 1014, 1016, 1020, 1029, 1030, 1031, 1033, 1035, 1036, 1040, 1044, 1048, 1051,1052, 1055, 1057, 1058, 1059,1066, 1068, 1069, 1072, 1073,1078, 1080, 1082, 1084, 1087, 1088, 1091, 1092, 1093, 1095, 1096, 1097,1107,1108 Note: Because of the volume and range of material submitted for this chapter, the Chief Executive’s responses and recommendations are provided for each subsection below Section 6.1 Introduction Summary of Issues On submission stated that as transport assessments were used to determine objectives in the plan, copies of these transport assessments should be made available. Chief Executive’s Response Inputs from Transport Infrastructure Ireland, the National Transport Authority and the Environment and Transportation Department of Dublin City Council all informed the objectives of the plan. Submissions made at pre-draft and draft stage are available from Dublin City Council. The content of the planning scheme is a synthesis of these inputs. Chief Executive’s Recommendation No change Section 6.2 Challenges Summary of Issues A number of submissions point to the need for the road and bridge network to be in place before housing begins. A decision and greater clarity is also needed on SPAR and the Eastern Bypass. There is a need to improve north-south connections across the river Liffey and also improved connectivity between the SDZ area and areas further south. Some submissions state that Dublin City Council should look to good examples such as Hammarby Sjostad in Stockholm, and HafenCity in Hamburg, to inform policy. Response Whilst there is an urgency to provide housing, the need to provide essential infrastructure in tandem with same has been considered in the preparation of phasing as set out in chapter 9, which identifies infrastructural requirements for each stage. Successful examples of new large scale developments have been considered in the preparation of the SDZ and have been adapted to the planning and legislative environment in Ireland.The uran structure including density accords with European urban principles. The Giovernment recently approved €15.75 million under the LIHAF programme, to include funding towards the Dodder Bridge, which is currently at design stage. Recommendation Amendment recommended to first sentence of second bullet point on page 24.

• The development of To facilitate the full build-out of the SDZ, a new bridge (already planned and provided for as part of the National Transport Authority’s Transport Strategy for

31

the Greater Dublin Area 2016-2035, Dublin City Development Plan and the Planning Scheme for Grand Canal Dock and North Lotts) over the River Dodder at the point where it merges with the River Liffey, will facilitate improved public transport, cycling and walking connections.

6.3. Policy context Summary The National Transport Authoritys submission recommends consistency with the NTA‘s Strategy and related documents Chief Executive’s Response It is considered that further clarity can be provided through refence to rfurther relevant transport plans and advice within the Table on page 25, which sets out strategy documents. Chief Executive’s Recommendation Amend table on page 25 by adding the following text to the second column

National Transport Authority (NTA)

Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2016-2035 Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan (2013),

National Cycle Manual (2011) Permeability, A Best Practice Guide (2015)

Integrated Implementation Plan 2013-2018 Workplace Travel Plans – A Guide for Implementers

(2014) Achieving Effective Workplace Travel Plans – Guidance

for Local Authorities (2014) Toolkit for School Travel (2013)

6.4 PUBLIC TRANSPORT General A number of submissions consider the public transport plans for the area to be inadequate. Transport requirements to be in place in advance or in tandem with residential development. This should be addressed in phasing. Some submissions stated that Fig 6.1 (Public transport strategy) should show the road network Luas/Light Rail Some submissions consider there is a lack of coordination regarding delivery of Luas. The objective for Luas should be changed from a promotion of it to ensuring it. A submission from EMRA states that the RPGS support the future extension of Luas south of the river. Various comments received on Luas included the assertion that moving Luas across the river is misguided. It was also stated that here are no current National Transport Authority plans to extend the Luas line. Another submission stated that Luas should extend to the Ferrry port and Ringsend. Amphitheatre Ireland Ltd (3 Arena) have expressed concern that any future Luas running through

32

point square would have serious implications for the operation of the 3 Arena due to conflict with movement to and from the venue. The lack of a clear timeline for Luas delivery was seen as inadequate, and that it should be an urgent priority. Another comment was that the intensity of development needs to be sufficient to make the Luas extension viable. One submission sought that text at 6.4 should refer to requirements for accommodating Luas in the future, including a potential stop, a green linear strip and 4m setback of Blocks A1 and A3. Bus Services The National Transport Authority recommends some changes to phasing in chapter 9 with respect to bus routes/priority. Bus priority recommendations are made in relation to chapter 11 (see this chapter). Dublin Bus states that the proposals are balanced and appropriate. Some proposals may change by the time implementation is due to take place. A number of submissions stated that the existing bus service is poor. New services need to be in place prior to completion. There is no aircoach service in the area as illustrated in Figure 6.1 Proposed extension to bus route no. 15 is vague Rail A submission from Iarnrod Eireann proposes that the pedestraian and cycling environment be improved to encourage optimal access from the development site to Sandymount and Lansdowne Road heavy rail stations. Bridges A number of submissions highlighted the need for new bridges inclusing a new bridge at the Tom Clarke Bridge (East Link Bridge). The capacity could be increased. Some sought that the toll requirement be removed. One submission sought that the Gut and SPAR be required at Phase 1. At the end of March, the DHPCLG approved €15.75 million under its Local Infrastructure Housing Activation Funding in relation to the Dodder Bridge. The RPGs support the provision of the infrastructure including the new Dodder Bridge. Other submissions stated that the Dodder Bridge would be welcomed but it is needed sooner than stated in the planning scheme. Objective MV3 should require this bridge prior to construction. The Docklands Business Forum believes the bridge could damage maritime business potential. Chief Executive’s Response Dublin City Council welcomes regional level support for the extension to the Luas Red Line to Poolbeg. Dublin City Council is eager to progress public transport provision and services for the area in cooperation with the relevant bodies. Phasing has been addressd in chapter 9 and this includes infrastructural requirements. We can learn much from progress in other European cities and these have indeed been influential, whilst the Council must also consider the relavant legislative and policy environment. Figure 6.1 shows public transport strategy for the wider area, whilst graphics in chapter 11 give the proposed detail. Figure 11.1 in particular illustrates public transport routes in the context of the planned street layout.

33

LUAS to Poolbeg is in fact supported by the National Transport Authority as part of its 2035 strategy, although the timeline for delivery is not short term. It is considered appropriate to plan for its arrival in designing the street layout and associated land uses. In relation to the actual route of the future Luas route, this has not been determined to date and therefore other potential stops on the new/extended route cannot be considerd at this stage of the process. The concern raised regarding Luas being extended through the Point Village area is a matter for detailed design stage by the NTA. The intensity of planned development in the SDZ in conjunction with existing development will support the future viability of Luas. In relation to the detailed design/layout requirements for accommodating a Luas line and stop, this is discussed in chapter 11 (urban structure and design). Bus services The NTAs comments are welcome. Dublin City Council will work with all available information in relation to future routes to serve the area. The route of aircoach will be deleted from Figure 6.1 and related text amended. Other bus route references should be revised to reflect the current position. Chief Executive’s Recommendation Amend first sentence under ‘Bus services’ heading as follows: There is limited bus service provision to the SDZ at present, with Seán Moore Road and Beach Road catering for Aircoach route 703 (Killiney to Dublin Airport). The nearby Irishtown Road and Sandymount Road cater for Dublin Bus routes 1 (Santry to Sandymount), 47 (Poolbeg to Belarmine), and 84N (D’Olier Street to Greystones). Route 18 connects nearby Sandymount to Palmerstown serving an orbital route. Omit 4 bullet points under ‘bus services’ heading (p26): Core bus route 15A extension from John Rogersons Quay to Poolbeg via Dodder Bridge ( 10 minute frequency or higher) Existing Core bus route 1 serving Ringsend and Beach Road to have increased frequency ( 10 min frequency or higher) An extension to existing route no. 18 from Strand Road along beach road and Sean Moore Road into the site. (no change in frequency) Shuttle bus from Clontarf DART station to Poolbeg And replace with: A Quality Bus Corridor providing a high frequency bus service, approximately 10 minute frequency in the peak hours, from Poolbeg to the city centre along the south quays; Provision of an east-west bus service connecting the SDZ area to the south city centre area; Provision of a north-south bus service, potentially running between Poolbeg and Clontarf Road DART stations; and Possible extensions of other existing bus routes to serve the SDZ area, including potential increased service frequencies. Figure 6.1 (public transport strategy map): delete reference to Aircoach and associated illustrated route. 6.5 ROAD NETWORK General: A number of submissions state that the existing network is poor and dangerous in places .There is a lack of clarity in regard to future roads, and concerns that the road network will not be able to cope with the additional traffic generated. Other submissions support the proposed network including improvements to the existing network.

34

The operation requirements of retailers need to be considered, including parking, deliveries, marshalling areas and public realm design. Deliveries should not be restricted in regard to time periods. National Transport Authority recommends some changes to phasing in chapter 9 in relation to phasing and roads (please refer to chapter 9). Eastern Bypass/SPAR/and Port Traffic: Summary of Issues The submission by Transport Infrastructure Ireland is summarised in section 3 at the beginning of this report. (note also that TII have commented on phasing requirements, see section in chapter 9) Bissett Engineering, a company with a long lease on lands close tot the bay, raises the concern that this active industrial site (0.3 ha) is identified for use as a park and commercial buffer pending delivery of the eastern bypass. It is therefore precluded from development and the land is effectively sterilized. Figure 6.3 on page 29 of the draft scheme, which illustrates the SPAR/Eastern bypass corridor, SDZ impacts on a wide range of sites, yet restrictions have only been placed on a small area. The fact that the SPAR route is not clearly set out is also problematic. A corridor study should be carried out for the SPAR and Eastern Bypass. The submission from National Transport Authority gives new context to the southern port access route, stating it” would be developed as a stand-alone project, but would be capable of integration into the possible future development of an eastern bypass. The scheme would either terminate at Sean Moore Road roundabout or at a new junction further east.” EMRA submission: The RPGS propose strategic transport investment for the GDA, including the continued reservation of the corridor for the Eastern By-Pass, improvements to Dublin Port to facilitate growth needs, the development of the South Port Access Route (SPAR) Dublin Chamber of Commerce welcomes the reservation of land for the Bypass. Another submission states that the Eastern by pass reservation should not stymie development. Dublin Port Company (DPC) submission seeks the retention of Objectives MV4 and MV8 in their entirety in the final planning scheme, as these are seen as important for the dvelopment of the Port. These state: MV4 To protect the route of the proposed Southern Port Access Route and Eastern Bypass in accordance with the objectives of Transport Infrastructure Ireland and the National Transport Authority Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2016-2035. As an interim measure it is proposed to provide a separate road access to the south port area via a new link located north of the existing Seán Moore Roundabout. MV8 To promote the redirection of port and port-related heavy traffic away from South Bank Road. This will be achieved through provision of an alternative route for such traffic and HGVs and also through traffic management, thereby ensuring a high level of amenity for those occupying non-port commercial and residential buildings Submissions from companies operating port-related activities generally support the proposed road network Submission from the Electricity Supply Board raises the concern that figure 6.3 shows significant encroachment of the eastern bypass corridor onto the Synergen power station site. The Ringsend 110kV Station is critical for electricity supply to Dublin. The corridor should hence be reduced in order to reduce uncertainty.

35

Other submissions comment on the lack of clarity regarding the future of the eastern bypass proposal and this needs to be resolved. This could free up land for housing. . Amendments sought to objective MV4. Greater clarity needed regarding the new link to the south port area. MV8 should be omitted as there is no alternative route for HGVs. HGV circulation from the SPAR needs to be considered. Chief Executive’s Response It is accepted that a coordinated approach is required between the National Transport Authority, Transport Infrastructure Ireland, Dublin City Council and Dublin Port Company. Policies in the draft planning scheme aimed to assimilate requirements into a workable solution. The Council is now considering the combined submissions from all relevant organisations. It is agreed that greater clarity is required to adequately distinguish Eastern Bypass, SPAR, and ‘alternative access route’. The Council appreciates the detailed input and assistance of TII on the matter.In relation to section 6.2, it is accepted that the wording should be simplified for clarity, with the last sentence retained. A modified wording for the entire bullet point is suggested, based on the TII’s recommended text. In relation to section 6.5 ‘strategic Road links’, it is accepted that reworded text can provide greater clarity. The NTAs submission provides greater clarity and reference to the SPAR should be updated To make reference to the fact that the scheme would either terminate at Sean Moore Road roundabout or at a new junction further east. The submission from Bissett Engineering highlights concerns around the limited development potential of this site. This is recognised but it remains the case that the By-Pass reservation corridor must be recognised in the SDZ as per the content of submission from TII. It is accepted that some sites were not restrictd to the same extent as this site, and for this reason, development to the north of south bank road will need to be further restricted in order to allow for an adequate corridor for the Eastern By pass ( see chapter 11). This said, Zone B2 as illustrated in chapter 9 and with related text on p51, makes it clear that the area is impacted by the reservation and that the area will be reviewed following resolution of the reservation. On this basis, no changes are recommended. Support from EMRA and the Dublin Chamber of Commerce are welcome. The reservation for the bypass must meet the requirements of TII pending further resolution/redefinition of the route corridor. As such, it is recommended that Objectives MV4 (ie to protect the route of the SPAR and Eastern Bypass) and MV8 (to promote the redirection of port and port-related traffic away from South Bank Road) be retained. In relation to the Synergen power station and possible encroachment onto same, Dublin City Council has no role in redefining or reducing the illustrated corridor of the future Eastern Bypass. This reservation was set out by Transport Infrastructure Ireland pending final design of the route. In relation to submissions referring to the lack of clarity regarding the bypass and related roads, the Council has worked closely with relevant bodies to ensure relavant and up to date information has been studied in preparing the draft scheme. It must be accepted that different road-related proposals are at various stages of preparation at this time, and proposlas are being monitored. In relation to MV8 it is considered that it remains relevant in order to ensure adequate amenity for future residents and workers in the commercial area. Chief Executive’s Recommendation Delete third bullet point in Section 6.2 (page 24) and replace: The proposed South Port Access (Road) Route (SPAR) and the Eastern By-Pass reservation corridor need to be accommodated within the SDZ to comply with the NTA Transport Strategy

36

for the Greater Dublin Area. SPAR will connect the Port Tunnel north of the River Liffey, to port owned lands on Poolbeg peninsula, crossing the river in the vicinity of the East Link Bridge. The reservation for the Eastern by-pass is more extensive and has a significant impact on short and medium term land uses on two major land parcels within the SDZ. and replaced with new text The eastern By-Pass reservation corridor needs to be accommodated within the SDZ to comply with the NTA Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2016-2035. The section of the Bypass route extending from the southern end of the Port Tunnel to the South Port area is to be delivered within the lifetime of the NTA Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area. This will have an impact on potential land uses within the SDZ. Section 6.5 (page 29) Amend text as follows: Planned strategic route investment for the area includes the south port acces route the Eastern bypass (alignment preservation) and associated South Port Access route, and the Dodder Bridge. Important for the long-term development of this area is the protection of an alignment for the South Port Access Route protected within, which will either run outside East Link Road or supplant it. The alignment runs from the north quays along the R131 and down South bank Road. Development should not prejudice the eventual provision of this strategic link. The alignment of the Eastern by-Pass corridor and is similarly protected for the future in accordance with the National Transport Authority Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area policy. The scheme would either terminate at Sean Moore Road roundabout or at a new junction further east.Because the South Port Access route will not be delivered for some time, the matter of heavy traffic on South Bank Road needs to be addressed. In this regard it is intended to provide in the short term a new access as an ‘Alternative (South) Port Access Route’ to the south port area north of the proposed new junction of Sean Moore Road/South bank Road Submissions on other specific Roads Summary of issues Whitebank Road Dublin Port Company seeks the flexibility to realign Whitebank Road but to maintain the junction position at its southern end (ie junction with Southbank Road) as set out in the scheme. Rushfleet Ltd seeks clarity on any realignment of Whitebank Road as it may impact directly on the site for which Rushfleet has a long term lease. It would sever the existing yard area impacting on business. Roads requirements in chapter 9 may also impact on the site Pigeon House Road DPC proposes to open pigeon house road to the north of Block B1. It is unclear whether the boundary of the SDZ is to the north or south of this section of Pigeon House Road. A submission stated that Pigeon House Road is now being used as a through road for the east link. It should become a one-way route. South Bank Road A submission states that there is no detail available on how this road will be addressed. No details either on timing or funding provided. Sean Moore Road A traffic survey is needed – including one at times when there is a concert on in the 3 Arena. Noise and vibration problem. Whilst Sean Moore Road is the only access, no data on traffic congestion has been presented. The proposed Sean Moore Road upgrade should happen in phase 1

37

Chief Executive’s Response The draft Planning Scheme has not set out any proposed realigned route for Whitebank Road. This said, there is some flexibility with its alignment. Any realignment proposal will necessarily be the subject of a planning application. A key requirement will be maintining the junction position at its southern end (ie where it meets South bank Road) such that the proposed block layout can be successfully delivered in urban design terms (see section on Chapter 11). In relation to Pigeon House Road, there is only a short existing section of it along the northern boundary of the SDZ (located close to the northeastern corner). Any future change to same will be on foot of the Port Company’s masterplan as no specific proposal is included in this planning scheme other than to promote the proposal in order to alleviate heavy goods traffic on South Bank Road. It is anticipated that improvements to South Bank Road will take place in tandem with development as per the phasing scheme. Because phasing areas A1, A2 and B1 all border on this road, and there are separate ownerships involved, some flexibility is required. Dublin City Council is aware of the traffic issues relating to Sean Moore Road. It is not intended that the Planning Scheme sets out comprehensive traffic data. The National Transport Authority has advised in relation to traffic implications of the planned scheme. The sequencing of the upgrade to this road is addressed in Chapter 9. Chief Executive’s Recommendation Whitebank Road; It is recommended that the following text is added to the end of the last para of section 6.5 (p29): The position of the junction between South Bank Road and Whitebank Road must be maintained however, in order to deliver the proposed block layout. Cycleway/Walkways Submissions state that cycleway/walkways should be encouraged and prioritised. They need to be safe. Fig 6.1 should show the road network Reference to the cycleway on Sandymount Strand promenade is erroneous as cycling is prohibited there. Reference to Beach Road at the end of MV5 should be omitted as there is no cycleway at this lcoation New cycleways/walkways are needed needed in other locations in the vicinity. Reference to new cycle and predestrian link across the Liffey (in MV5) should be removed until such time as a design is available. How cyclists and pedestrians would be accommodated along Pigeon House Road/East Link Bridge and Sean Moore Roundabout is unclear. Would like to see the shoreline walk retained (Sandymount Tidy Towns) The Dublin Bay Studios proposal would improve public access to the area The walkway passage to Irishtown Nature Park should be opened to local use. MV7 should include reference to the S2S route. Potential routes should be included. Dublin bike scheme should be referred to. We should look to examples from Europe where pedelec bikes, e-bikes and micro-electric vehicle s are successful.

38

Chief Executive’s Response There are significant planned improvements for pedestrians and cyclists. Fig 6.1 illustrates planned public transport and roads are illustrated elsewhere in the plan (Chapter 11 in particular) Cycling on Sandymount strand should be clarified as cycling on this route requires use of the main route along Strand Road.Over time this arrangement be greatly improved through proposals as part of the ‘East Coast Trail’ or ‘S2S’ route. Cycleways proposed accord with desire lines and the National Transport Authority’s cycle network plan. In relation to to the objective for a new cycle and predestrian link across the Liffey ( in MV5), it is considered desirable to retain this objective but it should be modified in recognition of design options which may include widening of the existing bridge. MV5 to be modified accordingly In relation to accommodating cyclist and pedestrian routes along Pigeon House Road/East Link Bridge and Sean Moore Roundabout, these will be the subject of future detailed design. The shoreline walk will be retained and enhanced/supplemented in places. All proposals for planning permission, including Dublin Bay Studios or indeed other proposals compatible with the Planning scheme have potential to improve pedestrian linkages. Irishtown Nature Park is already open to local access. MV7 already refers to the ‘east coast trail’ which includes the S2S route. Whilst the Cocla-Cola Zero dublinbikes scheme would be welcome in the area, the rollout of new stations is in accordance with a pre-agreed strategic planning framework. This is renewed and agreedover time. In relation to Pedelec bikes, e-bikes and micro-electric vehicles, section 8.5.4.1 relates to cycling and promotes all cycling. Various policies support modes which reduce dependency on fossil fuels, and promote active travel. Chief Executive’s Recommendation Text on page 26 (section 6.4) under the heading ‘cycling’, second sentence to be omitted and replaced as follows; Nearby Sandymount Strand Promenade provides a good recreational cycle route however, and this connects through paths to Sean Moore park. At present, northbound cyclists from Sandymount Strand Promenade can connect through existing paths to Sean Moore Park. The last sentence of the second last paragraph under heading ‘cycling’ to be modified as follows: Upgrading of this crossing is proposed during the implementation phase of the Planning Scheme either by widening/enhancing the existing bridge or by way of a new high quality pedestrian and cycle link immediately parallel to the bridge structure providing a new parallel structure to accommodate walking and cycling. Objective MV5, p30, to be modified MV5 To seek the upgrading of roads and junctions in the immediate vicinity of the SDZ to accommodate improved public transport priority and active modes. These works will include new signalised junctions at the Sean Moore Road/ South Bank Road Roundabout, at the Beach Road/

39

Sean Moore Road junction. A new pedestrian and cycle link across the River Liffey, located immediately parallel to the East link Bridge will also be prioritised, either by widening/enhancing the existing bridge or by providing a new parallel structure to accommodate walking and cycling. Traffic Summary of issues General concern at the impact of traffic and how it will be managed and monitored. Concerned at potential knock-on impact of traffic congestion on Sandymount/Irishtown/Ringsend (Sandymount Tidy Towns Community Assocn). The area should not be prejudiced against the motor car... Car clubs may not be successful in this area Incinerator traffic will exacerbate an already congested traffic environment. There needs to be some evidence that the existing network can accommodate the development proposed. No data on traffic has been presented. One submission supported the Film studio & its related traffic activity Chief Executive’s Response The traffic implications of the proposed development have been assessed and infrastructural requirements set out and integrated with phasing requirements. The area is not prejudiced against the motor car but objective are in place to encourage sustainable modes of transport in order to support low levels of car usage. This is in the interests of sustainability having regard to the central location of the SDZ in relation to key destinations in the city. Car clubs are supported and can help reduce car ownership levels. Traffic for the Waste to Energy project has been assessed previously and has been taken account of in assessing overall traffic impacts. It is not considered necessary to include lengthy traffic analysis within the Planning scheme. However, as stated in para 6.1 of the SDZ scheme, a specific transport study to inform the SDZ was carried out by the National Transport Authority as part of the preparation of the scheme. Traffic generated by any future film studio cannot be assessed in the absence of detailed proposals. Construction traffic (and related disamenity) is a matter for development plan standards and is controlled via planning condition. Chief Executive’s Recommendation No amendments recommended. 6.7 Car Parking: Summary of issues Denying parking to such a large number of residents is not wise. Parking for construction traffic not atddressed. No detail as to where car parking will be provided as part of the proposed platform for the site. Function of this podium is unclear. Parking can be provided by way of a combination of underground provision (in association with remediation design), ground level parking, and on street parking (Ballymore Group). A balance needs to be provided in order to animate urban streets, taking pubic transport in to consideration.

40

Chief Executive’s Response Car parking will be available, but at mimimum levels, in accordance with text at section 6.7 (p30).The location supports alternative modes of travel. Construction traffic management is a matter for detailed assessment at planning application stage. Private parking will be provided within the scheme at ‘below podium’ level. In some instances this will be at basement level in new development (see Figure 11.6 on p 63). There will also be some controlled on–street public parking to support services and encourage activity at street level. The provision of a semi-basement podium is a necessary part of site remediation and is indicated at Figure 11.6. The street layout supports (chapter 11) shared surface arranegements and sustainable travel, and therefore parking will be restricted to certain areas. Chief Executive’s Recommendation No changes recommended. Objectives: Summary of issues The IGB Housing Action Group has made a number of recommendations in relation to transport objectives: MV1: Infrastructure should be frontloaded MV4: Detailed plan for SPAR and the link road is needed. Confirmation of the ports agreement is needed before any road development takes place. MV8: Formal link to the port/Maspterplan required (re HGVs) All traffic assessments should be made available. Shipping; A new terminal at ‘Liverpool2’ allows Dublin access to a a more integrated approach to shipping. Significant growth in Dublin Port is envisaged. Chief Executive’s Response In relation to MV1, provision of infrastructure is referenced in the phasing programme (Chapter 9) SPAR and the Eastern Bypass remain strategic objectives and greter clarity, which can only be provided by detailed design work, is not available at present. The needs of the Port Company have been taken into account. In relation to MV8, the Draft Dublin Port Masterplan has recently been on public consultation and Dublin City Council is familiar with the Ports intentions for works on the Poolbeg peninsula. The Masterplan will be integrated with the SDZ scheme, e.g. by the rerouting of Heavy Goods traffic from South Bank Road. Detailed traffic assessments cannot be provided as part of the planning scheme as it is primarily a policy douement. Travel plans as part of future planning applications will however be available forrelevant developemnts. The recent growth of Dublin Port and projected further growth has been a consideration in land-use terms, particularly given the importance of the port to the broader region. Chief Executive’s Recommendation No changes recommended.

41

Chapter 7 Infrastructure & Utilities Submission Numbers: 1008, 1019, 1020, 1036, 1044, 1050, 1052, 1055, 1057, 1058, 1059, 1062, 1068, 1070, 1080, 1086, 1088, 1093, 1095, 1098, 1102, 1103, 1104

Summary of issues The submission received from the EPA acknowledges the commitments made in Objective IU4 to require enhanced SUDS to be provided for new developments across the Plan area, where appropriate. The Plan should, however, also include commitments to ensure that surface water quality is protected in the construction/and maintenance of enhanced drainage systems, to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Water Framework Directive. The draft River Basin Management Plan for Ireland 2018-2021 which is currently undergoing public consultation should be referenced in the Plan where appropriate. Excavation and management of contaminated soil (Section 7.13) The Plan area has historically been utilised for industrial purposes and both the Plan and SEA ER recognise the need to remediate any contaminated soils/material/groundwater identified in implementing the Plan. The EPA note that the “Contamination and Remediation Assessment‟ (CRA) undertaken as part of the Plan has been used to identify areas of differing risk (low/medium/high) within the Plan area. The EPA has recently published a consultation document setting out guideline values with a view to providing a common framework for determining contamination risk of groundwater. With regards to the management of the contaminated material within the Plan area, the Plan should include a commitment that the contaminated material will be managed in a manner that removes any risk to human health and ensures that the end use will be compatible with any risk. We note that Objective IU11 commits that all undeveloped sites shall be remediated to internationally accepted standards prior to redevelopment. There is merit in considering a coordinated approach for the remediation of the Plan area, through the preparation of an environmental management plan, covering remediation related aspects, and which should to be taken into account (as appropriate) in any projects which may arise out of the Plan. Dublin City Council should consider the need for authorisation of the treatment/management of any contaminated material under the Waste Management Act 1996 (waste licence, waste facility permit) (as recognised in Objective IU11) and also under the EPA Act 1992 in relation to Industrial Emissions licensing (in particular the First Schedule, with focus on class 11). General waste authorisation guidelines for contaminated land are included in with the submission. In addition to the presence of contaminated soil/fill material within the Plan area, Figure 4.5 Conceptual Model from the SDZ Contamination and Remediation Assessment also shows areas historically used for the disposal of municipal waste (viz. “D. The Eastern Lands‟ and “E. The Shore Lands’). You are advised that any excavation in these locations and any treatment of the excavated waste may, as above, require waste authorisation. Several submissions received raised concern with regard to fluvial and pluvial flooding. Another submission stated that one large swale or reservoir should be provided within the SDZ lands, rather than several swales dispersed throughout the entire SDZ area, which would allow for water based recreation within the SDZ. Another submission received requested that the planning scheme should provide for sustainable waste and resource management. One submission received raised concern as to the impact of the proposed SDZ on Dublin Bay and Environs. One submission received raised concern with regard to the capacity of utility provision (gas, water, electricity etc) to accommodate the quantum of development proposed within the SDZ

42

One submission received raised concern as to how water conservation objectives/policies will be enforced/upheld. The same submission requests that any water conservation objective should be applicable to all development within the SDZ and not just large developments. This submission also request that suburban sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) components should be mandatory not optional. This submission poses the question as to whether or not new buildings will be linked to the incinerator for power. The submission also requests that Eco housing should be provided as part of the delivery of the SDZ. A submission received from Eirgrid was supportive of the general text and objectives of the SDZ with regard to infrastructure and utilities. Another submission recommended the following amendments to Section 7.9 (Air, Noise and Light), to ensure compliance with the Environmental Noise Directive. This submission also recommends the following amendment to Objective IU7 which states; “To maintain good air quality in accordance with national and EU policy directives on air quality and where appropriate promote compliance with established targets.” The submission seeks ‘to ensure compliance’. This submission also recommends the following amendment to Objective IU8 To minimise the adverse impacts of noise to all sensitive receptors and promote a good quality of life for the existing and future residents of the plan area, through the effective management of noise in line with the Dublin Agglomerations Noise Action Plan to ensure that no adverse impacts of noise shall affect existing or future residents of the Plan area Another submission received states that the Dublin District Heating System (DDHS) should have a separate group to monitor this programme on the SDZ and also makes the following comments in relation to Chapter 7: Section 7.3 We require clarity as to how and when the upgrade of the Waste Water Treatment will occur. Section 7.4 Concern regarding funding of infrastructure. Section 7.5 Concern regarding the plan from Irish Water to ensure that an adequate supply can be delivered to the SDZ and the wider network. Section 7.6 Concern regarding the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, and the Waste Water and Incinerator must be included within the Risk Guidelines. Section 7.7 We welcome the SUDS components. Section 7.9 Air, Noise and Light – Dublin City Council should put in place a dedicated monitoring team during and after construction phases on the SDZ, Port lands and remainder of the peninsula. Section 7.11 Concern regarding the location of the back up boiler for the district heating system and its compliance with health and safety requirements Section 7.13 Concern regarding contamination The submission received from Dublin Bay Studios requests that the proposed location for the backup boiler station for the district heating system should be reconsidered. It is requested that the backup boiler station be provided on DCC lands located to the north of the Covanta Waste to Energy Plant, so as to allow for the film studio proposal at this location. Another submission received requested the following: - More certainty in relation to the provision of district heating in the SDZ. - The inclusion of an objective requiring all applications to comply with Part L of the Building

Regulations. - That the incinerator feed into the district heating network.

43

- SDZ should state that all planning application comply with the waste policy as per Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022and include a waste management plan and demonstrate compliance with the Greater Dublin Waste Management Plan.

- Recycling facilities should be included in the planning scheme. - Use of solar panels should be encouraged as much as possible. - Smart metering should be encouraged. - As much grassed areas as possible should be put in place to allow for drainage. - Funding of infrastructure should be clarified. A submission received from Becbay Ltd. (In Receivership), and Fabrizia Developments Ltd. (In Receivership), requests the following amendments to Chapter 7 (Infrastructure & Utilities): Section 7.7: The following SUDS components should be considered for installation within the private areas of all development: Green Roofs /Living walls, Rainwater Harvesting. The following should be omitted: Permeable Surfacing, Soakaways, and Swales Appendix 1: SUDS tree pit should not have an impermeable bottom. Appendix 1: Suggested removal of the following from the suite of SUDS measures for new developments: Filter Strip, Bio retention Area, Permeable paving, Swales Amend Objective IU9 as follows: That, all proposed developments of an appropriate scale be district heating-enabled in order to provide an environmentally sustainable option for heating and cooling (subject to the outcome of the feasibility study being carried out by the District Heating Section of Dublin City Council and Codema). The submission received from Irish Water states as follows: Water Supply Drinking water to the Poolbeg area is currently delivered from strategic mains originating from Stillorgan Reservoir. To facilitate the SDZ development there will be a need for local investment in infrastructure to reinforce the existing network together with investment in the wider strategic network that will provide improved security of supply and resilience to the Poolbeg Peninsula and inner city. As part of the wider investment plan, Irish Water is seeking to advance the replacement of the trunk main between Merrion Gates and Sean Moore Road along the Strand Road that is in poor condition and has a history of bursts. The advancement of these works will be subject to available funding. The impact phasing and its demand will have on the existing water supply network will need to be carefully considered by Irish Water to ensure an adequate supply can be delivered to the SDZ and wider network. Wastewater Wastewater collection in the Poolbeg SDZ area is currently serviced by a relatively small scale sewer network. However there is significant strategic drainage infrastructure in close proximity to the development including large trunk sewers, and the Main Lift Pumping Station which transfers substantial flows via large mains to the Ringsend Wastewater Treatment Plant. To facilitate the entire SDZ development there will be a need for investment in drainage infrastructure to service the SDZ. This new infrastructure will provide the required capacity to convey all flows to the existing strategic drainage infrastructure for onward conveyance to Ringsend Wastewater Treatment Plant for treatment. A pump station will be required in the vicinity of the junction of South Bank Road with the phasing areas B1, B2 and A2 and the zoning of this area should accommodate the development of this pump station. Irish Water requests that the Council considers the need for a buffer zone in relation to noise and odours emanating from the Ringsend Wastewater Treatment Plant when zoning/permitting development in the SDZ, particularly in the area in proximity to the boundary of the treatment plant. The submission received from ESB stated as follows: - Final plan must ensure that the long term operational requirements of existing utilities including

power stations are protected.

44

- Plan must acknowledge the importance of the ESB landholdings and associated power generation, transmission and distribution operating are strategic and national in nature.

- There is a need to safeguard existing sites for infrastructure and allow for their expansion. Several submissions received raised concern with regard to the provision of a district heating back up boiler station with the SDZ lands and its impact on the environment and the amenity of property in the vicinity. The submission received from Peel Ports, in the context of paragraph 7.9 (Air, Noise and Light), welcomes the design of the high level commercial building which will provide a buffer to the port lands to minimise exposure to noise from their operations as well as other sources within the port lands. The submission received from the Green Party states: The Poolbeg Peninsula can offer free energy and heat for new residents though using a district hearing system that reduces waste heat to zero. A real chance is at hand to build a fully-operational district heating system, establishing Poolbeg Peninsula as a zero waste community. Poolbeg SDZ must take advantage of the excess heat and energy generated on the Poolbeg Peninsula by ensuring it is used to power a district heating system in the new Poolbeg Strategic Development Zone. - District heating system to be integral part of SDZ development. - The council should look to utilise the waste heat coming from the nearby Poolbeg incinerator for

use as a districting heating hot water supply for all proposed developments within the SDZ. - If a district heating system isn't installed at building then the buildings must be ‘future proofed’ so

one can be installed cheaply and easily. - A new objective should be included stating that all proposed developments will comply with Part

L planning regulations, - There is concern that the provisions on district heating are unclear. Section 7.11 indicates that

the district heating scheme will be developed, that it will be expanded to Poolbeg West, it being available in the area before 2020 and that work has already been commenced on the network. However, there is also a reference to the district heating scheme being dependent on the outcome of a feasibility study.

- The SDZ should also be linked with the Smart Cities Initiative and be used as site to install energy efficient and smart urban technologies. The plan should also include references to the use of active solar technologies.

- There is concern that there had not been an adequate examination of the former landfill site on which residential areas are now to be built upon. Before 2006, the Glass Bottle site may have held up to five metres of old domestic waste placed directly on the beach.

- It should be stated explicitly that all developments will comply with the waste policy as set out in the Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022, and that all development applications should include detailed waste management plans and should demonstrate how they will comply with the Greater Dublin Waste Management Plan.

- Recycling facilities should also be included in the plan. Another submission received made the following recommendations: - All buildings should be fitted with Solar PV. One or more, large, energy storage systems are

required. Micro-grid network is also required, which combined with smart metering can be the basis of a sustainable local energy system.

Chief Executive’s Response In response to the EPA submission, it is recommended that objective IIU13, which relates to surface water management, will be amended to reference the draft River Basin Management Plan for Ireland 2018-2021. The EPA observations with regards to the management of the contaminated material are accepted. Accordingly, it is recommended that Objective IU11, be amended to include a commitment that the contaminated material will be managed in a manner that removes any risk to human health and ensures that the end use will be compatible with any risk.

45

With regard to the advice from the EPA stating that there is merit in considering a coordinated approach for the remediation of the Plan area, through the preparation of an environmental management plan, it is considered appropriate that Objective IU14 be strengthened to state: To require that each significant planning application be accompanied by a Construction and Environmental Management Plan, which shall include information on construction traffic routes, hours of operation, control of noise, and environmental effects and associated, detailed mitigation including that relating to the excavation of material and the storage, transport, treatment and disposal of wastes. Where landowners collaborated and prepared a coordinated environmental management plan, this could be submitted with each application for development as appropriate. With regard to the statement that Dublin City Council should consider the need for authorisation of the treatment/management of any contaminated material under the Waste Management Act 1996 (waste licence, waste facility permit) and also under the EPA Act 1992 in relation to Industrial Emissions licensing (in particular the First Schedule, with focus on class 11), it is considered that Objective IU11 be strengthened to include both of these policy documents. With regard to the several submissions received raising concern with regard to flooding within the SDZ, it is recommended that the text in Section 7.6 (Flood Management) will be strengthened to state: A Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA), as required by ‘The Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities’ (DEHLG, 2009), has been is being undertaken alongside the preparation of the SEA and the preparation of this Planning Scheme. This assessment will consider available information on flood risk indicators and will delineates flood risk zones. All developments must comply as relevant with the measures included within Section 4 “Recommendations” of the SFRA. It should also be noted that objective IU1 states: - To require all proposed developments to carry out a site specific Flood Risk Assessment

(SSFRA) that shall demonstrate compliance with: o The Planning System and Flood Risk Management, Guidelines for Planning Authorities

(Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, November 2009, as may be revised/updated).

o The prevailing Dublin City Development Plan. - Such assessments shall:

o Pay particular emphasis to residual flood risks, site-specific mitigation measures, flood resilient design and construction, and any necessary management measures (Appendix B4 of the above mentioned national guidelines refers)

o Give attention (in the SSFRA and in building design) to creating a successful interface with the public realm through good design that addresses flood concerns but also maintains appealing and functional streetscapes

o Consider and mitigate any pluvial flood risk, having regard to Pluvial Flood Risk Maps from the Dublin Pluvial Study

o Take into account potential increase in flood risk arising from subsidence in areas that have been infilled

o Ensure that Strategic Flood Risk Assessments and site-specific Flood Risk Assessments consider and provide information on the implications of climate change with regard to flood risk in relevant locations. The 2009 OPW Draft Guidance on Assessment of Potential Future Scenarios for Flood Risk Management (or any superseding document) shall be in this regard

o Assess flood risk for all parts of the development including any proposals for underground parking and storage areas, recognising that no underground offices or residential units (whether temporary or permanent) will be allowed

o Demonstrate that relevant development management measures detailed in the Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022 SFRA have been integrated into the development proposal

It is considered that Objective IU1 and the strengthened text in Section 7.6 (Flood Management) are adequate to ensure that future flooding of the SDZ is prevented.

46

With regard to the submission which states that one large swale or reservoir should be provided within the SDZ lands, best practice guidance for sustainable surface water management recommends multiple swales rather than one large reservoir. Objective IU4 seeks to achieve best practise and innovations in sustainable drainage systems (SUDS) design as part of the planning scheme, including the successful coordination of surface water management with ecology and amenity functions of open space and landscaped areas. This objective requires that all planning applications shall be accompanied by a surface water drainage plan which will include proposals for the management of surface water within sites, protecting the water quality of the existing water bodies and ground water sources, and retrofitting best practice SUDS techniques on existing sites, where possible. Accordingly, it is considered that best practice techniques will be implemented in relation to the provision of SUDS. It should also be noted that this will be monitored and implemented by Dublin City Council’s engineering division through the planning process, ensuring that subsequent planning applications within the SDZ are in compliance with current best practice SUDS techniques. In relation to the submission received requesting that the planning scheme provide for sustainable waste and resource management and more recycling facilities, it should be noted that Objective IU12 requires that all developments comply with the waste policy as set out in the Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022. Although there are no recycling facilities within the planning scheme area, a number of facilities are in close proximity. The Ringsend Recycling Centre is located just outside the area and allows domestic users to recycle a wide range of materials. There are also a number of bottle banks in close proximity to the SDZ area, namely at East Wall Road and in Ballsbridge. Section 7.14 (Waste Management) of the planning scheme states that “a small local bottlebank to serve the new residential community will be required. The service area associated with the commercial uses proposed on site may be a suitable location for this, preferably as a below ground installation.” With regard to the submission received raising concern as to the impact of the proposed SDZ on Dublin Bay and Environs, the Strategic Environmental Assessment and Appropriate Assessment documents accompanying the planning scheme demonstrate that the proposed SDZ will not have a significant impact on Dublin Bay and Environs. In relation to the submission received raising concern with regard to the capacity of utility providers (gas, water, electricity etc) to accommodate the quantum of development proposed within the SDZ, it is considered that in relation to gas and electricity the current network is adequate for the areas identified for new development. However in relation to the provision of drinking water and the management of wastewater, infrastructural upgrades are required. It is considered that this issue has been identified in the plan and is addressed by Objective IU5, which seeks to ensure that development is permitted in tandem with available waste water, surface water and water supply. Irish Water is aware of the strategic importance of this SDZ. In relation to the submission received raising concern as to how water conservation objectives/policies will be enforced, it should be noted that any planning application arising out of the SDZ will be reviewed by Dublin City Council’s engineering division to ensure that water conservation objectives/policies are implemented. With regard to the request that the water conservation objective IU2 should be applicable to all development within the SDZ and not just large developments, it is considered that strictly enforcing water conservation measures on all planning applications in particular smaller applications is onerous, as a smaller development may not use or have the potential to conserve a significant volume of water, therefore the cost of providing conservation measures (i.e. a rainwater harvesting tank) may not be worthwhile. It is therefore considered appropriate that Objective IU2 remain as is. In relation to the request that SUDS components should be mandatory not optional, The text in Objective IU4, which states “All planning applications shall be accompanied by a surface water drainage plan which will include proposals for the management of surface water within sites, protecting the water quality of the existing water bodies and ground water sources, and retrofitting best practice SUDS techniques on existing sites, where possible.”, should be noted. It is considered that this objective is clear in requiring all planning application to comply with this requirement.

47

With regard to the question posed as to whether or not new buildings will be linked to the waste to energy plant for power, it is anticipated that power from the Plant would enter the national grid and supply power for a large number of homes and businesses across the Greater Dublin Area. It should also be noted that Section 7.11 (Dublin District Heating System) states “It is envisaged that the primary heat source for the proposed district heating system would be the Covanta waste to energy plant with the possibility of other sources in the area such as the power plants and/or the waste water treatment plant supplying heat.” It is considered that the power and heat from the Waste to Energy Plant will serve this area through provision of electricity and potentially heat for a district heating system. With regard to the request that Eco housing should be provided as part of the delivery of the SDZ, it should be noted that Objective IU15 seeks to promote energy efficiency, energy conservation, and the increased use of renewable energy in the SDZ, therefore promoting the provision of Eco housing. With regard to the submission seeking changes to Section 7.9 (Air, Noise and Light), it is considered that the existing text is adequate to minimise the adverse effects of air and noise pollution associated with the construction and operation of development. It should be noted that the SDZ is a strategic document and that the exact details as to noise levels during construction and hours of operation will be assessed and addressed through the planning process, with conditions relating to noise levels and hours of operations attached to any large planning applications. In relation to the to the submission seeking changes to Air Quality Policy, it is considered that the existing text in the planning scheme is adequate, as Dublin City Council do not enforce EU policy; this is the role of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). With this in mind, the existing text in Objective IU7 is appropriate as it is not within Dublin City Council’s remit to enforce this policy. With regard to a submission seeking stricter noise compliance standards, it is considered that the existing text as per Objective IU8 is adequate to minimise the adverse impacts of noise to all sensitive receptors and promote a good quality of life for the existing and future residents of the plan area, through the effective management of noise in line with the Dublin Agglomerations Noise Action Plan. It should be noted that the SDZ is a strategic document and that the exact details as to noise levels during construction and hours of operation will be assessed and addressed through the planning process, with conditions relating to noise levels and hours of operations attached to any large planning applications. In relation to the submission stating that the Dublin District Heating System (DDHS) should have a separate group to monitor this programme on the SDZ, the Dublin District Heating System (DDHS) is currently being progressed by Dublin City Council. A separate District Heating Working Group has been established to oversee its feasibility and will monitor its progress within the SDZ, In relation to clarification required as to how and when the upgrade of the Waste Water Treatment plan will occur, it should be noted that while the Wastewater Treatment will serve the SDZ, it is controlled, managed and maintained by Irish Water having regard to its Capital Projects Plan. With regard to concern regarding funding of infrastructure, Section 12.4 (Infrastructure Delivery & Development Contributions) of the draft planning scheme sets out the programme for the delivery of infrastructure and also indicates how the various pieces of infrastructure will be funded. In response to concern regarding the plan from Irish Water to ensure that an adequate supply can be delivered to the SDZ and the wider network, it is noted that Irish Water are the utility provider in relation to the provision of drinking water and the management of wastewater for the SDZ. It is considered that this issue has been identified in the plan and is addressed by Objective IU5 and that Irish Water is aware of the strategic importance of the SDZ. With regard to the concern regarding the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment was carried out for the SDZ in accordance with all relevant and applicable legislation and policies. This document was on display with the Draft Planning Scheme and is available to view on the Dublin City Council website. With regard to the concern in relation to Air, Noise and Light and that request that Dublin City Council should put in place a dedicated monitoring team during and after construction phases on the SDZ, Port lands and remainder of the peninsula, it is considered that the existing text as per Objective IU8

48

is adequate to minimise the adverse impacts of noise to all sensitive receptors and promote a good quality of life for the existing and future residents of the plan area, through the effective management of noise in line with the Dublin Agglomerations Noise Action Plan. It should be noted that the SDZ is a strategic document and that the exact details as to noise levels during construction and hours of operation will be assessed and addressed through the planning process, with conditions relating to noise levels and hours of operations attached to any large planning applications, which will be monitored by the Enforcement Section of Dublin City Council. In relation to the concern regarding the location of the back up boiler for the district heating system and its compliance with health and safety requirements, the draft planning scheme indicates that a back up boiler may be required to facilitate the provision of a district heating system for the area. It is envisaged that the primary heat source for the proposed district heating system would be the Covanta waste to energy plant with the possibility of other sources of industrial waste heat on the poolbeg peninsula and environs, but that the district heating system would require an additional heat source in the form of a peak boiler station with heat storage to provide backup and boost the heat output during periods of peak demand. The location of this boiler station ideally should be close to the original heat source and the preferred location for Dublin City Council is the eastern, industrial portion of the study area (within Block B2) in close proximity to the existing Covanta Waste to Energy Plant. The provision of a district heating system for Dublin and any associated infrastructure is pending the outcome of a revised and updated feasibility study being carried out by Dublin City Council and Codema. It should be noted that Objective IU10 seeks to investigate the feasibility of providing a district heating boiler station in the eastern/industrial portion of the SDZ area. As part of the feasibility study associated with providing the backup boiler due consideration will be given to appropriate health and safety requirements. With regard to concern regarding contamination, a Contamination and Remediation Assessment (CRA) has been undertaken alongside the preparation of this Planning Scheme. This document was available to view on public display with the Planning Scheme and is still available to view on the Dublin City Council website. It is recommended that Objective IU11 be strengthened to remove risk to human health. In relation to the submission received requesting certainty in relation to the provision of district heating in the SDZ., the situation is that more certainty cannot be provided at present pending the outcome of a revised and updated feasibility study being carried out by Dublin City Council and Codema. It is however considered appropriate to revise the text in Section 7.11 (Dublin District Heating System) of the draft planning scheme, in order to provide as much clarity as possible at this moment in time. With regard to the inclusion of an objective requiring all applications to comply with Part L of the Building Regulations, it is considered that a specific objective requiring compliance with Part L of the Building Regulations is inappropriate, as the Building Regulations is operated under different legislation from the Planning Acts. In any case the conservation of fuel and energy is promoted through Objective IU15 which seeks to promote energy efficiency, energy conservation, and the increased use of renewable energy in the SDZ. In relation to the request that the SDZ should state that all planning applications comply with the waste policy as per Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022 and include a waste management plan and demonstrate compliance with the Greater Dublin Waste Management Plan, this is already provided for as Objective IU12 states: That all developments will comply with the waste policy as set out in the Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022. It should also be noted that Objective SIO19 of the Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022 seeks to implement the Eastern-Midlands Waste Management Plan 2015-2021 and achieve the plan targets and objectives. As the Development Plan is still applicable even with an SDZ, this objective is applicable and a specific waste management plan is not required for the SDZ. With regard to the request that the use of solar panel should be encouraged as part of the delivery of the SDZ, it should be noted that Objective IU15 seeks to promote energy efficiency, energy conservation, and the increased use of renewable energy in the SDZ, therefore promoting the use of renewable energy, including solar panels.

49

With regard to the request that the use of smart metering be encouraged as part of the delivery of the SDZ, it should be noted that Objective IU15 seeks to promote energy efficiency (which could include smart metering), energy conservation, and the increased use of renewable energy in the SDZ, therefore promoting the use of renewable energy.

With regard to the submission received which states that as much grassed areas as possible should be put in place to allow for drainage, Objective IU4 seeks to achieve best practise and innovations in sustainable drainage systems (SUDS) design, which includes the provision of grassed areas as part of the planning scheme, including the successful coordination of surface water management with ecology and amenity functions of open space and landscaped areas. This objective requires that all planning applications shall be accompanied by a surface water drainage plan which will include proposals for the management of surface water within sites, protecting the water quality of the existing water bodies and ground water sources, and retrofitting best practice SUDS techniques on existing sites, where possible. Accordingly, it is considered that best practice techniques will be implemented in relation to the provision of SUDS. In relation to the request that the funding of infrastructure should be clarified, section 12.4 (Infrastructure Delivery & Development Contributions) of the draft planning scheme sets out the programme for the delivery of infrastructure and also indicates how the various pieces of infrastructure will be funded. In relation to the submission received from Becbay Ltd. (In Receivership), and Fabrizia Developments Ltd. (In Receivership), requesting amendments to Chapter 7 (Infrastructure & Utilities) and Appendix 1, manly to remove SUDS measures e.g. Permeable Surfacing, Soakaways and Swales, the SDZ states that suds components should be considered meaning that not all components must be provided. It will be a case by case basis, depending on the size and scale of the subject site and planning application In relation to the request that Appendix 1 be amended as a SUDS tree pit should not have an impermeable bottom as indicated in Figure, the suds tree pit shown in the Figure in Appendix 1 does not have an impermeable bottom; it consists of crushed stone which is permeable. In response to the detailed submission from Irish Water, many of the matters are already included in Section 7.5 (Water Supply & Waste Water) of the Planning Scheme and is also dealt with in Section 12.4 (Infrastructure Delivery & Development Contributions) of the draft planning scheme sets out the programme for the delivery of infrastructure and also indicates how the various pieces of infrastructure will be funded. Dublin City Council will work closely with Irish Water and other utility providers to ensure that the replacement of Sean Moore roundabout with signalised junction and any realignment to adjacent roads and change in road formation is carried out without impacting the provision of drinking water and the provision of other utilities. With regard to Irish Water’s plans to replace the trunk main from Merrion Gates to the SDZ, it is considered that this issue is adequately addressed in Objective IU5 of the Draft Planning Scheme, which seeks to ensure that development is permitted in tandem with available waste water, surface water and water supply, and to manage development, so that new schemes are permitted only where adequate water supply resources exist or will become available within the life of a planning permission. In relation to Irish Water’s comments conveying the need for significant drainage infrastructure in the vicinity, this is already acknowledged in Section 7.5 (Water Supply & Waste Water) of the Planning Scheme. It should be noted that the issue of a new pump station is indirectly addressed in Objective IU5 of the Draft Planning Scheme, which seeks to ensure that development is permitted in tandem with available waste water, surface water and water supply, and to manage development, so that new schemes are permitted only where adequate water supply resources exist or will become available within the life of a planning permission, but that the provision of a pump station is a phasing issue that is discussed in detail in the Chapter 9 (Land Use & Phasing) section of this report.

50

In relation to the issue of odour management, it is considered that this is an issue for Irish Water rather than the SDZ scheme. The submission received from ESB raises issues which are already addressed in the SDZ: Section 7.8 (Utilities and Telecommunications (Ducting)) states: The two power stations on the peninsula, are required in the long-term for electricity generation. All existing high voltage power lines are considered critical to ESB national operations and cannot be removed. Diversion of the power lines would be prohibitively expensive. It is considered that this text acknowledges that the long term operational requirements of existing utilities including power stations must be protected, acknowledges the importance of the ESB landholdings and associated power generation, transmission and distribution operating are strategic and national in nature and recognises that there is a need to safeguard existing sites for infrastructure and allow for their expansion. Several submissions received raised concern with regard to the provision of a district heating back up boiler station with the SDZ lands and its impact on the environment and the amenity of property in the vicinity. It should be noted that Objective IU10 seeks to investigate the feasibility of providing a district heating boiler station in the eastern/industrial portion of the SDZ area. As part of the feasibility study associated with providing the backup boiler due consideration will be given to its impact on the environment and the amenity of property in the vicinity. In relation to the matter raised in the Green Part submission, the district heating system cannot be an integral part of the SDZ at this moment in time as the provision of a district heating system for Dublin and any associated infrastructure is pending the outcome of a revised and updated feasibility study being carried out by Dublin City Council and Codema. With regard to the request that council should look to utilise the waste heat coming from the nearby Poolbeg incinerator for use as a districting heating hot water supply for all proposed developments within the SDZ, It should also be noted that Section 7.11 (Dublin District Heating System) will be amended to state “It is envisaged that the primary heat source for the proposed district heating system would be the Covanta waste to energy plant with the possibility of other sources of industrial waste heat on the poolbeg peninsula and environs, but that the district heating system would require an additional heat source in the form of a peak boiler station with heat storage to provide backup and boost the heat output during periods of peak demand.” It should be noted that Objective IU9 states that all proposed developments of an appropriate scale be district heating-enabled in order to provide an environmentally sustainable option for heating and cooling With regard to the request that the SDZ should also be linked with the Smart Cities Initiative and be used as site to install energy efficient and smart urban technologies, it should be noted that Objective IU15 seeks to promote energy efficiency, energy conservation, and the increased use of renewable energy in the SDZ, therefore promoting the use of energy efficient and smart urban technologies, including active solar technologies. In relation to concerns that there had not been an adequate examination of the former landfill site on which residential areas are now to be built upon, a Contamination and Remediation Assessment (CRA) has been undertaken alongside the preparation of this Planning Scheme. This document was available to view on public display with the Planning Scheme and is available to view on the Dublin City Council website. With regard to the request to repeat development plan policy in relation to waste in the SDZ, Objective IU12 states: That all developments will comply with the waste policy as set out in the Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022. It should also be noted that Objective SIO19 of the Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022 seeks to implement the Eastern-Midlands Waste Management Plan 2015-2021 and achieve the plan targets and objectives. As the Development Plan is still applicable even with an SDZ, this objective is applicable and a specific waste management plan is not required for the SDZ. With regard to the request that all buildings within the SDZ energy storage systems combined with smart metering can be the basis of a sustainable local energy system, it should be noted that

51

Objective IU15 seeks to promote energy efficiency, energy conservation, and the increased use of renewable energy in the SDZ, which promotes that use of energy storage systems combined with smart metering can be the basis of a sustainable local energy system. Chief Executive’s Recommendation (1) Amend paragraph no. 3 of Section 7.6 Flood Management to:

A Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA), as required by ‘The Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities’ (DEHLG, 2009), has been is being undertaken alongside the preparation of the SEA and the preparation of this Planning Scheme. This assessment will consider available information on flood risk indicators and will delineates flood risk zones. All developments must comply as relevant with the measures included within Section 4 “Recommendations” of the SFRA.

from: A Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA), as required by ‘The Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities’ (DEHLG, 2009), is being undertaken alongside the preparation of the SEA and the preparation of this Planning Scheme. This assessment will consider available information on flood risk indicators and will delineate flood risk zones (2) Amend the first 3 paragraphs of Section 7.1 Dublin District Heating System to:

Development of a Dublin District Heating System, research and planned by Dublin City Council and Codema, the City Council’s energy management company, since 2008, is planned to begin in the Docklands and Poolbeg West Areas initially, and then expand into the wider docklands and City area. Communications with potential customers for the system found the overall response to the system among the Docklands community to be very positive.

Work has already commenced on developing the network in the area along with the construction of the Liffey Service Tunnel which will facilitate the roll-out of the district heating piping network north and south of the River Liffey.

It is envisaged that the primary heat source for the proposed district heating system would be the Covanta waste to energy plant with the possibility of other sources of industrial waste heat on the poolbeg peninsula and environs, but that the district heating system would require an additional heat source in the form of a peak boiler station with heat storage to provide backup and boost the heat output during periods of peak demand. The location of this boiler station ideally should be close to the original heat source and the preferred location for Dublin City Council is the eastern, industrial portion of the study area (within Block B2) in close proximity to the existing Covanta Waste to Energy Plant. The provision of a district heating system for Dublin and any associated infrastructure is pending the outcome of a revised and updated feasibility study being carried out by Dublin City Council and Codema.

from: Development of a Dublin District Heating System, research and planned by Dublin City Council and Codema, the City Council’s energy management company, since 2008, is planned to begin in the Docklands Area initially and then expand to other parts of the wider Docklands area, Poolbeg West and the remainder of the city. Communications with potential customers for the system found the overall response to the system among the Docklands community to be very positive.

52

It is envisaged that district heating will become available in the Docklands Area before 2020. Work has already commenced on developing the network in the area along with the construction of the Liffey Service Tunnel which will facilitate the roll-out of the district heating piping network north and south of the River Liffey. It is envisaged that the primary heat source for the proposed district heating system would be the Covanta waste to energy plant with the possibility of other sources in the area such as the power plants and/or the waste water treatment plant supplying heat, but that the district heating system would require an additional heat source in the form of a backup boiler station to boost the heat output during colder months of the year. The location of this boiler station will need to be close to the original heat source and the preferred location for Dublin City Council is the eastern, industrial portion of the study area (within Block B2) in close proximity to the existing Covanta Waste to Energy Plant. The provision of a district heating system for Dublin and any associated infrastructure is still pending the outcome of a feasibility study being carried out by the District Heating Section of Dublin City Council and Codema. (3) Amend Objective IU11 on page 38 to: That all undeveloped sites be remediated to internationally accepted standards prior to redevelopment. All applications shall be accompanied by a report from a qualified, expert consultant detailing compliance with the remediation measures as outlined in the Remediation Measures Report. The remediation shall incorporate international best practice and expertise on innovative ecological restoration techniques including specialist planting and green initiatives that create aesthetically improved sites, healthy environments and contribute to the provision of new green open spaces as integral parts of newly created areas. Treatment/management of any contaminated material shall comply as appropriate with the Waste Management Act 1996 (waste licence, waste facility permit) and under the EPA Act 1992 (Industrial Emissions licensing, in particular the First Schedule, Class 11 Waste). These measures will ensure that contaminated material will be managed in a manner that removes any risk to human health and ensures that the end use will be compatible with any risk. from: That all undeveloped sites be remediated to internationally accepted standards prior to redevelopment. All applications shall be accompanied by a report from a qualified, expert consultant detailing compliance with the remediation measures as outlined in the Remediation Measures Report. The remediation shall incorporate international best practice and expertise on innovative ecological restoration techniques including specialist planting and green initiatives that create aesthetically improved sites, healthy environments and contribute to the provision of new green open spaces as integral parts of newly created areas. Soil remediation measures shall require a licence from the EPA under the Waste Management Act 1996. (4) Amend Objective IU13 on page 38 to: To ensure the protection of surface and ground water quality in the plan area and surrounding areas, and the protection of protected habitats and species including designated national and international conservation sites in implementing the plan and to meet the requirements of the Water Framework Directive and the provisions of the relevant River Basin Management Plan from: To ensure the protection of surface and ground water quality in the plan area and surrounding areas, and the protection of protected habitats and species including designated national and international conservation sites in implementing the plan and to meet the requirements of the Water Framework Directive (5) Amend Objective IU14 on page 39 to: To require that each significant planning application be accompanied by a Construction and Environmental Management Plan, which shall include information on construction traffic

53

routes, hours of operation, control of noise, and environmental effects and associated, detailed mitigation including that relating to the excavation of material and the storage, transport, treatment and disposal of wastes. Where landowners collaborated and prepared a coordinated environmental management plan, this could be submitted with each application for development as appropriate. from: To require that each significant planning application be accompanied by a Construction and Environmental Management Plan, which shall include information on construction traffic routes, hours of operation, control of noise, and environmental effects and associated, detailed mitigation including that relating to the excavation of material and the storage, transport, treatment and disposal of wastes

54

Chapter 8 Environment, Green Infrastructure and Open Space Submission Numbers: 1008, 1013, 1019, 1020, 1029, 1033, 1035, 1036, 1040, 1044, 1048, 1054, 1055, 1058, 1059, 1062, 1066, 1070, 1082, 1089, 1091, 1093, 1095, 1096, 1098, 1107 Summary of Issues It is submitted that Green infrastructure delivery should be in collaboration with the local community and innovative ways such as allotments, community gardens, vertical planting should be encouraged. Public facilities should be available for young people to enhance cultural cohesion. It is submitted that the plans for open space are inadequate regarding space for playgrounds, Dog Park and open space for recreation. That the existing parks in Irishtown Nature Park, Ringsend Park and Sean Moore Park should be developed. It is submitted that open space should be in the context of “Fitzwilliam Square” a Square in the center and residential units overlooking it and the Square could accommodate activities such as soccer, table tennis, summer science projects etc. Pedestrian access to Sean More Park across Clan na Gael area not indicated or considered. The plan should provide a substantial recreational area to accommodate a playing field and not rely solely on existing recreational infrastructure such as Clanna Gael's GAA pitch. Guarantee that the Current pedestrian walk way along the shoreline will be retained. There is request that Port Park be revised to provide a floodlit multi-functional all-weather playing facility for Gaelic games and other sporting activities There are concerns about the air quality and how the air quality for incoming children will be safe guarded. There are flooding concerns and it is submitted that green areas should be retained for prevention of flooding, wildlife, ecosystems, prevention of increase of air pollution and well being of residents. That the area could be a unique environmental space and even become a destination area for other residents. The planting of native indigenous trees should be encouraged in the SDZ and there should also be fruit and nut producers to add to biodiversity. Open spaces should be wildflower meadow where they are not being directly used for recreation or sports. The Strand is an attractive area used for recreational purposes and there are concerns about the development impacting on the habitats and the topology of the strand. It is questioned whether bat; otter and badger surveys have been carried out. That, how will the local community be reassured that environmental considerations will be put in place and maintained. Biodiversity should be encouraged by using wilder areas as an educational tool. This can be encouraged with breeding grounds such as bird, bat and butterfly boxes, bee hives, hedgehog homes etc. it is submitted that the planning scheme is inaccurate and the plan proposes to destroy existing natural flora and fauna in the area. Consideration should be given to including a summary of the key environmental sensitivities within and adjoining the plan area. Include environmental baseline of the SEA ER non-technical summary in the plan. There are concerns relating to the relative proximity of Seveso III sites to the residential blocks A new objective is recommended to state that all proposed developments will be required to integrate new green infrastructure solutions into new developments and in the public realm to boost biodiversity and improve surface water management within the SDZ area, include the use of permeable materials for surfaces, planted roofs, living walls, swales, retention basin/ponds and provision of storm water tree trenches and to demonstrate their proposals and the management and maintenance plans in planning applications. Objectives GI1 to GI12 are welcomed and it is submitted to amend GI5 It is recommended that the Draft Planning Scheme allows greater choice of source control measures for the roadways and requested that Figure 8.2 be omitted. That SUDs strategy for the SDZ should be produced as part of the public realm strategy for the area.

55

Chief Executive’s Response

It is the policy of Dublin City Council to achieve a green, connected city and more sustainable neighbourhoods in line with the core strategy of the Dublin City Development plan. Although there are no objectives in the draft planning scheme about providing allotments, community gardens etc. these types of solutions will be encouraged in the SDZ. Policies to involve the local community in the delivery of green infrastructure is already in place and the development of public facilities in the SDZ will be available for all age groups in the SDZ and wider area. It is therefore recommended that Objective GI2 be amended to include allotments and community gardens There is approximately 3.8ha of open space provision in the draft planning scheme in addition to the existing green parks adjoining the SDZ. It is therefore considered that the proposed open space is adequate for the SDZ and the adjoining neighbourhoods. A new objective to promote access to the parks and open spaces with passive surveillance where feasible is recommended. It is the objective of the draft planning scheme to offer new amenities and recreational activities and to support the upgrade of existing parks and amenity areas adjoining the SDZ (see GI8). Dublin City Council is already implementing the Dublin City Play Plan 2012-2017 which provide inclusive and accessible play opportunities for children and young people. The Council is also promoting the development of both indoor and outdoor facilities for young people e.g. multiuse games areas (MUGAs). Specific recreational activities and final design of open space to include facilities such as soccer kick around space, facility for all weather pitch, table tennis, summer science projects, dog walking spaces etc will be determined by the Development Management process in consultation with the Culture, Recreation and Economic Services of Dublin City Council. The draft planning scheme also contain an objective to ensure that in new residential developments, public open space is provided that is sufficient in quantity and distribution to meet the requirements of the projected population (see GI7). The specific type of public open space will be determined by the Development Management process. The objectives in the draft planning scheme will seek to protect and enhance open spaces for both biodiversity and recreational use which has benefits for the SDZ’s sustainability and attractiveness as a place to live, work and visit, see objectives GI1, GI2, GI4, GI6, IU1, IU7 and IU8 of the draft planning scheme. Also the objective to require all proposed developments integrate new green infrastructure solutions into their proposals is contained in objective GI10 of the draft planning scheme. The Council will consider nesting birds in the design of green roofs, as per Objective GI6. Requiring that all developments maximise biodiversity and recommended addition text at Chapter 10.2 The draft planning scheme is subject to Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in accordance with the Planning and Development (Strategic Environmental Assessment) Regulations 2004. This assessment informed the draft planning scheme and concerns such as human health, Seveso III sites, water, soil, air, biodiversity and flood management etc has been addressed accordingly. The resulting environmental report is a supplementary document of the draft planning scheme and it is the objective of the draft planning scheme for developments to have regards to mitigation measures set out therein, see objective GI5 of the draft planning scheme. The objective should be revised to require all developments incorporate mitigation measures in their proposals. With regards to odour issues, the urban design solution in the draft planning has configured the urban blocks such that a buffer is provided to detract from potential odour from waste water treatment plant. The draft plan also provides for green infrastructure solution all through the scheme. In addition to the above, the Council as part of the waste water treatment plant upgrade is engaging in significant improve odour abatement measures on site. Works identified as part of the upgrade include • The capture and treatment of the ventilation air from both dryer buildings; • The provision of 50 % additional capacity for the Main Odour Control Unit; • The capture and treatment of the ventilation air from the Screenings Building; and

56

• The enclosure of the Grit Storage skips and provision of odour control for them. The upgrade works and the Council’s Odour Monitoring Programme will ensure both the avoidance of foreseeable odour issues and the prompt remediation of unforeseeable events. The draft planning scheme aim to achieve a high quality environmental standard in Poolbeg West area that complements urban living and it is the objective of the plan to ensure that ecosystem functions and existing amenity uses are not compromised and existing biodiversity and heritage is protected and enhanced (see GI1). Existing environmental conditions should be included in text in the draft plan to provide clarity The sustainability of the draft planning scheme hinges on having a robust Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDs) and the plan has developed a strategy for achieving a good SUDs solution in the SDZ. The council is aware that there are greater choices of source control measures based on best available technology and Figure 8.2 provides a indicative map and the final design for SUDs shall be agreed in written with the Dublin City Council during at Development Management stage. It is recommended that the map be revised to add text Chief Executive’s Recommendation Insert new text in Objective GI2 GI2 – To incorporate open space into the green infrastructure of the SDZ, providing a multi-functional role including urban drainage, flood management, biodiversity, outdoor recreation, allotments and community gardens where feasible and carbon absorption. Add new objective GI1a To ensure equality of access for all citizens to public parks and open spaces in the SDZ and to promote open space with increased accessibility and passive surveillance where feasible. Add text to last paragraph in Chapter 10.2 Environmental Protection and Enhancement To encourage the use of green roofs and vertical greenery on buildings where appropriate. The design of green roofs shall consider whether nesting birds may be attracted and, where conflicts between usage and bird protection are identified, the use of ‘swift bricks’ and nest boxes should be explored. Amend GI5 from All developments in the SDZ should have regard to the mitigation measures set out in Environmental report To All developments in the SDZ should have regard to incorporate the relevant mitigation measures set out in the Strategic Environmental Assessment Environmental rReport. Insert new text in last paragraph under section 8.4.2.1 Coastal Park The park will stretch from Sean Moore Park to Irishtown Nature Park and the planning scheme will seek to protect and strengthen the inherent qualities of the space. It is the long term vision of the council to create a greenway also extend the park eastwards to the south wall along Dublin bay and westwards to Ringsend Park, The Dodder Greenway and Grand Canal Dock. Insert new text in first and second paragraph of section 8.4.6 Ecology and Biodiversity There are few habitats of any ecological significance in the SDZ. Most of the SDZ lands have been covered by artificial surfaces and some patches are covered by semi-natural habitats.

57

The most valuable part of the SDZ lands to biodiversity is the corridor that is found along the southern part of the SDZ, between a vegetated embankment and the coast. This corridor area provides for ecological connectivity and is adjacent to shoreline habitats, many of which are designated, as well as facilitating amenity usage. The coastal corridor has potential to be used by bats, in particular, for movement between foraging and roosting areas. Two areas of note close to the SDZ are Irishtown Nature Reserve Park and Sean Moore Park. Although Sean Moore Park comprises mainly amenity grassland and exotic shrub species, it is important as a feeding ground for migrating Brent geese. Irishtown Nature Park supports Pyramidal Orchid, Red-tailed Bumblebee, and a rare beetle. Tern and Brent Geese use the area and compensatory habitat has been provided for Geese in the past. Dublin Bay and the River Liffey are important for nature conservation. It is a policy of the council to protect, conserve and enhance the natural resources of the city that adds significantly to quality of life. Allowing managed access to and interaction with the natural environment will be encouraged where the impact to wildlife is minimised. Overall the area supports a variety of common flora and fauna typically associated with an urban environment. Dublin Bay hosts large numbers of water birds in the winter months including internationally important numbers of light bellied Brent geese and other species. The water birds also use some grassland sites within the Planning Scheme area during the winter months. Kestrels and Peregrine falcons have been observed hunting on the peninsula and many of the buildings present may be suitable for roosting bats. There are mooring dolphins located to the north of Poolbeg that provide a nesting site for terns – these are designated as part of the South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Special Protection Area (SPA) and Dolphins, Dublin Docks proposed Natural Heritage Area (pNHA) Add text to Map 8.2 Sustainable Urban Drainage 8.2 Indicative Sustainable Urban Drainage Add text after legend for Map 8.2 Sustainable Urban Drainage “Final design for Sustainable Urban Drainage systems (SUDs) shall be agreed in writing with the Dublin City Council during at Development Management stage”

58

Chapter 9 Land Use & Phasing

Submission Numbers: 1003, 1007, 1008, 1010, 1019, 1027, 1029, 1030, 1035, 1036, 1048, 1055, 1057, 1058, 1059, 1063, 1066, 1068, 1069, 1072, 1082, 1087, 1088, 1091, 1093, 1095, 1096, 1102, 1107, 1108

Residential, Commercial and Retail Uses Summary of issues The use of the site for residential purposes is generally welcomed, with several submissions making reference to urgent need for housing and the SDZs close proximity to the city centre/docklands, services and employment opportunities. A number of submissions suggest that the number of dwellings to be located on the site should be increased to fulfil the sites potential. This includes a submission from the Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government (DoHPCLG) which suggests that up to 3,500 units may be deliverable. A number of submissions also make reface to the tenure of housing (including social housing) A number of submissions where received welcoming the inclusion of commercial space within the SDZ. Concerns were however raised in regard to viability of the proposed quantum of office/commercial development (80-100,000 sqm). The DoHPCLG also raised concerns that any quantum of commercial space greater than 20% of the site area would inhibit the ability to deliver housing within the SDZ. It was also suggested that the quantum of commercial space be increased to 120,000 sqm. The provision of retail space, in particular a neighbourhood centre was generally welcomed. A number of views were expressed citing that additional retail space would be needed to provide a greater range of retail services such as restaurants and cafe uses. Clarification was also sought if the 5000 sqm of retail floor space applied only to the Neighbourhood Centre or the entire site. It is suggested that an additional 2000 sqm could be provided (outside of the neighbourhood centre) to animate frontages along Sean Moore Road and the edge of the Coastal Park. Chief Executive’s Response A review of the land use mix/buildings heights has concluded that up to 3500 dwellings could be provided within the scheme, consistent with the Vision and Key Principles, and with minor changes only to the overall urban design framework. See section on Chapter 11. Issues regarding the quantum and form of commercial development within the scheme are discussed further in Section 5 of this Report. With regard to the request from the DoHPCLG to reduce/narrow the scope of commercial development from 15-25% of the net site area to between 15-20%, the proposed quantum of commercial development proposed within the Draft SDZ Planning Scheme (ie 80,000 -100,000) can be achieved within a reduced building footprint, enabling a greater proportion of the site being available for housing. This will require building heights to be raised marginally in some areas as outlined in Section 11.2 of this Report. Subsequent to the above, any increase to 120,000 sqm of commercial development would reduce the extent of land available for housing, unless significant increases in building height were accommodated across the site (as discussed in section of this report on chapter 11). The Draft SDZ Planning Scheme includes a provision for additional ‘small scale’ retail activities in addition to that provided within the Neighbourhood Centre. Section 5.4.1 of the Draft Planning Scheme states that the retail area should accommodate (See also Section 5 of this report): ‘Up to a maximum of 5,000 sq.m, unless a justifiable case is made. To supplement the above the provision of small scale retailing at the junction of Sean Moore Road and the Central Boulevard is supported provided it can be demonstrated that it would not detract from the successful delivery of village centre retailing’.

59

Section 11.3.1 also states that: ‘The Neighbourhood Centre is to contain a maximum of 5000 sqm of predominantly retail and retail service uses’ and ‘With a possible extension of retail a along the northern side of the Central Boulevard Green Link to Sean Moore Road to pick up footfall toward the Luas Station and drawing people into the site’ There is merit in extending these activaties to the edge of the Coastal Park in order to activate/animate the park edges and increase activity within it. Section on chapter 11 of this report discusses the revised spatial arrangement of retail uses. This includes a recommendation for supplementary retail frontage along the eastern edge of the Coastal Park and on the northern side of the central Boulevard. Chief Executive’s Recommendation Amend Section 1.3 – SDZ Development Capacity (p3) – Left hand text column. The lands to the south of South Bank Road shall be developed at an approximate ratio of 80-85% residential and 15-20% commercial, complemented by community, recreational, retail and service uses at an appropriate scale to support a sustainable residential and working community with minimal commuting. Amend Section 5.4.2 – Office Typologies (p21) – Left hand text column. In relation to the volume of office type development within the Planning Scheme, an analysis of the size and depth of blocks required to act as an adequate buffer between South Bank Road and the residential area, the scale of office development appropriate is in the range 80,000-100,000 sq.m (based on an 80-85/15-20 split). Amend Section 9.3 – Approach Taken (p48) – Right hand text column. The land use mix for the SDZ aims for an overall mix of 80-85% residential and 15-20% commercial on the lands to the south of South Bank Road (with flexibility as previously defined). For clarity, this percentage is based on the footprint of lands on the site Net Developable Area, discounting ground floor uses where residential is above retail or similar, with hotels and apart-hotels considered a commercial use for this SDZ. A range of up to 5% deviation from this figure, i.e. from 75:25 to 85; 15, is considered within the tolerance of the SDZ Scheme to allow for some design flexibility within the relevant blocks. Amend section 11.3.2 - commercial Buffer (p61, left hand column, second sentence) Circa 15- 20% of the Net Developable Area of lands to the south of South Bank Road is to accommodate 80,000-100,000 sq.m of commercial uses. Parks and Community Facilities Summary of issues The proposed areas of open space where generally welcomed, however a range of views were expressed in regard to the proposed quantum of open space. A number of submissions stated that, too little had been proposed, whilst others stated that a good balance between developed and undeveloped area had been reached or suggested that the quantum of open space could be reduced the proximity of existing parks in the area. Concern was also raised that the existing walkway along the coastline may not remain.

60

The inclusion of community space within the SDZ was also welcomed. There where however differing views in regard to the level of detail provided, the extent of space that should be required and how it should be used. It was also suggested that community space should provided at ground floor level to animate streets and public spaces. Chief Executive’s Response The location, form and quantum of open space within the Draft Planning Scheme evolved from analysis process and is guided by the Strategic Environmental Assessment. These processes identified the need for development to be setback from Dublin Bay (by 50m) creating the opportunity to widen the strip of open space along the foreshore to form the Coastal Park. As illustrated in Figure 11.6 of the Draft SDZ Planning Scheme the existing path and embankment area will be retained (subject to minor modification only). The location of the Village Green emerged as a central convergence point was formed by extending the alignment of White Bank Road south to provide a strong physical and visual connection to Sean Moore Park. The formation of the Village Green and open space network are also discussed in Section 11.1 of this Report). Issues related to the allocation, form and management of community space are discussed in Section 4 of this Report. Section 9.3 of the Draft SDZ Planning Scheme requires that space be provided at ground level for social, cultural, creative and artistic purposes. Chief Executive’s Recommendation No changes recommended. Dublin Port Lands Summary of issues A submission was received from the Dublin Port Company expressing general support for the Draft Planning Scheme, in particular those sections which acknowledge the importance of the port to the national and regional economy. It is also noted that Dublin Port Company Masterplan 2012-2040 is listed for material consideration with the SDZ Order and the Draft SDZ Planning Scheme reaffirms this by retaining port related functions as a significant portion of the SDZ. The DoHPCLG have also noted the importance of port activities in its submission (see also Section 5 of this Report). A number of concerns were however raised regarding compatibility between the current industrial/port related activities with existing operators (whom may be pressured to move) and future residential communities (particularly with regard to the proximity of Seveso sites). The inclusion of port lands within the SDZ was also queried on the basis that no major changes are proposed. It was suggested that land could be exchanged or relinquished to DCC to provide additional space for housing. It was also suggested that the commercial buffer zone be moved further to the north, adjacent to the 'Alternative Port Access Route' to increase the amount of lands available for residential purposes in the area and enable a site to the east of White Bank Road within Block B1 (occupied by Rushfleet Ltd) to be used for mixed use purposes. Concerns were also raised regarding the future use of the site occupied by John Bissett Engineering Ltd within Block B2. Reference is made to Figure 9.1 which illustrates that the site falls within the ‘Industrial and Port Zone’ and Figure 8.1 which illustrates the site as ‘Open Space / Park Area’ pending the delivery of the Eastern By-Pass. It is stated that these figures a contradictory and that the use of the site as open space is entirely inappropriate and unviable and it is requested that any such references be removed. A significant number of submissions were received in support of a proposal for a film studio within the SDZ lands. Poolbeg West is viewed as a good location for the studio, with several submissions referring the formation of a ‘creative hub’, with close links to affiliated industries in the city centre and docklands area. A detailed submission has put forward a proposal named ‘Dublin Bay Studios’ stating that such a facility could be accommodated within Block B2.

61

Chief Executive’s Response The use of land within Blocks B1 and B2 are generally guided by the Dublin Port Company Masterplan 2012-2040 and the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). The Dublin Port Company Masterplan identifies an area to the north of South Bank Road as a Lo-Lo (Load on-Load off) storage facility (no use however is identified within the plan for the lands occupied by Rushfleet). The 2017 Review of the Masterplan proposes that much of this area will be used as a Ro-Ro (Roll on – Roll off) storage facility. The SEA Report also notes that the development of lands within areas B1 and B2 is not suited identifies areas B1 and B2 as being poorly suited for residential development (refer to Alternative Scenarios). The commercial buffer has been provided to provide a ‘shield’ between residential developments to the south and industrial/port related activities to the north. The establishment of was buffer guided by an analysis process (the outcome of which is illustrated in Figure 2.1 Concept Plan) and Section 15.1.1.9 of the City Development Plan which states that:

Lands to the north of South Bank Road may be used for port-related activity subject to an adequate buffer zone of good quality architecture fronting onto South Bank Road

The movement of the buffer zone to the north would conflict with the Key Principles of the SDZ, notably Section 2.4.2 as it may compromise the ‘Intrinsic Operations of the Port and Municipal Facilities’ by substantially reducing the area of land available for port related activities. It is also noted that much of this land is located located within the Eastern Bypass Corridor, has a high risk of contamination. There are three SEVESO sites in close proximity to the SDZ. Section 4.4.2 of the SEA Report states that:

The HSA were consulted as part of the Planning Scheme preparation process and identified that: any accident would be expected to be contained on the relevant sites; and SEVESO III sites do not pose particular risks with respect to the emerging provision of new housing development in the south/west of the SDZ.

Section 8.4.7 of the Draft Planning Scheme identifies also states that ‘Dublin City Council will have regard to the provisions of the Directive and recommendations of the HSA in the assessment of all planning applications located within the consultation distance of such sites’. Consultation distances are illustrated in Figure 4.3 of the SEA Report. John Bissett Engineering Ltd currently leases (long term) land from Dublin Port Company. The designation of this area as open space is guided by the Dublin Port Company Masterplan 2012-2040 and transportation requirements. It’s proposed designation is not likely to inhibit any future development of the site provided it is permissible in zoning terms (Z14 in the development Plan), and ancillary to the current use of the site. It should be noted that as the site wholly is located within South Port Access/Eastern By-Pass Corridor (as per Figure 6.3 of the Draft SDZ Planning Scheme) and any permanent structures would be subject to the agreement of Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII). Notwithstanding the above it is agreed that there is an inconsistency between Figures 8.1 and 9.1, and the latter should be amended to reflect both the short, medium and long term use for the Port Park area. The arguments put forward in support of the film studio are discussed in chapter 5 of this report (economy and employment). As noted in this section, the priority for development within the SDZ is for housing (and complementary commercial, community and retail uses) and port related activities. The provision of a Film Studio is a permissible use under the Z14 Zoning Objective, as Industry (light) or Media-associated uses, depending the form and/or scale of any such proposal. As such, should the Port Company make lands available for such a use it could be accepted in principle, and subject to the appropriate assessment process.

62

Chief Executive’s Recommendation Amend Figure 9.1 – Land Uses to reflect both the medium and long term uses for the area occupied by the Port Park. This area will appear as hatched so as to indicate its use as ‘Parks and Recreation’ or ‘Industrial and Port’. Eastern By-Pass Reservation Summary of issues A number of submission were received making reference to the Eastern By-Pass reservation, including the submission from TII, who note that that Draft SDZ proposal for sites Al and A2 are compatible with the Dublin South Port Access/Eastern Bypass Corridor. Concerns were however raised concerns with regard to structures being shown in the reservation areas (see also Chapter 11 below). TII have advised that such issues require further resolution prior to the making of the Poolbeg West SDZ Planning Scheme. To clarify issues relating to the Eastern By-Pass, TII have made a number of recommendations for amendments, including that the commercial area indicated in Figure 9.1 should to be reclassified as ‘ Buffer Potential’ as this area is subject to the outcome of further studies and decisions. The NTA have also requested that a note ‘subject to requirements for the Eastern Bypass’ is inserted after ‘Commercial’ in the legend of Figure 9.1 or that an equivalent statement is included in the text of section 11.3.2 titled ‘Commercial Buffer’. Chief Executive’s Response Section 9.2 of the Draft SDZ Planning Scheme notes that ‘commercial development, including hotel uses, along the north of South Bank Road is a longer term development option, and dependent both in relation to its location and extent on the final alignment of the Southern Port Access Route and the Eastern By-Pass’. This requirement is further reflected in the Phasing Table for Area B and Objective EC1. As noted within the TII submission, the same level of constraint does not however apply to the commercial buffer located within Area A. As such the use of the term ‘Buffer Potential’ for the whole of Commercial area is not required. It is also noted that the alignment and extent of the reservation may change as future studies are carried out. Notwithstanding the above, further references to the level of constraints of the South Port Access/Eastern By-Pass Corridor can be added to the Draft SDZ Planning Scheme to provide greater clarity. Buildings located within the corridor can also be delineated as flexible, to enable future adjustments (see section on chapter 11). Chief Executive’s Recommendation Amend Figure 9.1 ( p 48) – ‘Land Uses’ to reflect both the medium and long term options for the area to the immediate north of South Bank Road. This area will appear as hatched so as indicate its use as ‘Industrial and Port’ or ‘Commercial’. A note should also be added to the map stating; Note: the extent of development of the commercial area to the north of South Bank Road may be affected by the South Port Access/Eastern By-Pass reservation corridor. Other Land Uses Summary of issues A number of submissions made reference to specific uses such as a climate change museum, self storage facility, primary health care, radio station and post office. A request was also received to remove reference number of references to uses that are permissible under the Z14 zoning, such as municipal golf / golf course.

63

Chief Executive’s Response All uses within the SDZ are subject to the Z14 zoning Objectives, contained within Section 14.8.13 of the CDP 2016-2022. It should be noted that references to specific uses (other than use classes) are generally not referred to in the SDZ Planning Scheme. Chief Executive’s Recommendation No changes recommended. Phasing/sequence of development Summary of issues Clarification is sought in regard to the wording of Objective LP6 which requires development to be carried out sequentially across the site (to avoid gaps). It suggested this objective be reworded to apply to a scenario where the site is to be developed as one entire scheme. The NTA have made a number of recommendations for the phasing table relating to Area A, relating to the provision of bus service and priority measures, and also Block B in relation to the access routes to the port. TII have made a number of recommendations for the phasing table relating to Area B to account for the design of the Southern Port Access Route/Eastern By-Pass. It was also suggested that the Dodder Bridge (including the Port Access Bridge), Sean Moore Roundabout and the upgrading of Sean Moore Road be moved to Phase 1. Chief Executive’s Response Objective LP6 has been reviewed. The intention of LP6 is to encourage cross-site cooperation prior to development to avoid the possibility of poorly ocated undeveloped areas. A degree of flexibility is however required and therefore the sequenceing of development across the entire area is not considered necessary. The National Transport Authority and Transport Infrastructure Ireland requirements are both addressed in chapter 6. Note that block layout detail is modified in Chapter 11 on foot of submissions. The approach taken for area A is to enable development to proceed to a given threshold at which stage infrastructural requirements area necessary. The time neeeded for the planning and design of such infrastructure, in tandem with securing funding needed, would delay early stage progress unnecessarily, and the method set out in the draft plan is considered a ‘best fit’. In relation to Area B, and having considered particularly the submissions receivedfrom the National Transport Authority and Transport Infrastructure Ireland, it is recommended that ‘short’ and ‘medium term’ requirements are clearly distinguished, with the medium term category based on the requirement for Tom Clarke/East Link improvements in the context of the SPAR route.

64

Chief Executive’s Recommendation Table relating to phasing area ‘B’ on page 51 to be modified as follows ( medium term requirements now distinguished): Phase Infrastructural Requirements Responsible

stakeholder Short and Medium Term: Current operations and limited expansion/ redevelopment within SDZ lands, which do not generate significant increases in traffic movements into the Port lands. Expansion and some intensification of operations within Poolbeg Peninsula and within SDZ lands, with traffic generation implications assessed and addressed.

1. Completion of acoustic protection at Pigeon House Road.

2. Opening of HGV Route to Block B1 via Pigeon House Road & provision of landscape buffer strip on southern boundary.

3. Buffer park (Port Park) in Block B2

as part of expansion of unitised cargo use in this area, and link northwards (Shellybank Road)

4. Replacement of ‘Lo-Lo’ operations

with ‘Ro-Ro’ in Block B1.

5. Opening of new route to port and utilities by extending Pigeon House road directly into Port to provide direct HGV access as part of Southern Port Access Route (SPAR) implementation.as an ‘Alternative Port Access Route’.

6. Design of Southern Port Access Route

Port leaseholders, Dublin Port Dublin City Council/Port Port Dublin Port /DCC/NTA NTA/DCC / TII

Medium Term Expansion and further intensification of operations within Poolbeg Peninsula and within SDZ lands, with traffic generation implications assessed and addressed.

Upgrade/dualing of Tom Clarke (East Link) Bridge as part of Southern Port Access Route ( SPAR)

DCC/NTA/TII/Dublin Port

Long Term*: Commercial uses on boundary areas where practical and significant intensification of use of SDZ lands for port and related activities

1. Completion of Eastern By-Pass 2. Upgrade of South Bank Road to

create quality urban environment.

TII NTA Dublin Port

65

Chapter 10 Public Realm Submission Numbers 1003, 1007, 1008, 1020, 1033, 1040, 1044, 1048, 1054, 1055, 1057, 1058, 1059, 1062, 1068, 1080, 1087, 1089, 1091, 1093, 1095, 1096, 1098, 1107

Summary of Issues:

10.2 Ambition & Aims

Different submissions seek more / less open green space in the area. The management and ownership of public and semi-public spaces is unclear in the Plan. There is also a question regarding the role of semi-public space and how this is to be managed and paid for. One submission requests that port Park should be taken in charge by DCC. Another sought that instead of 10% of the site area designated as Open Space, the Open Space calculation should be made using an occupancy rate per dwelling. The SDZ should be linked with the Smart Cities Initiative and be used to install energy efficient and smart urban technologies.

Place-making

It is submitted that the SDZ should contain much stronger guidance for retail and cultural spaces/usages at street level and to ensure vibrant, interesting, animated and safe city streets. A sense of quality public realm, security, shelter and enclosure for the users of Coastal Park should be provided. Open spaces should be overlooked for passive surveillance. An upper promenade proposed at the Coastal Park would create a vibrant public realm. The name of the Park ‘Village Green’ should be renamed to ‘Poolbeg Green’ to avoid confusion with the ‘Village Green’ in Sandymount. The public should have a say in how streets, open spaces and blocks are named.The rationale for the main green space not addressing the sea is not explained. One submission sought that a new public plaza could be created at the junction of Sean Moore Road and South Bank Road when the existing roundabout is removed.

Environmental Protection and enhancement

It was submitted that the design of public realm should include flood defences.One submission stated that the plan will destroy the existing coastal park and natural habitats. Provision should be made for electrical outlets for electric cars, and recycling facilities should be included in the SDZ A new objective should be included stating that all proposed developments will be required to integrate new green infrastructure solutions into new developments and in the public realm to boost biodiversity and improve surface water management within the SDZ area, include the use of permeable materials for surfaces, planted roofs, living walls, swales, retention basin/ponds and provision of storm water tree trenches and to demonstrate their proposals and the management and maintenance plans in planning applications. It was aso submitted that the plan should enhance biodioversity. All trees and bushes should be native indigenous species where possible, and produce fruit and nuts. Open spaces should be wildflower meadow where they are not being directly used for recreation or sports Provision should be made for allotments and community gardens and existing blue/green infrastructure should be retained. The visual amenity along the north and western boundaries should be enhanced.

66

Connectivity and Movement

A number of submissions stated that more pedestrians and bicycles should be facilitated with less vehicular traffic.Consideration must be given to the creation of an underground area for cars and keep the streets as public realm. Another submission stated that an Upper Promenade at Coastal Park could be extended to Beach Road.Walkways and cycleways should be developed around the Peninsula to attract residents and tourists. These routes should connect with the Dublin Port Masterplan and the LEIP for Ringsend. There should be a formal link to the village improvement plan – there needs to be coordination in the delivery of objectives and plans. The S2S cycle route should be indicated on the plan and locations for Dublin-bike stands should be shown. A concern was raised that the interface and connection between the SDZ area and Sean Moore Park is not detailed. The western section of Central Boulevard should be reduced in width, and the provision for a bus lane removed to improve the sense of arrival and place-making in the SDZ area.

High Quality Palette of Materials

High Quality materials and street furniture should be specified, with well lit streets. Similar materials should be specified across the Poolbeg SDZ, Dublin Port area and the Ringsend LEIP. Kerbstones should be avoided on pavements and all open areas should be covered with permeable concrete.

Strategic Themes

Recreation, Play and Events: It was submitted that more pitches should be provided. An all weather flood-lit training facility and pitch should be provided along the southern boundary to the SDZ and at Port Park. Areas for children’s play, senior citizens and the elderly should also be included, with indoor playgrounds should provided for rainy weathers. Potential for water sports and activities should be explored. The introduction of sporting facilities, such as table tennis tables should be provided in public parks. Other submission stated ample seating should be provided, and a bandstand could be proposed. The roofs of buildings could be made accessible for outdoor activities. Evening and winter activities should be considered in open spaces. Public spaces should be designed to be versatile for different events. Heritage: Industrial items should be located along Coastal Park. Given the importance of steel-working and the maritime history of the area, there is great scope to have public seating done with a heritage trail/sculptural competition element. Arts & Culture: Public sculptures should be located in open spaces. A signature piece should be commissioned.

Detail Design of streets and spaces

There is concern about the proximity of relatively high buildings on the boundary with the Clanna Gael GAA club lands.

Chief Executive’s Response

A public realm Masterplan for the Poolbeg West SDZ will be prepared within one year of the publication of the Poolbeg West Planning Scheme. During its preparation, consultations will be made with relevant stakeholders and a draft version prepared for public consultation. The public realm

67

Masterplan will provide much greater detail on the design for streets and spaces than that currently provided for in the planning Scheme.

Ambition & Aim

The public realm Masterplan when published will confirm the proposed dimensions of streets and sizes of open spaces in the SDZ area, and may provide clarity to the submission requesting confirmation of areas in public/ private ownership. Public areas to be transferred to Dublin City Council ownership are to be designed and constructed using materials to Dublin City Council are taking in charge standards. It is anticipated that management fees would apply to upkeep areas of public realm within private developments. New public open spaces are distributed throughout the SDZ covering in excess of the minimum 10% of site area.

It is considered that the submission regarding the inclusion of smart urban technologies in the public realm, where appropriate, raised a valid point and a new strategic theme on ‘Underground services, infrastructure & utilities, waste management and smart technologies’ will be included in section 10.3, to be addressed in more detail in the public realm Masterplan, when published.

Place-making

A variety of open spaces are proposed throughout the SDZ area, with regard to existing views, environmental comfort, street functions, and the proposed uses and heights of surrounding buildings, etc. A number of submissions raised concerns about passive surveillance in the SDZ area; however it is considered that buildings in the Planning Scheme will be designed to overlook streets and public spaces. The proposed locations of retail uses within the SDZ area, will also contribute to the passive surveillance of the area. The submission relating to animating the Promenade and providing shelter to Coastal Park is valid; however these issues will be addressed in more detail in the public realm Masterplan, when published. All the names of new streets, spaces and parks currently referred to in the Planning Scheme are temporary; however it is considered that the submission raised a valid point regarding the permanent naming of streets, spaces and parks in the SDZ area. A new theme on ‘Place Naming’ will be included in section 10.3, Strategic Themes, to be addressed in more detail in the public realm Masterplan, when published. The submission to create a new public plaza at the junction of Sean Moore Road and South Bank Road when the existing roundabout is removed is valid. Flexible building lines will be applied at this location, which falls within the SPAR/Eastern bypass corridor (see section on chapter 11).

Environmental Protection and Enhancement

Flood mitigation features and green infrastructure proposals are to be incorporated into the design of the public realm. It is considered that the submissions regarding proposals for electric outlets for electric cars, and the provision of recycling facilities in the public realm where appropriate, raised valid points and a new strategic theme on ‘Underground services, infrastructure & utilities, waste management and smart technologies’ will be included in section 10.3, to be addressed in more detail in the public realm Masterplan, when published.

The Planning Scheme makes extensive reference to the provision of green infrastructure as referred to in the submissions. Strategies to promote biodiversity and habitats for native flora and fauna will be further detailed in the public realm Masterplan when published. The Planning Scheme will support the development of allotments and community gardens in the SDZ area. Proposals to create green buffers between new development in the SDZ and the surrounding industrial landscape to soften their visual impact are included in the Planning Scheme. A number of submissions recommended that recycling facilities be included in the Planning Scheme. These recommendations are considered reasonable and a number of proposed locations are included in a revised map in the Scheme. In addition, a new strategic theme on ‘Underground services, infrastructure & utilities, waste

68

management and smart technologies’ will be included in section 10.3, to be addressed in more detail in the public realm Masterplan, when published.

Connectivity and Movement

A number of submissions request the facilitation of pedestrian and cycling movement over vehicular traffic, however it is noted that the Planning Scheme promotes this principle by prioritising pedestrian, cycling and movement by public transport over vehicular traffic within the SDZ area. Off street parking will be provided in the SDZ area in basements to free up public realm areas at street level. The SDZ is designed to connect with the surrounding urban villages of Irishtown, Ringsend and Sandymount, and relates to the Ringsend LEIP and Dublin Port Masterplan review, however it may not be possible to coordinate the simultaneous delivery of proposed new connections as different agencies and timescales are involved in these different planning schemes. The Planning Scheme links with existing walkways and trails within the Poolbeg peninsula, and with strategic cycle networks proposed for the area by the NTA. A submission has requested that the exact route for the S2S be included in maps in the Planning Scheme, yet the Council is guided by the National Transport Authoritys on this matter. A number of submissions requested that Dublin bike stations be included in the Planning Scheme, however their provision will be confirmed and included where appropriate in the public realm Masterplan when published. The proposal to include an Upper Promenade to Coastal Park and be capable of extending to Beach Road is valid and will be considered in more detail in the public realm Masterplan when published (although extending to an area outside the SDZ). With regard to the submission that interface and connection details between the SDZ area and Sean Moore Park be provided, it is noted that further detail will be provided the public realm Masterplan when published (see also chapter 11). The submission proposing that the western section of Central Boulevard should be reduced in width is addressed in the section of this report on Chapter 11.

High Quality Palette of Materials

A number of submissions make recommendations on suitable materials for street paving. Further detail and guidance on the palette of materials to be used in the SDZ will be provided in the public realm Masterplan, when published.

Strategic Themes

A number of submissions make specific recommendations as to the type of play and sporting facilities to be provided in the SDZ area. More detail and guidance on the type and locations of recreation, play and sporting facilities in the SDZ will be provided in the public realm Masterplan, when published. The Masterplan will ensure that all public spaces will be designed to hold events where appropriate, and to be universally accessible and socially inclusive. Submissions requesting that heritage artefacts and public sculpture be included in the open spaces / parks will be addressed in the Strategies dealing with heritage, and arts and culture in the public realm Masterplan, when published.

Detail Design of streets and spaces

A submission expressed concern over the proximity of relatively high buildings on the boundary with the Clanna Gael GAA club lands. It is considered these concerns are reasonable and the urban block layout can be amended accordingly, with the locations of new buildings revised in relation to the southern boundary of the SDZ site and the Clanna na Gael clubhouse.

Chief Executive’s Recommendation:

Location of playground to be shown on Map 11.1 – Movement Proposals and Land Use (i.e. to the southern edge of the Village Green),

Proposed location of glass bottle recycling facilities to be shown indicatively on Map 11.1, i.e. in the vicinity of Port Park and Southbank Road

69

10.1 Introduction

Amend (page 53), end of first column of text;

It will be home to a mixed-use development of approximately 6,000 upto 8,000 new inhabitants and a broad range of commercial/retail functions.

10.3 Strategic themes

Amend text on page 54 as follows

The public realm Masterplan for the Poolbeg West Planning Scheme will be developed is built up and described around a series of different strategic themes. These themes are described individually, but when combined collectively, will produce a holistic and integrated approach and vision for the design of the Poolbeg SDZ’s public realm. The themes that will be addressed in detail in the public realm masterplan stem from the vision set out in chapter 2, and also from the urban structure and design chapter. These are;

• Connectivity

• Greening

• Biodiversity

• Water Management

• Recreation, play and events

• Heritage

• Arts & Culture

• Materials and furniture

• Underground services, infrastructure & utilities, waste management and smart technologies

• Place Naming

10.4 Detail Design of streets and spaces

Amend text (page 56)

The public realm is an integral part of the urban design layout for the Planning Scheme. Development blocks are orientated in an orthogonal layout from Sean Moore Road in the north-west, to the coastline in the south east, and from the proposed new Main Commercial street in the north east to Sean Moore Park in the south west. This layout also follows the natural topography of the site, allowing open views and connections between the surrounding villages and the seashore beyond. The main central flared space, New Village Green, has a south-westerly orientation to maximise solar gain and to link with Sean Moore Park adjacent. More detailed guidance on each of the public realm components will be included in the strategy public realm Masterplan and will address four key components.

• Major streets –including the central boulevard, Main Residential street, Central Boulevard, the Local Shared streets (running parallel and between Central Boulevard and Southbank Road) Sean Moore Road, Cross South Bank Link street, and the interface with Sean Moore Park.

• ‘Minor Local Streets – commercial and residential streets.

70

• Parks, Open spaces & Green routes - New Village Green, Coastal Park, Green Routes and screening of port/industrial use lands.

• Courtyards for residential and commercial blocks.

Objectives

To modify objectives PR1 and PR4, and add nerw objective PR5 as follows

PR1 To prepare That an Overall Public Realm Masterplan is prepared for this Planning Scheme within one year of the publication of the Planning Scheme, based on Dublin City Council’s public realm strategy addressing in detail public realm design, including inter alia, materials, planting and street furniture, for key components of the development lands, including (i) major streets; (ii) minor streets; (iii) parks, open space and green routes and screening; and (iv) courtyards.

Unless agreed otherwise, owners of landbanks within the SDZ area will prepare public realm Masterplans for their respective areas, for adoption into an Overall Public Realm Masterplan for the entire SDZ area, to be approved by Dublin City Council. Prior to the preparation of this Overall Masterplan, the exact layouts and widths of streets and spaces within the SDZ area are to be confirmed and agreed with relevant agencies and Dublin City Council.

PR4 That all public realm areas are will be designed and built to Dublin City Council ‘taking in charge standards’. Unless agreed otherwise in writing, underground basements & carparks will not be provided under lands to be taken into charge by Dublin City Council. Public spaces should be and are publicly accessible at all times.

PR5 That all grant of planning permissions in the SDZ area will be required by condition to comply with the guidance as set out in the Overall public realm Masterplan for the Poolbeg West Planning Scheme (once published).

71

Chapter 11 Urban Structure & Design Submission Numbers: 1003, 1004, 1005, 1007, 1008, 1010, 1011, 1019, 1027, 1030, 1035, 1036, 1048, 1055, 1057, 1058, 1059, 1066, 1067, 1068, 1072, 1082, 1087, 1088, 1092, 1093, 1095, 1096, 1098, 1107, 1108

Overall Layout

A range of views were received with regard to the overall layout in terms of connectivity, block structure and the arrangement of land uses. A number of submissions welcomed the grid layout as a highly connected and easy to navigate design solution. However concerns were expressed that the grid was overtly rigid, bland and only developed to suite the scheme. A number of alternative schemes were suggested to increase views from the site. Concern were also raised that the scheme did not align itself with the immediate area of Ringsend, Irishtown and Sandymount and will end up separated and rebranded like the Docklands developments. An alternative Masterplan was also submitted in a submission by Ballymore. It is noted that there are a number of common features between the Ballymore Masterplan and the Urban Structure contained within the Draft SDZ Planning Scheme, with regard to the spatial arrangement of open space, street network, creation of perimeter blocks and distribution of heights, with respect to solar access and the overall structure. However significant variations in terms of block sizes, the main movement corridors, wider (albeit fewer) streets, increased buildings heights, the layout of the central neighbourhood and the extent of office development along South Bank Road (including a lack of activity out-of-hours). Clarity is also sought whether the term 'block' or 'urban block' refers to the principal four blocks (e.g Al, A2, A3 and A4), or whether it is a reference to the smaller blocks of development that may arise within those larger areas. A detailed submission in relation to the urban design framework was submitted by Becbay Ltd. (in Receivership) and Fabrizia Developments Ltd. (in Receivership). This includes a series of proposed modifications to the urban structure such as:

• Increased quantum of residential (3250 to 3500 dwellings) office, hotel and related development (120,000 sqm) to be accommodated by modifications to the proposed building envelopes and heights.

• Reduction in the width of the Central Boulevard, primarily via the omission of the bus lane to ensure 60m block widths were achievable.

• Provision of more active uses and on the upper promenade of the Coastal Park, including overhanging buildings and single storey pavilion buildings to close off the ‘U’ shaped blocks.

• Concerns regarding the viability of retail uses on all four sides of the Neighbourhood Square. It is suggested that retail uses may be supplemented with other activity generating uses.

Clarification is also sought with regard to a number of inconsistencies between figures. The issues raised by the receiver were also reiterated in a submission from NAMA which requested a review of the workability of the indicative block layouts within the IGB/Fabrizia component of the SDZ area. The submission from Dublin Bay Studios included an indicative plan for film studio in phasing area B2. It is stated that this has been submitted to address concerns that film studios can only be expressed in the form of large warehousing. A number of submission also raised concerns that no layouts are shown for areas B1 and B2 in the Draft SDZ Planning Scheme. TII however raised concerns where such structures are shown (i.e. on the northern side of South Bank Road) within the South Port Access/Eastern By-Pass Corridor. TII acknowledges that such structures may be provided in the long term area however, the nature, character and use of potential buffer structures cannot be determined as yet. TII recommend that the

72

urban design proposals indicated in figure 11.2, under Section 11.5 (text and graphical), and appendices 3 and 4 need to be revised to omit structures indicated in area B1. Chief Executive’s Response The overall layout was developed following an analysis process that identified key linkages between Ringsend Park (via Bremen Road and Pine Road) and the Irishtown Nature Park/coastal path. This created two parallel lines of movement across the site. The grid pattern emerged following the alignment of White Bank Road south through the site to provide a connection to Sean Moore Park. This forms the basis for the development of a highly permeable and easy to navigate urban structure consisting of a series of gateways, edges and nodal points, around which land uses, densities and building layouts (including heights) are arranged. A series of minor refinements were made to the emerging pattern to open up views from the SDZ to Sean Moore Park (with the Dublin Mountains forming a backdrop), off-set internal streets to terminate views, and to maximise views toward the bay. A new figure outlining this process can be added to chapter 11. Block widths of c. 60m are common through the Docklands and other international examples researched in the preparation of the plan. Block widths of c. 60m are used extensively throughout the scheme as they enable the formation of a secure perimeter blocks around an amenable and secure areas of semi-private open space (see also Section 11.3 below). The Draft SDZ Planning Scheme allows for a degree of variation in block sizes, provided the overall cohesiveness of the urban layout is maintained. Section 11.5.2 requires each of the four main blocks to be divided into a series of smaller blocks described as ‘typically c.60m x 100m’. Whilst the outer line of the main four blocks are ‘fixed’, as noted in Section 11.1 of the Draft SDZ Planning Scheme, ‘fixed’ elements may be subject to ‘minor variation’. The interior street network (and adjacent buildings lines) are flexible’. With regard to proposed block sizes proposed within the Ballymore Masterplan submission, it is noted that the overall layout is fundamentally changed as the key desire lines between Ringsend/Irishtown and Irishtown Nature Reserve/coastal path are severed. Any benefits in terms of solar access to internal courtyards are also largely negated by the proposed increases in building height (see also Section 11.2 below). Minimal detail with regard to block layout and built form with blocks B1 and B2 in the Draft SDZ Planning Scheme is due to these areas being predominantly identified for container storage within the Dublin Port Company Masterplan 2014-2040 (as such it is likely to be devoid of large scale permanent structures). A number of submissions have however highlighted the need to provide additional guidance for development this area, particularly in terms of building height (see also Section 11.2 below). This can be provided within a series of development envelopes, movement corridors and setbacks/buffer areas that provide an indicative structure for Blocks B1 and B2. With regard to other more detailed issues raised in respect of the layout. As noted above in Section 9 of the Report, the development of permanent structures within the South Port Access/Eastern By-Pass Corridor is subject to the agreement of TII and as such can be shown as ‘flexible’ elements on the north side of South Bank Road. This can be extended to the south side of the road west of White Bank Road. The width of the Central Boulevard is discussed below in Section 11.4. It is noted that its width could be reduced to provide greater flexibility in terms of block sizes. The ‘one-off’ central building has been placed within the Neighbourhood Centre, to create a feature building, similar in effect to the Alto building located at Grand Canal Dock. It should be noted that all building lines around the perimeter of the building are ‘flexible’, enabling a range of design solutions to be open for consideration. The range of uses on South Bank Road is discussed in Section 5 and Section 9 of this Report. It is noted that uses adjacent to South Bank Road have been spatially arranged to provide a buffer between port related/industrial uses to the north and residential uses to the south. It should also be noted that a wide variety of uses, such as hotels, could be provided in this location to ensure street activity outside of regular office hours.

73

A range of commercial, community and leisure uses could supplement/complement retail uses around the Neighbourhood Square, ensuring it is an active and animated space. As noted above in Section 9 of this Report, small scale retail/retail services along the edge of the coastal park could be of benefit to the scheme in terms of activating the eastern edge and attracting visitors to the site. Single storey pavilion buildings can cater for such uses, without compromising views or creating an overbearing continuous edge this sensitive location. Section 11.5.2 of the Draft SDZ Planning Scheme allows for ‘occasional projecting or overhanging elements from the U shaped blocks, up to 5m maximum, may be considered in exceptional circumstances where they contribute to coastal activity (including ground floor cafes etc), shelter, variety and quality of the upper promenade. The term ‘exceptional’ ensures that such projections are clearly linked to visual and amenity benefits without unduly compromising the integrity of the 50m setback from Dublin Bay. The distance between developments adjacent to Clanna Gael Fontenoy can be increased as part of a review of block sizes/street widths (see below). It should be noted that a number of minor changes will be required to all urban design framework illustrations to reflect the changes above. All illustrations will be reviewed for consistency at this time.

Chief Executive’s Recommendation Amend Section 11.1 (p57) by inserting;

The Urban Structure is a detailed refinement of the Concept Plan (see Figure 2.1). Figure 11.1 – Formation of the Urban Structure illustrates how the key linkages between Ringsend Park (via Bremen Road and Pine Road) and the Irishtown Nature Park/coastal path created two parallel lines of movement across the site (a). A grid emerges when the alignment of Whitebank Road is extended south through the site to connect to Sean Moore Park (b). This forms the basis for the development of a highly permeable and easy to navigate urban structure consisting of a series of gateways, edges and nodal points, around which land uses, densities and building layouts (including heights) are arranged (c). A series of minor refinements opens up views from the SDZ to Sean Moore Park (with the Dublin Mountains forming a backdrop), off-set internal streets to terminate views, and maximises views toward the Dublin Bay (d). The final Urban Structure and is depicted in Figure 11.1 2- Movement Proposals and Land Use and Figure 11.2 3–Block Form and Layout.

and

Add a new illustration (referred to as Figure 11.1 – ‘Formation of the Urban Structure’ in the above text) detailing how the overall layout evolved. Re-label figure 11.1 (‘Movement proposals and land use’) as 11.2 Re-label figure 11.2 (‘Block Form and Layout’) as 11.3

Amend Section 11.3.1 (p 60)

The Neighbourhood Centre is to contain a maximum of 5000sqm of predominantly retail and retail service uses, in accordance with the Retail Strategy contained in the City Development Plan, centrally located at the convergence point of key desire lines /access routes within Poolbeg West with a possible extension of retail a along the northern side of the Central Boulevard Green Link to Sean Moore Road to pick up footfall toward the Luas Station and drawing people into the site. Retail Uses within Frontages on the northern side of the Neighbourhood Centre are a fixed element, with retail frontages placed on all sides of the Neighbourhood Square. The provision of Retail Frontages along the northern side

74

of the Central Boulevard/Sean Moore Road are flexible, provided all ground fl oor areas are designed to enable future conversion to retail uses. Supplementary Retail Frontages are a flexible element and may be provided along the northern side of the Central Boulevard Green Link to Sean Moore Road to pick up footfall toward the eastern residential area/Sean Moore Road/future LUAS Station, and draw people into the site and along the eastern edge of the Coastal Park to help animate the foreshore area. Supplementary Retail Frontages may also include other commercial, cultural, community or leisure uses that promote the formation of a highly animated ground floor. Any residential development provided at ground floor level along these frontages should be designed to enable future conversion to retail uses.

This will also require an amendment to Chapter 5 as follows. Amend Section 5.4.1 (paragraph at end of central column of text)

The retail area should accommodate between 1-2 supermarkets and a range of supporting retail and retail services up to a maximum of 5,000 sq.m, unless a justifiable case is made. To supplement the above, the provision of small scale retailing at the junction of Sean Moore Road and the Central Boulevard is supported along the northern side of the Central Boulevard Green Link to the junction of Sean Moore Road and along the eastern edge of the Coastal Park provided it can be demonstrated that it would not detract from the successful delivery of village centre retailing. This has potential to provide a service for those accessing the future LUAS, drawing people into the site and animating the foreshore area.

Amend Figure 11.1 (and re-label it 11.2) - Movement Proposals and Land Use

To include ‘Supplementary Retail Frontages’ along the northern side of the Central Boulevard Green Link to Sean Moore Road, the eastern edge of the Coastal Park and the southern sides of the Neighbourhood Square.

Amend Section 11.5.2 – end of paragraph 3 in right hand text column.

Perimeter blocks enclosing the ‘U plan’ form will not be permitted are limited to a single storey.

Amend Figure 11.2 – Block Form and Layout, and relabel it 11.3 Include single storey pavilion blocks along the eastern edge of the Coastal Park (i.e. between the ‘U shaped’ blocks). To change fixed building lines to Flexible lines on building envelopes to the south of South Bank Road where they fall within the South Port Access Road/Eastern By-Pass Corridor.

Note: Figures 11.3, 11.4, 11.5, 11.7 and 11.9 and Appendices 2, 3 and 4 will also be revised to ensure they provide an accurate depiction of those changes highlighted above.

Building Height A number of submissions were received in support of raising the heights contained within the Planning Scheme. These requests were generally linked to the increases in the proposed density of the scheme. The submissions varied with regard to the extent and locations of increases in height, with perimeter buildings up to 10-12 storeys throughout the site and landmarks buildings up to 28 storeys or 50-70m in height. Concerns were raised however in regard to any increase in building heights along Sean Moore Road from those proposed within the Draft SDZ Planning Scheme.

75

The masterplan submitted by Ballymore generally contained a substantial increase in heights along the southern sides of each block from 4-5 storeys to 6-7 and 8-9. The submission from Becbay contained maintained the overall structure of the draft SDZ with increases in height to a more uniform 8-9 storeys along Sean Moore Road, the edge of Sean Moore Park and on a number of internal streets. Additional landmark buildings of 14-16 storeys are also sought at either end of South Bank Road. Chief Executive’s Response The height of buildings within the SDZ Planning Scheme was guided by Section 15.1.19 of the City Development Plan which outlines the broad development parameters (including maximum heights) for the Poolbeg West Strategic Development and Regeneration Zone (SDRA). To create a visually engaging skyline, reinforce the urban structure and maximise solar access to internal courtyard areas, a building height distribution strategy was developed that placed higher building at access points, in the Neighbourhood Centre, along major movement corridors and along the edges of parks. Lower buildings were placed on the southern sides of a block (to maximise solar access) and along Sean Moore Road to provide a sense of transitions from existing houses opposite. The strategy was tested and further developed via a modelling exercise to produce building envelopes capable of accommodating approximately 3000 dwellings, 80,000-100,000 sq.m of commercial, 5000 sqm of retail and other supplementary community development. The building envelopes (i.e. widths and layout) are based on a number of block typologies found within the Docklands and other urban regeneration areas. All blocks were modelled to ensure internal courtyard areas, good levels of solar access between the equinox periods (i.e. March to September). To provide greater flexibility how the target figure is met, and to encourage larger units sizes, Section 11.5.1 states that ‘An additional setback storey, above the Maximum Height ( but excluding landmark/gateway buildings), may also be permitted to add further variety, subject to detailed urban design and shadowing analysis’. The alternative masterplans and/or height strategies put forward in submissions are predicated on an increase in the total number of dwellings to 3500. The proposed distribution of blocks/heights places significant pressure on the urban design framework and undermines the height strategy as:

• An increase of 8-9 storeys on local or minor streets, away from the main movement corridors, reduces the legibility of the urban structure and could result in buildings that are twice the height of the street width. Where this to occur along the length of a local street, or within successive blocks, a canyon like effect would result.

• Notwithstanding separation distances of approximately 30-50m, a uniform increase in height

to 8-9 storeys along Sean Moore Road would be overly dominant and over bearing in contrast to the three storey houses opposite.

• By narrowing the range of building heights across the site, the diversity of the skyline would

be reduced.

• Overshadowing of internal courtyards and public streets would be substantially increased. As noted above, where an increase in block size to occur to support additional height, any benefits in terms of solar access to internal courtyards are also largely negated.

Notwithstanding the above, it is agreed that there is limited scope for an increase in building heights at certain locations, where an increase is consistent with the height strategy (i.e. along major movement corridors, landmarks/gateway and along the edges of areas of open space). Proposed changes in the height strategy are illustrated below (see graphic at end of this section) including some minor changes to building layouts. Up to 3500 dwellings may be accommodated dependent on the details of individual applications, such as unit mix, amenities, solar access and other urban design considerations (note: all individual applications will also be subject to a Traffic and Transport Assessment). With regard to areas B1 and B2, a general height limit of 20m would cater for warehouse structures and office development up to 5 storeys, which is at the lower end of those specified within the Section 15.1.1.9 of the City Development Plan. Exceptions to this would include buildings along South Bank

76

Road (as outlined within the proposed height strategy) or ancillary structures such a chimney stacks, cranes, storage tanks etc. All structures above 20m should be subject to a visual impact assessment from key vantage points along the Dublin Bay foreshore. Recommendation

Amend Figure 11.2 – Block Form and Layout and relabel it 11.3 To reflect increases in building height, as illustrated below at (at end of section 11), and the application of development envelopes in areas B1 and B2 (with changes in building layouts where necessary to accommodate). Amended Figure 11.8 – 3D Perspective (and relabel it 11.9) To reflect increases in building height and application of development envelopes in areas B1 and B2 (with changes in building layouts where necessary to accommodate).

Note: Figures 11.3, 11.4, 11.5, 11.7 and 11.9 and appendices 2, 3 and 4 will also be revised to ensure they provide an accurate depiction of those changes highlighted above. Amended Section 11.3.3 Residential Neighbourhood Approximately 3,000 3000-3500 residential dwellings are to be provided within those blocks immediately adjoining the Central Boulevard Green Link and to the south. Residential development is fixed to these locations, however, as above, a more flexible or mixed use approach may be taken within ‘Flexible Use Area’ provided a buffer is maintained. (as per Figure 11.4). Amended Section 11.3.5 Port/Industrial Compatible Uses (p61) Lands to the north and east have been retained for port related/industrial uses (Blocks B1 and B2). No set An urban structure envelope has been determined for these areas which allows for a range of uses and buildings including the predominant use for cargo storage and container storage up to 3 containers high. except Should any intensification of these lands occur a general maximum heights limit of 20m applies, not including structures that are ancillary any port/industrial use (such as chimneys, cranes or storage tanks). All such structures above 20m shall be subject to a visual impact assessment from key vantage points along the Dublin Bay foreshore. Taller buildings may be permitted on. however any intensification of development on lands directly to the north of South Bank Road should seek to accommodate a further 50,000 sqm of office space and establish an urban edge that is reflective of that to the south, taking into account the impact of the future road network planned. It should be noted however that development of any permanent structure in the South Port Access Road/Eastern By-Pass Corridor (see figure 6.3) is subject to agreement with TII. Amended Section 1.3 SDZ Development Capacity. Towards top of central text column, p 3 The residential potential within the 34 HA of available lands, on the basis of the ratio used in the Grand Canal Dock and North Lotts SDZ, the 34 HA of available lands can accommodate approximately is for between 3000 and 3500 additional residential units at a net gross residential density of up to 238 units per hectare (uph) on lands to the south of South Bank Road. The estimated housing yield equates to a residential population of circa 7000 8000. Built Form/Architectural Language (section 11.5.3) A number of submissions also welcomed the perimeter block forms in terms of addressing streets (i.e. maximising activity and overlooking), however a submission expressed concern that internal spaces would not be used and more open blocks should be employed to give to provide greater public access. A concern was also raised that the Block layouts will not provide for convenience retailing. A number of concerns were expressed in relation to the form of the buildings as depicted in the scheme. A number of views were put forward seeking greater variety. Views were also put forward seeking a more a more traditional form of architecture. It was also suggested that competitions be

77

held for the design of the scheme (as a framework) or the individual developments therein and that a range of developer/architects be used throughout to promote vibrancy and diversity. Chief Executive’s Response The perimeter block model is used extensively through the Draft SDZ Planning Scheme as it provides a continuous urban edge that promotes a strong sense of enclosure and clearly defined public and private spaces. This maximises passive surveillance within the public domain, secures the interiors of each block and promotes a traffic clamed environment. As noted in Section 11.5.3 of the SDZ Planning Scheme however greater flexibility is however provided in commercial and retail areas where ‘public access may be desirable to all sides of a building’. More open block forms are also provided along the edges of Sean Moore Park and the Coastal Park to provide a softer edge condition. The building envelopes depicted in the Draft Planning Scheme, such as in Figures 11.8, are representative of the location, height and scale of buildings only. Section 11.5.3 seeks to ensure variety via a design approach ‘where each block is expressed on its frontage to consist of a number of different individual buildings, rather than a single expansive building’. Figure 11.11 Urban Grain illustrates how this process may occur in order to produce a design that result in a high degree of variety throughout the site. The photomontage images depicted in Figures 11.3, 11.5, 11.7 and 11.9 and Figure 11.12, were also included within the Draft Planning Scheme to further illustrate the desired outcome. The number of developers or architectural firms that will be engaged throughout the development and/or design process cannot be specified. However an architectural design statement can be sought for large applications (one urban block or more) demonstrating how a highly varied design approach is applied, whilst ensuring that an overall level of coherency and consistency is achieved between the design of new blocks and buildings, particularly if different developers/designers are engaged. Internal building lines throughout the scheme are illustrated as flexible (refer to Figure 11.2 of the Draft SDZ Planning Scheme). This will enable variations in building footprints within the interior of each block to accommodate larger floor plates, such as those associated with a supermarket (for example a retail podium with residential or commercial over could be developed in the Neighbourhood Centre). Recommendation Amend Section 11.5.3 Architectural Language (p67) Buildings in Poolbeg West should be collectively designed to the highest quality, displaying innovative and distinctive qualities unique to Poolbeg West, yet draw references and inspiration from the urban design and architectural qualities of existing neighbouring districts. Architectural design within the SDZ must be of high quality. A key challenge will be to ensure that a highly varied design approach should be is applied throughout Poolbeg West to break up the bulk and scale of buildings and promote greater architectural integration with the communities of Irishtown, Ringsend and Sandymount., whilst ensuring that an overall level of coherency and consistency is achieved between the design of new blocks and buildings, particularly if different developers are engaged. In order to ensure that a holistic and coherent architectural design approach is achieved for all the buildings in the Poolbeg West area, an ‘Architectural Design Statement’ will be submitted for any planning applications relating to one block or more. The design approach should seek to place an emphasis on vertical features and maximise ‘own door’ access. The Statement should seek to ensure that a design approach should be is employed where each block is expressed on along its frontage to consist of as a number of different individual buildings, rather than a single expansive building (see also Figure 11.11), with an emphasis on vertical features and own door access. The Statement should also include development/design codes, where appropriate, to further ensure variety will be is expressed by via a range of housing layouts and typologies, changes in the applied architectural language and elements such as building/plot widths, articulation, fenestration, parapet heights, roof profiles and materials and finishes (see also Figure

78

11.12). References should be made to international best practice in designing and delivering new residential urban quarters, drawing on relevant examples (such as the Eastern Harbour District of Amsterdam, Hafencity Hamburg, Hammarby Sjostad Stockholm, etc.) Amended Objective US5 (p68) US5 To create a high quality, innovative, distinctive and varied built environment unique to Poolbeg West, that draws inspiration from international best practice and the qualities of existing neighbouring districts, reinforces the urban structure, promotes a strong sense of place, minimises the impacts of overshadowing, and ameliorates wind conditions.

Street Network/Design

A number of submissions make reference to components of the street network and the design/alignment of a number of individual streets, including:

• The Port Authority has stated it had initial concerns about keeping White Bank Road as it would prevent the consolidation of activities on port lands in Block B1. It states the rationale for retaining part of the White Bank Road, but requests flexibility be given north of the junction.

• The submission from Becbay seeks the width of the Central Boulevard to the west of the

Village Square to be reduced to 25m so as to enable a minimum block dimension of 60m for those blocks to the north of the Central Boulevard and the west of the Neighbourhood Centre.

• The NTA have stated that that requirement for bus priority in the form of bus lanes running

through the SDZ has yet to be fully determined. The Authority would be satisfied if traffic management arrangements (including bus gates) were implemented

• It is suggested that the proposed bus loop be reversed to avoid a right turn onto Sean Moore

Road.

• Concerns are raised that the existing access route to Bissest Engineering is no longer shown.

• Concerns are also raised that Sean Moore Road would be narrowed. The NTA also note that Figure 11.9 should be removed or amended to include bus lanes in both directions along Sean Moore Road.

A number of submissions were also submitted in relation to more detailed issues such as pedestrian crossing times and street layouts.

Chief Executive’s Response

The Port Authority has proposed to realign the northern part of White Bank Road so that it turns east to connect with a proposed new road through the Synergyn Energy Plant (Refer to the Port Masterplan Review 2017). Whilst there are no concerns are raised with regard to the proposed realignment in the short to medium term, a direct north-south connection through area B1 is desirable in the longer term to connect area B1 (and the Pigeon House precinct further to the east) the Neighbourhood Centre/Village Green. An indicative route through the area would enable flexibility whilst ensuring that such a route is completely severed by any future development. The NTA have stated that there is no requirement for bus priority lanes through the SDZ; as such the width of the Central Boulevard can be reduced by 3m (i.e. 27 metres +/- 2m). It should be noted that a width of 27m could still accommodate a bus lane if required.

79

Figure 11.9 is provided for illustrative purposes only, so as to demonstrate a desirable outcome. The number of traffic lanes is unchanged. A narrower carriageway is depicted via removal of the ghost median and reduction in lane widths (as would be required by the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets, 2013). The green strip is illustrated as a reserve for future LUAS/Bus Lanes, the final form of which will be developed in consultation with TII and the NTA. It should be noted that that to accommodate wider footpaths, cycle lanes and public transport, Sean Moore Road will need to be widened. The SDZ Planning Scheme has accounted for this by providing a setback of some 5m from its eastern edge (it is noted that the submission from Becbay states 4m will be required). A further reference to this setback can be included in this scheme in chapter 11. The existing road servicing Bissett engineering is located within an area identified as the Port Park/road reserve (see also Section 9 above).

Recommendation

Amend Figure 11.1 - Movement Proposals and Land Use

The alignment of White Bank Road to be illustrated as indicative to the north of its existing junction with South Bank Road. Reduce the width of the Central Boulevard, South Bank Road and South Bank link street by 3m (ie 27m +/- 2m).

Amend Section 11.2.1 – Street Network (p57) – Right hand text column.

A. The new 30 27 metre wide Cental Boulevard (+/- 2metres depending on specific site circumstances) incorporating bus and cycle lanes, together with wide footpaths and a treed lined landscape strip integrated with SUDS (See Figure 11.3 – Central Boulevard Photomontage). This central boulevard also serves the major function of linking the maritime character of the Bay back through Poolbeg West to Ringsend/Irishtown. The width of the boulevard may be reduced by a further 3 metres to the east of the Neighbourhood/Centre, where a bus lane is not required.

B. A new 22 20 metre wide (+/- 2 metres depending on specific site circumstances) South

Bank link street located between blocks A1 and A2 and connecting to the retail hub/Village Green area.

Amend Section 11.2.2 – Public Transport (p60) – Left hand text column. The proposed Red Line Luas extension (NTA Greater Dublin Area Transport Study 2016-2035) is routed along Sean Moore Road with the station located adjacent to a new junction with the Central Boulevard Green Link, maximising accessibility with Poolbeg West and the existing communities of Ringsend and Irishtown. Any future Luas route will be facilitated by a setback of approximately 5 metres along Sean Moore Road. Bus Services are routed through the site along South Bank Road and the Central Boulevard Green Link via a loop system that caters for new services/service extensions from Ringsend, Sandymount and the Docklands (NTA Poolbeg Transport Assessment 2016). Dedicated bus lanes and a A bus gate are is to be provided along this loop to prioritise services and reduce the amount of vehicular traffic entering the Neighbourhood Centre. All public transport routes are flexible and may be varied in collaboration with the National Transport Authority and/or Transport Infrastructure Ireland. Note: Appendices 2, 3 and 4 will also be revised to ensure they provide an accurate depiction of those changes highlighted above.

Amend Figure 11.2 – Block Form and Layout (to become Figure 11.3) The alignment of White Bank Road marked as flexible

Reduce the width of the Central Boulevard, South Bank Road and South Bank link street by 3m.

Amend Figure 11.3 (to become Figure 11.4) Removal of the Bus Lane Levels BecBay request that Appendix 3 Site - Cross Sections be omitted from the scheme. It is stated that the former IGB site has been remediated in line with a podium-based development with a ventilated layer of car parking underground acting as a physical barrier between the subsoil and the habitable spaces above. Site Cross Sections 2, 4 and 5 included on Appendix 3 of the Draft Planning Scheme indicate a podium height at 4-5 metres AOD. This height is not consistent with the remediation strategy carried out on the IGB site which requires a central height of 7 metres AOD. Chief Executive’s Response The levels shown within the scheme are approximate only, and illustrate the fall of land (or ground level) required to create an upper promenade area within the Coastal Park, and to drain the site in accordance with the SUDs strategy (refer to figure 8.2). Recommendation No amendments recommended.

81

82

Chapter 12 Implementation & Monitoring Submission numbers 1019, 1028, 1030, 1035, 1044, 1055, 1058, 1093

Summary of Issues A submission was received from Ringsend and Irishtown Community Centre stating that a two way mechanism needs to be put in place for reporting back to the community and for the community to have its voice and opinions heard. The submission goes on to state that the role of the Docklands Oversight and Consultative Forum is particularly important as the decisions taken as the Forum will include decisions on how monies from levies are spent and the phasing of facilities and amenities within the scheme. A submission received from Dublin Port Company (DPC) states that DPC hope to achieve planning permissions under the SDZ scheme of at least 10 year duration which will allow for certainty moving forward. One submission received requests that the Irish Film Board be included as a relevant agency in Chapter 12 (Implementation & Monitoring) of the planning scheme. Another submission received posed the question, what measures will be taken to ensure construction of development within the SDZ meets required standards. This submission also requests that DCC engage with and work closely with Dublin Port to ensure continuity of design throughout Dublin Port Lands and the SDZ. Another submission received requested that a mechanism for reporting back to the community be included. This submission also recommends that mechanisms need to be put in place to ensure smooth development and avoid enforcement issues. This submission also raises concern with regard to transparency in relation to minor ands major planning applications within the SDZ. Another submission received requested that in addition to those organisations mentioned in the draft planning scheme (DCC, Docklands Form etc), Dublin City Councillors and the local community should be involved as much as possible. This submission also states that Council should allow itself the maximum flexibility as regards the different ways in which public infrastructure and facilities for the SDZ will be funded. There is no reason at this stage for the Council to indicate – as it has done - that it is unlikely to bring forward a specific/additional Section 48 or Section 49 Scheme to assist with the provision of infrastructure. The sentence “In the interest of ensuring viability and competitiveness on what is a complex area, and recognising the high costs of bringing the lands forward for development, it is not proposed that an additional contribution scheme will accompany this Planning Scheme” (section 12.4) should be omitted - unless it is the case that there is already in place a detailed and persuasive economic analysis justifying such an indicative approach at this stage. In summary the Council should allow itself the maximum flexibility at this stage to be able to avail of the full range of funding mechanisms. Several submissions received were supportive of the implementation and Monitoring Chapter. Chief Executive’s Response In relation to the submission received from Ringsend and Irishtown Community Centre, which requested that a two way mechanism needs to be put in place for reporting back to the community and for the community to have its voice and opinions heard, it is considered that Dublin City Council, as the Development Agency for the implementation of the Poolbeg West SDZ Planning Scheme, are duty bound to promote the successful implementation of the Planning Scheme and will achieve this by working with other agencies, community groups and stakeholders for the achievement of this ambition. It should also be noted that the recent establishment of the Docklands Forum as a committee of Dublin City Council will play a key role in ensuring that Council services deliver within

83

the area to support this Planning Scheme and also provides a mechanism for reporting back to the community. In relation to the submission received from Dublin Port Company (DPC) requesting a 10 year duration for planning permissions approved on port lands, it is considered that the existing text in Section 12.3 (Assessing SDZ Planning Applications) adequately conveys the development management process associated with the SDZ and that the issue of the duration of planning consents, is an issue that will be considered through this development management process. In relation to the submission received requesting that the Irish Film Board be included as a relevant agency, it is considered that in delivering the SDZ, Dublin City Council will promote the successful implementation of the Planning Scheme and work with other agencies, community groups and stakeholders for the achievement of this ambition. Dublin City Council is committed to working with all agencies working towards the successful implementation of the Planning Scheme. One submission received posed the question as to what measures will be taken to ensure construction of development within the SDZ meets required standards? It is considered that all new developments constructed within or outside of the SDZ must comply with the applicable building regulations. It should be noted that the 2014 Regulations prohibit the opening, occupation or use of a building until a Completion Certificate has been filed and registered by the building control authority. The Building Regulations have no impact on planning permissions, and certificates/opinions on compliance with planning will continue to be required in one of the acceptable existing forms. While ensuring that the final development is constructed to a suitable standard is a building control issue, ensuring that the build out of the SDZ has no detrimental environmental impacts is a strategic issue that must be considered within the SDZ. Accordingly, it is considered appropriate that additional text be added to this chapter to ensure the monitoring of the likely significant effects of implementing the Draft Planning Scheme. In relation to the request in this submission that DCC engage with and work closely with Dublin Port to ensure continuity of design throughout Dublin Port Lands and the SDZ, it should be noted that, as indicated in Section 5.4.3 (Dublin Port) of the draft planning scheme, Dublin City Council fully supports and recognises the important national and regional role of Dublin Port in the economic life of the region. Dublin Port will have a significant role to play in the future development and growth of the Poolbeg West area as well as the wider city. With this in mind, this planning scheme recognises the importance of retaining port uses and port related activities on site where needed. As can be seen in the land use chapter, port uses and port related activities will be retained in the northern and eastern portions of the SDZ lands. There is also potential for synergies between Port activities and the commercial area of the Planning Scheme. The Council is supportive of and will encourage the location of port and shipping service companies in the commercial area. It should also be noted that Dublin Port Company have submitted comments in relation to the Draft Planning scheme, and Dublin City Council have submitted comments in relation to the Dublin Port Masterplan Review 2017, demonstrating that the Council is engaging with with Dublin Port to ensure continuity of design throughout Dublin Port Lands and the SDZ With regard to the submission received requesting that a mechanism for reporting back to the community be included, in the draft planning scheme, it should be noted that Dublin City Council is duty bound to promote the successful implementation of the Planning Scheme and will work with other agencies, community groups and stakeholders for the achievement of this ambition. This is stated in Section 12.1 (Role of Dublin City Council) of the draft planning scheme. It should also be noted that the Docklands Consultative Forum will play a key role in reporting back to the community. In relation to the recommendation received that mechanisms need to be put in place to ensure smooth development and avoid enforcement issues, this issue will be dealt with through the development management process. In relation to minor and major planning applications within the SDZ and transparency, it should be noted that all planning applications received within the SDZ are will be publicly notified and will be

84

available for inspection for a period of 5 weeks in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended) and the Planning and development Regulations 2001 (as amended). With regard to the submission received requesting that in addition to those organisations mentioned in the draft planning scheme (DCC, Docklands Form etc), Dublin City Councillors and the local community should be involved as much as possible, it is considered that Dublin City Council, as the Development Agency is duty bound to promote the successful implementation of the Planning Scheme and has taken extensive steps to engage with the public and relevant agencies to secure relevant information and data which informs the process. This includes the input of elected representatives, various agencies, and interested groups/individuals. In relation to the request within this submission that the sentence “In the interest of ensuring viability and competitiveness on what is a complex area, and recognising the high costs of bringing the lands forward for development, it is not proposed that an additional contribution scheme will accompany this Planning Scheme” (section 12.4) should be omitted, it is considered that the above text, requested to be omitted from the Draft Planning Scheme, is needed to ensure its successful realisation. The SDZ area, due to site constraints including site remediation costs and infrastructural requirements associated with phasing, will be costly to develop successfully. Therefore, providing additional levies may act as a deterrent to the successful redevelopment and the provision of much needed housing in close proximity to the city centre. Based on the proposed scale of development within the Planning Scheme it is estimated that the contribution levies collected will provide funding for investment in public infrastructure in the range of 25- 30 million euros over the lifetime of the Scheme. Chief Executive’s Recommendation (6) Amend Section 12.2, p69 (Providing Coordinated Delivery) by the inclusion of the following text

after the first paragraph:

Insert:

The SEA Environmental Report details the measures which will be used in order to monitor the likely significant effects of implementing the Planning Scheme. Any reporting on the implementation of the Planning Scheme will be informed by reporting on the likely significant effects of implementing the Planning Scheme.

85

4.1 Other Issues/Miscellaneous Submission Numbers: 1002, 1008 1013 1019 1020 1035 1036 1051 1058 1059 1066 1084 1093 1096 1107 Summary of Issues Movement: Submissions state there is no aircoach service and a new bridge needed at east link as traffic is problematic. Luas should be extended to the port and Ringsend. A new cycleway is needed to Hanover Quaty/Ringsend. Submissions sought details for the design of revisions to Pigeon House Road. Housing: 50% social and affordable housing needed and the ratio of social and affordable housing proposed is inadequate Land Uses: There could be a role for Dublin Interactive Science Centre which had oprevious contact with the DDDA over the years. Film studio will bring jobs and support expressed for the studio concept. One submission stated that Dublin Port appears to be against the film studio. A central information centre is needed in Dublin City Council to ensure information availability. The milestones along the way as the SDZ progresses should be communicated. Amenity/air quality: More trees are needed to reduce air toxin levels Funding: Dublin City Council should have maximum flexibility in regard to sources of fundng (ch 12) Objective IU9 shodul be amended to allow reference to feasibility Appendix 3 (site cross sections) should be omitted (chapter 11) All cultures should be welcome and a multi-denominational school would be valuable to promote diversity. Banking: 2 ATMs are needed in the area Chief Executive’s Response Matters relating to movement and housing are dealt with in respective chapters, 6 and 3. Chapters 8, 10 and 11 provide detail relating to open space and planting. In relation to the Film studio concept, this is examined under chapter 5; Economy and Employment. The scheme already earmarks a site for educational use and has consulted the Dept of Education. See chapter 4. Funding is a matter for chapter 12 (implementation) Objective IU9 is under chapter 7 (regarding district heating). It is understood to be feasible. In regard to information availability, individual departments can be contacted directly or via the customer services section. The planning Department will maintain the website Poolbegwest.ie and relevant updates to the process. Site cross sections in appendix 3 are considered appropriate by way of illustrating the proposed scheme and giving the reader a sense of relative heights across the site. Banking is not a planning matter, but the plan does support provision of services for residents and workers in the area Chief Executive’s Recommendation Website at poolbegwest.ie to be checked/updated at each key stage of the process.

86

5 Public Notifications 5.1 Copies of Newspaper notices Below 5th July Irish Times 2016. Notification of preparation of draft planning scheme

87

Below January 24th 2017 Independent; Notification of display of draft planning scheme (note; image split into two sections for legibility in this document)

88

89

5.2 Copy of pre-draft stage letter to interested groups June 2016

NOTICE OF THE PREPARATION OF A DRAFT PLANNING SCHEME FOR

POOLBEG WEST STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT ZONE (SDZ)

Pre-draft consultation.

Further to the official designation of Poolbeg West as a Strategic Development Zone in May this year , Dublin City Council is proceeding with the preparation of a Draft Planning Scheme for the area in accordance with relevant content of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended). The SDZ lands which comprise approximately 34 hectares are deemed to be of economic and social importance to the State. Dublin City Council is specified as the Development Agency for the purposes of the Planning Scheme under the SDZ designation in accordance with Part IX Section 166(3) of the Act. The Council intends to prepare a Planning Scheme in accordance with the Designation of Strategic Development Zone: Poolbeg West, Dublin City Order. It will consist of a written statement and plans indicating the type and extent of development to be permitted in the Poolbeg West SDZ, together with proposals relating to the overall design of development, transportation, and the provision of services, the minimisation of any adverse impacts on the environment and the provision of amenities, facilities and services for the community. It will be accompanied by an Environmental Report and an Appropriate Assessment Screening Report under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). The Planning Scheme will be the spatial planning document that sets out the detailed framework for development on the lands in the medium to long term and to ensure the delivery of residential and commercial/economic development together with supporting infrastructure and facilities in a sustainable manner. For your information, a copy of the Governments Official Order designating the area an SDZ is available at http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2016/si/279/made/en/pdf This Order includes a map showing the boundary of the SDZ area which is reproduced below.

90

In addition to the above, the Dublin City Draft Development Plan includes a set of development principles for this area, upon which the SDZ will be progressed. The Development Plan is available at the following link (see p 138 onwards);

http://dublincitydevelopmentplan.ie/downloads/Vol1_Draft-Written-Statement-Web.pdf

To inform the process, you are invited to submit observations/comments which you feel may assist in the preparation of the draft planning scheme. Submissions can be made to Dublin City Council and should be addressed to: Fiona Brady, Planning and Property Development Department, Civic Offices, Wood Quay, Dublin 8, or by email to poolbegwest@dublincity.ie before 16.30hrs on Monday 18th July 2016. Submissions should state your name, address, and where relevant, the body represented. All submissions and observations received within the above time limit will be taken into consideration during the preparation of the Draft Planning Scheme. In addition, if you wish to meet a member of the dedicted planning team, this will be facilitated by appointment to take place on or prior to 18th July 2016. Please contact Fiona Brady at phone no. 2222009 if you wish to arrange a meeting.

91

5.3 Copy of PPN newsletter page

Below is an extract from the Public Participation Network newsletter, ‘Dublin City PPPN News July 2016’ (page 4 of same)

92

6.0 List of Submission Received Number First Name Surname Organisation On behalf of 1001 Oisin O’Neill 1002 Helena 1003 Jamie Moran 1004 Conor Curran 1005 Paul Yeates 1006 Leo Kennedy 1007 David Donnelly 1008 Jonathan Kavanagh 1009 Joe O’Connor 1010 Fred Jensen 1011 Andy McMullin 1012 Irish Film Workers Association 1013 Elizabeth Buckley 1014 Brian Wylie Iarnród Éireann 1015 Gareth Lee Animation Skillnet 1016 Aoife Byrne SLR Consulting Irish Cement Ltd 1017 Barry O’Dowd IDA 1018 Anne-Marie Curran Russell Curran Productions 1019 Irishtown Residents Group 1020 Audrey Hanley Sandymount Tidy Towns 1021 Mary Finan Gate Theatre 1022 John Conroy 1023 Shimmy Marcus Bow Street Academy 1024 Mary Furlong Windmill Lane Pictures Ltd 1025 Rebecca Bourke Assembly Production Company 1026 Carolina Terrav Canella 1027 Christopher McGarry NAMA 1028 Lorraine Barry Ringsend & Irishtown

Community Centre

1029 Malachy Brady EMRA 1030 Eamonn O’Reilly Dublin Port Company 1031 Deirdre Kirwan John Spain Associates Amphitheatre

Ireland Ltd 1032 Colm Sexton Cinetex Films 1033 Mannix Flynn Councillor 1034 Daniel O’Connell 1035 Tristan Orpen-Lynch Subotica Film Company 1036 Neville Gaynor Irish Film Workers Association 1037 Rodney Duggan GMB 1038 Aislinn Ni Chuinneagain 1039 Stephen O’Hanlon GMB 1040 Catherine McGorrian 1041 Fergus Monahan GMB 1042 Rene Knol GMB 1043 Tara Spain Transport Infrastructure Ireland 1044 Fiona Fitzgerald 1045 Rothco Group 1046 Robert Flood GMB 1047 Russ Russell Russell Curran Productions 1048 Clinton O’Rourke 1049 Mick Hanley Dublin City FM 1050 Sinead O’Malley EirGrid PLC 1051 Bill Buckley GMB/IFWA Film Union

93

1052 John Kelly Pigeon House Road, Poolbeg Quay and Ringsend Park Residents

1053 Ed Guiney Element Pictures 1054 Lorna Kelly 1055 Susan Cummins IGB Housing Action Group 1056 John Phelan 1057 Seamus Donohoe Tom Phillips & Associates Dublin Bay

Studios 1058 Ciaran Holahan Dublin Bay South Green Party 1059 Declan Brassil Declan Brassil & Co Becbay-Fabrizia 1060 Torlach Denihan Audiovisual Federation 1061 Paul Lynam British Irish Chamber of

Commerce

1062 Tara Higgins EPA 1063 David Hickey Limerick Self Storage 1064 Brian Dalton RTE 1065 Jim Hargis Eastside + Docklands Local

Employment Service

1066 Bronwyn Thomson 1067 Ray Donnellan Dublin Bus 1068 Christine Fitzpatrick Sean Moore Road Residents

Association

1069 Cllr Derek Mitchell Wicklow Co. Co. 1070 Suzanne Dempsey Irish Water 1071 Eoghan Murphy (TD) Fine Gael 1072 Eoin Bennis DHPCLG 1073 Simon Bradshaw GVA Planning Tesco Ireland 1074 Peter Fitzpatrick The Iveagh Trust 1075 Ross Keane Irish Film Institute 1076 Patrick J Kelly Redquartz and Urban Capital 1077 Elaine Geraghty Screen Producers Ireland 1078 Alan Robinson Docklands Business Forum 1079 Lorraine Geoghegan Hinterland Films 1080 Gerard Crowley ESB 1081 Evanne Kilmurray Inner City Enterprise 1082 Sean Mulryan Ballymore 1083 James Hickey Irish Film Board 1084 Mervyn Fox 1085 Patrick Sutton Smock Alley Theatre 1086 Patrick Quinlan 1087 Stephanie Byrne John Spain Associates John Bissett

Engineering Ltd 1088 Kate Kingston Peel Ports 1089 Sinead O’Brien DAHRRGA 1090 Michael MacAree NTA 1091 Bernard Barron Clanna Gael Fontenoy GAA 1092 Graeme McQueen Dublin Chamber of Commerce 1093 Jackie Ryan Business to Arts 1094 Áine Moriarty Irish Film and Television

Academy

1095 Eamon Ryan (TD) The Green Party 1096 Oscar Despard Dublin City Comhairle na Nóg 1097 John Gormley 1098 Kevin Dennehy 1099 Ivan Coster IFWA 1100 Alan Fitzpatrick Filmbase 1101 Annie Doona IADT Dun Laoghaire

94

1102 David Teevan 1103 Noel Billane 1104 Michael Bannable 1105 Patrick Sutton The Gaiety School of Acting 1106 Birch Hamilton Screen Directors Guild of

Ireland

1107 Rosemary Kevany Discovery 1108 Brendan Buck BPS Planning Consultants Rushfleet Ltd

95

96

Addendum Report to the Chief Executive’s Report on Submissions to the Draft Poolbeg West Planning Scheme.

Introduction Due to an oversight there were a number of omissions from the Chief Executive’s Report on Submissions to the Draft Poolbeg West Planning Scheme forwarded to Elected Members on Thursday 13th April 2017. In order to rectify the situation this Addendum Report is now attached which should be read in conjunction with the Report previously circulated. This Addendum forms part of the Chief Executive’s Report and is of equal weight.

- Text below with grey background is additional text to the Chief Executive’s Report on Submissions to the Draft Poolbeg West Planning Scheme.

Page 12 Chapter 3 A New Residential Neighbourhood Submission Numbers 1001,1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1012, 1013,1019, 1027, 1029,1032,1033, 1035 , 1036, 1037, 1040, 1041, 1044, 1045, 1048, 1055, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1059, 1061, 1066, 1068 1069, 1072, 1074, 1078, 1082, 1084,1086, 1091, 1092, 1093, 1095, 1096, 1097 , 1101, 1102, 1103, 1104, 1107, 1108, 1109 Page 13

Section 3.3 Planning for an appropriate mix of housing (section 3.5 also);

Summary of issues (Insert after first paragraph)

A submission from Sinn Féin states that this key development must be guided by 2 principles; sustainability / social mix; and policies ensuring social housing, affordable cost rental and home ownership. International evidence shows that mixed tenure contributes to social cohesion, enables access to training and employment and increases “liveability”. The

recent Dublin City Council land initiative which aims to deliver 30% social / 20% affordable / 50% private could be used as a model. The 10% social housing target is derisory.

A submission from the Green Party (including the Dublin Bay South Green Party) calls for 33% social, 33% affordable cost-rental, and 33% private housing….

Page 18 Summary of issues (Insert in paragraph 3 and 4)

A number of submissions state that there should be a much greater level of detail regarding the amenities and community services that are to be provided to support sustainable community development in the area of the SDZ. Community development in the SDZ should include a gym, all weather sports facility, crèches, school, other educations & childcare services, community hall, radio station, church or chapel and on the exact manner in which these will be developed and provided. It is also stated that that the plan should ensure that

the school built as part of the plan is multi-denominational to encourage diversity in the SDZ. It is submitted that a secondary school be considered for the area. Ensuring age friendly services particularly the needs of the elderly will require public transport to access public services. A submission from Comhairle na nÓg emphasises the need to consider the requirements of young people in the 12-18 age bracket, including those related to leisure and open space.

In terms of the cultural and artistic space in the SDZ, it is submitted that objective CD8 should be amended to state require social, cultural, creative and artistic space be provide in addition to the provision of the community space. The requirement for allocation of space at ground floor level for social, cultural, creative and artistic purposes should be included in the land use and phasing objectives. That the provision of 5% social, cultural, creative and artistic should be compulsory in both residential and commercial developments. One submission seeks greater consideration for significant new public sculpture as a means to promote tourism and create a sense of identity in the area (particularly since some past proposals did not proceed as planned).

It is also submitted that the objectives in the current Dublin City Development Plan relating to community development should be applied to the SDZ.

A submission considers that the long and proud history of Irishtown, Sandymount, and Ringsend (where the controversial figure of Oliver Cromwell landed in 1649), should be reflected in the development of new areas.

It is submitted that Dublin City Council should work with the existing communities in the area and there should be collaboration in the delivery of community services in the SDZ. There should also be engagement with the long term tenants of Dublin Port in the SDZ. Page 20 (Insert text to the end of bullet point 1)

And add a third bullet point to read as follows:

1. To require all developments over 50 residential units/5000m2 provide the provision of

social, cultural, creative and artistic purposes in the SDZ to that contribute to the 5%

allocation of such spaces in the docklands area. This space can be provided in tandem with

community needs identified through community audits (see CD 9 below) to achieve viable

economies of scale. The space can also be achieved through existing or other planned

community spaces within and close to the SDZ, subject to the approval of Dublin City

Council. Public sculpture is also promoted in appropriate locations.

2. Developers to consult with the Arts Office of Dublin City Council, Local communities and

residents in developing the social, cultural, creative and artistic needs of the SDZ

Page 21

Chapter 5 Economy & Employment

Submission numbers: 1003, 1005, 1008, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025, 1028, 1029, 1032, 1033, 1034, 1035, 1036, 1038, 1039, 1042, 1044, 1045, 1046, 1047, 1049, 1051, 1052, 1053, 1055, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1059, 1060, 1062, 1064, 1065, 1069, 1071, 1072, 1073, 1075, 1077, 1078, 1079, 1081, 1082, 1083, 1085, 1088, 1093, 1094, 1095, 1096, 1097, 1098, 1099, 1100, 1101, 1105, 1106, 1107, 1108, 1109

Page 22 (Insert after paragraph 4) The submission from Sinn Féin states that the SDZ should contain a commitment to include a social clause in any contracts during development, to provide added social value. It is submitted that Dublin City Council has general powers to enter contracts under Local Government Act of Ireland 2001; and that Government “Planning Policy Statement 2015”

states that the planning process will facilitate sustainable job creation.

Page 27 (Insert to the start of paragraph 8)

With regard to the submissions from Sinn Féin and others in relation to local employment, requesting:

- that the SDZ should contain a Social Clause to provide added social value, long after the homes are built.

- that a local employment charter and training scheme ……….

Page 42

Chapter 7 Infrastructure & Utilities

Submission Numbers: 1008, 1019, 1020, 1036, 1044, 1050, 1052, 1055, 1057, 1058, 1059, 1062, 1068, 1070, 1080, 1086, 1088, 1093, 1095, 1096, 1098, 1102, 1103, 1104

Page 83 Chapter 12 Implementation & Monitoring

Submission numbers 1019, 1028, 1030, 1035, 1044, 1055, 1058, 1093, 1096

Page 95 Number First Name Surname Organisation On behalf of

1109 Cllr Daithí Doolan Sinn Féin Sinn Féin