To the Lord Mayor and Report No. 52/2009 of theMembers of the Dublin City Council Assistant City Manager

Liberties Draft Local Area Plan

Manager's Report on Submissions fromPublic Display of Draft LAP

INTRODUCTION – THE AIM OF THE LIBERTIES DRAFT LOCAL AREA PLAN

The Liberties has historically played a significant role in the formation of the city identity with its artisan and brewery traditions to the fore, market trading and network of strong community neighbourhoods. The area is also home to numerous landmarks and institutions, whether commercial, academic or ecclesiastical, such as the National College of Art and Design, Guinness as the oldest extant and best-known commercial enterprise and the Digital Hub as the government’s digital and creative technology initiative, whilst it boasts of numerous famous churches including Christchurch and St. Patrick’s Cathedrals. It also has a very rich building heritage of archaeological significance which reflects early monastic settlements and the former city walls, whilst its architectural heritage is a vital component of the area’s identity and character. These factors all contribute to the unique urban village character of the Liberties.

The Liberties Area is now facing major change due to the proposals for strategic public transport infrastructure provision in the area including the Interconnector and the extension of LUAS Line F under Transport 21, in tandem with the fact that a significant number of large brownfield sites are likely to become available for redevelopment. The new transport infrastructure will significantly increase the connectivity of the area in the context of the wider city and region and the redevelopment of brownfield lands will facilitate more efficient land-use with a change from industrial to mixed-uses which in turn will enable the introduction of a finer scale and grain of development, greater permeability and new civic spaces.

Key redevelopment sites in the area include the following: the Digital Hub with two significant development sites, the former Iveagh Markets and Vicar Street Area, the Grand Canal Harbour, Newmarket and to lands to be released arising from the proposal to consolidate the brewery operations on the Guinness Lands. In addition, there are considerable land holdings in the City Council’s ownership which it is the intention to re-

develop in order to rationalise existing depot facilities and to improve the quality of the social housing stock by demolition and rebuild. These lands relate to a considerable portion of the plan area and include the depot lands sites at Marrowbone Lane and three housing estates at Pimlico, Basin Street and Bridgefoot Street / Oliver Bond.

The Liberties Draft Local Area Plan (DLAP) was prepared within the intent to seize this unique opportunity to guide and re-shape this area, which essentially equates to the south-west quadrant of the inner city, as an attractive and liveable city quarter with successful sustainable neighbourhoods and to contribute to economic prosperity at the local, city and national level. The plan seeks to achieve the social, economic and physical regeneration of the area by providing a co-ordinated approach to the development of the individual key sites and to exploit the opportunities for the provision of new community infrastructure, new open spaces and public realm improvements. In this way, by setting out clear requirements for social as well as physical infrastructure improvements, it seeks to ensure that the regeneration will benefit the entire area and the existing resident community. Simultaneously, the plan recognises the special character of the Liberties and seeks to strike an appropriate balance between protection of the distinct character areas and the quantum and form of development necessary to secure the over-arching objective of sustainable regeneration of the Liberties.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON THE PLAN

The pre-draft consultation for the Liberties Draft Local Area Plan (DLAP) commenced in October 2007 with the Launch of the Liberties Regeneration Project at the Guinness Storehouse. The event was well-attended by representatives of resident associations, local businesses, service providers and community groups.

The launch of the Liberties Regeneration Project, was immediately followed by a series of meetings were held with key stakeholders including NCAD, Digital Hub, Diageo, Railway Procurement Agency (RPA), local schools, service providers, arts organisations, residents and community organisations, as well as officials from key departments of Dublin City Council and Area Councillors. Three Neighbourhood Workshops were also held at this early stage, as well as a separate Traders Workshop. Workshops were also held with students of local schools.

In October and November 2007 John Thompson and Partners (JTP) on behalf of Dublin City Council, facilitated a process of community engagement culminating in a Community Planning Weekend and a public presentation of the Community Vision for the Liberties. The process is documented in the Liberties Community Planning Report.

On the extension of the initial study boundary area, additional community planning workshops were held to enable residents and stakeholders in the extended area to participate. These workshops focused on the Newmarket and Maryland Areas and the North East Liberties Area and were held in March 2008. The outcome of these events is documented in the Appendix F of the DLAP. The key issues from all forms of the community consultation are also documented in the DLAP.

A key outcome of the community planning process has been the establishment of the Liberties Public Forum and Focus Groups. The Public Forum was regularly presented with emerging draft proposals for inclusion in the DLAP and these were amended in response to the feedback and comments made. Five Focus Groups were set up in

relation to the following key aspects of regeneration: Built Heritage and the Thomas Street ACA, Environmental Sustainability, Arts and Culture, Sports, Leisure and Recreation, Biodiversity and Open Space. The Focus Groups, facilitated by specialist consultants, developed Action Plans and summaries of these are included as a series of Appendices in the DLAP.

A further group facilitated by JTP developed a communication strategy, produced newsletters and established a website www.theliberties.ie to provide information to the wider community. The communication strategy is on-going and will continue to inform and provide up-to-date information on the local area plan process.

In addition to the above, there was a further invitation for pre-draft submissions on the plan by way of a public notice placed in the newspaper in August 2008. A total of 11 such pre-draft submissions were received in response.

The DLAP was prepared on the basis of these extensive pre-draft consultation measures and was then presented to the elected members. The decision to bring forward the DLAP for public display was agreed by the South Central Area Committee of the City Council at the September Area Committee Meeting.

The Public Display of the DLAP and the Environmental Report commenced on 30 th

September until 11th November in accordance with the strict statutory timeframe as set out in the legislation. A statutory display was held in the Civic Offices, whilst an additional non-statutory display was held in the Digital Hub. Dublin City Council Housing and Planning Staff were available on Wednesday morning and evenings throughout the six-week display period to meet with members of the public to discuss any aspects of the DLAP. In addition, there information sessions were held in the Digital Hub on Saturdays. A total of 78 written submissions were received on the DLAP, all of which have been reviewed and considered in detail.

CONSULTATION WITH TENANTS ON SOCIAL HOUSING PROPOSALS

As part of the City Council’s overall commitment to improve the quality of the social housing stock throughout the city, three areas were identified within the Liberties where redevelopment rather than refurbishment is the preferred solution. On this basis, the pre-draft consultations also included consultation with tenants in each of these areas and proposals for re-housing have been developed that enable communities to move together into new accommodation.

These consultations were held in addition to and separate to the general consultation mechanisms and included exhibitions, drop-in sessions and meetings specifically for tenants of local authority housing complexes where consideration was been given to re-development as an option under the emerging strategy for the DLAP. These events were held at venues in close proximity to the relevant housing complexes.

An exhibition of possible proposals and a drop-in sessions were held over two days in April 2008, the purpose of which was to provide information of the various re-development option and possible phasing mechanisms and also to receive feedback on the possible options. These information days were advertised by way of a leaflet delivery to each residential unit within the relevant estates. A number of meetings were subsequently held to discuss issues with individual residents. Models and drawings of

new and existing flats were prepared and discussed at meetings with tenants groups on several occasions. In addition, a visit to a new local authority apartment scheme on Cork Street was arranged to show the standard of accommodation proposed for new apartments. All residents were afforded the opportunity to discuss the proposals on a one-to-one basis and also in a group discussion during the Public Forum.

The consultation process indicated a wide spectrum of views amongst residents on the issues of re-development, a number in support of the proposals and a number against any demolition and re-development. Further consultation will be undertaken with local authority tenants closer to the implementation stage and interviews with individual tenants, regarding their housing needs, will be necessary prior to and as part of the detailed design process.

OVERVIEW OF SUBMISSIONS

On review of the submissions, it is evident that there is a high-level of satisfaction on the fundamental principles of the plan which essentially seek the sustainable regeneration of the Liberties Area. In this regard, a substantial number of submissions express strong support for the draft local area plan, both in principle with regard to the overall regeneration strategy and also for significant key elements such as the creation of new parks and open spaces, the public realm improvements and the delivery of new quality of life or social infrastructure, while other submissions object to the plan in principle or to specific elements.

This Report contains (a) a list of the persons who made submissions or observations; (b) a summary of the issues raised and (c) the response to the issues raised together with a recommendation in relation to the contents of the Draft Plan. It should be noted that each of the submissions has been read in full.

It should also be noted that the submissions contain many opposing views on the key issues, reflecting the diverse views held by the residents and key stakeholders / interest groups in the area. One of the objectives of this report is to strike an appropriate balance between these opposing views, in the interests of the proper planning and sustainable development of the Liberties.

KEY ISSUES: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE DLAP

1. Social - Housing

A significant number of submissions made from members of the local community and existing local authority tenants requested further details and statistics on the existing housing stock in the plan area and proposals in relation to funding mechanisms and land in public ownership. In order to address the stated concerns and in the interest of transparency, it is recommended that the draft plan be amended to incorporate the following:

Data on the existing local authority housing stock within the plan boundary area. Additional text on potential funding mechanisms for redevelopment of social

housing.

A Map to show lands in the ownership of the City Council in the DLAP Area.

2. Arts & Culture

Some submissions made reference to the potential to create a synergy between the creative industries in the area and the use of digital media as a form of public art to enhance the profile of area as a digital enterprise area. Thus, it is recommended to add the following objective in to Section 6.4 of LAP Development Strategy:

To actively seek the delivery of public art and culture instillations with a digital media dimension for areas surrounding and relating to the Digital Hub.

3. Spatial & Urban Form (Height)

A substantial number of submissions were made by residents, community organisations and national organisations on the issue of building heights in the Liberties, in addition to stakeholder submissions in relation to specific sites. In response to the strong levels of opposition and community concerns, there are a number of recommendations to reduce building heights. In terms of the height strategy, these include elimination of the potential for a height cluster and also a significant reduction in building height at the Digital Hub Site. The recommended amendments are as follows:

Amend Height Strategy in Section 6.5.3 of the LAP Development Strategy to eliminate the height cluster at Grand Canal Harbour and to replace with a singular landmark element and also to reduce the height of the taller building at Digital Hub.

Amend Height Strategy to ensure that any potential taller buildings flanking Heuston Square to the east and within the View Corridor from Phoenix Park must form part of a cohesive masterplan for the Heuston Square Area and must demonstrate enhancement of this important vista of the city skyline. This approach acknowledges the potential benefit of enclosure or enhancement of the vista with a landmark element.

4. Spatial & Urban Form (Heritage)

The recommended amendments in relation to the built heritage relate primarily to the inclusion of a series of objectives to strengthen the protection of the archaeological and industrial heritage of the area.

Insert objectives relating to the protection of archaeological heritage. Insert objectives relating to the protection of industrial heritage. Insert an objective with specific reference that proposals must have regard to the

findings and methodology of the Dublin City Industrial Heritage Record (DCIHR). Include an objective to take cognisance of the City Walls Conservation Plan, St.

Luke’s Conservation Plan and the National Policy on Town Defences. Insert an objective to seek preparation of a Conservation Assessment and

Industrial Archaeological Survey of the Diageo / Guinness Lands as part of any masterplan proposals, as well a record and evaluation of how particular historical elements of the complex may best be incorporated into a new visual context on re-development and consolidation of the brewery operations

Omit specific reference to power station, pool, and silo and the designation of an Architectural Conservation Area (ACA) on Guinness South prior to re-development on the basis that it is more appropriate to undertake an evaluation as part of the masterplan approach.

5. Movement

Further to receipt of the confirmation from the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) regarding the preferred route line for the LUAS Line Extension, it is recommended that the DLAP be amended to show the preferred route only in the interests of clarity and certainty. In addition, it is recommended to omit a proposal for creation of a new pedestrian link on the basis that it is not strategic to the overall permeability of the area and also to address stated concerns of residents.

Include the Preferred Route Line to LUAS Line F (DLAP currently shows two options)

Omit the proposal for the creation of a new route through St. Margaret’s Avenue.

6. Sustainability

The City Council has prepared and adopted a Noise Plan subsequent to the preparation and display of the DLAP. It is now recommended that cognisance be given to the provisions of this plan in the Liberties Area to support the creation of an attractive living and working environment at this inner city location.

Insert reference to the provisions of the recently adopted City Council’s Noise Plan.

7. Pimlico Site

One submission made a request for design guidance on the School Street Site, whilst another expressed concern regarding the building heights proposed for this site as part of a previous planning application and the potential for such heights of 9-storeys and 12-storeys to impact on the amenity value of the proposed new Park at Pimlico. Recommendation:

Insert a Site Layout with an indicative uses and building heights for the School Street Site on the layout for Pimlico Key Redevelopment Site.

The Site Layout to illustrate the creation of a pedestrian route to the Digital Hub & new Pimlico Park and to show heights as two setback corner elements of 8-9 & 7-8 storeys.

Omit the proposal for the creation of a new route through St. Margaret’s Avenue.

8. Bridgefoot Street / Oliver Bond

A number of submissions by local authority tenants express disappointment and concern on the basis that there are no specific site layout proposals shown for the Bridgefoot Street / Oliver Bond. In order to address these concerns and to demonstrate the City Council’s commitment to the re-development of this site, it is recommended that a site layout and site strategy be included in the DLAP.

Insert a Site Layout for Bridgefoot Street / Oliver Bond.

The site layout and strategy to accord with the series of core principles set out in the DLAP and will include the creation of a new park, a new link between Bridgefoot Street and the Digital Hub, a perimeter block of residential units, a mixed-use community and commercial building to create active frontages and maximum building heights of 4-5 storeys.

9. Grand Canal Harbour

On review of the submissions made in relation to this key redevelopment site, which related primarily although not exclusively to the building heights, protection of industrial heritage and the historical significance of the site, the following amendments are recommended:

Eliminate height cluster & amend site strategy to include a singular landmark structure to a maximum height of 16-storeys.

Amend site layout to reduce building heights from the former 23-storeys, 20-storey and 16-storeys elements to a singular 16-storey building with other mid-rise buildings of 9-11 storeys and to show a marginal increase in building heights on the southern part of the canal basin from 3-4 to 4-6 storeys.

Amend text and site objectives to seek a Conservation Assessment & Archaeological Appraisal for the Grand Canal Site, to include a record and evaluation of all structures in accordance with NIAH & DCIHR Method.

10. Guinness Lands North

It is considered necessary to make provision for a masterplan approach for these lands pending finalisation of the site for the consolidated brewery operations and the interconnector design and access arrangements as well as possible re-alignment proposals for the vehicular traffic along the Quays. Recommendation:

Amend approach from site layout to take cognisance of pending finalisation of consolidated brewery site and as an alternative approach to specify that a comprehensive masterplan be prepared as a pre-requisite to any planning application for the Guinness North lands. The masterplan shall address and demonstrate how the proposed development can meet the strategic objectives of the DLAP and the Specific Key Site Objectives.

Insert a series of key principles for the Masterplan. Amend Site Layout to illustrate core principles.

11. Guinness Lands South

In response to the submissions made in relation to the need for a greater emphasis on industrial heritage protection, the concerns regarding building heights as well as the recommendation for a revised height strategy, the following amendments are recommended:

Amend text and site objectives to seek a Conservation Assessment & Industrial Archaeological Appraisal for the Guinness Lands and to include a record and evaluation of all structures in accordance with NIAH & DCIHR Method.

Amend site layout to show reduction in buildings heights to reduce the height of the tower at the corner of Grand Canal Place / Portland Street West from 16-18 storeys to 8-11 storeys.

12. Newmarket

The submissions made in relation to this site relate to building heights both from a stakeholder and community perspective, the historical significance of this character area and also the land-use zoning objective. It is considered that an amendment to the recommended re-zoning proposal would be appropriate in order to facilitate the creation of a vibrant mixed-use city-destination quarter with active ground uses at this location, as per a stated objective in the DLAP.

Include recommendation for future land-use re-zoning at Newmarket from Zoning Objective Z6 (Enterprise / Employment) to Zoning Z10: (Mixed Use).

13. Digital Hub

One submission drew attention to a discrepancy in building heights for this key site. Accordingly, it is recommended to clarify this discrepancy by way of amendment as follows:

Clarify current discrepancy between indicative maximum heights shown in Section 6.3.5 Height Strategy (52m) and heights shown in the Key Site Layout (40 m) to ensure consistency and confirm appropriate height as 40m.

14. Phasing & Implementation

The submissions in relation to phasing and implementation refer to the importance of an implementation strategy and suggest the establishment of an implementation body, whilst two submissions refer to the issue of community gain and the importance to safeguard against excessively high contribution schemes which may counteract the overall regeneration goals for the area. The following amendments are recommended:

Include statement to the effect that The Liberties Regeneration Office, as part of Dublin City Council, will continue to project manage the regeneration of the Liberties Area and to oversee the implementation and monitoring of the LAP and to liaise with the established Public Forum.

Omit Reference to a specific Section 48 Scheme for Public Realm Improvements and state that the City Council may give consideration to the inclusion of area-wide public realm improvements in the city-wide Section 48 Scheme or alternatively a Section 48 Scheme for the Liberties.

15. Land Use Zonings

In response to submissions made in respect of the recommendations for the re-zoning proposals (to be undertaken at a future stage as a separate process) and subsequent to a further assessment of the land-use zoning objective and relevant use-classes, the following amendments are recommended:

Re-zoning recommendation for Newmarket Site from Z6 to Z10 Re-zoning recommendation for Cork Street / Brickfield Lane from Z6 to Z10 Re-zoning recommendations for Pimlico Park to revert to existing zoning provision

of Z1 rather than the proposed recommendation to Open Space (Z9) to accommodate possible ancillary uses, such as a commercial café, in the interest of street vibrancy.

Re-zoning recommendations for Guinness North & South Lands to indicate that re-zoning from Z7 to Z5 would be pending finalisation of consolidated brewery site and the preparation of a masterplan.

STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (SEA)

The Manager’s Report is also includes as an appendix, the first Addendum to the Environmental Report of the Draft Liberties Local Area Plan Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). It details the following:

Responses to the submissions on the Environmental Report which have been made during the first period of public display of the Draft Plan and the Environmental Report. Where required, updates to the Environmental Report as a result of these submissions are provided.

The environmental consequences of relevant amendments made to the Draft Plan after the first period of public display. These environmental consequences supplements the evaluation made in the Environmental Report.

It is noted that changes are not made to the original Environmental Report at this stage; this addendum supplements, and should be read in conjunction with, that Report. After all changes and consultations have been completed, a final version of the Environmental Report will be produced which will include updates as a result of submissions on the Environmental Report as well as an evaluation of all adopted changes to the Plan.

FORMAT OF THE REPORT

The submissions as received have been recorded and compiled in the Manager’s Report. The main issues have been identified, grouped into main ‘issue headings’ and are summarised. There are 33 ‘issue headings’ that accord broadly with the contents of the Draft LAP. The submission headings are as listed overleaf. For clarity and ease of consideration, a number of submission summaries have sub-headings.

The report format is illustrated in the table below:

RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL:

It is recommended that the City Council, having regard to the submissions received and the Manager’s response and addition thereto, should by resolution make the Liberties Local Area Plan.

Michael StubbsAssistant City Manager

Layout Example:

Issue 1 Main Issue Heading

Submission Nos. 1, 2,...

Summary of Issues Raised in Submissions

Response:

Recommendation:

KEY ISSUES - RECOMMENDATIONS

Issue No.

Issues Content Refer to Submissions

1 Status of the LAP 30, 41, 452 Public Consultation 21, 30,36, 38, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45,

57, 723 Vision for the Liberties 7, 19, 23, 26, 31, 32, 35, 36, 40,

41, 43, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 63, 64, 66, 67, 71, 74, 75, 76, 77

4 Policy and Planning Context 6, 9, 14, 16, 17, 18, 23, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 54, 57, 60, 61, 64, 65, 68, 71, 72, 73, 77

5 Study Area Description 30, 716 Character Areas 307 Draft LAP Development

Strategy16, 30, 41, 43, 45, 51, 59, 66, 67, 68, 77

8 Six Themes 41, 719 Economic 14, 20, 32, 34, 36, 52, 56, 60,

67, 68, 71, 76, 77, 7910 Social (Housing) 13, 30, 36, 38, 52, 57, 59, 6111 Social (Community Facilities) 8, 9, 10, 15, 24, 31, 36, 38, 40,

61, 63, 71, 77, 7912 Cultural 31, 56, 7113 Spatial & Urban Form

(Height Strategy & Density)

6, 9, 14, 16, 17, 18, 23, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 54, 57, 60, 61, 64, 65, 68, 71, 72, 73

14 Spatial & Urban Form

(Public Realm Improvements)

24, 26, 31, 52, 62, 63, 76, 44, 11, 12, 13, 15, 49, 71, 30

15 Spatial & Urban Form

(Heritage)

4, 6, 9, 13, 14, 16, 26, 29, 31, 35, 37, 41, 43, 46, 48, 50, 54, 55, 71, 74, 75, 77

16 Movement & Access 5, 21, 23, 31, 35, 36, 38, 39, 44, 47, 52, 61, 62, 64, 66, 67, 70, 71, 73, 77

17 Sustainability 1, 7, 15, 16, 26, 47, 7118 Significant Redevelopment

Sites76

19 Vicar St / Iveagh Markets 31, 3620 Pimlico 13, 30, 31, 33, 36, 44, 57, 61, 6421 Depot Lands 30, 6622 Bridgefoot Street/Oliver Bond 30, 36, 65, 6923 St. James’s Harbour

(Grand Canal Harbour)13, 14, 19, 29, 31, 35, 37, 40, 43, 48, 51, 55, 65

24 Marylands 52, 6525 Guinness Lands

(North of Thomas St)4, 5, 13, 30, 31, 32, 38, 65, 77

26 Guinness Lands(South of Thomas St)

52, 65, 77

27 Newmarket 32, 46, 65, 7428 Digital Hub 32, 54, 58, 65, 68, 7129 Phasing & Implementation 18, 20, 23, 30, 32, 36, 60, 64,

71, 75, 76, 7730 Community Gain 36, 38, 71, 7731 Land-Use Zonings 41, 43, 45, 51, 59, 66, 67, 68,

74,7732 Strategic Environmental

Assessment27, 48, 50, 54, 64

Issue No. 1: Status of the Local Area Plan

Submission Nos: 30, 41, 45

An Taisce refers to the requirement under the Planning & Development Act 2000, whereby a local area plan must be consistent with the objectives of the development plan. It submits that this is not the case on the Draft LAP on the basis that it is necessary to undertake re-zoning in respect of a number of sites in order to fulfil the objectives of the Draft LAP. The submission asserts that as a consequence of the need to re-zone that the draft plan is inconsistent with the development plan and is therefore ultra varies. It therefore states that the document should have no status as a draft plan with cognisance of the provisions in the assessment of any applications and recommends that the status to be changed to that of a ‘discussion document’ and that An Bord Pleanála be notified of same with immediate effect.

Grange Gorman Development Association also submits that the Draft LAP is inconsistent with the City Development Plan on the basis that it necessitates the re-zoning of several sites and that the excessive height of several buildings proposed within the plan area would be contrary to the current strategy on high-rise buildings as per the DEGW Study which is referred to in Paragraph 15.6.0 of the Development Plan. It further states that the document ‘Maximising the City’s Potential’ has no legal authority since it was not adopted by the local authority and met with overwhelming opposition by communities across the city. The submission asserts for these reasons that the Draft LAP is fundamentally flawed.

Response

The DLAP does not include any re-zoning proposals but does set out a series of land use zoning recommendations which will enable the strategy set out in the plan to be implemented. The re-zoning of a number of the significant redevelopment sites would be subject to a separate future statutory variation process in accordance with Section 13 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000. Thus, any proposals for re-zoning must be brought to the members of the City Council for approval. It is acknowledged that it will be necessary for zoning objectives for a number of the key sites to be amended by way of the variation process to ensure consistency with the City Development Plan and that it will be necessary to undertake same prior to implementation of the development strategy set out in the DLAP.

It is pertinent to emphasise that the rationale for this approach and all the recommendations for re-zoning are set out clearly in Chapter 8 of the DLAP which relates to Phasing & Implementation (Map & Table P. 199 & P. 201). The principle reason for the re-zoning recommendations is to ensure the release of the key development sites with a significant delivery of community, social and recreational infrastructure as a tangible planning gain to the local community and to stimulate the regeneration process.

The DLAP is also consistent with the City Development 2005-2011 in terms of building heights. In this regard, it is relevant to note that Section 15.6.0 of the Development Plan refers to the fact that height is relative to context and relates not only to the prevailing building heights but also to the grain and its consistency or diversity with an existing

character area (DEGW). The Plan states that Dublin has many different character areas and that different character areas will require different approaches to the issue of building heights. It also states that it is Dublin City Council policy to allow for the development of high buildings in appropriate locations in order to promote investment, vitality and identity and that it is policy to protect the skyline of the inner city whiles having regard to the principles and criteria set out in DEGW. The Height Strategy in the DLAP was devised on the basis of a detailed visual assessment in order to protect key views, with regard to the different character areas in the plan area and also the historic pattern of development which traditionally supported pockets of higher buildings, including the Guinness Lands. The DLAP sets out clear area-specific guidance on the appropriate location for height and position of height in the Liberties set in an economic and urban design context as per the higher-level strategy set out in the current Development Plan.

Recommendation

No Change

Issue No. 2: Public Consultation

Submission Nos: 21, 30, 36, 38, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 57, 72

Consultation MechanismsA submission made by Councillor Críona Ní Dhálaigh states that consultation is key to the regeneration process and that if properly planned it can be truly participative. It refers to the fact that there is a perception amongst the local community that the consultation process has not been truly consultative and that decisions have already been made. In this regard the submission refers to the importance of taking account of the views and concerns of local residents. In this context, it refers to the launch of the Liberties Regeneration, whereby the City Manager emphasised a partnership approach.

One submission refers to research findings on the consultation process involving the community at the time of the Liberties Integrated Area Plan (IAP): ‘Urban Planning and Regeneration: A community Perspective’. It states that this research documents the unsatisfactory nature of consultation undertaken in relation to the IAP and that cognisance should be taken of the research findings.

The Cork Street & Maryland’s Residents Association raises concerns regarding the conduct of the consultation process with specific reference to inclusiveness and the role of consultants. It acknowledges the extensive and lengthy nature of the consultation process but considers that it failed to secure the involvement of local authority tenants in any meaningful manner, including those on the housing waiting list and in institutional care and that this is a significant given the extent of public housing proposals in the plan. The submission queries the legitimacy of the public consultation process conducted in preparation of the DLAP with particular reference to the use of consultants given the loss of institutional knowledge which would exist within Dublin City Council.

Consultation on Housing ProposalsThe Liberties Development Action Group states that the consultation process was flawed and tokenistic given that there was no focus group in relation to housing or publicly owned open space and that consequently these issues have not been subject to necessary public discussion or systematic examination.

The Liberties Development Action Group also considers that the conduct of the consultation process is at variance with good practice recommendations endorsed by a former Assistant City Manager for Housing (Regeneration Learnings and Insights, Canal Communities, Partnership 2007’). In this regard, it states that group are fully aware of the distinction between housing regeneration projects and urban regeneration projects but consider it relevant on the basis that the future of three local housing complexes is dependant upon the provisions of the plan. A petition and presentation made by the group to the South Central Area Committee accompany the submission and it is requested that the contents of the presentation be included in its entirety in the DLAP.

A submission made resident from Pimlico Terrace states that there was very little active or meaningful involvement from tenants in the consultation process with regard to the social housing proposals. It states that the meetings held in respect of the proposals for the Pimlico Site were of an information nature rather than consultation which was

disappointing in the context of a statutory plan. It also objects to the fact that there was no direct consultation process specifically on the housing proposals between tenants and the Housing Department of Dublin City Council.

Height A number of submissions refer to the fact that height was one of the most sensitive and emotive issues during the consultation process and that the document does not reflect the views of the community in relation to the proposals for high-rise buildings. One submission objects to the use of the term ‘fear of change’ in the context of the record of ‘Key Issues from Community Consultation’, whilst a national organisation states that it is remarkable that height as the single most compelling issue pre-occupying the community, is not documented under this category.

Response

Consultation MechanismsIt is considered that extensive and appropriate consultation measures were undertaken at each stage of the plan process to ensure effective input from the local residents and community.

The pre-draft consultations commenced as early as October 2007 with the Launch of the Liberties Regeneration Project at the Guinness Storehouse. The event was well-attended including representatives of residents associations, local businesses, service providers and community groups (Total of 82 Persons), the purpose of which was to advise people how they could get fully involved in the process.

Following the launch of the Liberties Regeneration Project, a series of meetings were held with key stakeholders including NCAD, Digital Hub, Diageo, local schools, service providers, RPA, Area Councillors, officials from key departments of the City Council, arts organisations, residents and community organisations.

Three Neighbourhood Workshops were held on 10th, 11th and 18th October. A separate traders workshop was held on 8th October. Participants were asked to identify the problems and good things about the area as well as their aspirations for improvement. In excess of 150 Persons attended the workshops. Workshops were also held with students of local schools.

Thereafter, a ‘Community Planning Weekend’ was held whereby there was a specific focus was on developing regeneration proposals using participatory design techniques, during which local people took consultants around the area and identified positive and negative aspects of the environment. There was also the opportunity to participate in ‘planning for real’ exercises where ideas were in workshops and participants reported back to a wider group. Circa 200 attended the weekend sessions and ideas which emerged from this process were synthesised into a ‘Vision for the Area’ which in turn was in turn presented once again the community at a workshop event held on 9 th

November 2007. The process and findings were summarised and published in the ‘Liberties Community Planning Report’, 2007. The above consultation mechanisms related to the initial stages of ‘vision development’.

Thereafter, a decision was take to prepare a Framework Plan to provide a coherent strategy for the regeneration of the area. Further to a request from local councillors, the plan boundary area was subsequently extended and a decision was taken to prepare a statutory Local Area Plan (LAP). On this basis, an additional four ‘Neighbourhood Workshops’ were held to enable residents and stakeholder in the extended area to participate.

The Liberties Public Forum was established and a total of 10 Forum Meetings were held between January and December 2007. Initial or emerging proposals were presented and discussed and subsequently amended to reflect the issues raised and presented once again. The proposals were also illustrated in the Liberties Regeneration Newsletter which was delivered to all homes in the area. A total of 5 Newsletters have been published which include reports on the forum and advertise forthcoming meetings and events. A Liberties Regeneration Website was also established and regularly updated with emerging proposals and a calendar of events. The Forum Meetings have been well attended by a wide cross section of people with an interest in the Liberties.

Focus Groups were also established which met at before each Forum. These groups were facilitated by the specialist consultants who developed Action Plans for Built Heritage, Sports and Leisure, Bio-diversity & Open Space, Arts, Culture and Environmental Sustainability. These Action Plans informed the DLAP and are included as Appendices.

The Public Display of the DLAP and the Environmental Report commenced on 30 th

September until 11th November in accordance with the strict statutory timeframe as set out in the legislation. A statutory display was held in the Civic Offices, whilst an additional non-statutory display was held in the Digital Hub. Dublin City Council Housing and Planning Staff were available on Wednesday morning and evenings throughout the six-week display period to meet with members of the public to discuss any aspects of the DLAP. In addition, there information sessions were held in the Digital Hub on Saturdays. A total of 78 written submissions were received on the DLAP, all of which have been reviewed and considered in details.

It is pertinent to emphasis that the Planning & Development Act, 2000 and Amendment Act, 2002 does not prescribe the consultation measures to be undertaken during the preparation of a local area plan, rather it is at the discretion of each planning authority. It simply states that ‘A Planning Authority shall take whatever steps it considers necessary to consult the public before making a plan’. Similarly, Section 20 (3)(ii) merely requires that the draft plan be put on public display with a newspaper notice to indicate same.

Consultation on Housing ProposalsIn addition to the above, separate events including exhibitions, drop-in sessions and meetings were held specifically for tenants of local authority housing complexes where consideration was been given to re-development as an option under the emerging strategy for the DLAP. These events were held at venues in close proximity to the relevant housing complexes.

An exhibition of possible proposals and a drop-in sessions were held on 1st and 2nd April 2008, the purpose of which was to provide information of the various re-development option and possible phasing mechanisms and also to receive feedback on the possible

options. These information days were advertised by way of a leaflet delivery to each residential unit within the relevant estates. A number of meetings were subsequently held to discuss issues with individual residents and in this regard, two meetings were held with members of the Pimlico Residents Association. Models and drawings of new and existing flats have been prepared and discussed at meetings with tenants groups on several occasions. In addition, a visit to a new local authority apartment scheme on Cork Street was arranged to show the standard of accommodation proposed for new apartments. A further meeting was also held at the request of residents from the Pimlico Area before the Public Forum. All residents had the opportunity to discuss the proposals on a one-to-one basis and also in a group discussion during the Public Forum. All consultation was undertaken in conjunction with representative from Dublin City Council Housing Department.

The consultation process indicates a wide spectrum of views amongst residents on the issues of re-development, a number in support of the proposals and a number against any demolition and re-development. It has always been emphasised that there will be the need to carry out further consultation with local authority tenants closer to the implementation stage, which in some instances may be in 6-10 Years. Interviews with individual tenants regarding their housing needs will be necessary prior to and as part of the detailed design process, any schemes, however, it is not considered appropriate to undertake such a level of consultation as part of the local area plan process.

Both of the lead consultants on the DLAP (John Thompson & Partners and Metropolitan Workshop) have extensive experience of regeneration work, including work in Ireland, and have worked in close liaison with Dublin City Council officers throughout the process. The consultants were made fully aware of progress difficulties with PPP Projects on housing complexes in the vicinity of the plan area, arising from changing economic circumstances. It is acknowledged that the current economic climate may impact on the timeframe for implementation of the housing proposals, but it is not accepted that it would invalidate the proposals set out in the development strategy.

It is relevant to note that a focus group for housing / public lands as not established and this was considered one of the main issues of discussion in the open public sessions at the Forum Meetings.

Height It is acknowledged that the height of new buildings in the plan has been a key issue of concern. The Liberties DLAP seeks to address the issue of height by setting out guidance on recommended heights for each key opportunity site in the context of an overall coherent urban design strategy for the plan area. A number of submissions have been received in relation to height, some requesting an increase in building heights and others a decrease in building heights. It is essential that any assessment of building heights gives adequate consideration to economic viability as well as concerns of the community, on the basis that a certain quantum of development will be necessary to deliver the regeneration of the area. The height strategy will be reviewed in the context of the submissions and recommendations for change will be set out under each of the key sites (Refer to Topic 13 & 19-28).

The term ‘fear of change’ emerged as an appropriate term during the working group discussion in acknowledgement of the fact that people find moving house one of the

most stressful experiences in life. Accordingly, it was used in recognition of the fact that the social housing proposals were a particularly emotive issue for the relevant residents.

Recommendation

Add Social Housing Objective P. 93 of DLAP

To liaise closely with existing tenants of social housing complexes proposed for demolition and re-development at the design stage to ascertain their housing needs and prior to finalisation of any phasing proposals in relation to the replacement housing programme.

Issue No. 3: Vision for the Liberties

Submission Nos: 7, 19, 23, 26, 31, 32, 35, 36, 40, 41, 43, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 63, 64, 66, 67, 71, 74, 75, 76, 77

The submissions received on this topic broadly welcome that a Draft Local Area Plan for the Liberties has been prepared and recognise its importance to the overall regeneration of the Liberties. Some of the issues raised are set out below:

The RPA supports the overall aims of the Liberties LAP and will endeavour to liaise with developers and Dublin City Council in order to ensure that these aims are achieved.

Sinn Fein welcomes the proposal for a LAP for the Liberties. It is stated that if properly planned and truly participative the LAP can make a real difference to the residents of the Liberties making it a better place to live, learn, work and grow.

Draft LAP is welcomed, particularly with regard to the lands identified at Grand Canal Harbour, which are of significance, in terms of the cultural heritage of the city. It is considered that the draft LAP represents an important opportunity to outline a framework for the proper and sustainable development of these lands and the creation of a thriving community, with a diverse mix of uses.

As a government agency charged with economic, social and physical regeneration, the DHDA broadly welcomes the LAP and its efforts to address development and regeneration under the six key themes of Economic, Social, Cultural, Spatial & Urban Form, Movement and Sustainability. It requests that greater acknowledgment of the role of digital media in the area be included in the LAP.

However, there were a number of submissions received that directly question the proposed redevelopment of certain key sites in the Liberties, most notably the Guinness Lands and Grand Canal Harbour.

Response

The objective of the Local Area Plan is to guide the development of the Liberties as a sustainable integrated mixed-use urban neighbourhood. The vision for a regenerated Liberties area of Dublin City is a place where people want to live and work, now and into the future; a neighbourhood which meets the diverse needs of existing and future residents, is sensitive to its environment; contributes to a high quality of life; is well designed, well planned, well built and well managed; is safe and inclusive and offers equality of opportunity and good services for all. All of the submissions, which express support for the vision, and objectives of the plan are welcomed. All of the submissions, both positive and negative have been reviewed and the issues raised fully recognised. In this respect, it is not considered that the concerns or issues raised in the submissions would prejudice the vision for the Liberties and the delivery of an economically and culturally dynamic – and socially inclusive urban community.

The importance of the Digital Hub for the social and economic regeneration of the Liberties is highlighted throughout the Draft LAP, and the plan establishes key objectives to ensure the timely development of facilities for digital media. The overarching objectives on page 5 of the Draft LAP can be amended to include a reference to the

‘Development of the Digital Hub’. In relation to broadband infrastructure and its importance for digital media, it is accepted that this needs to be given greater importance in the Draft LAP and that an objective in this regard should be included.

The submissions received with regard to site-specific proposals have been dealt with in a more thorough manner in the Key Redevelopment Sites topic contained in this report. With regard to the Guinness Lands, given the complexity of these two sites and pending finalisation of the consolidated brewery operations, it is now considered that the preparation of a masterplan in accordance with key principles would be more suitable, rather than the specific / prescriptive site plans as set out in the Draft LAP. In this instance the LAP would set out a series of core principles / non-negotiables which the masterplan would then have to demonstrate compliance.

Recommendation

Amend Overarching Objective No. 4 (page 5)

FromTo stimulate the local economy and to include a critical mass of appropriate development and investment to provide significant employment opportunities

ToTo stimulate the local economy and to include a critical mass of appropriate development and investment to provide significant employment opportunities, including in the digital media sector as the Digital Hub has the potential to rejuvenate the economic profile of the Liberties.

Issue No. 4: Policy and Planning Context

Submission Nos: 6, 9, 14, 16, 17, 18, 23, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 54, 57, 60, 61, 64, 65, 68, 71, 72, 73, 77

A number of submissions made by organisations, resident associations, individuals and key stakeholders make reference to the policy context for the preparation of the draft plan. These submissions relate almost exclusively to the proposals for height, save for a single submission on the six themes approach. The submission in relation to the six themes states that there is here is no reference in any document either adopted or proposed regarding the rationale for the particular themes chosen. The submissions in relation to height are summarised below.

Status of Maximising the City’s Potential & Thomas Street Study Four local resident associations in their respective submissions refer to the fact that ‘Maximising the City’s Potential’ is a draft discussion document with no legal status and also that it was the subject of widespread negative public reaction both locally in the Liberties and across the City. The submissions state that both the Maximising the City’s Potential Document and the Thomas Street Study are treated in the DLAP as established policy, and that there is no reference to the DEGW Study, which as part of the City Development Plan is the only policy on height which has a statutory basis. Two of the submissions assert that DEWG identifies areas of the city as appropriate for height and that the Liberties is not identified as such an area. It requests that the views of the local residents be taken into account and that the heights in the final plan be lowered in accordance with the provisions of the City Development Plan for this part of the City. (Note Residents Associations: Cork St & Marylands Residents Association, Liberties Development Action Group, Liberties Against Unsuitable Development & Six Terrace Action Group).

An Taisce and the Grange Gorman Residents Alliance similarly submit that the proposals for height in the DLAP would be contrary to the current adopted strategy on high-rise in accordance with the DEGW Study which is referred to in the City Development Plan. An Taisce submits that adoption of the plan would be premature given that the height studies referred to in the plan have no legal status.

DEGW Study A number of submissions refer to the fact that the plan area is not identified in DEGW as an appropriate location for height, one submission makes specific reference to the terms ‘Potential Locations for High-Intensity Clusters and also ‘Potential Landmark Locations for Individual High Buildings.

Diageo contends that the only policy relating to building height is that as outlined in Section 15.6.0 of the Development Plan which states as follows: ‘It is the policy of Dublin City Council to continue to protect the skyline of the inner city while having due regard to the criteria regarding building heights set out in the above DEGW Study. It submits that this policy applies to the protection of the historic core in the inner city as defined by the development plan and is therefore applicable to development in the Liberties. It submits and the final LAP must be consistent with the above policy.

The Diageo submission further states that DEGW and the City Development Plan recognises the growth of Dublin as significant world commercial centre and it is Dublin City Council policy to allow for the development of high buildings at appropriate locations to promote investment, vitality and identity of the city. It also contends that DEGW recognises the relationship of building height with economic and cultural realities.

Specifically, it states that DEGW identifies five character areas across the city and within each character area zones for change. It submits that three character areas apply to the plan area and the diverse character of the Liberties DLAP Area is evident given that it is divided between three character areas or zones (Zones 2,3,4).

It also states that DEGW sets out the principles upon which high buildings and clustering of high buildings should be based, but that further work is required in order to confirm these potential locations and their scope. In respect of the Heuston Area, it states that this work has been undertaken as part of the Heuston Gateway Regeneration Strategy & Framework Plan and that the principles have in turn been incorporated in the City Development Plan.

DEGW is quoted as follows ‘any limitation in height should relate to minimum more than maximum height’ (Page 57). In this regard, it is submitted that the prescription of maximum heights as advocated in the DLAP is not therefore in accordance with the principles and criteria enunciated in the DEGW Strategy.

Development of Policy on Height A submission made by a stakeholder interest in the Digital Hub Site refers to ‘Maximising the City’s Potential’ which identifies the Digital Hub as a potential cluster location for high buildings. It requests that the planning authority be mindful of the height policy currently being finalised as a draft variation to the City Development Plan. Specifically, it submits that it understands that the proposed variation will permit buildings of 16 storeys or more in 5 locations throughout the city area, including the Digital Hub. It states that it trusts that the LAP will accord with the height policies due to become development plan policy and thereby, ensure realisation of the landmark nature of the Digital Hub Site.

An Taisce refers to internal workshop discussions of the planning department and notes that the impact of height on the historic core of the city was viewed considered as crucial in any consideration of height in the city. It refers to summary findings on the internal workshops and that one such finding was the urgent requirement for a suite of tools to assist with the planning of tall buildings including a model of the city centre as a priority. It submits that the LAP Area clearly lies within the inner city as per the workshop definitions, but that it proposes so many high buildings, despite the fact that no model of the city has yet been produced. It submits that the inner city has a unity which would which would be spatially unbalanced by the construction of high buildings in the locations suggested in the Draft LAP. It asserts that there appears to be no justification on planning, heritage or community grounds to adopt a plan which would permit high buildings and in the absence of a 3D model which was considered an essential pre-requisite to any high building strategy.

An Taisce also refers to a statement in the DEGW Report which states that the proposed locations for height ‘need to be collectively evaluated and a limited number of appropriate locations recommended with a comprehensive high-rise building policy’. On

this basis, the submission contends that no comprehensive high rise building policy has yet been adopted by Dublin City Council.

Provisions of City Development Plan A submission made by Councillor Críona Ní Dhálaigh states that new development should be in character with the area and in accordance with the guidelines set out in the Dublin City Development Plan. The submission emphasises the genuine concern of local residents given the existing low-rise nature of the area.

Submissions made by individuals refer to the excessive height proposals in the plan and consider that these would be contrary to the current development plan policy.

Response

The Draft Liberties Plan has been prepared in the context of and is consistent with existing policy on building heights set out in Section 15.6.0 of the City Development Plan 2005-2011. Section 15.6.0 of the Development Plan cites an extract from DEWG, 2000 as follows: ‘The definition of appropriate building height in context is relative and relates not only to the prevailing building heights but also to the grain and its consistency or diversity with an existing character area’.

The Development Plan states that Dublin has many different character areas and that different character areas will require different approaches to the issue of building heights. It also states that it is Dublin City Council policy to allow for the development of high buildings in appropriate locations in order to promote investment, vitality and identity and that it is policy to protect the skyline of the inner city whilst having regard to the principles and criteria set out in DEGW.

DEGW identifies five generic zones for change within the inner city and sets out characteristics and principles for defining heights within each zone. Zones 2, 3 & 4 relate to the Liberties Plan Area. It is pertinent to emphasise the principles do not preclude taller elements even within ‘existing areas of a dominant character’ (Zone 2). It is also especially relevant that areas where the Draft LAP identifies as appropriate for significant taller building elements (Grand Canal Harbour & St. James Gate) are considered as ‘areas of diverse character’ and fall within Zone 4: Potential new character areas with contextual constraints. These areas are characterised by a robustness of fabric and a diversity of grain and height and with potential for change and to define new character. It is also relevant to that one of the stated criteria for height is to ‘recognise the role of high structures to signpost significant places’.

The height strategy in the draft plan sets out area specific guidance on appropriate heights and appropriate locations and positions within key development sites for future height in the Liberties. The overall strategy and locations were subject to an assessment process with reference to an economic and urban design context, identifying where interventions in building form would support new economics and / create a sense of place, as well as a thorough and detailed visual assessment in order to protect key views and with regard to the historical pattern of development in the Liberties. The draft plan also sets out a series of design guidance criteria applicable to all proposals for tall buildings, similar to the special standards as set in the development plan, in order to

ensure a positive contribution to the cityscape and to respect important views and landmarks. This area-specific guidance is in accordance with and relates the development plan policy to a specific local context.

The submissions refer to an internal workshop discussion and also a background study on building heights in the area. The findings of workshop discussions and analysis of building heights consist of internal review documents, the intended purpose of which was to inform the policy on height at various stages in the policy research. These documents do not constitute policy and therefore have no legal status. However, it is relevant to note that a topographical model at a scale of 1:100 was prepared for the entire plan area to assist in the determination of appropriate building heights during the preparation of the Draft LAP.

Six Themes Approach (Refer to Response under Topic No. 8)

Recommendation

No Change

Issue No. 5: Study Area Description

Submission Nos: 30, 71

Concern is raised that the Liberties is being treated as a green field site by the consultants who prepared the Draft LAP and that serious and meaningful regard has not been given to the existing area characteristics in the plan. In a number of instances this submission states that the information used in the plan is flawed and inaccurate. In particular, it is stated that Section 4.5 ‘Existing Facilities in the Area’ (p.42) contains inaccuracies and highlights the lack of local and institutional knowledge underling the preparation of the plan. It is stated that in the absence of such comprehensive data that it is entirely likely that “the perceived risk of prolonged negotiations and failed applications” alluded to on p.318 of the Draft LAP will be fully realised.

The Digital Hub Development Agency requests that greater acknowledgment of the role of digital media in the area be included in the LAP. The submission emphasises importance of continuing to attract digital media companies to the area, and identifies state of the art broadband provision as a critical factor. They request that broadband services are incorporated into the Draft LAP, as it is seen as a key social, cultural and economic driver in the redevelopment of the entire Liberties area.

Response

The information used in the preparation of the Draft Liberties LAP was gathered during a lengthy and expensive public consultation period. Numerous tasks were undertaken to highlight the existing study area, including public consultation meetings and workshops, input from various departments in the city council and external survey work carried out by consultants. No further measures to engage with the study area could have been employed. As a result, the information contained in this section of the Draft LAP and the accompanying Community Planning Report and relevant appendixes to the plan is seen to be adequate.

The importance of the Digital Hub for the social and economic regeneration of the Liberties is highlighted throughout the Draft LAP, most notably on p.82 in the LAP Development Strategy under the ‘Digital and Creative’ objectives. This establishes key objectives to ensure the timely development of facilities for digital media.

In relation to broadband infrastructure and its importance for digital media, it is accepted that this needs to be given greater importance in the Study Area Description and that an objective in this regard should be included.

Recommendation

Amend text in Study Area Description 4.11 Service Infrastructure, paragraph 3, p.52

FromAdditionally, as the area degenerated in the past, little was done to enhance the public realm. This includes refuse, drainage, sewers and the like. As part of the regeneration, public spaces and streetscapes and pavements will be improved, so drainage and sewage infrastructure will need to be improved or enhanced where it meets the surface.

ToAdditionally as the area degenerated in the past, little was done to upgrade services infrastructure including drainage, sewers, telecommunications and the like. The provision of high-speed broadband is seen as a critical factor in continuing to attract digital media companies to the area. As part of the regeneration, all services infrastructure including broadband will be improved, and the Draft LAP can provide at implementation stage for infrastructure works to be co-ordinated with public realm enhancements.

Issue No. 6: Character Areas

Submission No: 30

Quays/Bridgefoot St./Oliver BondConcern is raised about the sitting of the park in this area, as it will diminish the remaining space, which had been designated for a community centre before the Draft LAP was published. Submission also highlights concerns that developers will seek to be granted exemptions in the Bridgefoot Street area from the 8-storey heights cap in the Liberties. The proposal to create a link from Heuston Square to Merchants Quay is seen as having “shocking casual disregard” for all public housing in its way.

Guinness LandsConcern is raised at the lack of community benefits arising from the proposals made in respect of the Guinness lands. The residents in the area are worried that the private landowners will benefit from the planned zoning changes on their lands and will increase densities to ensure maximum private gain from their lands.

Pimlico/Marrowbone Lane Public HousingSubmission clearly rejects Objectives 7 & 8 of the Draft LAP as stated on p. 65 in respect of the development of “a new urban block structure to replace the existing local authority housing at Braithwaite St/Summer St/Marrowbone Lane/School Street/Taylor’s Lane/ and Meath Place/Earl Street”, and the creation of a “new pedestrian link to Cork Street through the Weir Garden and further south to Bru Chaoimin…” It is requested that these two objectives be removed from the LAP and that any future discussion about the area’s public housing in any form be conducted with DCC’s Housing Dept. and not the consultants.

Cork St./The Coombe CorridorIt is stated that the key objectives articulated in respect of the Cork St./Coombe Corridor are weak. A request is made for greater detail about the heights and densities proposed for undeveloped sites in the area. Strong opposition to the proposed link through the Weir Home and the use of the green space in front of the existing drugs clinic on Cork St as a public area as this would pose a serious anti-social threat to the community. The proposed student accommodation for the Donnolly site on Cork St. is also not seen as acceptable due to the proliferation of proposed student accommodation throughout the Liberties.

Response

The key Character Areas identified in the Draft LAP are seen as an essential aspect of the plan and will act as a catalyst to drive development in the Liberties in a sustainable and orderly fashion. The majority of the submissions received concerning character areas were more concerned with the developments planned on specific sites rather than the designation of the character areas themselves. Accordingly, these issues are responded to under the significant redevelopment sites section of this report.

With regard to the request for further information on the key objectives for the Cork Street / Coombe corridor, it should be noted that the proposals put forward in the Draft LAP are simply “broad brush development objectives to guide the design of new

buildings and spaces” as stated on p. 57 of the plan. Therefore, it would be overly prescriptive for the LAP to go into exact details of building heights and densities. This would be a matter to be considered at the planning application stage for individual development proposals.

Recommendation

No change

Issue No. 7: Draft LAP Development Strategy

Submission Nos: 16, 30, 41, 43, 45, 51, 59, 66, 67, 68, 77

A substantial number of submissions received broadly welcome the Draft LAP Development Strategy for the Liberties, however, in a number of submissions concern is raised at certain aspects of the strategy. Predictably the current economic climate is a common theme throughout the submissions. Concern is raised as to the viability of the vast number of developments proposed in the Draft LAP as if any of the large scale developments envisaged in the plan were to prove unviable there is a fear that the Liberties will be turned into a derelict building site. It is also submitted that the Draft LAP makes no reference to the Irish political and economic systems and the very precarious regeneration environment following the collapse of the public/private partnerships in the city in 2008.

A submission from An Taisce considers that the suggestion in the Draft LAP that a flexible approach be taken to the application of zoning and planning is ill advised. It is suggested that this approach would be inconsistent with the concept of a Local Area Plan as it is a statutory document whose policies and objectives must be abided by. A number of submissions also state the importance of the LAP being consistent with the objectives of the Dublin City Development Plan 2005 – 2011.

Response

The objective of the local area plan is to guide the development of the Liberties as a sustainable, integrated mixed-use neighbourhood. The LAP development strategy aims to deliver a place where people want to live and work, now and into the future, a neighbourhood which meets the diverse needs of existing and future residents, is sensitive to its environment, contributes to a high quality of life, is well designed, well planned, well built and well managed’ is safe and inclusive and offers equality of opportunity and good services for all. Dublin City Council welcomes the submissions concerning the LAP development strategy. While it is acknowledged that the economic downturn has resulted in a slow down in the amount of development in the city it is not seen as having an adverse effect on the aspirations of the LAP. In fact, this could be viewed as the opportune time to press ahead with the Liberties LAP as it will ensure that the right amount of development on the right sites is secured in a timely and orderly fashion. It is felt that the Draft LAP adequately displays the realities of economic uncertainty in section 6.2 ‘An Economic Strategy for the Liberties’. Furthermore, if adopted, the Liberties LAP will become a statutory document and will be fully incorporated into the Irish political system.

With regard to the points raised by An Taisce, the DLAP does not include any re-zoning proposals but does set out a series of land use zoning recommendations, which will enable the strategy set out in the plan to be implemented. The re-zoning of a number of the significant redevelopment sites would be subject to a separate future statutory variation process in accordance with Section 13 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000. Thus, any proposals for re-zoning must be brought to the members of the City Council for approval. It is acknowledged that it will be necessary for zoning objectives for a number of the key sites to be amended by way of the variation process to ensure

consistency with the City Development Plan and that it will be necessary to undertake same prior to implementation of the development strategy set out in the DLAP.

It is pertinent to emphasise that the rationale for this approach and all the recommendations for re-zoning are set out clearly in Chapter 8 of the DLAP, which relates to Phasing & Implementation (Map & Table P. 199 & P. 201). The principle reason for the re-zoning recommendations is to ensure the release of the key development sites with a significant delivery of community, social and recreational infrastructure as a tangible planning gain to the local community and to stimulate the regeneration process.

Recommendation

No change

Issue No. 8: Six Themes

Submission Nos: 41, 71

An Taisce questions the legitimacy of the six-themes approach stating that it finds no reference in any document either adopted or proposed regarding the rationale for the particular themes chosen and that it is not clear on what grounds the themes were identified. The submission contends that the sustainability theme is the only theme which should be over-arching and that it should infuse all aspects of the local area plan. In this regard, it states that to elevate the remaining themes to an overarching status would have negative consequences for the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. It also submits that it is regrettable that the built heritage conservation is not identified as one of the six themes.

The Digital Hun Development Agency submits that as a government agency charged with economic, social and physical regeneration, it broadly welcomes the effort to address development and regeneration under the six key themes of Economic, Social, Cultural, Spatial and Urban Form, Movement and Sustainability. The agency then frames its entire submission under the six themes.

Response

Dublin City Council is following a six-themes approach to ensure a holistic urban philosophy in order to deliver good urban places. The application of the six-themes in relation to planning policy and also the development management process is a way of bringing a user-friendly structure to this very complex task. The six themes essentially focus on quality of life issues which in turn assist in achieving a sustainable, compact city of successful neighbourhoods. The themes are not considered as separate discrete themes, but rather mutually reinforcing elements of a holistic approach. For instance, built heritage conservation is addressed specifically under the ‘Urban and Spatial Form’ Theme in the DLAP, but could equally appear under ‘Culture’.

It is relevant to emphasise that members of the public generally welcome the six themes approach and view the emphasis on quality of life factors as a positive factor in urban planning for the city.

Recommendation

No Change

Issue No. 9: An Economic Strategy for the Liberties

Submission Nos: 14, 20, 32, 34, 36, 52, 56, 60, 67, 68, 71, 76, 77, 79

There was a broad range of issues identified in the submissions received with regard to the economic strategy for the Liberties proposed in the Draft LAP. From individual submissions calling for the protection of the street trading tradition in the Liberties, to larger submissions on behalf of Tesco Ireland Ltd., there was a general consensus that a thorough and coherent economic strategy is needed in the LAP to ensure the social, physical, cultural and economic regeneration of the Liberties. One particular submission states that the Draft LAP has seriously underestimated the economic drivers that will be required to drive the plan forward and suggest that this should be amended in the final LAP. The general theme to emerge from the submissions regarding economic development in the Liberties was that a large quantum of commercial development is needed in the area to counterbalance the large amount of residential development proposed in the Draft LAP.

Two submissions make specific reference to the importance of modern retail footplates to assist in the economic regeneration of the Liberties. It is stated that the creation and development of retail footplates desired by the market cannot and will not be achieved without accepting that a balance of conservation and other economic objectives is necessary to secure the wider objective of regeneration and renewal of the area. Specifically, it is stated that Policy H13 of the Dublin City Development Plan 2005-2011, should not be utilised to preclude redevelopment of viable commercial development footplates. In this regard it is suggested that the LAP should clarify the application of area wide conservation policies, as it is feared that “necessary economic development will be prejudiced and it will not be possible to provide for modern retailing or commercial needs within the area”. Furthermore, it is requested that the Planning Authority require additional car parking spaces to be provided in respect of anchor convenience units to ensure delivery of retail units in accordance with operational requirements. The existing standards in the development plan for the area are seen as “inappropriate”. Arising from these points it is suggested that Dublin City Council should provide the following either within, or as an accompaniment to, the Liberties LAP.

An assessment of the requirement for retail floor space through a methodology, which considers the expanding employment clusters and the level of active passing trade, particularly along key routes into/from the city centre

Confirmation through policy guidance and a variation to the Dublin City Development Plan, a hierarchy of retail designations for all sites deemed suitable for commercial development in the Draft LAP area

A study on the most suitable locations for additional retail development and in particular convenience anchor stores that have a number of specific operational requirements

The importance of making any economic improvements arising out of the LAP accessible to the indigenous population was highlighted in a number of submissions. Specifically, it has been requested that preferential treatment should be given to local people and businesses so that incubation units, workshop spaces etc can be used for local start up businesses and retraining initiatives. It is suggested that this should be incorporated into the plan and given statutory backing such as that for cultural uses in Temple Bar. The importance of traditional economic uses in the Liberties was also

established in a number of submissions and it is seen as imperative that the Liberties Street Traders and the Liberties Carriage Drivers Association are adequately addressed in the LAP as they form an important part in the cultural and economic make up of the Liberties. Building on this point it is suggested in a number of submissions that the rich cultural and physical heritage of the area could be utilised to increase the tourist offer of the area and enhance the economic performance of the Liberties. Other key issues raised in the submissions are:

Increased provision of broadband services should be incorporated into the LAP in order to assist in continuing to attract digital media companies to the area.

Amend the section “Promoting Investment, Economic Development, Employment Growth and Market Services” to include the Guinness Enterprise Centre.

Ensure that the LAP is consistent with the Dublin City Development Plan with regard to safeguarding employment uses on the Guinness Lands.

Response

The redevelopment of the key sites identified in the plan will facilitate the delivery of new commercial and employment floorspace in the area and will help drive the economic development of the area, reinforce the viability of the proposed Interconnector and LUAS Line F, support investment in new retail development, community and social infrastructure and help deliver employment opportunities for the local population.

In all major redevelopment proposals, the delivery of a quantity of employment generating uses will be an essential requirement. Precise locations and quanta of commercial and employment generating development will generally be a matter to be considered for individual site masterplans, and individual planning applications, the content of which shall be agreed with the Planning Authority. This is expanded in greater detail in the Phasing and Implementation Chapter of the Local Area Plan. In addition to the key development sites, it is emphasized that Dublin City Council will positively consider small scale infill employment opportunities, small and medium business creation and home enterprise. It is not considered that any of the issues raised in the submissions identify any fundamental deficiencies or flaws in the approach taken to the promotion of economic development and employment in the Plan. However, it is acknowledged that the Guinness Enterprise centre should be acknowledged as a world-class centre of excellence for enterprise development in the plan.

Any future planning applications for retail development in the area will be assessed against the Retail Strategy set out in Chapter 8 and Appendix 7 of Dublin City Development Plan. The provisions of the Retail Planning Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area and the Retail Planning Guidelines for Planning Authorities 2005 are incorporated into this City Development Plan Retail Strategy. Issues such as car parking are beyond the scope of the plan at this stage and will be dealt with at the site masterplan and planning application stage. While certain submissions have stated that the retail proposals already identified in the Development Plan are “inadequate” it should be noted that a full review of the Dublin City Development Plan is due to start in January 2009, which will further address the issues raised with regard to economic development in the city.

Having regard to the concerns raised, it is considered that a text entry should be inserted into the retail section of the Economic Strategy for the Liberties 6.2.1 to explicitly set out that future large scale retail development in the area will be subject to the Retail Strategy as set out in the Dublin City Development Plan.

The importance of digital media for the social and economic regeneration of the Liberties is highlighted throughout the Draft LAP, and the plan establishes key objectives to ensure the timely development of facilities for digital media. It is considered that the overarching objectives on page 5 of the Draft LAP can be amended to include a reference to the ‘Development of the Digital Hub’. In relation to broadband infrastructure and its importance for digital media, it is accepted that this needs to be given greater importance in the Draft LAP and that an objective in this regard should be included.

It is also acknowledged that the importance of potential tourism revenue from the rich industrial, cultural and built heritage in the Liberties should be adequately addressed by the LAP in its economic strategy for the Liberties.

Recommendations

Include reference to The Guinness Enterprise Centre as a Business Interest Stakeholder in the section 6.2 LAP Development Strategy – Economic.Add the following objective on p. 83 Employment & Training:

Acknowledge the key role that the Guinness Enterprise Centre plays in the Liberties as a world-class centre of excellence for enterprise development.

Add the following text to the retail section of chapter 6.2.1 of the Draft LAP:

In making an application for planning permission for retail development, which is considered to be large in scale to the Liberties, the applicant shall be required to demonstrate compliance with the Development Plan Retail Strategy.

Add the following objective to p. 82 Tourism: Enhance the appeal of the rich industrial, cultural and built heritage of the

Liberties as an integral part of the tourist attraction for the area.

Amend Overarching Objective No. 4 (page 5)

FromTo stimulate the local economy and to include a critical mass of appropriate development and investment to provide significant employment opportunities

ToTo stimulate the local economy and to include a critical mass of appropriate development and investment to provide significant employment opportunities, emphasising the role of the digital media sector in rejuvenating the economic profile of the Liberties.

Amend text in Study Area Description 4.11 Service Infrastructure, paragraph 3, p.52

FromAdditionally, as the area degenerated in the past, little was done to enhance the public realm. This includes refuse, drainage, sewers and the like. As part of the regeneration, public spaces and streetscapes and pavements will be improved, so drainage and sewage infrastructure will need to be improved or enhanced where it meets the surface.

ToAdditionally as the area degenerated in the past, little was done to upgrade services infrastructure including drainage, sewers, telecommunications and the like. The provision of high-speed broadband is seen as a critical factor in continuing to attract digital media companies to the area. As part of the regeneration, all services infrastructure including broadband will be improved, and the Draft LAP can provide at implementation stage for infrastructure works to be co-ordinated with public realm enhancements.

Issue No. 10: Social Housing:

Submission Nos: 13, 30, 36, 38, 52, 57, 59, 61

The submissions made in relation to housing relate almost exclusively to social housing and fall into the following broad category types, namely, the artist accommodation, assessment of housing need, consultation with public housing tenants, demolition of social housing, evidence based decision making, development sites and character areas, the disposal of public lands, funding, garden court, phasing and its impact on the community, policies and strategies, reduction in social housing and apartment standards and DCC commitment to quality, and finally social mix, DCC track record in the delivery of phased programmes and voluntary housing.

Artists AccommodationSubmission 30 also queries the objective of providing ‘units of accommodation targeting artists so as to assist in the promotion of the area as a ‘cultural quarter’ (P95) with further distance those in genuine need of housing from achieving same – public housing is a public good and should be allocated on the basis of pressing public need. Submission 71 (DHDA) welcomes the objective to provide accommodation to target artists, so as to promote the area as a ‘cultural and artist quarter. States that digital media is largely a creative industry, so opportunities for artists to live adjacent to project essential,

Assessment of Housing NeedSubmission 30 is concerned and takes exception to figures in DCC Assessment of Housing Need, on the basis that the housing waiting list figures for areas in the Liberties excludes those in private rental sectors within the RAS and the SWA Supplementary Welfare Allowance and those in High Support Units. It submits that RAS & SWA represent a diversion of public monies where should have been retained to support long-term sustainable social housing.

Consultation with TenantsSubmission 30 refers to the absence of DCC housing personnel from the consultative process surrounding the preparation of the LAP which it considers worrying given the significant housing proposals. It requests that DCC commence a well-resourced consultation process with agreed time-table between DCC Housing Department and their tenants making provision for access to independent advice at all stages of consultation for the tenants. It also states that at one stage in the LRP residents of Pimlico were informed of the proposals to demolish houses by a mail-shot.

Submission 57 submits that there was a lack of involvement of DCC Housing Department and found that this was the most disturbing aspect as this is a key department in relation to social housing and that this lack of involvement showed up the lack of any meaningful engagement with tenants

Demolition of Social HousingSubmission 30 refers to the proposal to demolish habitable local authority housing (P432). It refers to Vicar St/Michael Mallin House, Basin St Flats, Braithwaite St. Pimlico Terrace, Meath Place, South Summer Street, Thomas Bawn Court and School Street.

Submission 36 poses a question about what will happen if the majority of the residents are not in favour of full demolition but would prefer refurbishment. What legal advice if any has the council received in this regard? Submission 36 queries if when sites are ready for demolition that a proper communications network be initiated with a Liaison Officer who would be responsible for keeping residents in the adjoining area up-dated.

Submission 38 states that the proposals do not meet the needs of those in public housing and it queries the rationale for demolition of habitable public housing at a time when the government is making stringent cuts and developers walking away from PPP housing regeneration projects across the city.

Development Sites & Character AreasSubmission 38 poses questions about how significant decisions regarding the designation of particular areas as ‘opportunity areas’, planning for housing demolition, and re-location of local authority tenants were made and states that it is unclear who initiates proposals whether it is officials or councillors.

Submission 57 rejects the character area section relating to Pimlico Terrace/ Braitewaite Street / South Summer Street.

Disposal of Public LandSubmission 30 refers to a programme of land sales and public private partnership and states that the former ensures the loss of public land in which the future of those in public housing is vested. It rejects all proposals for public land disposals within LAP area, with particular reference to Chamber/Weaver. It refers to a breech of the agreement arrived at by Chamber/Weaver Regeneration Group with DCC. This agreement was reached in May 2006 after two and half years of negotiations and a process which resulted in a Charter being drawn up and signed.

Submission 36 submits that the monies raised from the sale of public land be ring-fenced solely for LAP. It queries what publicly owned lands apart from Chamber/Weaver are to be sold off privately and queries whether the Council has examined the potential to keep this land in the hands of the public?

Submission 38 wants an audit or map of publicly owned land to be made available and states that despite repeated requests an audit/map of publicly owned land was not made available – (and refers to a JTP statement that such a map exists), it queries why this information has not been included in the LAP. It contends that the absence renders it impossible to assess whether the best use is being made of publicly owned land. It states that DCC has an obligation to serve the public interest and raises concern that this information has been withheld from public scrutiny. It also states that transparency is required in the disposal of public lands. It expresses concerns specifically in relation to proposals for public housing in the absence of an audit of publicly held land and housing stock in the area.

Submission 57 submits that the relocation of social housing tenants will be to inferior sites and that there appears to be a general policy in DCC to remove tenants from valuable sites to make way for private developers to have access to prime sites.

Evidence Based Decision MakingSubmission 30 states that the proposals are not underwritten by evidence from necessary data, figures and analysis and that in the absence of this data there is no

rationale for proceeding; it contends that the proposals for demolition were made in the absence of key housing data and states that despite formal approaches to DCC this information has not been made available. It states that the absence of data is especially relevant due to significant policy departures contained in the draft plan’s Housing Strategy. It further submits that the data is inadequate, obsolete and disingenuous.

It states that the draft LAP cites 2006 Census Data for number of local authority houses in the Liberties, it states that in the two years since then, local authority housing stock will have significantly diminished by the de-tenanting and demolition programmes that have taken place along with the proposed PPP programmes across Housing Allocation Area. It submits that this data would be easily accessible to DCC Housing Unit from demolition/decant programmes in Fatima Mansions, St. Michael’s Estate, Chamber and Weaver Courts.

Submission 38 expresses profound concerns in relation to housing proposals and decisions in the absence of hard research, and in the absence of facts and figures to enable evaluation of new housing proposals. It also requests a list of figures for public housing because the lack of availability raises concerns regarding the validity and reliability of the figures. It expresses concerns specifically in relation to proposals for public housing in the absence of evidence underpinning plans and policies that relate to funding of proposals.

FundingSubmission 30 refers to the use of contributions in lieu of social / affordable housing under Part V to fund direct provision on lands owned by DCC in the Liberties Area. It states that DCC is abandoning policy of social mix and also that one of the few remaining avenues to secure additional social housing units would be negated.

Submission 30 refers to failed PPP projects which have caused the destruction of 3 public housing complexes across the city.

Submission 38 states that DCC indicated that PPP will be considered as a funding mechanism, it submits that there is no evidence that PPPs represent value for money – it goes on to state that policies that influence planning should be evidenced based otherwise they can be developer driven, the submission states that this is unacceptable in the light of the failed policies of the Liberties IAP. It also states that following the collapse of PPPs for flat complexes across the city which has caused extreme distress to tenants and asks what credibility the PPP process as a tool for social housing can have.

Submission 38 expresses concern that no other government funding will be made available such as in Ballymun and ponders what will be achieved if it is to be entirely brought about through sale of public land.

Submission 57 queries the proposed funding for the housing at Pimlico, it finds that the proposed use of the developers levy to fund the housing aspect of the plan is completely unacceptable, especially at a time when reliance on private developers to deliver social housing had disastrous consequences at O’Devaney Gardens and St Michael’s Estate. Submission 57 expressed concern that the DoEHLG has not given a commitment to funding or approval and that if the project is solely to be funded by developer levies at €13,000 per unit this would require 9,000 private units to replace the existing 400 social units (23 private units to replace one social unit)

Garden CourtSubmission 30 refers to the proposed crafts quarter development on Garden Court, Francis St – states that 1 of a housing project for the elderly – phase 2 was to be for dev of derelict buildings for additional elderly housing – phase 2 did not occur – now crafts quarter.

Phasing - Impact on CommunitySubmission 38 contends that the proposed phasing programme will be very destructive to the existing public housing communities. It states that there is a thriving community in Pimlico at the heart of the Liberties, literally and metaphorically and is concerned at the impact a 5 phase move over 12 years will have on the community and points to the experience in St. Michael’s Estate, O’Devaney and Chamber/Weaver where there has been a net loss of social housing units.

Submission 57 submits that the flats in Pimlico have provided secure, comfortable and high quality accommodation in a successful and integrated community since opened in 1965. It also submits that the proposal for a five-phase redevelopment consisting of the 12-20 year process necessary to develop Pimlico will only serve to devastate the existing community and will have the effect of making the Liberties derelict.

Policies and StrategiesSubmission 30 submits that the draft LAP is attempting to introduce serious changes to DCC Housing Strategy and Policies. It points to a change in the housing allocations policy and states that priority will now be given to tenants in habitable dwellings - many who wish to remain there - over those on the Housing Waiting List. Submission 30 requests that all element of the Liberties Housing Strategy be rejected in the interests of allowing a full and open examination of the future of public housing in the Liberties and also on the basis that it represents significant and serious changes.

Submission 36 queries whether the residents to be decanted will be decanted on a like for like basis if so desired – tenant 2 bed to 2 bed unit.

Submission 38 expresses profound concerns in relation to housing proposals and decisions in respect of public housing in opportunity areas and also the manner which they have been progressed within this process.

Submission 57 rejects the section on social housing in the DLAP (Section 3)

Reduction in Social HousingSubmission 13 expresses concern that there is not enough provision for social housing in the plan considering the projected population growth of circa 7,000 which means that there will be a net loss in social housing.

Submission 30 states that the breakdown of housing tenure by census 2006 cannot be taken as an accurate reflection – states that the 28% local authority share of the area’s housing stock will have diminished further.

Submission 36 requests that DCC should ‘Replace all local authority housing units recommended for demolition’. It welcomes the increase of up to 20% additional social housing in the area which will add an additional 316 units to the area.

Submission 57 is concerned at a perceived reduction in Dublin City Council’s commitment to the supply of local authority housing in the area.

Standards: Commitment to QualitySubmission 30 welcomes Dublin City Council’s commitment ‘to continuing improvements in the quality of houses and neighbourhoods’ (pg92-95), but submits that improvements would not follow from the housing objectives.

Submission 36 welcomes the provision of social residential units in accordance with the new living apartment guidelines – all residential units should be built to these requirements in order to promote family friendly sustainable living conditions. Submission 36 queries if the provision of all the new social housing units in the area will be to the standard of the new apartment guidelines adopted by the City Council in 2008.

Submission 38 expresses profound concerns in relation to housing proposals and decisions refers to positive elements of the plan – including the improvement of housing standards and housing refurbishment and other fundamental/ substantive issues.

Submission 61 states that the regeneration of the flats is timely given their short life and the anti-social behaviour associated with them.

Social MixSubmission 30 challenges what it refers to as a ‘social mix’ ideology. Submission 36 states that the increased social housing units must be spread across the area and not kept to small, social housing only communities

Track RecordSubmission 30 states that have never seen Phase 2 of a public housing replacement programme.

Submission 57 states that regeneration of social housing has most successfully been delivered through focused, resourced consultation process between DCC Housing Section and tenants funded by DCC & DoEHLG. It also expresses the view that DCC has no track record of completing a five phase scheme, it references the Chamber St development which stalled after Phase 1 and is now de-tenanted and derelict.

Voluntary HousingSubmission 52 views Sophia Housing on Cork Street is a very interesting positive development and states that consideration should be given to similar future innovation developments providing nearby step-down housing solutions for the area’s maturing population, the resulting housing stock can provide continual renewal of mature residential areas such as Marylands.

Response

Artists AccommodationIt would be Dublin City Council’s intention to ensure that the provision of housing for artists in the Liberties does reduce the stock of general needs social and particularly local authority rental housing for people on the waiting list. The housing, which it is proposed to provide for artists, would not come from capital funding for social housing provided by the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The art and cultural housing objectives in the plan are important in a social regeneration context.

Assessment of Housing NeedThe DLAP uses figures supplied by the Assessment of Housing Need, the methodology employed was not determined by the Local Area Plan.

Consultation with TenantsThe Liberties Project Manager, Evelyn Hanlon, reports to the Assistant City Manager for Housing and also has a reporting relationship with the Assistant City Manager for Planning in relation to this project. She is directly employed by the Housing Department and has many years experience in both housing and urban regeneration. The housing strategy and objectives were developed within the Housing Department and are in line with Dublin City Council and the Ireland’s national housing policies and strategies.

As part of the overall consultation process open workshops were organized and held in community rooms within or adjoining the local authority flats. The workshops with tenants and their representatives were facilitated by the LAP consultants. The workshops were advertised through the distribution of leaflets door to door. Local associations and residents groups were also contacted and both Housing Department and Area Office Staff attended the workshops and assisted in the consultation process. In addition community development personnel attended the workshops as did the Project Manger for the Liberties Regeneration project.

In addition to the workshops two site visits to new local authority housing in the area were organized to demonstrate the difference in size and quality of the new local authority housing compared to the existing units.

The project supplied drawings and models of the existing flats in Pimlico. These were shown side by side with models based on the new apartment guidelines in order to demonstrate the potential impact of the new standards. There were also meetings prior to public forum meetings to discuss concerns about decanting issues.

The design, tendering and construction of housing takes up to 5 years. Prior to the individual projects beginning tenants will be consulted and involved in discussions, these discussions will be led by housing personnel. John Thompson Partners are independent consultants engaged by Dublin City Council to elicit, interpret and feedback the views, aspirations and ideas of tenants in relation to the masterplan. The implementation of the plan will take at least a decade and there will be ample opportunities for discussion and involvement of tenants on each project within the overall plan. The DLAP also states that further consultation with residents will be undertaken before finalisation of the replacement housing programme.

Demolition of Social HousingDublin City Council as a landlord has a duty of care to ensure that its housing stock is protected as an asset, that its tenants are appropriately housed in accordance with their needs and that its housing stock is able to be managed and maintained efficiently and effectively so as to achieve good value for money in the use of public money.

The housing stock recommended for demolition is no longer achieving good value for money in terms of maintenance and management. It is coming to the end of its useful life and refurbishment of the extent required is not a viable option.

Unlike older stock it does not lend itself to adaptation to suit modern needs. In addition the stock in question is all either 1 bed, 2 bed or studio units, has very little storage,

small kitchens and bathrooms and often has bedrooms which open into living rooms. None of the units despite being 4, 5 or 6 storeys high have lifts.

Experience shows refurbishment would cost a similar amount to new build and that tenants’ expectations will not be met by refurbishment, the basic problems will continue, these are related to the number of bedrooms, the size of the kitchen, bathroom and the absence of lifts.

The experience in other housing regeneration projects shows that there is always some initial and very understandable concern at the prospect of change but that with few exceptions once the new units are developed people are happy to move and realize that the new units are much better all round. In the event that a minority of people do not wish to move the law can be used to require them to move provided the landlord is offering appropriate new accommodation. If a majority in a particular scheme do not wish to move which experience shows is highly unlikely this will have to be managed appropriately at the time, which is likely to be at least a decade away.

The decision to recommend the demolition and replacement of some of the flat blocks at Pimlico, Vicar St and Basin St was made on the following basis:

Discussions with the tenants during consultation many of whom indicated that they were dissatisfied with the quality of accommodation, particularly in relation to the numbers of bedrooms (there are no 3 bedroom flats in any of the units recommended for demolition). There was also dissatisfaction in relation to the size of the kitchens and bathrooms and the lack of storage. Some tenants particularly older tenants expressed a desire to stay in their flats and sought refurbishment instead of demolition

Comparison of new apartment standards with the standard of the units proposed for demolition.

Level of maintenance complaints and discussions with maintenance and housing management personnel.

There were also urban design issues, which affected the decision; the units when built did not respect the traditional road layouts and neither did they provide good quality usable open space.

Finally, it was considered important to identify a space for a new park, healthcare and library in the centre of the Liberties. While this affected the Pimlico decision it was an outcome not a reason for demolition.

Notice of the intention to demolish should be posted locally so that residents and community groups are notified. Their contracts should require them to notify local people through notices of the commencement of demolition.

Development Sites & Character Areas The identification of key development areas arose following a detailed analysis and assessment of the land and property in the area by a team of experienced and expert professionals consisting of both external consultants and DCC officials.

The views, opinions and aspirations of politicians, residents, business people and land owners in the area informed the assessment and decision making process.

The draft plan which resulted from these deliberations goes to the council for decision, the making of recommendations and the development of ideas and plans for the

consideration of the Councilors is undertaken by the officials and the consultants engaged by them for this purpose.

Each character area was assessed professionally by experts. The assessment was also informed by the consultation process. It is understandable that residents of the area feel a strong sense of loyalty to the area where their homes are located. The assessment shown is an objective and professional one.

The character assessment of Pimlico refers to the bulkiness of the blocks, the poor design of the open space, lack of trees and street frontage, poor security and lack of overlooking. It also refers to the existence of isolated fragments of Victorian cottages and the materials used in them. This is considered to be a factual assessment of the area.

Disposal of Public LandThe plan suggests both the disposal and acquisition of land for social housing and is proposing an increase in the number of units in the area provided by direct provision as well supply from Part V.

When the charter for Chamber Weaver was drawn up in 2006 the thinking was that many of the former tenants would wish to return to that site in the future, however only two tenants actually wished to take up this offer and they are now settled nearby so even these two are unlikely to actually proceed with this option. If they do wish to return there will be sufficient units available via Part V. Given the current economic downturn it is likely to be several years before any proposal is forthcoming for the site.

Another element of the agreement was that an open space would be provided at the junction of Ormond Street and Cork Street, however the urban design advice provided by the masterplanners is that this is not an appropriate urban design response at this location. It is therefore proposed to develop Weaver Square and to re-landscape Oscar Square which are both adjacent and are significant open space areas in need of upgrading. The plan also proposes significant additional sports facilities at St Catherine’s which is very close to the site. The intensification of use of St Catherine’s came about due to a recommendation of the Sports, Leisure and Recreation (SLR) Working Group facilitated by Scott Wilson Consultants who developed the Action Plan for SLR which is included as an appendix to the draft local area plan.

The draft local area plan shows one option for Chamber Weaver, which is its redevelopment for commercial and residential uses, which would provide both employment and housing. At least 20% of the housing would be social and affordable more could be allocated to this use if needed and this would permit former tenants to be rehoused here if necessary.

Dublin City Council are committed to the concept of consultation with the community. As a landlord it has a duty to ensure it’s tenants are appropriately housed and this duty has been fulfilled in relation to the former tenants of the Chamber Weaver Scheme. The City Council as Housing and Planning Authority has to take the wider view of how best to use its resources for the benefit of the whole city. In this instance it considers that the provision of additional housing land on Marrowbone Lane, Summer Street and Allingham Street as well as the increase in the number of units which can be achieved in Vicar Street, Basin Street and Pimlico reduces the need to achieve additional social housing on Chamber Weaver. The main economic objective of the redevelopment of the site should be to provide an extension of the Digital Hub uses, which already extend to the

property across the road. The plan also shows a landscape treatment to Cork Street to improve the physical environment.

If the City Councilors agree to the disposal of land within the Liberties they can stipulate that the capital receipts remain in the regeneration area. However if the lands in question were originally purchased for housing with DOEHLG funds, the Government may also wish to attach conditions to the use of the funds.

Subject to this it would be intended to use the money from the disposal of lands within the Liberties for non housing purposes i.e. parks, public realm improvements, community facilities including sports, cultural and leisure. It may also be necessary to purchase alternative lands e.g. Pimlico, Vicar Street.

The main lands which could be considered for disposal include:

Chamber Weaver

Bridgefoot Street (most likely through the PPP process).

Site on Grand Canal Harbour (currently travelers site)

Lands remaining (i.e. when all units are replaced the final blocks for demolition will free up land not needed for social housing since all tenants will have been rehoused by then.)

Part of depot lands

Site at Meath Place (sale or land swap with Health Services Executive)

Like other areas of Dublin, land ownership within the Liberties can be difficult to pin down in relation to small parcels of land. The lands owned by major landowners including Dublin City Council, Diageo, National College of Art and Design, Digital Hub and Health Services Executive, can be shown in the final plan, it was already included in the community planning report. However substantial amounts of land are owned by other landowners and it is not proposed to try to show all of these pieces of land.

The difference in land values between the various parcels of land in Pimlico is minimal. The two sites identified for a park, library and health centre could be regarded as slightly higher value (prime). The achievement of active frontages to some streets as indicated in the draft plan will entail the disposal of ground floor units under flats for commercial use.

Note: Section 83 is the legal mechanism for disposal of land and is a reserved function of the City Council.

Evidence Based Decision MakingDublin City Council has extensive experience as a housing authority and has undertaken many urban and housing regeneration projects over the years. Its assessment of the appropriateness of the proposals included in the Draft Local Area Plan for the Liberties is based on its own internal experts as well as the expertise of the consultants it engaged to develop the Local Area Plan.

The information on which it based the assessment related to the quantity, quality and potential for improvement of the existing stock. It also took account of urban design issues, value for money, existing maintenance costs and tenant expectations.

In addition it decisions were informed by the outcome of the community planning process as outlined in the Community Planning Report compiled by its consultants John Thompson and Partners. Data in relation to housing stock in the area is shown below.

The 2006 census data is not regarded as obsolete, neither Fatima nor St Michaels are within the regeneration area and the majority of Chamber and Weaver Courts were vacated by the time the census was compiled, housing records show that there were 21 occupied units in November 2006.

The table below indicates the number of units of local authority housing stock in the Liberties Area. It also shows that the number of flats should increase from 1,252 to 1,617 including Part V. It is recommended that these figures be included in the DLAP to address the concerns regarding evidence based decision-making and in the interest of transparency.

The number of Units of Local authority housing stock in the Liberties area is shown in the table below:List of local authority housing within Liberties

Description (excludes Part V) To be demolished

New Unaffected

Meath Place, (30) School St (40) Thomas Court Bawn (40) Braithwaite St (70) Summer St (40) Pimlico Tce (30), New housing includes Allingham Street and Marrowbone Lane

250 353 0

Marrowbone Lane Buildings(112) Thomas Court (24), 0 0 136

Basin Street (128) 128 178 0

Michael Mallin House (54) Garden Court (24) 54 78 24

Oliver Bond House (382), St Audeons (56), Emmett Buildings (72), Mary Aikenhead (150)

0 0 660

General Part V 0 188

Total Flat Units 432 797 820

Local Authority rented houses & OAP units 0 0 354

Total Local Authority Units 432 1,174

This table shows that the number of flats should increase from 1,252 to 1,617 including Part V.

FundingThe acceptance of contribution-in-lieu of funding is included as a possibility in areas where land is available close by for social housing, the cost of new local authority units could therefore be part funded by contribution in lieu of providing Part V housing, an example would be replacement housing on Basin Street in exchange for contribution in lieu of housing on the Grand Canal Harbour site. Dublin City Council has no intention of abandoning the national policy on social housing and fully intends to use Part V to continue to achieve social mix in the area.

The decision to implement procurement of social housing via PPP was made at a time when central government had established through the mechanism of National Treasury Management Agency that the PPP model presented the best use of public assets. The severe downturn in the economy which led to the recent collapse of a number of PPP projects (none within the Liberties area) has lead to a reappraisal with a view to establishing more robust risk assessment criteria.

The creation of smaller parcels of land for redevelopment is one possible outcome of this reassessment process. By the time any of the projects in the Liberties are ready for redevelopment a decision regarding PPP as a procurement method for social housing will have been taken and can then be applied.

The schemes in the Liberties, which are currently being designed by the City Architects Department, do not envisage the use of PPP. When designed it is proposed to submit them to the DOEHLG for funding as part of the standard capital housing allocation programme. The schemes, which have already been notified, to the DOEHLG by Housing Construction include Garden Court, and Marrowbone Lane (Paving Depot).

The implementation of the proposals in the local area plan will depend on the availability of funding from a number of sources including:

Working in partnership with other bodies e.g. private investors/developers, health services executive and other public bodies.

Government funding for social housing.

Grants from central government towards culture, art, sport and leisure projects.

Releasing the value of DCC assets in the area through land/property sales.

Contributions from developers as part of planning gain to fund non housing projects e.g. parks, library, roads, bridges, water/drainage.

Part V housing or in a small number of cases contributions in lieu of Part V housing.

Developer levies cannot be used to fund social housing, they are used for infrastructure and community amenities.

The Draft Local Area Plan sets out a schedule of projects which could if agreed by Council be funded from levies.

Money from the sale of council land in the area would be used to kick start projects and to provide matching funding in projects which could be funded by government i.e. for sport and swimming pools, crèche, art and library projects.

Garden CourtThe design of the Garden Court scheme is with City Architects as part of their social housing programme. It is proposed that the scheme will cater for older people as an extension of the existing scheme. The plan proposes that the uses of the adjoining lands including St Nicholas of Myra be extended (subject to the approval of its existing occupiers and owners) to cater more easily for the needs of the community including the older people in Garden Court. This extension could be achieved through the addition of a floor and/or the build out of some existing open space. An important objective is to achieve greater integration between the two properties to facilitate easier access for older people and also a play area for children using the centre, and to improve frontage to Francis Street.The crafts area is shown as an indicative use for land owned by Chadwicks and this can only happen if this land become available for redevelopment.

Phasing - Impact on CommunityThe plan proposes that tenants from each flat scheme will be offered the opportunity to be rehoused together. People would not have to move from their present accommodation until their new accommodation is ready for occupation.

The plan proposes that people will be rehoused in very close proximity to their current location. The requirement to rehouse people together and close to their existing location is the main reason for the complexity of the phasing and its consequent duration which may indeed take 12 years to complete from start on site of the first phase. It may even take longer to achieve completion depending on the availability of funding.

Timescale for delivery of new social housing Indicative programme each scheme

Stage Duration

Design and Planning 12

Funding Approval Process (DOEHLG) 6

Tender Process (minimum duration) 4

Construction Contract (depending on complexity and size of contracts) 36

Snagging and Handover 3

Total 61

The plan recognizes the importance and strength of the existing communities in Vicar Street, Pimlico and Basin Street, this is the reason why the plan proposes to retain the communities together as part of the redevelopment and decanting programme.

It is accepted that the Pimlico flats provided good homes for people since they were built and that they were built to a high standard relative for their time. However it is also considered that they are no longer able to meet the expectations of modern family living including by many of the families who live there now.

The most recent apartment guidelines sets out standards which are designed to meet the expectations of people today and the proposed replacement units will be built to those standards, they will be built before people are expected to move and will be built within the centre of Pimlico on the same streets as the existing flats.

The units identified for demolition will be reaching the end of their expected useful life by the time demolition is proposed. The cost of major improvements or refurbishment would not present good value for money. The option suggested by some tenants of amalgamating two units into one larger unit would also not provide a good solution as it would reduce the quantity of units and would not provide a good urban design solution.

Refurbishment would also be highly disruptive, currently precinct improvements are done while people continue to occupy units, but these would not include internal alterations and amalgamations of the type being proposed by tenants during consultation.

A detailed technical appraisal and costing of refurbishment would be a prohibitively expensive exercise in view of the level of work needed and the views expressed during consultation. Experience in Ballymun (Joseph Plunkett Tower) and in the UK generally has shown that refurbishment does not meet tenants expectations despite the high cost of undertaking major capital works in schemes.

Policies and StrategiesThe housing strategy shown in the Draft Local Area Plan proposes a 20% increase in directly provided social housing and in addition there will be new voluntary housing and Part V. The development of the proposals was in response to issues raised during the consultation process. Dublin City Council’s housing policy and strategy must comply with the policy set by the Housing SPC and with National policy and guidelines as set out by the DOEHLG.

The housing strategy shown in the plan is not seen as introducing serious changes to DCC Housing Strategy and Policies.

The allocation of housing to people who are in need of housing as a result of demolition is well established and has been successfully used in housing regeneration projects throughout Dublin over the years. While the draft plan has not worked out a detailed allocation and decanting programme it is proposed that tenants will be re-housed taking account of their existing provision and their existing and future needs. There will be no studios in the new accommodation and all units will be considerably more spacious than existing units with the same number of bedrooms. Few if any decanting programmes can guarantee or have in the past provided 100% like for like, under occupation of social housing provided at the tax payers expense is extremely difficult to justify. However given that the area is dominated by one and two bed flats or studios, problems of under occupation will be extremely rare and families are likely to get extra bedrooms not less.

Reduction in Social HousingDublin City Council has an ongoing commitment to social housing in Dublin and in the Liberties. Its proposed investment in relation to replacing and improving housing in the area is evidence of this commitment.

The increase in population is projected at circa 7,000 this is based on the complete build out of all units shown in the plan, including replacing the 432 local authority flats and providing an extra 316 units. In addition every development will be subject to the Part V

provisions of 10% social and 10% affordable. The 2006 Census showed that the percentage of social housing in the Liberties is 28% compared to 13% in Dublin generally.

As well as the higher proportion of local authority housing compared to the rest of the City there is also significantly more voluntary housing (family, special needs and supported housing) here than elsewhere in Dublin. In addition both RAS and SWA (effectively social housing supply mechanisms) are well represented here, mostly in new, good standard housing.

Nevertheless there has been a net reduction in the percentage of social housing from that shown in the 1991 census. This is due to an overall increase in population, rather than a reduction in the absolute number of units.

The figures in the plan do not take into account Fatima or St Michaels since these are outside the Liberties Regeneration area’s boundary. The majority of Chamber Weaver was void when the 2006 census was undertaken so the assessment is based on accurate data. In light of the above and particularly because of the higher percentage of social housing already in existence, it is considered that the proposed replacement programme plus the additional 316 units and the Part V provision is the appropriate social housing response for the Liberties.

Standards: Commitment to QualityDublin City Council’s new apartment guidelines apply to all housing including new social housing. This would guarantee that all tenants would be re-housed in much higher quality housing. The new units will be located close to their existing units and tenants can if they wish be re-housed together to retain their existing community connections. The housing objectives set out are in accordance with best international practice and were formulated so as to ensure that there would be substantial improvements in the quality of accommodation for tenants of the area. The problems associated with anti social behaviour are complex and difficult to address completely however improvement in design and standards of housing including in relation to making them easier to manage will help to promote improved community sustainability thus leading to an improved quality of life for tenants with associated positive benefits for neighbourhoods generally.

Social MixThe importance of achieving a balance of tenures and social mix is part of stated government policy on housing (Delivering Homes; Sustaining Communities) it is also recognised as an important ingredient of social sustainability and best practice in urban regeneration worldwide. This increase will be spread over the entire area and there will be an effort to achieve social mix within schemes in so far as the constraint of retaining the existing community integrity by facilitating the re-housing of tenants from the same flat blocks together allows.

Track RecordDublin City Council has recently experienced problems in several of its housing regeneration projects, however it has a substantial and proven track record in the delivery of social housing when funding is available for direct provision and has routinely completed works in phases including in Ballymun and Darndale. It has two projects which are nearly ready for occupation in York Street and in Cork Street. Its scheme in Memorial Court has just won a major national award. In the case of the Liberties when

(if) the plan is agreed by Council it will be necessary to approach the Department of Environment Heritage and Local Government to seek a commitment for funding of replacement and new social housing.

Voluntary HousingVoluntary housing is a well established and important element of social housing in the Liberties. It is proposed that Dublin City Council will continue to support their development and to make land and property available to the sector as appropriate including newer associations such as Sophia Housing.

Recommendations

Evidence Based Decision Making

Insert following text and table into Liberties Housing Strategy – Way Forward Page 92 “This table shows that the number of flats should increase from 1,252 to 1,617 including potential Part V if all the sites are built out as shown in the draft local area plan.

List of local authority housing within Liberties

Description (excludes Part V) To be demolished

*New

Unaffected

Meath Place, (30) School St (40) Thomas Court Bawn (40) Braithwaite St (70) Summer St (40) Pimlico Tce (30), New housing includes Allingham Street and Marrowbone Lane

250 353 n/a

Marrowbone Lane Buildings(112) Thomas Court (24), n/a n/a 136

Basin Street area including Grand Canal Harbour (128)

128 178 n/a

Michael Mallin House (54) Garden Court (24) 54 78 24

Oliver Bond House (382), St Audeons (56), Emmett Buildings (72), Mary Aikenhead (150)

n/a n/a 660

General Part V n/a 188 n/a

Total Flat Units 432 n/a 820

Local Authority rented houses & OAP units n/a n/a 354

Total Local Authority Units 432 797 1,174

*The figures for new units are indicative and will depend on final designs and build out of sites.”

Funding

Amend Text on Page 93 in Section “Disposal of Sites and/or Public Private Partnership”

Amend Text Final sentence in 1st Paragraph

Fromhousing and projects related to the built heritage, archaeology and art

Tohousing for artists and projects related to the built heritage, archaeology and art and culture.

Insert Text to end of First Paragraph:Capital receipts raised through the sale of public lands in this area will be ring fenced for use in the Liberties regeneration area.

Insert Text to Final Paragraph:“Government funding will be sought for the replacement of social housing affected by regeneration in the Vicar St and Pimlico areas and in Basin Street. It is not the intention of the Council that money raised through land sales would be used for replacement social housing in this area, however this may be a requirement of the DOEHLG in cases where their funding was used to purchase the land in the first instance.”

Insert Text to After Sentence ending Chamber Court to add the following:“A public private partnership tendering procedure has already commenced in Bridgefoot Street and it is the intention of the City Council to complete that process subject to the usual contractual issues being satisfied and agreement being reached with one of the bidders remaining in the process. A review of PPP processes is underway within Dublin City Council and this review will affect future decisions to use this procurement method for the delivery of social housing and/or community and other infrastructure.”

Insert text at the beginning of Section 8.4 Page 200.“Development contributions are a mechanism by which landowners wishing to undertake development in the city pay a development levy. The levy can only be used for items set out in the relevant contribution scheme. Social housing is not funded by development levies.”

Phasing

Insert New Paragraph & Table into Liberties Housing Strategy - (End of paragraph on P. 93)The housing strategy plan seeks to support and retain existing communities by re-housing tenants from existing flat complexes together and in close proximity to their existing location. The table shown below gives an indicative timeframe for each housing phase in months. Consultation will be built into this timeframe.

Timescale for delivery of new social housing Indicative programme each scheme

Stage Duration

Design and Planning 12

Funding Approval Process (DOEHLG) 6

Tender Process (minimum duration) 4

Construction Contract (depending on complexity and size of contracts) 36

Snagging and Handover 3

Total 61

This is the principal reason for the complexity of the phasing and consequent duration which may take up to 12 years to complete from the start on site commencement of the first phase.

Issue No. 11: Community Facilities

Submission Nos: 8, 9, 10, 15, 24, 31, 36, 38, 40, 61, 63, 71, 77, 79

A number of submissions were made in relation to the provision of community facilities in the plan area, both on a general level and also with reference to specific locations and types of facilities.

General The Digital Hub Development Agency (DHDA) supports the social objectives in the draft plan and in particular the provision of community and cultural facilities. The submission states that economic development in itself is of no use without complimentary development and investment in our neighbourhoods. It is in this context that the submission states that whilst it is vital to attract people to work in the area, but that employees also live and socialise throughout the day and evening and can potentially contribute to the success of new facilities in the area.

One submission states that public service facilities should be provided in tandem with new residential units, whilst another submission expresses support for new quality development and new amenities in the area. A further submission states that the proposals for the provision of new civic amenities such as a new park and library, are welcome, but insufficient in that such facilities do not permeate the plan area in the similar to the new private developments. Another submission states that community space and recreational facilities such as a swimming pool, playing areas, sports pitches should be provided as accessible and free to the community and not part of a commercial endeavour, as well as the importance of provision of recycling facilities throughout the area.

Specific Facilities

Library A number of submissions express strong support for the provision of a new library, whilst one submission suggests that there should be a number of libraries throughout the plan area. A further submission states that the new library should link with and help sustain the St. Nicholas and Myrah Archive.

Swimming PoolThree submissions make specific reference to the provision of a swimming pool. One refers to the inadequacy of proper swimming facilities in the Liberties and the Inner City and states that the proposed refurbishment of the existing 25 Metre Guinness Pool on Watling Street is not sufficient. Instead, the submission considers that a 50 Metre Pool would be more appropriate given the city centre location and the fact that it would serve neighbouring schools as well as the anticipated additional population. It considers that these factors would render a commercial venture viable, with the possibility also of state assistance. A second submission refers to the fact that there was much demand for a swimming pool expressed at the Liberties Regeneration Forum Meetings and thus, the proposal to re-develop and open the Guinness Pool to the wider public is welcome. The third submission states that the planned swimming pool should be a public facility.

Childcare Facilities In terms of childcare facilities, a submission made by Councillor Críona Ní Dhálaigh states that there is an urgent need for suitable and affordable childcare facilities in the area with reference to the loss of the Meath Street Crèche. In this regard, the submission welcomes the provision for childcare facilities in the plan, but cautions against the recent trend by developers to seek amendments for a change of use subsequent to the grant of the parent permission. In this regard, the submission requests that the council re-states its commitment to ensuring that the childcare facilities remain part of schemes are per the initial intention in the parent permissions.

The Digital Hub Development Agency also welcomes the commitment in the plan to the improvement of facilities for both pre-school and school going children. It further states that the agency is committed to an integrated approach to childcare development and would welcome the opportunity to discuss how it could assist existing crèches in the Liberties to integrate 21st Century learning, in exchanges for helping the DHDA to meet the childcare needs of their employees, whether on site or in the wider community.

Primary Health Care Unit Full support is expressed for the proposal to provide a primary health care unit in the plan area.

St. Nicholas and MyrahOne submission refers to the pivotal role and vital community resource available in the St. Nicholas & Myrah. The submission requests that this existing archive be supported and upgraded and that careful consideration in relation to conservation, archiving, curatorship and local engagement.

Open Space, Recreational Facilities & Allotments A number of submissions welcome the provision of additional open spaces in the plan area. One submission fully supports the assessment that the plan has a remarkably low cover of green open space and acknowledges that the new proposed parks will address this, but emphasises that the importance and potential impact of simple improvement of major thoroughfares with greenery should not be neglected.

In terms of specific open space provision, one submission welcomes the proposal for a new park at Pimlico, but expresses concern that it will overshadowed by two towers (12 storey and 9 storey) which would be located at a distance of only 15m. Another submission queries why the plan does not include provision of a grass pitch such as a GAA / Football Pitch. There is also a request for the provision of allotments and the community garden throughout the plan.

DMD Consultants have made a submission on behalf of the attendants of the St. Catherine’s Park / Graveyard Workshop as an action of the Biodiversity and Open Space Action Plan. The concerns set out in the submissions relate primarily to the under-use of the park and the heritage significance of the adjoining St. Catherine’s Lane as the surviving remains of the original entry route to St. Thomas Abbey, (12 th Century). The submission states that the lane currently suffers from anti-social behaviour and that one of the outcomes of the workshop was to increase the use of park through the provision of additional entrances, which in turn immediately introduces the need to enhance the lane

Artists Studios The Digital Hub Development Agency (DHDA) particularly welcomes the objective to provide accommodation to target artists, so as to promote the area as a ‘cultural and artist quarter. In this regard, the agency states that digital media is largely a creative industry, so opportunities for artists to live adjacent to a project is essential.

Facilities for Street Traders / Horse CarriagesA submission made by Councillor Críona Ní Dhálaigh requests that the street traders be accommodated and consulted on all plans for their streets. In relation to another tradition of the area, a submission made by an individual acknowledges that horses are a great attraction in the Liberties, but that it should be mandatory for the owners to ensure that the streets are not fouled with horse manure.

Response

The submissions indicate a general level of satisfaction to the provision of the plan in respect of community facilities and the positive comments in support of the range of community facilities are welcome.

New community and social infrastructure provision is proposed throughout the entire plan area as key elements in the key site objectives for each of the significant redevelopment sites. Furthermore, it is an objective of the plan to promote the integration of existing and new communities in the plan by creating attractive and accessible places. Thus, in the interest of social sustainability and the efficient use of resources, it is the intention that community facilities would serve all the resident and business community in the Liberties.

The range and quantum of new community facilities set out in the plan seeks has been carefully considered to achieve an appropriate balance between the quantum of new development to generate sufficient financial return to underpin and support the provision of new community infrastructure. It is necessary also to ensure that an overburdening of community facilities would counteract the overall regeneration objective for the plan area. In this regard it would not be considered appropriate to seek the provision of an additional facilities, such a substantially larger swimming pool. The swimming pool size could potentially increase however, it is not considered prudent to specify the provision of a larger facility in the absence of a feasibility study. Similarly, the provision of an additional public library facility would this represent an efficient use of public funds.

A number of submissions refer to ownership, management and affordable access to facilities. Such details cannot be an objective for a local area plan, and would be matter for determination in conjunction with stakeholders and potential operators at plan implementation stage. This applies equally in relation to library archive management.

The plan proposes new multi-use games areas (MUGA) within the housing developments with minimum dimensions of 50m X 30m to possibly 60m x 40m which would accommodate and equate to a 7-a-side scale with all-weather surfaces and floodlighting. A new 7- a-side pitch is also proposed as a key site objective for St. Catherine’s Park. The multi-functional nature of these pitches maximise potential end-users and would facilitate use or practice as soccer / GAA.

There is considerable merit in the proposal for a community garden concept and allotments with regard to the social sustainability, the creation of new neighbourhoods, public realm improvements and bio-diversity objectives.

Recommendations

Insert Objective under Social - Sports, Leisure & Recreation Objectives (P. 88)To ensure that community and recreation facilities in the plan area cater for all age groups, including youth clubs, particularly in multi-purpose spaces and community halls or civic centres.

Insert Objective under Social - Sports, Leisure & Recreation Objectives (P. 88)To promote the provision of allotments and community gardens in the open space provision in new residential developments and in public or semi-public spaces throughout the plan area where appropriate.

Insert Objective under Social - Children & Education (P. 88)To liaise with the Digital Hub Development Agency, business stakeholders and childcare providers to foster an integrated approach to childcare provision and to ensure an adequate quantum of childcare facilities to meet the needs of residents and employees within the Liberties Area.

Insert Objective under Economic – Retail (P.83)To liaise and consult with the Liberties Street Traders Association in respect of proposals for streetscape and public realm improvements,

Issue No. 12: Arts & Culture

Submission Nos: 31, 56, 71

Submissions on this topic broadly welcome the initiatives as outlined in the arts and culture action plan. It is noted in each of the three submissions received on this topic that growth in the cultural sector has proven to enhance cities around the world. As a result it is submitted that the arts and cultural sector should be one of the key growth areas in the Liberties given the enormous benefits of the existing arts and cultural organisations, especially the National College of Art and Design at Thomas Street. With regard to the objective proposed in the Draft LAP to provide accommodation to target artists to set up bases in the area, the extension of this concept is recommended. Public ownership of art and culture instillations is seen to be very important and an emphasis on involving local people in the provision of these instillations is recommended by the Digital Hub Development Agency (DHDA) who would welcome the opportunity to be involved in ensuring a digital media dimension to such a project.

Response

The Liberties Draft LAP recognises the importance of arts and culture to the overall regeneration of the Liberties. It is recognised that arts and culture has a vital role to play across all communities in the area, including children, the young and the old, and DCC is committed to fostering and developing arts and culture in its broadest fashion. In line with the overall development strategy proposed in the Draft LAP, and through the masterplan process identified for the Guinness Lands, and individual site applications, DCC will engage with the local community, the arts community, its own Arts Office, and key landowners to develop the facilities and programmes appropriate to the area.

Recommendation

Insert objective into section 6.4 LAP Development Strategy – Cultural:Actively seek the delivery of public art and culture instillations with a digital media dimension for areas surrounding, and relating to the Digital Hub.

Issue No. 13: Spatial & Urban Form (Height Strategy)

Submission Nos: 6, 9, 14, 16, 17, 18, 23, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 54, 57, 60, 61, 64, 65, 68, 71, 72, 73

A significant number of submissions were made in respect of building heights in terms of the policy context, the overall height strategy for the plan area and specific proposals for the significant redevelopment sites. The submission issues in relation to the policy context for the height proposals have already been comprehensively addressed under Topic No. 4 Planning Policy and Context, whilst those in relation to the key sites will be thoroughly dealt with under each Redevelopment Site.

The summary below pertains to the height strategy as set out in Section 6.5.3 of the plan, and documents the various requests for change in building heights for ease of reference and to facilitate a comprehensive assessment in the context of the overall height strategy for the plan area.

Some of the submissions query the validity and rationale for the selection of higher ground as an appropriate location for taller buildings, request greater clarity on the height definitions set out in the plan and contend that regeneration objectives alone should not justify higher buildings where such buildings would be incongruous with existing character and context. A submission made by a community group requests a reduction in the specified height ranges for buildings across each of the key sites. One submission considers that there is significant development potential over and above that provided for in the draft plan and that it may be necessary to increase height and densities in order to achieve successful regeneration of the area. A further submission states that the plan should not confuse height with density.

Grand Canal Harbour:A Community Group request the omission of 23-storey tower & reduction of two internal buildings to 8-11 storeys and a stakeholder submission requests the increase of building heights on the southern portion of the site.

Newmarket:Stakeholder submission seeks to increase the building parapet heights by an additional storey from 15m to 18m along the Newmarket Square, to increase building heights along Cork Street to 7-9 storeys instead of 6-8 and consider that three landmark buildings would be appropriate, two on Cork Street and one on Mill Street.

Guinness North: A community group submits that there is no requirement for changes in building height on this site, whilst a stakeholder submission states that the proposed heights along Victoria Quay should be increased to be consistent with the Heuston FDA and that there is merit for a landmark building of 16 storeys plus to enclose the view corridor of Chesterfield Avenue.

Guinness South: A community group requests that the height of a singular landmark building of 16-18 be reduced to 8-11 storeys.

Digital Hub: Both a community and stakeholder submission refer to a discrepancy in building heights for the site at Digital Hub South (P. 111 & P. 191, 40 m & 52m). The community group request a reduction in building heights of two taller elements from 11-12 storeys to 8-11).

Bridgefoot Street:A submission the absence of indicative building heights for this site.

Depot Lands (Bru Chaomhin / HSE):Stakeholder request to increase height from 4-6 storeys to 6-8 storeys.

Response

The height strategy for the Liberties has been prepared in accordance with the City Development Plan 2005-2011. Section 6.5.3 of the DLAP sets out the rationale for the approach to building heights and it is apparent that the potential building heights for each of the key sites were determined on the basis of a coherent urban design strategy, which in turn would have been informed by a scaled model of the plan area commissioned to assist in the preparation of the plan.

Notwithstanding the above thorough analysis and area-specific guidance, it is evident on review of the submissions that there is still a considerable element of concern in relation to the proposed building heights. Accordingly, it is recommended to revise the height strategy such that it eliminates the height cluster at Grand Canal Harbour to replace with a singular landmark element and also to reduce the height of the taller building at Digital Hub (also clarifies a discrepancy in document). These recommended amendments are set out below, whilst others are addressed in specific detail under the key redevelopment sites.

Recommendation

Amend Text on Strategic Locations for Height P. 109

FromThese locations have been broken into two categories:

Firstly a cluster of tall buildings is proposed at Grand Canal Harbour

Secondly a small number of specific locations that would benefit from height and where it would help them to act as local landmarks have been identified on Crane Street and Windmill Sites and at Heuston.

To These locations have been broken into two categories:

Firstly a single tall building is proposed at Grand Canal Harbour to serve as a marker along important strategic view corridors in the interests of legibility.

Secondly, a small number of specific locations that would benefit from height and where it would help them to act as local landmarks have been identified on Crane Street and Windmill Sites and at Heuston.

Amend Text on Area Specific Design Guidance on Height – Heuston P. 111

FromAny buildings flanking Heuston Square to the east should however continue to reflect the scale of the Liffey Quays running along the south bank of the river and avoid blocking views of the city skyline from Phoenix Park

To Any buildings flanking Heuston Square to the east should however continue to respect the scale of the Liffey Quays running along the south bank of the river. In addition, any taller buildings at this location and within the View Corridor from Phoenix Park must form part of a cohesive masterplan for the Heuston Square Area and must demonstrate enhancement of this important vista of the city skyline.

Amend Text on Area Specific Design Guidance on Height – Digital Hub / GCH P. 111

FromThe site at Grand Canal Harbour, at the highest point of the ridge, is now ready for redevelopment and in the event of the waterside environment being successfully recreated and released for mixed development, should be reinforced with a cluster of height. This cluster of height could accommodate varying heights rising to a maximum of 75 metres. This would equate to around 24 residential storeys or 18 commercial storeys. The location of these buildings will need to be carefully selected and to avoid compromising heritage structures including the existing harbour walls. The grouping and profile of the cluster must also be considered to avoid clutter on the skyline and a high quality of architecture is essential if they are to fulfil their iconic civic role.

ToThe site at Grand Canal Harbour, at the highest point of the ridge, is now ready for redevelopment and in the event of the waterside environment being successfully recreated and released for mixed development, should be reinforced with a singular landmark building of up to a maximum of 52 metres. This would equate to circa 16 storeys residential or 13 storeys commercial. The location of this singular landmark building should be carefully selected so that it serves as marker along important streetscapes and improves legibility and also to avoid compromising heritage structures including the existing harbour walls. It is essential that this building is of high quality architecture if it is to fulfil an iconic civic role.

Amend Text on Area Specific Design Guidance on Height – Digital Hub / GCH P. 111

FromOne or more taller buildings of up to 52 metres should also mark the significance of the Digital Hub, although higher buildings would be permissible if these can be accommodated to without unduly obstructing the views of the Windmill and of the historic city core from the Guinness Storehouse, ’

To One or more taller buildings of up to 40 metres should also mark the significance of the Digital Hub, although higher buildings would be permissible if these can be accommodated to without unduly obstructing the views of the Windmill and of the historic city core from the Guinness Storehouse,

Issue No. 14: Spatial & Urban Form – Public Realm Improvements

Submission Nos: 11, 12, 13, 15, 24, 26, 30, 31, 44, 49, 52, 62, 63, 71, 76

The majority of submissions received on this topic welcome that the Draft LAP correctly identifies that the Liberties has a remarkably low cover of green open space and a poor public realm. In general, the proposals contained in the Draft LAP to counter this have been welcomed, however, a number of key issues have emerged from the submissions. It is requested that the proposed increase in office and residential space should be complemented by a bolder and more generous provision of green spaces for recreation for the entire community. On this point, it has been requested in a number of submissions that these spaces should have “culture value” and contain features that celebrate the locality rather than the traditional city park layout of “paths and roses”. One suggestion received is to provide allotments/community gardens in the LAP area.

A number of submissions were received which made reference to site-specific proposals in the Draft LAP. These are:

The plan to open a pathway through the Weir Home is not seen as acceptable due to the special needs of its residents

It is requested that objectives to improve the public realm in and around St. Catherine’s Park/Graveyard and the adjacent St. Catherine’s Land be incorporated into the LAP.

The riverside promenade proposed in the Draft LAP should occupy the entire length of Victoria Quay and be generously planted and broad enough to create a contrast with the unbroken quay frontages to the east and echo the green space of Croppy’s Acre on the other side of the Liffey.

The park proposed at St. James’ Church graveyard should continue to Victoria Quay with green-planted bridges linking two halves of the park.

It is submitted that the park proposed on the presently derelict site adjacent to St. Margaret’s Avenue would increase traffic and possible anti-social behaviour.

Any future redevelopment and improvements to the public realm in Maryland should consider traffic calming measures, specifically road narrowing.

It is submitted that Francis Street would benefit enormously from environmental improvements to counter the current abundance of traffic in the area.

Response

It is generally recognised that a healthy city neighbourhood should be a pleasant place to live, work and visit. It should be attractive in terms of environmental quality and urban design. It is therefore an objective of the Draft LAP to oversee general environmental improvements in the Liberties. A key aspect of this, as identified in the Draft LAP, will be to engage a landscape consultant to produce a public realm design code for the entire area, specifying all materials, lighting and soft landscaping. It is envisaged that this will act as an overarching consultation document for all future public realm improvements in the Liberties in partnership with the ‘Biodiversity and Open Space Action Plan’ contained in the appendix of the Draft LAP, which makes positive recommendations for area wide improvements in the Liberties. The Draft Lap states, “separate in-depth studies should be undertaken to design the individual key public open spaces”. Combined with the Masterplan process proposed for the Guinness Lands this offers thorough scope for

development proposals that will be acceptable to all members of the Liberties community. DCC will engage with the local community, landowners and other interested bodies in order to ensure that the optimum improvements in public realm are achieved. Specific public realm improvements attached to particular developments will also be further addressed at the planning application stage to ensure that the most suitable arrangement is achieved.

The large amount of heritage attractions in the area has resulted in overlapping between certain sections of the Draft LAP. This is the case with regard to public realm improvements, specifically the St. Catherine’s area. Objective 15 in section 6.5.5 LAP Development Strategy – Heritage p.128 states that the LAP should “develop design proposals for historically significant public realm areas such as St. Catherine’s, Cornmarket, Newmarket, Iveagh Markets and other key areas”.

Recommendation

No change

Issue No. 15: Built Heritage

Submission Nos: 4, 6, 9, 13, 14, 16, 26, 29, 31, 35, 37, 41, 43, 46, 48, 50, 54, 55, 71, 74, 75, 77

General The DEHLG welcomes the commitment to the protection of architectural heritage in the Draft LAP. The Digital Hub Development Agency also welcomes the awareness of heritage in the plan area and states that it would support a street naming project to promote local heritage awareness. Similarly, a number of submissions express support the proposals of the plan in terms of built heritage protection, whilst a significant number request additional protection mechanisms. One submission calls for a conservation study of the entire area and refers to the need for implementation of the Built Heritage Action Plan. A further submission states that the promotion of heritage must not be allowed to become a deadening influence.

Architectural Conservation Area A number of submissions express strong support for the proposed Architectural Conservation Area (ACA), whilst one submission considers it an essential tool to maintain the trading tradition of the Liberties. An Taisce submits that the proposed ACA is to limited in extent on the basis that it excludes St. Catherine’s and the western section of Thomas Street to incorporate Crane Street / Watling Street and that it should be extended westwards on the basis that this western section of Thomas Street is consistent with the remainder of the Street in terms of scale, architectural character and streetscape quality. It also submits that the number of protected structures in the vicinity is further rationale for extension of the ACA and that it makes no sense that the proposed ACA would terminate at St. Catherine’s Church, and especially so in terms of planning control. A submission made by an individual also suggests that the proposed ACA be extended westwards.

A further submission states that consideration be given to the designation of the heart of the Liberties from Cork Street to Oliver Bond Street and Patrick Street to Thomas Street as a conservation area.

A submission states that existing landmark structures located outside the proposed ACA should not be obscured or diminished by new structures.

Record of Protected Structures (RPS) A submission requests that a number of structures be surveyed and placed on the RPS, all of which are on Thomas Street: Nos. 20 & 21 and Nos. 32, 33 & 36 Thomas Street and possibly also Nos. 34 & 35. The also requests survey and assessment of Gray’s Pub at Barbazon Place and Whites Tavern (Newmarket).

In respect of the Guinness Lands, Diageo refers to the fact that the Draft LAP that the Draft LAP illustrates the power station and silo buildings as proposed protected structures (Page 199). The submission acknowledges that the power station makes a positive contribution to the architectural heritage of the area and will also form an asset for the future Brewery. However, it states that the silo, which is now redundant and

cannot be adapted to accommodate modern uses, is located within the consolidated brewery site. It submits that on this basis, the function and form of the upgraded brewery will need to be examined in terms of providing more modern structures to accommodate brewery operations and that retention of the silo would seriously thwart flexibility towards achieving the optimum future design solution for the site and may expand outwards the boundary for the brewery site.

Architectural Heritage Dublin Civic Trust states that No. 10 Mill Street, as the last extant double gabled Dutch Billy, should be returned from its Victorian façade to its original 17th century style, to form a key vista of the Newmarket Area. A further submission states that this structure should be upgraded and restored. A number of submissions request the re-construction of the gables of former ‘Dutch Billy’ Structures.

Industrial Heritage The Industrial Heritage Association of Ireland, as well as a number of other submissions refer to the significance of Grand Canal Harbour and submit that the proposals for this key development site need to respect the industrial heritage of this site, whilst one submission refers to the industrial heritage footprint.

Grand Canal Harbour Development, the owners of the northern portion of the site state the intention to retain and re-use the curved warehouse which is a protected structure as per the provisions on the Draft LAP. The submission refers to the fact that the draft plan identifies the retention of the harbour walls as an objective and submits that full retention not necessary to protect the overall character of the protected structure and submit that appropriate design solutions to treat the walls in context of retention and re-interpretation. On this basis, request amendment to wording as follows to afford a flexible design solution: ‘careful consideration and design innovation is implemented for the appropriate retention and re-interpretation of the original harbour walls’.

In respect of the Guinness South Lands, Diageo submission refers to the fact that the Draft LAP outlines that this site forms ‘very distinctive quarter by virtue of the warehouse buildings being large, relatively tall, close together and brick clad’ and that it identifies approximately ten buildings of heritage value, in addition to a number of facades and gantry bridges, with the aim of listing following the completion of a conservation report. The submission acknowledges that some buildings and facades which merit a form of protection and sensitive regeneration, but that it should not automatically extent to the entire footprint of all warehouse structures, and that whilst a façade may be of merit remaining building may be of very low architectural merit. The submission also requests clarity regarding the possible designation of these lands as Architectural Conservation Area (ACA). In this regard, it states that the DLAP refers to two possible ACAs, but only proposed to designate one ACA for Thomas Street.

One submission states that it is essential that industrial sites in the area be appraised using the methodology established in the Dublin City Industrial Heritage Record (DCIHR), whilst another states that there is no reference to this inventory in the DLAP.

ArchaeologyA number of other submissions refer to the archaeological significance of the area and consider that the plan fails to adequately take cognisance of this with no reference to the principle of preservation in situ or a considered appraisal of St. Thomas Abbey, the Surviving City Walls or any indication that the plan seeks to deliver the policies and objectives of the City Walls Conservation Plan. One submission considers that there is little attempt to contextualise the Grand Canal Harbour from an archaeological perspective and that failure to do will result in difficulties at the plan implementation stage. Another submission states that the plan should incorporate a cultural heritage framework to identify key issues, constraints and outline archaeological research agendas.

Dublin Civic Trust sets out a series of recommendations in relation to archaeology as follows:

All known archaeological sites should be mapped within the Draft LAP (SMR) The Draft LAP lies within a Zone of Archaeological Potential (ZAP), Map ZAP. Reference to archaeological potential, preservation in situ, basements and piling. All planning applications should be considered under recommendations of DEHLG. Promote the display and access to archaeology in-situ, such as development of

access and interpretation to the St. Thomas Abbey site to follow on from Objective H19 of the Dublin City Development Plan and identified in a Feasibility Study for St. Thomas Abbey (2006).

Promote the protection of the medieval streets and also the preservation of the plot widths, back lanes and alleys of the Liberties.

Propose that all subterranean waterways within the Liberties be mapped to further archaeological research and to aid future development.

The LAP should support the implementation of the conservation, preservation and interpretation strategies of the sections of the city wall that fall within the plan area (Reference to upstanding sections of the city wall at Lamb Alley).

Burial grounds that remain as open spaces such as St. James and St. Catherine’s should be maintained as respectful open spaces.

Response

Architectural Conservation Area There is strong justification and rationale for the boundaries and extent of the proposed Thomas Street ACA. The boundaries for the ACA were determined subsequent to a comprehensive conservation assessment and the boundaries selected on the basis of making ‘physical, visual and planning control sense’ as per Section 3.2.5 of the Architectural Heritage Protection Planning Guidelines, 2004.

The ACA boundary as proposed in the DLAP defines an area that exhibits three distinctive characteristics as follows: a concentrated pattern of medieval streets and building plots; an 18th and 19th century mercantile and industrial built environment that forms the principal streets; a unique concentration of various purpose built and design industrial and philanthropic housing schemes dating from the mid late 19 th and early 20th

centuries. These three main aspects form the basic character of the area and comprise a clearly definable historic core located to the immediate west of the modern city centre.

These elements are complemented by a distinctive raised topography, an urban village core centred on the main street of Thomas Street. Accordingly, it is not considered appropriate to extend the boundaries of the Thomas Street ACA.

The designation of any additional ACAs in the DLAP would have to be subject to a conservation appraisal to identify the character, setting and architectural merit of any such area in accordance with best practice and thereafter would have to be scheduled within the context of the commitments arising from the City Development Plan for the designation of ACAs. It is also pertinent to emphasise that the designation of an ACA would be subject to a separate statutory process in respect of a variation to the Development Plan (Section 13 of the P & D Act, 2000). Accordingly, in the absence of a conservation appraisal, it would not be appropriate to propose the designation of additional ACAs at this stage in the local area plan process.

The general design guidance and the criteria for tall buildings set out in the height strategy will serve to safeguard existing landmark structures of architectural merit, including those outside the proposed ACA.

Record of Protected Structures (RPS) The request for the inclusion of a number of buildings on the Record of Protected Structures (RPS) cannot be addressed at this stage in the preparation of an LAP and in any case would be subject to a separate statutory process under Section 55 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000. Part IV of the Act and the Ministerial Guidance set out specific criteria for the protection of structures which in turn necessitate an assessment of the architectural, social or technical merit etc of a building. Furthermore, it would not be appropriate for the DLAP to make reference to the potential merit of any of the structures referred to in the submission, in the absence of an assessment and inventory record of each building. The forthcoming review of the City Development Plan 2005-2011 will present an opportunity for the consideration of additions to the RPS.

Similarly, it is considered that this approach would equally apply in the case of the Guinness Lands. In this regard, it is acknowledged that no architectural or conservation assessment has been undertaken of the complex of brewery buildings to inform any evaluation of the potential merit of former industrial buildings with regard to the categories of special interest: architectural, technical, scientific, social, cultural, historical, archaeological, artistic. Accordingly, it is now considered to omit reference to any specific buildings and request that a conservation assessment be undertaken for the entire site in advance of or in tandem with the masterplan preparation and also that a feasibility study would accompany any masterplan to demonstrate how particular elements of historical value may be incorporated into the redevelopment of the lands.

Architectural Heritage No. 10 Mill Street is in private ownership and has been the subject of a recent grant of permission, which included the requirement for protection for the historical fabric of the building. In terms of re-construction of ‘Dutch Billy’ styles, it is not generally an aspiration of the Conservation Office to promote the replication of historical styles or conjecture.

Industrial Heritage The DLAP acknowledges the importance of the industrial heritage with particular regard to the canal legacy and the brewery operations by way of the strategy set out for three of the key redevelopment sites (Guinness North, Guinness South & Grand Canal Harbour). However, it is acknowledged that there could be a greater emphasis on this aspect of the built heritage, with particular regard to the recording, evaluation and assessment of structures and also ancillary artefacts. In this regard, it is recommended that all proposals for the relevant key sites be accompanied by assessments and an inventory record to be undertaken in accordance with the methodology set out in the Dublin City Industrial Heritage Survey (DCIHR) prepared by Dublin City Council in conjunction with the Heritage Council. This matter is addressed in specific detail in relation to the above key sites (Topics 23, 25 & 26).

Archaeology The archaeological significance of the Liberties Area is well documented in the Conservation Assessment prepared for the proposed Thomas Street ACA and in Section 4.2 of the DLAP: Historical Development - Study Area Description. It is also addressed in Section 4.9 of the Environmental Report (ER) of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). It is acknowledged that the DLAP does not include an explicit series of archaeological objectives, however, the protection of the archaeological heritage is inherent in the overall strategy and that for the relevant key redevelopment sites.

It is pertinent to emphasise that the purpose of the accompanying ER is to concisely address key environmental issues of local concern, to inform the DLLAP strategy and to include mitigation measures where appropriate in a succinct fashion so as to inform key stakeholders and decision makers. In this regard, it is relevant to note that the ER makes strong and specific reference to the significant importance of the local cultural heritage, particularly subsurface archaeology.

It is particularly important to note that local area plans sit within a hierarchy of planning policy and that there are several tiers of higher level policy such as national legislation, ministerial guidelines and development plan policy. In this regard, the Liberties DLAP must be consistent with the provision of the City Development Plan, therefore, the DLLAP strategy does not in any way erode the statutory provisions of the Dublin City Development Plan 2005-2011 and the requirements in respect of the development management process and archaeological conservation still prevail. The majority of the plan area lies within a Zone of Archaeological Interest, and thus the requirements in respect of all proposals within such zones apply, as set out in Section 15.11.0 of the Development Plan. In addition, higher-level mandatory statutory provisions will also apply including the including National Monuments Legislation.

In addition, there are a number of strategies and conservation plan prepared by Dublin City Council which relate specifically to the archaeological significance of particular areas of the plan area, for instance, St. Luke’s Conservation Plan, the Ship Street / Werburgh Framework Plan and the City Walls Plan. These plans, as with the provisions of the development plan, will continue to apply to the DLAP Area.

Notwithstanding the above, it is recommended to include a series of objectives in the DLAP in Section 6.5.5 Heritage.

In respect of the submission which requests an archaeological survey of a number of buildings at Newmarket, this may only be stipulated or achieved through the development management process.

Recommendations

Amend Text - Guinness North Lands, Analysis Point 6 P. 172

From The Guinness brewing plant is an ensemble of brewery buildings from different eras with several listed buildings and others of heritage value worthy of listing including the power station, pool and silo. The site to be retained requires a full historical analysis.

To The Guinness brewing plant is an ensemble of brewery buildings from different eras, a number of which are listed for protection. The consolidate brewery site will require a conservation assessment to accompany any masterplan proposals, as well as a feasibility study to demonstrate how particular elements of this industrial heritage may be incorporated into a new visual context.

Amend Text - Awareness of Historical Built Environment P. 131

From Assess the major industrial archaeological complex on the Diageo / Guinness lands and consider the designation of these lands as an Architectural Conservation Area prior to their development.

ToSeek the preparation of a Conservation Assessment and Industrial Archaeological Survey of the Diageo / Guinness Lands as part of any masterplan proposals to be undertaken in accordance with the methodology of the NIAH and DICHR, to include a record and evaluation of all structures and to be accompanied by a feasibility study which demonstrates how particular historical elements of the complex may best be incorporated into a new visual context on re-development and consolidation of the brewery operations.

Amend Built Heritage Objectives Section 6.5 P. 126

From To promote awareness of the importance of the historic building heritage as a

unique resource.

To assess the existing building stock and recommend additions to the Record of Protected Structures (RPS).

To improve recognition of the layers within buildings where facades may have been changed in later period but where old plot sizes, interiors and rear elevations evidence their earlier origins, particularly on Meath, Thomas and Francis Street.

To stimulate pride and affection for the built heritage of the past

To create optimism and commitment for the future of the Liberties Area

To respectfully integrate the historic building stock to achieve successful redevelopment in the Liberties and contribute an attractive urban form to residential, retail, tourism, cultural, industrial and commercial opportunities.

To develop modern, high quality buildings for future generations where the heritage buildings of the past have already been lost, while respecting and valuing the fine grain which characterises the important retail streets of Thomas, Meath and Francis Streets.

ToGeneral Built Heritage Objectives To promote awareness of the importance of the historic building heritage as

a unique resource. To stimulate pride and affection for the built heritage of the past To create optimism and commitment for the future of the Liberties Area

Architectural Heritage Objectives

To assess the existing building stock and recommend additions to the Record of Protected Structures (RPS).

To improve recognition of the layers within buildings where facades may have been changed in later period but where old plot sizes, interiors and rear elevations evidence their earlier origins, particularly on Meath, Thomas and Francis Street.

To respectfully integrate the historic building stock to achieve successful redevelopment in the Liberties and contribute an attractive urban form to residential, retail, tourism, cultural, industrial and commercial opportunities.

To develop modern, high quality buildings for future generations where the heritage buildings of the past have already been lost, while respecting and valuing the fine grain which characterises the important retail streets of Thomas, Meath and Francis Streets.

Archaeological Heritage Objectives

To promote the protection of the medieval streets, plot width and alleys of the Liberties.

To ensure that pre-development archaeological testing, survey, monitoring and recording are carried out where appropriate.

To seek to deliver the policies and objectives of the City Walls Conservation Plan for the line of the City wall and defences in the Liberties Local Area Plan Area.

To recognise the National Policy on Town Defences, 2008 and the objectives of the Irish Walled Towns Network.

To ensure that known burial sites to be retained and maintained in accordance with International Best Practice.

To promote and encourage the preparation of a comprehensive conservation statement and detailed management plan for St. James Church.

To have regard to the policies and objectives of the St Luke’s Conservation Plan.

To research and map the network of subterranean rivers and streams in the Liberties.

Industrial Heritage Objectives

To recognise the rich industrial heritage of the area and to ensure that development proposals reflect the cultural significance of the area’s former industrial past.

To seek to protect the buildings and features of industrial heritage in situ and related artefacts and plants where appropriate.

To seek the retention, storage and incorporation of minor elements of historic fabric such as cobbles stones, cut stone dressings, cast iron gate piers and artefacts associated with the canal legacy and brewery industries where appropriate.

To ensure that all sites of industrial heritage interest are evaluated in accordance with the methodology set out in the Dublin City Industrial Heritage Record (DCIHR).

Insert Map in Section 6.5.5

Map to show all known Recorded Monuments and Places (SMR) and the Zone of Archaeological Constraint as determined under the National Monuments Act.

Issue No. 16: Movement & Access

Submission Nos: 5, 21, 23, 31, 35, 36, 38, 39, 44, 47, 52, 61, 62, 64, 66, 67, 70, 71, 73, 77

Movement & access in the Liberties and its relationship to the city as a whole was identified as a key issue for the Draft LAP to address in a number of submissions. It is submitted that the plan has the potential to make a major positive impact on the overall movement and access issues affecting the area and it is hoped that this potential does not go unnoticed. A general theme to emerge from the submissions received on this topic was the desire to incorporate more sustainable patterns of development and ensure that ease of movement and access is fully incorporated into the LAP.

It is recommended that the plan fully exploits the opportunities put forward by the urban transport initiative due to the large amount of development planned around Transport Interchanges/Nodes. Specifically, it is requested that the plan acknowledges the importance of the Heuston Gateway as a key interchange location to fully exploit the possibilities of providing sustainable forms of development.

The proposed Heuston Interconnector is also identified as a strategic piece of infrastructure for the area and the DTO states that the LAP should determine the general design principles of the proposed Interconnector station in terms of design, pedestrian access points and interchange procedures. The importance of light rail to the movement and access of the area is further highlighted by the RPA who have stated that the LAP should reflect the preferred route corridor for LUAS Line F, which has now been selected. The importance of permeability, connectivity and ease of access to the proposed LUAS stops is also discussed and it is hoped that the LAP will address these issues.

Traffic management is a major issue affecting the area. A number of submissions received have called for further information about the plans for St. Margaret’s Avenue, specifically if Nos. 4 & 5 St. Margaret’s Avenue are to be demolished to make way for new development and the proposed pedestrian and vehicular traffic routes. It is requested by NABCO that the proposal for a vehicular traffic route along Allingham Street to Robert Street and Marrowbone Lane, be reconsidered and deleted in its present form from the Draft LAP. Other submissions received raised the following issues:

More detailed information on bus infrastructure priority measures / cycle lanes

More detailed traffic management objectives at 4 Locations: - Heuston Station/St. John’s Road/Guinness Lands - Thomas Street/High Street/Cornmarket Street (Pending LUAS Line F)- South Quays (and impact on the North Quays)- Cork St/Patrick St/Nicholas St

As with other submissions received car parking is identified as a major issue. The DTO supports the maximum standards as outlined in the development plan, but state that parking design and management should be subject to further refinement to deal with specific local area objectives. This mirrors the issue raised in the submissions from

Tesco Ireland Ltd and for the former Frawley’s site with regard to parking needs for anchor retailing in the Liberties. It has also been requested that the LAP displays greater detail in relation to the promotion and implementation of Mobility Management Plans.

The lack of cycling infrastructure has been highlighted as major issue in a number of submissions. It is recommended that the LAP take the opportunity to evaluate and prescribe cycling infrastructure measures incorporating a range of cycling parking.

Finally, Diageo Ireland Ltd submit that due to the high quantum of development proposed in and around the excising brewery site that the LAP should facilitate the pedestrianisation of Victoria Quay by re-routing west bound traffic from Victoria Quay.

Response

DCC welcomes the number of submissions calling for a shift to more sustainable forms of transport and movement. In this regard, it is acknowledged that the Liberties LAP area is in an excellent position to act as a model of sustainable development due to the important light rail infrastructure planned for the area. Furthermore, the plan seeks to enhance the quality of the streets, particularly with regard to more sustainable forms of movement, ensuring that the demands of vehicles for movement, access, deliveries and emergencies do not compromise the creation of a neighbourhood which encourages people to walk and cycle and benefit from public transport. In this regard the LAP welcomes that the preferred route corridor for LUAS Line F has been selected. This will be adequately displayed in the LAP. However, it is considered excessively detailed and beyond the remit of the Plan at this stage to comment on individual design proposals for projects such as the Interconnector. The LAP is designed as an over arching plan for the area that puts forward objectives which will promote the overall development of the Liberties area. As a result, it is not deemed appropriate that the LAP deal with such specifics as design proposals for individual pieces of infrastructure.

Similarly, with regard to specific proposals for traffic junctions, mobility management plans and parking for retail operations it is considered excessively detailed and beyond the remit of the Plan at this stage to comment on these issues. Regard will be had to the objectives contained in the Dublin City Development Plan 2005 – 2011 and the ongoing review of the Development Plan, which will begin its statutory review period in January 2009. It must be emphasised however, that the submissions received and issues raised therein have been fully read and will be considered as part of the overall process during the implementation of the plan.

It is acknowledged that the plan to open up a vehicular and pedestrian access route through St. Margaret’s Avenue may not accord well with the overall plan for the Liberties and its is therefore recommended that this be removed from the plan. However, it is considered imperative that the proposed vehicular traffic route along Allingham Street to Robert Street and Marrowbone Lane be incorporated into any final plan for the area.

It is further acknowledged by the city council that the LAP should facilitate the pedestrianisation of Victoria Quay by re-routing westbound traffic from Victoria Quay. However, this will merit further analysis and implementation to accord with the proposed masterplan for the Guinness Lands.

Recommendations

Include the preferred route line to LUAS Line F on p.133 in Section 6.6 LAP Development Strategy – Movement.

Omit the proposal for the creation of a new route through St. Margaret’s Avenue.

Issue No. 17: Sustainability

Submission Nos: 1, 7, 15, 16, 26, 47, 71

The submissions received on this topic were generally supportive of the measures outlined in the Draft LAP to promote more sustainable patterns of development and movement in the Liberties. However, there were a number of issues raised consisting of the following:

Disruption by construction works on existing residents The extent to which waste/recycling is accommodated in the plan Sustainable Transport

Provision of waste/recycling depotsOne submission received has questioned the accommodation of recycling depots in the Draft LAP.

Response

Dublin City Council provides and manages essential waste management services that underpin the economic and social development of the city. It is the policy of Council to prevent and minimise the harmful effects of waste and to encourage and support the recycling and recovery of waste including green, organic and construction and demolition waste and the recovery of energy from waste.

It is also an objective of the Draft LAP in Section 6.7 ‘Sustainability’ to develop sustainable waste and recycling services and facilities within the area, as well as street cleaning and unobtrusive waste disposal systems. This objective is further echoed in the Environmental Action Plan contained in Appendix D of the Draft LAP.

In addition, Policy U3 of the Development Plan states that it is Council policy that no development shall commence (apart from a new single dwelling or extension to an existing single dwelling) prior to the submission of a Waste Management Plan to Dublin City Council for approval and that the said Plan shall be implemented by the developer. The Plan, as a minimum, shall include a provision for the management of all construction and demolition waste arising on site and shall make provision for appropriate waste storage facilities in the proposed development and adequate access to those facilities.

Disruption by Construction Works on existing residentsConcern has been raised in the submissions that the extent of redevelopment proposed within the Liberties under the Draft Plan may cause disruption to existing residents in the form of noise, dirt and dust from any construction works.

As set out in the Phasing & Implementation section of the Draft LAP, Dublin City Council recognises the negative impacts, albeit short term, that large-scale construction projects can have on the local community in terms of traffic generation, dust, noise and other nuisances. It is therefore, an objective that all planning applications for large scale development will be required to be accompanied by a construction management plan to mitigate against any adverse impacts on the local community.

Furthermore, the Strategic Noise Action Plan for Dublin City is currently being finalised. In this plan it is indicated in paragraph 5.1.10 that it will be incorporated into all local area plans under the remit of Dublin City Council. Therefore, it is accepted that the LAP should include a statement of intent with regard to the Strategic Noise Action Plan for Dublin City.

Sustainable TransportA general theme to emerge from the submissions received on this topic was the desire to incorporate more sustainable patterns of development and ensure that ease of movement and access is fully incorporated into the LAP. Specifically, the lack of cycling and pedestrian friendly infrastructure has been highlighted as a major issue in a number of submissions. It is recommended that the LAP take the opportunity to evaluate and promote more sustainable forms of transport in the Liberties and move away from the preference towards development that favours the private car as a form of transport.

Response

DCC welcomes the number of submissions calling for a shift to more sustainable forms of transport and movement. In this regard, it is acknowledged that the Liberties LAP area is in an excellent position to act as a model of sustainable development due to the important light rail infrastructure planned for the area. Furthermore, the plan seeks to enhance the quality of the streets, particularly with regard to more sustainable forms of movement, ensuring that the demands of vehicles for movement, access, deliveries and emergencies do not compromise the creation of a neighbourhood which encourages people to walk and cycle and benefit from public transport. The Draft Liberties LAP is committed to promoting more sustainable forms of transport in the area and working with the existing and forthcoming policies of the Dublin City Development Plan to ensure a more sustainable Liberties and a more sustainable Dublin.

Recommendation

Insert the following objective into section 6.7 Sustainability:Cognisance will be taken of the Strategic Noise Action Plan for Dublin City in relation to any major developments in the area

Issue No. 18: Significant Redevelopment Sites (General)

Submission No: 76

This submission states that the redevelopment of the Frawley’s site is instrumental in achieving a critical mass of retail floorplate and investment necessary to attract retail use and footfall to the area. It requests that there is a clear policy objective to support this in the LAP as it is envisaged that this site could act as a catalyst for development in the area.

The New Maltings apartment complex on Island Street is also identified as a key site in the development of the Liberties. The submission refers to the recent decision of the Council to permit redevelopment of the site (Plan Ref 1155/08), which was overturned by An Bord Pleanála because there wasn’t sufficient policy justification in the Development Plan. As a result it is requested that any final LAP needs to clearly target and focus investment and economic policies to counterbalance the “generalised policies” in the Development Plan in order to secure the necessary investment and provide a clear policy focus to An Bord Pleanála.

Response

Any future planning applications for retail development in the area will be assessed against the Retail Strategy set out in Chapter 8 and Appendix 7 of Dublin City Development Plan. The provisions of the Retail Planning Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area and the Retail Planning Guidelines for Planning Authorities 2005 are incorporated into this City Development Plan Retail Strategy.

Having regard to the concerns raised, it is considered that a text entry should be inserted into the retail section of the Economic Strategy for the Liberties 6.2.1 to explicitly set out that future large scale retail development in the area will be subject to the Retail Strategy as set out in the Dublin City Development Plan.

With regard to the New Maltings complex (Plan Ref 1155/08) this proposed development does not form part of a significant redevelopment site as identified in the Draft LAP. Therefore, the planning authority views this as an individual application which will be treated on its merits.

Recommendation

Add the following text to the retail section of chapter 6.2.1 of the Draft LAP:

In making an application for planning permission for retail development, which is considered to be large in scale to the Liberties, the applicant shall be required to demonstrate compliance with the Development Plan Retail Strategy.

Issue No. 19: Significant Redevelopment Sites – Vicar Street / Iveagh Markets

Submission Nos: 31, 36

The two submissions concerned with this key redevelopment site have highlighted brief, yet important, issues. Submission 31 states that the proposed developments at Vicar Street should be used to entice people from Thomas Street into the heart of the Liberties. It is requested that the LAP reflects this and makes provisions for green spaces and seating areas, which will attract pedestrians to the area. The proposal to redevelop and expand the Iveagh Markets is identified as an integral part of the overall success of the plan.

Submission 36 from Cllr. Críona Ní Dhálaigh states that the residents of Vicar Street are strongly opposed to a hotel in the area. The proposed site for the hotel is outlined on p.143 of the Draft LAP. Cllr. Ní Dhálaigh requests, “The council accept the decisions of the local community and withdraw the proposal”.

Response

Dublin City Council welcomes the submissions regarding this significant redevelopment site. Vicar Street and the Iveagh Markets have been identified as an essential aspect for the overall regeneration of the Liberties and it is acknowledged that unlocking the potential of the underused hinterland of this area is key to building the Liberties tourist trail leading from the Iveagh Market westwards to Grand Canal Harbour. As can be seen from the proposed layout maps displayed on p. 143 of the Draft plan there are considerable area of green open spaces proposed. These will be further developed in line with the open space and biodiversity action plan and the overall design code to the be developed for the Liberties which will result in attractive and user friendly open spaces in the area to entice the passing flow of people from Thomas Street.

The proposed hotel in Vicar Street is included in the Draft LAP as it is currently in the planning application stage. The Draft LAP aims to display the most accurate and up to date information for the area in order to highlight the potential future urban form of this key site. Therefore, the objections of local residents to the hotel are not a matter that can be dealt with in the LAP.

Recommendation

No change

Issue No. 20: Significant Redevelopment Sites – Pimlico

Submission Nos: 13, 30, 31, 33, 36, 44, 57, 61, 64

Pimlico is identified as a key ‘Character Area’ in the Draft LAP. There is a large quantum of development proposed on different sites throughout the area in the draft plan’s development strategy and accordingly the submissions received deal with these site-specific proposals as well as area wide initiatives proposed for Pimlico. The Housing Strategy proposed in the Draft LAP has attracted a number of submissions. Concern has been raised as to the validity of the overall strategy as well as questioning the phasing scheme proposed and the contentious nature of developer led funding to secure redevelopment projects following the collapse of the public private partnerships in the summer of 2008. As a result, it has been requested that the following action be taken in relation to the Draft plan:

Reject the section on social housing (section 3) in its entirety as the proposals contained in this section would be viewed as a “devastating blow” to the community

Reject the sections on character areas and development strategy proposals relating to Pimlico Terrace/Braithwaite Street/South Summer Street

Any future discussion about the area’s public housing in any form be conducted with DCC’s Housing Dept. and not the consultants who prepared the plan

A number of submissions were received which dealt with St. Margaret’s Avenue. Residents submit that the scale and form of development proposed in the Draft LAP will be out of character with the area and will have a negative impact on the residential amenity of the existing two-storey terrace of houses. Confirmation is requested about the plans for the area as outlined on pages 64 and 65 of the Draft LAP, specifically if nos. 4 & 5 St. Margaret’s Avenue are to be demolished to make way for the new development and access route proposed. Cllr. Críona Ní Dhálaigh requests further information on whether these properties will be subject to compulsory purchase order to make way for the new road, which is displayed in the plan.

It is also requested that the LAP address the site at School Street. It is suggested that the LAP should consider the following to meet the requirements of An Bord Pleanála who have twice overturned Dublin City Council’s decision to grant permission for a mixed use development on the site:

A more detailed examination of the plan’s aspirations for the development of this site and area

A clear determination of the scale and height requirements The degree of through access and permeability required The provision of open space on the site in the context of the LAP proposing a

significant open space immediately to the south of the site.

Response

The submissions received regarding Pimlico have directed a lot of attention on the housing strategy proposed in the Draft LAP. In the interest of brevity it is noted that this aspect of the redevelopment of Pimlico is addressed very thoroughly in Topic 10 ‘Social

Housing’ of this report and any queries regarding this should be addressed in the response to this topic.

It is acknowledged that the plan to open up a vehicular and pedestrian access route through St. Margaret’s Avenue may not accord well with the overall plan for the Liberties and its is therefore recommended that this be removed from the plan.

With regard to the site at School Street it is acknowledged that the LAP needs to provide more guidance in light of the recent decisions from An Bord Pleanála. It is envisaged that this will provide a more coherent and concise analysis for future planning applications in the area. Therefore, it is accepted that the following information should be provided for this site:

A more detailed examination of the plan’s aspirations for the development of this site and area

A clear determination of the scale and height requirements The degree of through access and permeability required The provision of open space on the site in the context of the LAP proposing a

significant open space immediately to the south of the site.

It is envisaged that these amendments will provide a more agreeable context for development with reduced and set back heights, clear proposals on building’s character and scale, active frontages, permeability.

The DLAP recommends that the park adjoining this site be re-zoned from Z1 to Z9. However, the proposed zoning which by its very nature as open space is very restrictive, would in fact preclude possible ancillary uses associated with the proposed new library, such as a café which would in fact be desirable as a local amenity and contribution to the streetscape. It is also relevant to note that the provision of a new public park is included as a key site objective, and also as a list of community facilities to be provided in the DLAP under the list of Social Objective under Section 6.3.

Recommendations

Omit the proposal for the creation of a new route through St. Margaret’s Avenue.

Amend the strategic layout and proposed figure ground maps to highlight the revised proposals for the school street site on p. 147 of the Draft LAP.

Issue No. 21: Significant Redevelopment Sites – Bru Chaoimhin Cork Street

Submission Nos: 30, 66

The HSE submission refers to the fact that the existing facility on the above lands functions as a community day care unit for the elderly and that to develop the services further by partial development of the site. The submission seeks that the lands be re-zoned from Zoning Objective Z15: ‘To provide for institutional and community uses’ to Zoning Objective Z14’ To seek the social, economic and physical development and / or rejuvenation of an area with mixed use of which residential and Z6 would be the predominant uses’. The stated rationale is to facilitate development of the southern portion of the site with non-health care uses (residential and commercial), which would be compatible with a Z14 Zoning Objective. The submission is accompanied by a masterplan layout, which it submits maintains the visual and social setting on the existing buildings along Cork Street.

It is also submitted that higher structures of 6-8 storeys could be accommodated within the body of the site as opposed to the 4-6 storey structures outlined in the Draft LAP. It is stated that this would allow for a fuller realisation of the HSE vision for the site while minimising site coverage.

Opposition to the planned public access route through the Weir Home grounds is stated in submission 30 due to the “vulnerable residents” of the Weir Home.

Response

The HSE lands are currently zoned Z15 Institutional Land (Long Term Institutional) and the DLAP recommends that they be re-zoned to Z12 Institutional Land (Future Development Potential). Zoning Objectives 12 provides for the development of other uses on these institutional lands but seeks ‘To ensure the existing environmental amenities are protected on any future use of these lands’. Furthermore, Z12 requires the provision of 20% open space in any redevelopment of the site. In terms of the subject lands, the existing open space area along the frontage of the site provides an important visual context for the setting of the existing hospital building, a protected structure, for the provision of visually accessible green space along the Cork Street Corridor and also to create a green north-south route between the Weir Home and the Bru Chaoimhin. Z12 is considered the most appropriate zoning objective for the subject lands and affords sufficient flexibility of uses. Accordingly, it is not recommended to amend the re-zoning recommendation in respect of the subject lands to Z14. In the event that the zoning proves prohibitively restrictive, further consideration may be given to this matter as part of the forthcoming development plan review process.

Due to the sensitive nature of the site with regard to the setting of the protected structure, and also the neighbouring residential development, an increase in heights from that shown on the site strategy is not considered appropriate.

It is recommended, however, that the site strategy layout be amended to change the configuration of the open space area along the site frontage, such that it could possibly facilitate a building footprint at the north-western corner subject to overall design analysis with regard to the sensitivity of the visual context for the historical building and

this in turn would contribute to streetscape improvements by way of creating building frontage along Donore Avenue.

The Draft LAP makes specific provision on P.151 to take account of the sensitive needs of the residents of the Weir Home. Specifically, it states, “A section of land in front of the Weir Home requires privacy, a detailed landscape proposal should be sought to demonstrate an inconspicuous integration of HSE facilities with the public green”. It is considered that this adequately addresses the concerns raised in submission 30.

Recommendation

Amend Site Layout on P. 153 of DLAP to show a re-configuration of the open space to possibly facilitate a small building footprint which in turn would render building frontage along Donore Avenue.

Topic No. 22: Bridgefoot Street Oliver Bond

Submission Nos. 30, 36, 65, 69

Four submissions were made in respect of the Bridgefoot Street / Oliver Bond Key Redevelopment Site. The Robert Emmet Community Development Project welcomes the Draft LAP as a cohesive strategy for development. The submission cites that the Bridgefoot Street / Island Street site was the subject of extensive public consultation and was to be developed as a Public Private Partnership, largely facilitated by the CDP over the past few years. It further states that no official communication has been given to the community regarding the development, but the proposals in the Draft LAP appear to contradict the proposals previously agreed for community facilities. In this regard, the submission acknowledges that the Draft LAP is only a framework, but expresses concern that a new proposal appears to have with been developed with no consultation and submits that there is a gap between the printed document and what the community thought had been negotiated.

The Liberties Against Unsuitable Development (LAUD) submission notes that no details of proposed heights are given for Bridgefoot Street.

Councillor Críona Ní Dhálaigh queries if a number of the flats will be demolished to make more open space available and if the redevelopment proposals will address the current lack of car parking provision.

A submission made by the Cork Street and Maryland Residents Association welcomes the better access and utilisation of public land for the benefit of the Liberties community, but concerned by incursions into lands being used by distinct vulnerable groups. IN this regard, it refers to the fact that the DLAP proposes the siting of a park on the Bridgefoot Street Site on the land which was previously intended for a community centre. It also states that the withdrawl of developers has dashed community hopes and the submission queries whether the park proposals would suffer the same fate.

Response

The concerns of the residents regarding the absence of any specific proposals or indicative site layout for the subject site are noted and entirely understandable in the context of the severe economic downturn at the current time. Nonetheless, it remains an objective of the City Council to create a sustainable residential development with a mixed-use element and new amenity spaces at this location by the public private partnership process.

It is recommended that a strategic site layout be incorporated in the plan to reflect the series of objectives for the site as set out in the draft plan. Analysis of the site at present indicates a lack of pedestrian permeability, poor quality amenity space with little use or access and an old ball court which stands empty and unused.

It is considered that any re-development of the site should create an attractive primarily residential quarter but with a mixed-use component to create vibrancy, active ground floor uses and also a synergy with the Digital Hub. In this regard, it will be essential to create active frontage along Bridgefoot Street and Marshal Lane. In addition, the

creation of attractive, useable and safe open space for accessible to residents of Oliver Bond and Bridgefoot Street is necessary. Thus, notwithstanding any previous proposals, it is considered that the optimum location for the new park is such that it creates a visual link between the two sites, thereby providing a coherent and significant quantum of open space, which contributes also to streetscape value along Bridgefoot Street. It is important to emphasise that this revised location of the park will not impact upon the former proposals to provide new community facilities. The strategic layout and site objectives make provision for the following community facilities: a new community centre at Bridgefoot Street, to improve the existing community facilities at Oliver Bond, to refurbish the Marshalsea Building and to provide a park will play areas and an all weather sports pitch. In response to a number of submissions requesting the provision of allotments and a community garden, it is considered that the new park represents an ideal opportunity to explore the opportunities for same, in conjunction with the residents. In terms of building height ranges, it is considered that an indicative building height range of 4-5 storeys would be appropriate for the site context.

Recommendations

Amend Text P. 154

From There will be a new park in the Bridgefoot Street area with new apartments, offices and community buildings. The historic handball court will be imaginatively converted to accommodate new uses. Improved street crossing will allow safe access for Oliver Bond residents to an all weather pitch and community facility. Within the Oliver Bond complex, open space and the existing community building will be significantly upgraded and improved. The site of the former public housing scheme at Bridgefoot Street is the subject of a public private partnership procurement.

ToBetween Bridgefoot Street and Bonham Stree3t, a new park will create an attractive link between the Bridgefoot Street site and the Digital Hub. To the north of this will stand a new perimeter block of apartments, containing a courtyard with amenity space for residents. To the immediate east of this will stand a mixed-use community and commercial building separated from the residential building by a mews lane. To the west of the residential perimeter block another residential block will complete the end of the land plot on Bonham Street and Island Street, where currently, there is no building frontage. This too will include a courtyard for residents’ use. The adjacent historic handball court is imaginatively converted to accommodate cultural uses and / or offices. Improved street crossing will allow safe access for Oliver Bond residents to an all weather pitch and community facility. Within the Oliver Bond complex, open space and the existing community building will be significantly upgraded and improved.

Insert Following Text P.144

Analysis

1. Currently derelict open space across busy road from Oliver Bond Estate: Bridgefoot Street accommodates high traffic, is difficult or dangerous to cross due to lack of pedestrian crossings.

2. The Digital Hub north site will undergo significant redevelopment in the coming years3. Oldball court, a heritage structure once part of the Marshaslea Barracks stands

empty and unused.4. Poor security to interior of Oliver Bond; poorly designed amenity space allow little or

no access.5. Derelict at Bridgefoot Street and Marshal Lane isolated from adjacent developments

by high-traffic on Bridgefoot Street, a dangerous and difficult thoroughfare to cross due to lack of pedestrian crossings.

Insert Following Text P.155

Strategic Layout

1. Provide new residential-led, mixed-use development, including frontage onto new park and adjacent streets and lanes.

2. Accommodate new linkages from redeveloped Digital Hub North Site.3. Conserve and redevelopment heritage ball court at Marshlsea Barracks.4. Provide new internal frontage and redesign amenity spaces to allow fir new

connections to the Liffey River through Oliver Bond. 5. Create new frontage with new development at Bridgefoot Street Marshal Lane.

Omit Set of Site Objectives From P. 154 & Insert to New Page with 3D Sketch & Images

Insert Analysis Diagram P. 154

Insert Strategic Layout, Figure Ground & Aerial Photograph on P. 155

Topic No 23: Grand Canal Harbour

Submission Nos: 13, 14, 19, 29, 31, 35, 37, 40, 43, 48, 51, 55, 65

Submissions received acknowledged the importance of this key site for the regeneration of the Liberties, and welcomed proposals to reinvigorate the area and restore historic links to the Guinness complex around the Storehouse. There was particular support for the proposals to re-introduce water to the canal basins, and to open up the area and to attract new residents, workers and tourists.

There were significant concerns raised in relation to a number of issues which can be summarised as follows:

Lack of reference to the archaeology, built and industrial heritage of Grand Canal Harbour

That the built form of the proposals failed to take account of that heritage That heights were excessive and constituted over-development That existing schools should not be disrupted and that proposals must support

investment in education That the Draft LAP is over-prescriptive, and that flexibility is required to ensure

that appropriate design solutions can be developed

Archaeology, Built and Industrial HeritageA number of submissions refer to the importance of Grand Canal Harbour and submit that the proposals for this key development site fail to adequately consider the archaeological and industrial heritage of the area. The submission from the Industrial Heritage Association of Ireland was concerned at the lack of reference to the unique industrial heritage of the area, and stated that it is essential that industrial sites in the area be appraised. It was also submitted that the proposals should recognise and respect the important context and the significance of the entire industrial complex and its relationship to the Grand Canal transport system.

Canal Harbour Development Company Ltd., the owners of the northern portion of the site state the intention to retain and re-use the curved warehouse which is a protected structure. The submission refers to the fact that the Draft LAP identifies the retention of the harbour walls as an objective and submits that full retention is not necessary to protect the overall character of the protected structure and that appropriate design solutions can be found to treat the walls in context of retention and re-interpretation. On this basis, they request an amendment to the wording to afford a flexible design solution and ensure that ‘careful consideration and design innovation is implemented for the appropriate retention and re-interpretation of the original harbour walls’.

Dundonnell Estates have submitted a Masterplan for the southern part of the key development site. The masterplan covers the southernmost basin of the former harbour, owned by DCC, and the school sites owned by the Edmund Rice Trust, as well as their own site beside Brandon Terrace. They propose a ‘water feature reference to the Grand Canal Harbour’ which does not align with the original configuration.

One submission objects to the re-naming for no good reason of Grand Canal Harbour as St. James’s Harbour in the Draft LAP

Built FormThe submission from Canal Harbour Development Company Ltd. requests the Council to ensure that a flexible interpretation of the framework can be implemented – they concur with the overall design rationale and general location of buildings but submit that an overly prescriptive interpretation would limit the design development stage, and that appropriate design solutions will be influenced by key considerations such as engineering and conservation.

The submission from Dundonnell Estates, welcomes Draft LAP and that it will bring added certainty to the planning context for future applications. The submission contends that the southern lands at Grand Canal Harbour are more closely related to the northern lands than the Draft LAP suggests, and submit that southern lands could facilitate taller buildings at specific locations, for example at the termination of long views on the Luas corridor at James Walk. Their submission shows heights in the range of 7 to 19 storeys for the southern lands.

The submission refers to the DoEHLG Draft guidelines for Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas Guidelines and Section 3.7 which identifies that the Planning Authority should consider preparation of Design Briefs for particularly important, sensitive or large-scale development sites. Notes commitment in the LAP to the preparation of individual site masterplans for the identified key development sites. Dundonnell welcomes this approach and submitted the ‘Grand Canal Harbour Masterplan document (November 2007), together with a document presented to DCC on behalf of Dundonnell and adjoining landowner Grand Canal Harbour Development Company Limited. The Masterplan for southern part of the Site includes lands in the ownership of DCC and the schools sites.

One submission states that more examination is needed of the appropriate three-dimensional form and that current proposals do not appear to be the result of a holistic appreciation of the heritage, environmental, urban and architectural aspects of the broader area.

Submission No. 65 from LAUD states that the re-introduction of water into the basin should not be traded off against a cluster of height up to 75m (24 residential storeys or 18 commercial storeys) They contend that proposals for a large scheme of tightly packed buildings at Grand Canal Harbour constitute severe over-development. Their submission proposes reductions in all heights, the omission of the 23-storey tower on the corner of Grand Canal Place and the reduction of two internal towers to 8-11 storeys.

Submission No.77 from Diageo states a concern in relation to views from the Storehouse and the impact of the cluster of tall buildings

EducationSubmission No. 51 from Dundonnell Estates proposes the relocation of Scoil Seamus CBS primary and secondary schools to a location in the former Grand Canal Harbour and shows a ‘tertiary education centre’ in the same area. The proposed relocation would release the school sites for redevelopment. Submission No.40 from the Edmund Rice Trust wishes to provide for continuity for students at St James Street Schools. Their preferred location for school is the site to the north of the schools current location (Draft LAP location 4 p.160), or a new school on the

current site. The submission supports in principle the submission from Dundonnell Estates in relation to new state of the art facilities. They hope that the LAP will stimulate investment and that new schools will become foundation of new Liberties

Response

The significant redevelopment site at Grand Canal Harbour currently comprises three distinct areas of varied characters:

the former Grand Canal Harbour, the lands to the south of the harbour including the infilled canal spur and the Basin St lands lying between St. James’s Hospital and Basin Street Upper.

The Draft LAP sets out the major issues for this part of the city in relation to dereliction, underutilisation and lack of connections and highlights the importance of its regeneration for the surrounding area. The Draft LAP sets out objectives for its redevelopment which aim to providing sufficient incentive for that economic redevelopment to occur, whilst striking a balance to achieve social and conservation goals.

HeritageThe Draft LAP (p.156) states that ‘Unearthing the hidden heritage qualities of the large canal and basin structure at St. James’s (Grand Canal) Harbour will form the basis of a distinct identity for the redevelopment of the area’. The Draft LAP traces and illustrates the historic evolution of the canal and basins and its importance for the development of the Brewery. A number of strategies and objectives of the plan are intended to ensure that the redevelopment of the area has regard to that heritage.Objectives p.159 include:

Retain and refurbish listed buildings and structures of heritage value. Full archaeology survey to be prepared and a sensitive approach to the historic fabric demonstrated

The harbour walls should be retained, refurbished and made visible to the public. They should form the overarching framework that defines the approach to open space. Require the introduction of water into the harbour and if possible also the area leading into it.

A number of options are illustrated on p. 160 to show how the canal basin walls can be retained, while allowing for new structures to span overhead. In the Public Realm Strategy, Grand Canal Harbour is identified as a ‘Focus Zone’ and a ‘Key Place’ (ps.115-116). The development strategy includes Reinstate large bodies of water in reference to historic harbour Refurbish and reinstate historic stone paving and edge to historic harbour wall.

It is therefore considered that the Draft LAP provides for the due consideration and the incorporation of the heritage of Grand Canal Harbour into its redevelopment.

However, it is accepted that the Draft LAP does not give sufficient weight to the importance of the unique industrial heritage of this area, and that it should be explicitly referred to in the plan. The text of the Draft LAP can be amended to include more explicit references to the industrial heritage and an objective can be included that will strengthen

the requirement to carry out a full assessment of all structures and a feasibility study for their re-use. The Draft LAP can require that Development proposals for Grand Canal Harbour Site be accompanied by an archaeological impact statement to assess the impact and make recommendations for an appropriate mitigation strategy.

In this regard, it is also accepted that it may not be feasible to retain all of the historic walls whilst accommodating new development overhead, and that further conservation and engineering studies will be required to determine the most appropriate solution. It is recommended that the objectives of the Draft LAP are clarified to ensure that the underlying geometry and legibility of the three basins are clearly expressed and can inform the layout of new developments.

Built Form and Height The Draft LAP proposes a layout for the Grand Canal Harbour which restores the central axis of the canal entry and locks, and reveals the structure of the three basins. It is recognised that the northern semi-circular basin with the curved protected warehouse has the greatest potential to present the conserved structures in a meaningful way. It is also pertinent to note that the southernmost basin is in the ownership of DCC and it is proposed to provide for a waterbody here in conjunction with the Guinness basin (part of Guinness Lands South Key Development Site) It is considered that the indicative layout site layout in the Draft LAP does correspond to the underlying geometry of the basins.

It is evident from submissions received that there is a considerable degree of concern in relation to the proposed cluster of taller buildings at Grand Canal Harbour. On review of the submissions in relation to the overall height strategy (Issue 14) this report is recommending a revision to remove the height cluster at Grand Canal Harbour and to replace it with a singular landmark element. A landmark building of 16 storeys is to be located on the eastern side of Grand Canal Harbour to improve legibility on the east-west pedestrian corridor from the city centre. The specific location of the landmark structure would be subject to an assessment of the views from approaches to the Harbour, and on the relationship of the landmark to the protected structures at the Storehouse and the curved warehouse.

It is also considered that a reduction in heights to the west of the central canal would provide a better transition to the lower residential buildings to the west.

In relation to the southern lands and the request that these should relate more closely to the Harbour/Guinness lands, it is considered that there is merit in providing for a more consistent range of heights – the recent designation of a corridor for Luas Line F in this area should encourage the development of new frontages along Basin Street Upper on the western side. To the east these lands face an area zoned for open space with a potential ‘canal’ waterbody at Long’s Place. It is therefore considered that an increase to 4-6 storeys along Basin Street Upper and an increase to 6-8 storeys facing the ‘canal’ at Longs Place would be justified. However it is not considered appropriate to increase heights up to 19 storeys as requested in the Dundonnell submission.

Draft LAP and Masterplan Proposals In relation to the submissions that the Draft LAP should not be overly prescriptive, it is considered that the Draft LAP accords with DOE Guidelines ‘Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas’ in relation to the parameters of the Local Area Plan:

The LAP can Define key elements of local character Identify relevant development plan urban design principles and policies Provide detailed guidance regarding layout, density, massing, height, materials

etc, and Indicate minimum/maximum densities

It is considered that objectives of the Draft LAP incorporate the urban design guidance as listed, and also addresses the mix of uses, cultural and community facilities etc. to provide for an integrated social and economic regeneration of the area. The Draft LAP states p.201 that Dublin City Council is committed to taking a proactive approach to the preparation, in consultation with key stakeholders, of individual site masterplans for the identified key development sites. It is considered that this approach can provide for the development of detailed proposals whilst ensuring that the objectives of the Draft LAP are delivered.

Education and the Schools SitesThe Draft LAP recognises the necessity to upgrade and improve facilities for the schools, and that there is potential on the schools sites to deliver new buildings with better facilities together with new residential and other development. However it is not considered appropriate to prescribe a particular site or configuration for the new schools in the Draft LAP. The indicative proposals allow flexibility so that the most appropriate solution can be worked out at implementation stage with the local community, the patrons and the Department of Education and Science.

Recommendations

Amend the text throughout the Draft LAP to replace all references to ‘St. James’s Harbour’ with ‘Grand Canal Harbour’

Amend 1st paragraph in Section 5.1.6 Grand Canal Harbour / Former City Basin p.66

From:The basin was built in the 18th century and served in part as a city water supply. St. James’s Harbour was built alongside it, which became the first terminus of the Grand Canal Harbour in 1779.

To: The City Basin was built in the 18th century and served in part as a city water supply. The Grand Canal Harbour, completed in 1785 was the Dublin Terminus for the Grand Canal, linking the industries of the area with a system for transport of bulk goods. The Grand Canal Harbour was thus an integral element in the development of the Guinness brewing and malting industries in this area, and is part of one of Dublin’s most important industrial heritage complexes.

Amend Objective p.159

From:Retain and refurbish listed buildings and structures of heritage value. Full Archaeology survey to be prepared and a sensitive approach to the historic fabric demonstrated

To: Undertake a detailed Conservation Assessment and Archaeological Appraisal for the Grand Canal Harbour Site. Record and evaluate all structures, and lodge with the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage. A statement of archaeological significance to be devised for the Grand Canal Harbour according to the method used in the National Inventory Architectural Heritage and the DICHR, taking account of its historic connections with Guinness Brewery.

Add Objective p.159Prepare a feasibility study in conjunction with the masterplan which demonstrates how particular elements of the site complex are to be incorporated into new settings with an emphasis and evaluation of the best use of the site and its historic structures and their setting. Development proposals for Grand Canal Harbour Site are to be accompanied by an archaeological impact statement to assess the impact and make recommendations for an appropriate mitigation strategy.

Amend Indicative Heights Diagram on page 161 of the Draft LAP to

Omit 23-storey tower Replace 20-storey tower with 7-8 storey building

Indicate a 16-storey tower as singular landmark element located to provide legibility on the east- west pedestrian corridor from the City and add an explanatory note that the specific location of the tower is to be subject to further assessment of the view corridor and of its relationship to Storehouse and curved warehouse.

Replace 9-11 storey heights on western side of canal locks with 8-9 storey Replace 3-4 storey heights on Basin Street Upper (southern end) with 4-6

storey Replace 4-6 storey heights fronting open space at Long’s Place with 6-8

storey

Topic No. 24: Marylands

Submission No: 52, 65

A submission from a resident of Marylands welcomes most aspects of the Draft LAP, and requests that future redevelopment and improved public realm in the area should provide for traffic calming measures and specifically road narrowing. It also suggests that speed ramps should be considered at crossing points entering Maryland, e.g. Loreto Road from Marrowbone Road. In addition it agrees with the proposals to offer ‘Back of the Pipes’ for sale to the respective adjacent properties.

The above submission also states that the DLAP should consider further innovative developments, such as Sophia Housing on Cork Street - stepdown housing for the maturing population – to release housing stock and provide continual renewal of residential areas like Maryland.

A submission made by Liberties Against Unsuitable Development (LAUD) states that no changes are need to heights for Marylands.

Response

Traffic calming measures in then Maryland Area can be considered in the future as and when traffic conditions require such measures and ca be addressed by way of the area management structure in the City Council.

Consideration can be given to incorporate the ‘Back of Pipes’ in adjacent gardens subject to further investigation regarding landownership and access to underground services.

With regard to innovative housing schemes the LAP is fully supportive of the approach, and it is recommended that this be included as an objective in the Housing Strategy.

With regard to height, the Draft Plan provided for 2-3 storeys throughout most of Marylands, 3-5 at the Marrowbone Lane frontage, which is considered acceptable in urban design terms.

Recommendation

Add General Housing Objective P. 95

To promote innovative housing schemes including step-down housing for a maturing population.

Topic No. 25: Guinness Lands (North)

Submission Nos: 4, 5, 13, 30, 31, 32, 38, 65, 77

A number of submissions welcomed the proposals for the Guinness North Lands in the Draft LAP, and particularly the proposals to pedestrianise Victoria Quay. One submission states that if plans for Victoria Quay / Heuston Square succeed ‘it will create one of the most welcome improvements to the city as a whole not just the Liberties area’ Another submission states concerns in relation to the road realignment, and the junction of the quays with the N4 and contends that it needs to be related to the older public buildings on the quays in a meaningful way.

Submission No.65 from LAUD submits that no changes are need to heights on Guinness (North). Submission No.32 from Urban Capital is concerned that the Guinness lands have significant development potential over and above that identified in the plan. Should be further studied and crystallised in the LAP to ensure that landowners are not held back from the market in the short to medium timeframes. Heuston and Spencer Dock are the two major transport interchanges in the city with significant development potential. Proposed densities along Victoria Quay bear no relation to the vision being developed at Spencer Dock.

There is support in submissions for the location of a new park north of St. James’s Graveyard, but concern that the use of the graveyard for public park is unacceptable – does not respect the dead, is unsuitable for children and should be retained as a heritage site.

Stakeholder SubmissionSubmission No. 77 from Diageo States that Diageo Ireland welcomes the preparation of the Draft LAP. They are currently examining options to consolidate brewing activities at St. James’s gate, along with concurrent opportunities for new city development on residual lands. Notes that the LAP must be consistent with Development Plan principles to safeguard employment and industry, and that the DLAP should acknowledge importance of protecting brewery operation.

Heritage and Character Areas The Draft LAP identifies both parts of Guinness lands as being of the same character. Submits that the north and south lands have different characters, urban grain and future redevelopment possibilities. Suggests that heritage objectives are modified.

The proposal to add the power station to the list of protected structures makes a positive contribution to architectural heritage. The proposal to add the silo is not acceptable – the silo is redundant, cannot be adapted to modern uses, is within the consolidated brewing site boundary, and its retention would seriously thwart flexibility towards the optimum design solution.

Community GainThe Diageo submission states that permission for each development phase will be dependent on provision through direct or indirect means of a predetermined amount of works to infrastructure, public realm, community buildings and other improvements. They submit that the range and extent of projects on the Guinness land is extensive and

includes a park of city-wide significance, a school (primary and/or secondary) a theatre, a heritage museum in addition to a range of local amenity, city wide civic, cultural and recreational facilities.

Scale and GrainDiageo submit that there is no established scale and grain to Victoria Quay or Wolfe Tone Quay, that the Guinness lands are self-contained by large enclosing blank walls and are independent of the character otherwise exhibited along the quays. A new building morphology can establish a new urban grain.

HeightThe Diageo submission is concerned that heights on Victoria Quay are too low – the Draft LAP has 4-6 storeys, but should be consistent with Heuston Framework 2000 (6-storey commercial, equivalent to 8-storey residential). Suggest that heights up to 8 storeys should be permitted on the Quays, given proximity to transport hub and significant brownfield regeneration.

They submit that the Guinness North lands are part of the Heuston Gateway, have redevelopment potential of city-wide significance, and that this justifies a strong increase in density. It would be appropriate to signify this importance through height

The submissions notes that Draft LAP recommends that heights should respect the skyline profile and not intrude into the Phoenix Park View Corridor, - this is contrary to the recommendation of the Heuston Framework which recommends a landmark building at north-west corner, on the view corridor of Chesterfield Avenue. The submission requests that the LAP has a 16 storeys plus landmark in this location.

Consolidated Brewery Layout The submission notes the utmost importance of any future development having regard to the ongoing industrial nature of the brewing activities on site. Notes that there are discrepancies in the indicative boundary of the Consolidated Brewery shown in analysis diagrams and sketches. Draft LAP does not have regard to the operational requirements of Diageo, and recommends rezoning from Z7 to Z5, which would limit industrial uses. Notes that the proposed park layout encroaches on the Consolidated Brewery boundary.

The submission states that ‘these are premature assumptions as the final configuration of the nature of the space required for the consolidated brewery has not yet been finalised’ and that ‘it is imperative that the Final LAP does not allocate an overly prescriptive layout or configured use objectives for all or part of these lands’

Masterplan and Zoning ChangesNotes reference in Draft LAP to consideration of taller buildings ‘if part of a cohesive masterplan for the Heuston Square area’ Proposes that a Masterplan approach would be most appropriate for the entire Guinness North site. Proposes that the Draft LAP sets out 10 Key Principles and that a Masterplan would be subsequently developed which could take account of the complexity of issues involved. Proposes that zoning changes should adhere to the boundary provided by Diageo, until such time as the exact quantum of land required has been definitively determined, and that the location of new uses, routes and amenities would not be fixed until the requirements for the brewery operations were determined by the Masterplan.

The Key principles proposed by Diageo are: To improve the public realm, particularly along Victoria Quay, having regard to

the River Liffey and Collins Barracks To facilitate the substantial pedestrianisation of Victoria Quay by re-routing west

bound traffic from Victoria Quay To incorporate civic recreational and cultural uses along the newly

pedestrianised section of Victoria Quay To achieve a mix of uses which would achieve a sustainable environment

integrating working, living and leisure To maintain and increase employment opportunities on the lands now and into

the future To promote active ground floor uses, especially along those primary streets and

spaces which are used as pedestrian and movement corridors within the site To deliver attractive and convenient routes through the site which will provide

increased connectivity and ease of movement to Heuston Station from the Liberties and new urban spaces

To introduce an increase in height along Victoria Quay, including the development of landmark buildings of architectural excellence, with particular regard to the Phoenix Park view corridor, in order to denote the importance of the Heuston Gateway in the city skyline, whilst having regard to the existing scale and grain of Quay buildings to the east

Appendices and Alternative ProposalsSubmission Appendices include extracts from the Heuston Framework (recommended development areas and significant views) and proposals for amended layouts for Guinness lands. Submits in Appendix 4 an alternative site layout option, showing the new roadway peeling off from the quays at Rory O’More Bridge, thus providing a more extensive quayside esplanade area, corresponding to the Memorial Park opposite. The proposals show the park in separate unconnected sections, and do not provide for north-south permeability through the site. The heights diagram submitted proposes heights in the 6-8 and 8-11 storey range, with a 16- storey plus landmark to be determined through a co-ordinated Masterplan for the entire Guinness North lands.

Response

The Draft LAP recognises and fully supports the importance of the continuing brewery operation both for Dublin City and for the Liberties. It is accepted that the primacy of the requirements of the retained Brewery must be respected, and that the future operation and viability of the Brewery must be protected. It is therefore accepted that the objectives of the Draft LAP should not facilitate or encourage incompatible land uses on lands adjoining the new brewery, where such uses might over time restrict brewing operations.

The decision of Diageo Ireland to consolidate their brewing operations on the northern side of James’s Street, and to release a substantial part of their landholding for redevelopment led to the inclusion of the Guinness North lands in the Draft LAP. These lands were recognised as hugely significant for the plan particularly because of their potential to deliver major social and economic benefits for the area. The decision created the opportunity to ‘unlock’ the large landbank, to better connect the Heuston Gateway to

the city centre and to create a new urban quarter. The Draft LAP sets out the objectives to ensure that the new development is fully integrated with the Liberties and with the city as a whole. The key site objectives are set out on p.177 and indicative layout, heights and use mix are shown on ps.178 and 179.

Boundary of Consolidated Brewery LayoutThe delineation of the boundary for the consolidated brewery is critical to the formulation of key objectives of the Draft LAP, particularly for the relationship between the development and the wider urban context, in terms of the proposed urban structure and the network of streets and spaces. Furthermore the delineation of the boundary is critical to the rezoning proposals, given the requirements to have regard to the operational requirements of Diageo, and not to limit industrial uses by rezoning from Z7 to Z5 in areas which could create potential conflicts between industrial uses and new developments.

Diageo are currently examining options to consolidate brewing activities along with concurrent opportunities for new city development on residual lands. They have stated in relation to the boundary as shown in the indicative layouts of the Draft LAP that ‘these are premature assumptions as the final configuration of the nature of the space required for the consolidated brewery has not yet been finalised’ and that ‘it is imperative that the Final LAP does not allocate an overly prescriptive layout or configured use objectives for all or part of these lands’

The uncertainty in relation to the precise boundary (and consequent rezoning recommendations) for the residual lands raises the question of the extent to which the Draft LAP should prescribe or configure the layout for the Guinness North site. It is therefore considered appropriate that this issue is addressed and this is discussed in further detail under the Masterplan heading in this report.

Site LayoutThe submission from Diageo responds positively to many of the indicative proposals in the Draft LAP.

Exploiting the opportunities afforded by the pedestrianisation of Victoria Quay, and suggesting how that might be extended

Creating an appropriate interface between the brewery and the new city development, so that the new streets are lined with new building frontages rather than blank walls.

Proposing that part of the open space would be located opposite the east elevation of Dr. Steeven’s Hospital to enhance the setting of that classical façade.

Proposing a more direct connection to the pedestrianised quays, linking Watling Street to the new bridge over the Liffey

However the Diageo layout does not provide for the north-south permeability through the site which is a key objective of the Draft LAP. The block structure shown does not extend the existing east-west routes on Island Street or Bonham Street or improve legibility between the Liberties and Heuston Station. In particular their proposed boundary for the consolidated brewery takes in the area north of St. James’s Graveyard and therefore does not provide for a new public park in this location. The proposal to relocate the park on the river is beneficial to the new developments rather than the existing.

Community, Civic and Cultural AmenitiesThe submission from Diageo sets out concerns in relation to the range and extent of projects which the Draft LAP requires to be delivered on the Guinness lands, including a park of city-wide significance, a school (primary and/or secondary) a theatre, a heritage museum, in addition to a range of local amenity, city wide civic, cultural and recreational facilities.

As the largest site in the area of the Draft LAP, the redevelopment has the potential meet key social and economic objectives for the plan area. The Guinness Lands comprise in total approx. 20.24ha, with the lands north of James’s Street comprising 13.5ha. The consolidated brewery site would comprise c. 4.5ha, thus releasing some 70% of the landbank for redevelopment.

Dublin City Council is mindful of the need to ensure as equitable as possible a distribution of community facilities and to achieve an appropriate balance to achieve commercial viability, and this aspect in dealt with in greater detail under Topic 30 Community Gain. It should be noted that the Guinness South lands are not required to provide for any specific facilities, with the exception of ‘cultural attractions’ which may be of a commercial nature, complementing and contributing to the viability of the Storehouse tourist attraction.

It is considered the redevelopment of the Guinness lands on this prominent site on the River Liffey will provide an exceptional opportunity to enhance and extend the city core and to create a significant new quarter. The Diageo submission acknowledges the appropriateness of the proposed uses along Victoria Quay and proposes the inclusion of an objective ‘To incorporate civic recreational and cultural uses along the newly pedestrianised section of Victoria Quay’

The Draft LAP proposals for a theatre and swimming pool on the Guinness Lands are not considered to create an additional burden on those lands – the proposal is to locate those facilities on the site of the existing theatre and pool, and to refurbish or reconstruct the buildings. The lands in question at the corner of Watling Street and James’s Street have historically been in community use and available to the public, as part of Guinness’s commitment to their staff and to the local community. It is considered that this would be an appropriate continuation of that tradition and could fulfil one of the Draft LAP Social objectives (p.88) to ‘Provide a new 25m swimming pool within the Liberties Area accessible to all Liberties residents’

The requirement to deliver substantial community gain on the Guinness North lands is considered appropriate due to its location, large size, historic use, and the requirement for re-zoning in order to facilitate large-scale mixed-use development. Furthermore the provision of community facilities and quality of life infrastructure is an integral element of the regeneration strategy for the Liberties, and accords with Section 4 of the DOE Guidelines ‘Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas’ In this regard the requirement to provide for a school site, and for a public open space is considered appropriate. The Guidelines recommend a standard of 15% of site area to be allocated for open space in a Local Area Plan and 10% in other cases. The Draft LAP notes on p.171 that the Liberties area is marked by exceptionally low levels of green open space compared to other inner city quarters, and that the proposed park addresses this issue

and provides a defining quality of the area and an attractive setting benefiting the surrounding development sites

It is therefore considered that there should be no change to the range and extent of facilities on the Guinness North Lands, and that the objectives could be amended to ensure greater clarity in relation to their provision.

HeritageIt is considered that a conservation assessment of structures on this site and a feasibility study for their re-use if appropriate should be carried out and should inform the proposals. An objective can be inserted in the Draft LAP in this regard. In relation to recommendations for inclusion of particular buildings on the RPS this is dealt with Topic 15 Heritage of this report.

Height The Draft LAP provides for taller buildings at Heuston on the Diageo lands to be considered as part of a cohesive design for the Heuston Transport Hub, and indicates an area at the northwestern part of the site, approximating to one third of the re-development area. It is considered that the request by Diageo that taller buildings of an unspecified height be open for consideration on the entire northern land block could not be met within the remit of a statutory LAP.

It is acknowledged that there is a difference in the approach to height on this site between the Heuston Framework 2000 and the Draft Liberties LAP 2008. Specifically the Heuston Framework proposed one landmark building to close the vista on the Chesterfield Avenue view corridor from the Phoenix Park. The Draft LAP allows for consideration of taller buildings in the north-west corner of the site as part of a cohesive design for the Heuston Transport Hub.

Since the Heuston Framework was prepared in 2000 a number of changes have occurred which suggest that the redevelopment of this area and its heights should be reviewed;

The Interconnector has been confirmed in Transport 21 with a station at Heuston The advancement of proposals for the River Liffey and of traffic studies to

redirect traffic off Victoria Quay create a new context with pedestrianised quays directly connected to Heuston Station Square and a new pedestrian bridge connecting to the Museum

The site area available for redevelopment has significantly increased from a slim edge of 3.4hectares to a substantial quarter of c.9hectares and

New opportunities have been created which allow consideration of greater site permeability, and a more coherent approach to integrating these lands with Heuston and the Liberties

This report has reviewed submissions on height in Topic 14 Spatial and Urban Form (Height Strategy) and recommends a revision of the height strategy for the Liberties. An amendment is recommended to design guidance on height for Heuston – p.111 and this proposed amendment states:‘Any buildings flanking Heuston Square to the east should however continue to respect the scale of the Liffey Quays running along the south bank of the river. In addition, any taller buildings at this location and within the view Corridor from Phoenix Park must form

part of a cohesive Masterplan for the Heuston Square Area and must demonstrate enhancement of the this important vista of the city skyline’.

In relation to the request from Diageo that heights up to 8 storeys should be considered on the Liffey Quays it is considered that heights should relate to and respect the existing quays. Heights of 6-8 storeys could be considered as part of a design for the new blocks on the pedestrianised section of the quays, subject to an appropriate transition from the existing quays to the east.

MasterplanFor the Guinness North Lands the issue has been raised of considering an approach whereby Key Principles for the site are set out in the LAP, with the Masterplan to be developed in detail later demonstrating how those key principles are to be delivered.

The principle reason for this approach is the uncertainty regarding the boundary of the consolidated brewery, and consequently the exact configuration of the residual lands available for redevelopment. Another significant consideration is the as yet undetermined technical requirements for the Interconnector running under the site, and the location of station access and/or exit points.

It is accepted that there are critical undetermined factors in relation to the Guinness North lands and that more time is required for studies to be completed. Prescriptions in relation to layout and configuration at this stage may preclude the development of the optimum solution for this important site.

It is therefore recommended that the Draft LAP sets out Key Objectives for the Guinness North lands, and requires the preparation of a detailed Masterplan demonstrating how those key objectives are to be delivered.

It should be noted that for a Local Area Plan, the written statement has primacy and the Key Objectives in the written statement must be considered in any decision on development in the LAP area. For the Liberties it is crucial to ensure that this site supports the strategic objectives of the LAP and contributes fully to the social and economic regeneration as well as its physical redevelopment. It is therefore recommended that the Key Site Objectives for the Guinness North lands are amended to ensure the delivery of the Draft LAP objectives.

It is also recommended that the Draft LAP will set out the level of detail required for the Masterplan

Recommendations

Insert the following text before Key Site Objectives on page 177

Preparation of MasterplanA comprehensive masterplan is to be prepared as a pre-requisite to any planning application for the Guinness North lands. The masterplan shall address and demonstrate how the proposed development can meet the strategic objectives of the Draft Liberties Local Area Pan and the specific Key Site Objectives as listed below.

Amend Key Site Objectives on page 177

Omit General Objectives Preserve the massing onto St. James’s Street – intensification can occur behind,

not between the existing buildings Densities should respond to the existing quays setting to the north and the

industrial setting to the south. Heights should respect the skyline profile and not intrude into the Phoenix Park View Corridor.

To ensure that building heights fronting Victoria Quay respond to the historic scale and grain of the quays and Heuston Station

To consider the potential for taller buildings in proximity to the Heuston transport Hub as part of a cohesive design which respects the scale of the quays and avoids blocking views of the city skyline from the Phoenix Park

Carry out a conservation assessment and identify historical urban fabric which may be suitable for inclusion on the Record of Protected Structures

To prepare a feasibility study which demonstrates how the structures are to be re-used, adapted and incorporated into new settings

Encourage diverse small-scale land uses that are complementary to the established tourist, business and creative industries economies

Generally enhance the tourist appeal of the area. To provide a stepped for of development which can exploit views of the Liffey

and across the valley to the NMI I the foreground and to the new DIT campus buildings at Grangegorman in the middle distance

Add Spatial Urban Form Objectives

Preserve the massing onto St. James’s Street – intensification can occur behind, not between the existing buildings

Densities should respond to the existing quays setting to the north and the industrial setting to the south.

Buildings flanking Heuston Square to the east should continue to respect the scale of the Liffey Quays running along the south bank of the river. In addition, any taller buildings at this location and within the view Corridor from Phoenix Park must form part of a cohesive Masterplan for the Heuston Square Area and must demonstrate enhancement of the this important vista of the city skyline

Provide a stepped for of development which can exploit views of the Liffey and across the valley to the NMI I the foreground and to the new DIT campus buildings at Grangegorman in the middle distance

Omit Public Realm Objectives Improve the public realm as set out in the public realm strategy Improve north-south linkages with new streets leading to a potential river

crossing to thee NMI Create a very high quality civic space in Heuston Square. Provide active frontages and overlooked public spaces so as to make walking a

pleasant and safe experience; encourage appropriate land use to achieve this Improve connections to James’s Street and the Digital Hub

Add Public Realm and Movement Objectives To facilitate the substantial pedestrianisation of Victoria Quay by re-routing

west bound traffic from Victoria Quay Improve the public realm as set out in the public realm strategy,

particularly along Victoria Quay, having regard to the River Liffey and Collins Barracks.

Create a very high quality civic space in Heuston Square. Improve north-south linkages with new streets leading to a potential river

crossing to thee NMI. Improve connections to James’s Street and the Digital Hub

Provide active frontages and overlooked public spaces so as to make walking a pleasant and safe experience; encourage appropriate land use to achieve this

Vistas to be enhanced and controlled by providing landmarks (not necessarily taller buildings along the viewing corridors

Creating one or more nodes on the river frontage related to the river crossing

Pavements on Steeven’s lane to be widened along the entire length to provide more attractive space for pedestrians

Add Heritage Objectives Prepare a conservation assessment and feasibility study in conjunction

with the Site Masterplan which demonstrates how particular elements of the site are to be incorporated into new settings with an emphasis on the best use of the site and historic structures.

Gatehouse and Gateway on Victoria Quay to be incorporated into the structure of the redeveloped site. Proposals are to demonstrate how they anchor the area’s character in reference to the Guinness heritage

Address the classical side elevation of Dr. Steeven’s Hospital

Add Land Use Objectives Ensure that future development on the Guinness North lands respects and

has regard to the ongoing industrial nature of the brewing activities on site. To maintain and increase employment opportunities on the lands now and

into the future Encourage diverse small-scale land uses that are complementary to the

established tourist, business and creative industries economies Generally enhance the tourist appeal of the area.

Add the following text on page 178The Figure Ground, Height and Land Use Diagrams are indicative. It is a requirement of the Draft LAP that a Masterplan be prepared demonstrating how the objectives of the Draft Liberties Local Area Pan and the specific Key Site Objectives for the Guinness Lands North can be delivered.

Amend titles for maps on pages 178 and 179 to include the word ‘Indicative’ as in:

‘Indicative Figure Ground’‘Indicative Heights’‘Indicative Land Use’

Amend Annotation on Heights Diagram on Page 179

FromTaller buildings in this area may be considered as part of a cohesive design for the Heuston Transport Hub

ToAny buildings flanking Heuston Square to the east should however continue to respect the scale of the Liffey Quays running along the south bank of the river. In addition, any taller buildings at this location and within the view Corridor from Phoenix Park must form part of a cohesive Masterplan for the Heuston Square Area and must demonstrate enhancement of the this important vista of the city skyline’.

Add Guidance for the preparation of Masterplans:The masterplan shall contain the following detail:1. Establish relationship between development and wider urban context, illustrating the proposed urban structure and network of streets and urban spaces.

2. Describe the character, design and function of proposed urban spaces and demonstrate proposals to achieve variety and activity on streets and public spaces.

3. Describe the disposition of residential, commercial, community and other proposed uses.

4. Illustrate the proposed built form and block structure and proposals for variety of built form and architectural expression.

5. Outline proposals for landscape elements, planting, water features and public art and indicate proposed treatments of streetscape, materials and street furniture.

6. Demonstrate the proposed approach to pedestrian and vehicular movement and access, circulation, parking and traffic calming measures.

7. Indicate an integrated relationship with public transport infrastructure.

8. Indicate proposed building layout, orientation, massing, density and building height.

9. Outline indicative architectural treatments, variety of form, expression and principal architectural features, landmarks and gateways.

10. Indicate proposed public and private open spaces, permeability, enclosure and proposals to ensure security, safety and privacy.

11. Establish the likely effect of built form on sunlight, daylight and local microclimate.

12. Indicate proposals for environmentally responsible design and outline sustainable energy, waste and ecology proposals.

13. Indicate suggested community, social and cultural infrastructure and proposed sports, childcare and play facilities.

14. Outline proposed commercial, retail and amenity infrastructure gains.

15. Describe heritage and conservation measures and appraisals of any existing structure on site, in particular the sensitive re-use of any protected structures affected by the development.

Topic No. 26: Guinness Lands South

Submission Nos: 52, 65, 77

The small number of submissions on this site and the nature of the comments received reflect a general level of satisfaction with proposals for this historic area of the Guinness lands, which are to be released for redevelopment following the decision by Diageo to consolidate the brewery operations on the lands north of James’s Street.

Submission No. 65 from LAUD requests that the tower at the corner of Grand Canal Place and Portland Street West is reduced from 16-18 storey to 8–11 storey – the tower proposed would overlook the Storehouse and both overlook and dominate the Harbour Warehouse. Otherwise they believe that the ‘street and courtyard design dotted with lower-end mid-rise infill blocks and featuring a couple of mid-rise towers should create a pleasing quarter’.

Submission No. 52 notes the limited positive spillover effects from the Guinness Storehouse, suggests better signage and bus shelter, greater emphasis on capturing passing trade, possible temporary animation from licensed traders.

Stakeholder SubmissionSubmission No. 77 from Diageo supports the approach in Draft LAP for the future development of these lands building on the strong city tourism function of the Guinness Storehouse.

Recognises that there are a number of buildings and facades of heritage value on the site, but is concerned that protection should not automatically extend to the entire footprint of all structures, which could lose opportunity for regeneration and suppress the incentive to develop the brownfield site. The submission requests a sensible utilisation of older buildings and building fabric to support vibrant public and viable city uses. Requests that the LAP has flexibility in regard to design briefs and that Key Principles could be advanced through the completion of a Conservation Report subsequent to adoption of the LAP.

Alternative ProposalsDiageo submit in Appendix 4 an alternative site layout option, which reduces the footprint of warehouse structures to be retained, and introduces additional courtyards / atria within the deep plans.

Guinness StorehouseDiageo note that it is important that future increases in height in the Grand Canal Harbour area has due regard to views westward from the Guinness Storehouse

Response

HeritageThe Figure Ground map on page 183 indicates by hatching a number of existing buildings proposed for re-use. Many of these buildings (on Rainsford Street, Crane Street and Bellvue) are not on the Record of Protected Structures, but should be

assessed for their special interest as a unique group of industrial buildings. It is a key principle of heritage protection to ensure that viable new uses can be found for existing buildings, and to refurbish sensitively in a way which holds onto the inherent character of the structure whilst providing for modern requirements through appropriate interventions. The request by Diageo to provide for a sensible utilisation of these older buildings is reasonable and would accord with the provisions of the Draft LAP.

The Draft LAP already includes on page 183 an Objective for a Conservation Report on buildings of heritage value in this complex. It is intended that a conservation assessment of structures on the site and a feasibility study for their re-use if appropriate should be carried out and should inform the proposals. The objective can be amended to include reference to a feasibility study. The Draft LAP proposes the re-introduction of water to the former Guinness Basin on these lands in conjunction with proposals for Grand Canal Harbour. A statement of archaeological significance should be devised for the Guinness South lands and development proposals for these lands should be accompanied by an archaeological impact statement to assess the impact and make recommendations for an appropriate mitigation strategy. It is recommended that an objective in this regard be inserted inn the LAP.

HeightOn review of the submissions in relation to the overall Height Strategy (Issue 14) this report is recommending a revision to remove the height cluster at Grand Canal Harbour and to replace it with a singular landmark element. A landmark building of 16 storeys is to be located on the eastern side of Grand Canal Harbour to improve legibility on the east-west pedestrian corridor from the city centre. The specific location of the landmark structure would be subject to an assessment of the views from approaches to the Harbour, and on the relationship of the landmark to the protected structures at the Storehouse and the curved warehouse.

It is considered that the proposed 16-18 storey tower at the corner of Grand Canal Place and Portland Street West would compete with the singular nature of that landmark, and that the tower should be reduced to 8–11 storeys.

Recommendations

Amend Objective on page 183

Omit ‘The buildings of heritage value need to be assessed in a conservation report for listing or for their group value contribution to the character of the district’

AddUndertake a detailed Conservation Assessment and Archaeological Appraisal for the Grand Canal Harbour Site. Record and evaluate all structures, and lodge with the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage. A statement of archaeological significance to be devised for the Guinness South lands according to the method

used in the National Inventory Architectural Heritage and the DICHR, taking account of its historic connections with Guinness Brewery.

Add Objective p.185Prepare a feasibility study in conjunction with the masterplan which demonstrates how particular elements of the site complex are to be incorporated into new settings with an emphasis and evaluation of the best use of the site and its historic structures and their setting. Development proposals for Guinness South lands are to be accompanied by an archaeological impact statement to assess the impact and make recommendations for an appropriate mitigation strategy.

Amend Indicative Height diagram on page 185Reduce the height of the tower at the corner of Grand Canal Place and Portland Street West from 16-18 storeys to 8-11 storeys

Topic No. 27: Newmarket

Submission Nos: 32, 46, 65, 74

A relatively small number of submissions were made in relation to the Newmarket Development Site. The issue of heritage was raised and a concern expressed that Newmarket’s importance is not fully realised in the Draft LAP. Other submissions were concerned with the detail of quantum of development, heights, plot ratios, and zoning.

Submission No. 46 noted that Newmarket is a setpiece urban space, and redevelopment should respect original plot widths and incorporate surviving fabric. The form of original buildings e.g. White’s Tavern, Gray’s Pub should be established before comprehensive redevelopment.

The use of space for markets/events should be preplanned in advance to avoid objections later on

Submission No. 32 from Urban Capital stated that Newmarket appears to have significant development potential over and above that identified in the plan. Should be further studied and crystallised in the LAP to ensure that landowners are not held back from the market in the short to medium timeframes.

Submission No.65 from LAUD submits that no changes are needed to heights of Newmarket

Stakeholder Submission

Significance of NewmarketSubmission No.74 from the Creedon Partnership welcomed the Draft LAP but felt thatNewmarket’s importance to the southern part of the LAP area is understated – the regeneration of key sites here is necessary to achieve the objectives of the LAP

Need Appropriate objectives are needed to establish Newmarket as significant civic space.

The submission contends that the Z6 existing zoning is not appropriate for mixed use regeneration set out for Newmarket in Development Plan FDA12, and that a Z10 zoning would provide flexibility and address the specific, complex, constrained yet rich character of the area.

HeightsThe submission notes the direct correlation between the scale of a space and its horizontal and vertical dimensions. Submits that the civic function, the form and orientation of the space would be conducive to a taller denser enclosure. They request that the parapet height is increased from 15m to 18m, to accommodate 5 residential floors and a 6th floor setback at penthouse level, and submit a typical section showing a potential 7th floor. They also submit that buildings on Cork Street should be 7-9 storeys not 6-8 storeys

In addition 3 landmark buildings are sought - two on Cork Street and one on Mill Street

Prescription The submission states that the Draft LAP text is too prescriptive. They are seeking a plot ratio of 4:5 instead of 3:5

Response

Development Potential Heights and Plot RatiosThe recommendations in the Draft Liberties LAP have come out of the plan-making process (including public consultation) and have been reached following a very detailed analysis of each key development site and its capacity. The plan takes a design led approach, based on exploring how a particular form and density of development can be accommodated on a site taking into account not just the capacity of the site, but key urban design and amenity issues.

The Draft LAP does not prescribe densities or plot ratios. Rather the guidance seeks to incorporate the reality that achievable densities and plot ratios will always arise from a complex range of factors, not only the size, configuration and context of the site but also the mix of uses. The calculation of a quantum of development on a site is the outcome rather than the starting point of the design process.

It is considered that the form and height of development proposed in the Draft LAP can provide for a significant intensification of the Newmarket lands, whilst having due regard to the surrounding context and the amenities of the area. The Plan already provides for an increase in height up to eight storeys on the Cork Street corridor, and a further increase is not considered appropriate.

It is therefore considered that no amendment to objectives and layout for the Newmarket Development Site is required.

HeritageThe objectives of the Draft LAP provide for the historic square at Newmarket to be redeveloped as a civic space and market square in its original configuration. The conservation issue in relation to remaining historic structures has been dealt with in detail in Topic 15 (Heritage) In respect of the submission which requests an archaeological survey of a number of buildings at Newmarket, this may only be stipulated or achieved through the development management process. The Newmarket area lies within a Zone of Archaeological Interest, and thus the requirements in respect of all proposals within such zones apply, as set out in Section 15.11.0 of the Development Plan.

Recommendation

No change

Topic No. 28: Digital Hub

Submissions 32, 54, 58, 65, 68, 71

The submissions generally welcomed the proposals in the Draft LAP for the Digital Hub, and the designation of the area as a Key Development Site. One submission requested that the geography of ‘Digital Hub’ needs is clarified – at present it consists of two random sites north and south of Thomas Street. Submissions agreed with the broad economic objectives of the plan and the support for the development of digital media enterprises. One submission suggested that consideration be given to moving RTE to the area to consolidate digital and broadcasting enterprises.

A number of submissions raised specific concerns in relation to site layout and heights.

Submission No. 65 LAUDDigital Hub North The submission is concerned that text states buildings higher than 52m ‘would be permissible if these can be accommodated without unduly obstructing the views of the Windmill and of the historic core from the Guinness storehouse’ (p.111) Submits that nothing should be permissible if its height has not been lain down- statutory plan cannot have this flexibility

Digital Hub South (Crane Street)Submits that the tower immediately to the North of Rainsford Avenue in should be reduced from 8-10 storeys to 6-8 storeys in order to prevent overlooking of the 2-storey terraced housing. Submit that internal tower should be reduced from 11-13 storeys to 8-11 storey.

Stakeholder Submissions

Submission No.71 from the Digital Hub Development Agency This submission sets out overarching objectives of the agency – to create an international centre of excellence for knowledge, innovation and creativity focussed on digital content and technology enterprises, and to act as a driver of social and economic regeneration in the Liberties. Their remit includes research, learning and community development, and they believe that the Draft LAP presents an opportunity to continue an approach of ensuring that employment is accessible to the local community.

The submission suggests that ‘Development of the Digital Hub’ should be included as an overarching objective of the LAP. The submission emphasises importance of continuing to attract digital media companies to the area, and identifies state of the art broadband provision as a critical factor. They request that broadband services are incorporated into the Draft LAP.

The DHDA welcome the social aspects of the Draft LAP as vital in attracting people to work and live in the area, and welcomes the cultural objectives of the plan. They would like more emphasis on digital media art, support the concept of artist’s studios and workshops, and suggest initiatives in relation to local heritage, street naming and public art.

The submission welcomes the movement objectives in the Draft LAP, particularly the measures to open up and connect the Liberties to the rest of the city. However they state that the strategy would be meaningless without greatly improved public transport, cycling lanes and secure bicycle parking spots.

The submission is broadly supportive of the design policies for the Digital Hub, and the proposed urban form and connections between both sides. The submission discusses the issue of height, and the difficulties experienced by local residents in relation to large-scale proposals. They suggests that the Draft LAP could include more guidance on how developers should present their schemes to make them easier for the layperson to understand, and suggests the formation of a planning forum.

The DHDA would welcome a clear process for the implementation of the Local Area Plan, and recommend that an implementation body is established bringing together the key community, public sector and private sector partners.

Submission No.68 from Manor ParkThis submission relates to the Crane Street site of 1.1ha south of Thomas Street. Advises the Planning Authority of the importance of ‘Digital Hub’ as a unique government project to support the development of digital media enterprises, and welcomes identification as a significant redevelopment site.

They are satisfied that issues raised in pre draft submission have been addressed to an extent, and notes agreement with economic objectives of the plan, but raise a number of specific concerns. They agree with need for new route and permeability through the southern part of site but do not want the exact route to be shown – needs flexibility in detailed design stage. They also request flexibility regarding the location of the courtyard, and note that the location shown would be in shadow of indicated tall building on Page 191

The submission notes a discrepancy in heights (p.191 shows up to 13 storeys, 40m, whereas p.111, Area Specific Design Guidance on Height says 52m) and notes that Maximising the City’s Potential showed 16 + storeys

The submission requests that all of the Thomas Street frontage be designated as highly active

Submission No. 58 from P. Elliott and Co. Ltd.This submission states full support for the preparation of the Local Area Plan for Liberties. Submission notes that P. Elliott have submitted a planning application on 14 th October 2008 (Ref 4733/08) for a mixed use development at the Windmill site, and that the current application is the second phase of an overall masterplan for the complete Digital Hub Windmill Site. The masterplan seeks to reinvigorate this historic site by a mix of uses anchored by the provision of additional digital media office accommodation for the DHDA, together with student residential, retail, commercial, cultural, café-restaurant, hotel, financial, and other uses.

They submit that their masterplan is consistent with the objectives and policies of the Draft LAP, noting the introduction of permeability, the creation of a new legible urban structure and active uses at ground level. They submit that the development will enhance appreciation of the local industrial heritage through the retention, adaptation and reuse of a number of buildings on the site. They submit that their proposed development will contribute significantly to the economic and tourism objectives of the Draft LAP.

Submission No. 65 LAUDDigital Hub North Concern that text states buildings higher than 52m ‘would be permissible if these can be accommodated without unduly obstructing the views of the Windmill and of the historic core from the Guinness storehouse’ (p.111) Submits that nothing should be permissible if its height has not been lain down- statutory plan cannot have this flexibility

Digital Hub South (Crane Street) Submit that the tower immediately to the North of Rainsford Avenue in should be reduced from 8-10 storeys to 6-8 storeys in order to prevent overlooking of the 2-storey terraced housing. Submit that internal tower should be reduced from 11-13 storeys to 8-11 storey.

Response

Digital Hub and Economic ObjectivesThe importance of the Digital Hub for the social and economic regeneration of the Liberties is highlighted throughout the Draft LAP, and the plan establishes key objectives to ensure the timely development of facilities for digital media. The overarching objectives on page 5 of the Draft LAP can be amended to include a reference to the ‘Development of the Digital Hub’

In relation to broadband infrastructure and its importance for digital media, it is accepted that this needs to be given greater importance in the Draft LAP and that an objective in this regard should be included.

Recommendations for these objectives are made in Topic 9 Economic Strategy of this report.

Location of Digital Hub The Digital Hub is primarily located on sites to the north and south of Thomas St designated by Government and shown as FDA 11 in the Dublin City Development Plan. These sites are intended to function as a ‘hub’ or centre from which digital media and creative enterprises can spread to the wider Liberties and the city. In the Draft LAP the boundaries are shown for the purposes of defining a potential area for planning gain or contributions and are not intended to geographically define the Digital Hub.

Site Layouts and HeightsManor Park state their agreement with the provision of a public route and permeability through their site, but are concerned that the location of the route is prescribed and would be overshadowed by the proposed tall building.

However it should be noted that the exact configuration of the open space, the route and the tall building are not prescribed – the site layout and heights diagram are indicative, and allow for detailed design development and studies on visual impact and overshadowing to inform the proposal. It is therefore not recommended that the Draft LAP be amended in this regard.

On review of the submissions in relation to the overall Height Strategy (Topic 14) this report is recommending a revision to reduce the height of the taller building at Digital Hub from 52 to 40 metres. (Also clarifies a discrepancy in the document).

Recommendation

No change

Issue No. 29: Phasing & Implementation

Submission Nos: 18, 20, 23, 30, 32, 36, 60, 64, 71, 75, 76, 77

The submissions made in relation to phasing and implementation of the plan fall into the following broad category types namely; the release of public lands, the phasing of social housing; the life of the plan and review mechanisms; an implementation strategy and oversight group and economic analysis.

Release of Public landsThere is concern that the plan does not indicate the extent of lands in public ownership and that it does not indicate whether the lands will be sold or development by way of the PPP Process.

Phasing of Social Housing Three submissions were made in relation to the phasing of housing projects, concern is expressed regarding the housing replacement programme and the destructive impact on the existing public housing communities with specific reference to the proposed five-phase move over a twelve year period.

Life of the Plan & Review MechanismsOne submission refers to the failure to incorporate a review mechanism with the lifetime of the plan. In this regard, it states that the lap is proposed as a six-year plan but does not include any mechanism for reviewing or re-visiting the plan in the interim period to take account of changing circumstances such as facts, finances, economic environment or policies, any of which may necessitate a review or that some of the projects will extend far beyond the six-year period.

Implementation Strategy & Oversight Group The Digital Hub Development Agency states that it would welcome a clear process for the implementation of the LAP and recommends that an implementation body be established, bringing together the key community, public sector and private sector partners. In this regard, it states that it would welcome a group similar to their own consultative process, the Community, Public, Private Partnership (CPPP).

Similarly, Urban Capital advises that the challenges in making the vision happen are significant and that a guiding hand is needed to deliver the plan. It refers to the John Egan Task Force Report (UK) as useful reference material on project implementation of this scale.

A Resident’s Association refers to the Phibsborough LAP and requests a guarantee that an over-sight committee would be established on adoption of the Liberties LAP. It submits that such a committee is especially relevant given that the preparation of the plan by consultants results in a loss of institutional knowledge which in turn may impact upon the viability of the proposals and that responsibility for implementation of same should lie with the Dublin City Council Planning and Housing Departments.

Economic AnalysisUrban Capital in its submission welcomes the plan and acknowledges that it is a stepping-stone to implementation. It states, however, that the plan lacks details on the development economics challenge of the plan, project financing and development economic realities, as well as financial, funding, design and phasing options and an implementation strategy.

The submission states that the underlying analysis in relation to current economic activity is very superficial and considers that a competitive analysis by use type and an market segment would lead to a better understanding of the development brief, block and building typologies. It submits that the plan lacks details on the development economics. It refers to the requirement for a finance and implementation plan as essential to realise the aspirations of the plan.

The submission emphasises that there is huge uncertainty regarding land values in the current economic climate, which will impair the functioning of the market in terms of release of sites for development. Dublin City Council cannot solve these problems but that it can remove uncertainty in relation to development levies. In this regard, it states that there should be a fully costed plan for implementation of the public realm, infrastructure and community agenda costs. It states that uncertainties about levies will impact negatively on the land market. It also recommends a series of proposals such as density bonuses, development levy relief, tax incentives and a potential EU Funding Programme.

It also advises of the merit of a Comprehensive Baseline Economic Analysis and considers that the plan may have under-estimated the economic drivers needed to move a plan like this forward, such as a larger retail offering and a higher density office cluster.

Response

Release of Public landsThe plan suggests both the disposal and acquisition of land primarily for social housing. The City Council as Housing and Planning Authority has to take the wide view of how best to use its resources for the benefit of the whole city. In this instance it considers that the provision of additional housing land on Marrowbone Lane, Summer Street and Allingham Street as well as the increase in the number of units which can be achieved in Vicar Street, Basin Street and Pimlico reduces the need to achieve additional social housing on Chamber Weaver so that this site could become an option for disposal, possibly as an extension to the digital hub uses.

If the City Councillors agree to the disposal of land within the Liberties they can stipulate that the capital receipts remain in the regeneration area. However if the lands in question were originally purchased for housing with DOEHLG funds, the Government may also wish to attach conditions to the use of the funds.

Subject to this it would be intended to use the money from the disposal of lands within the Liberties for non housing purposes i.e. parks, public realm improvements, community facilities including sports, cultural and leisure. It may also be necessary to purchase alternative lands e.g. Pimlico, Vicar Street.

The main lands which could be considered for disposal include:

Chamber Weaver

Bridgefoot Street (most likely through the PPP process).

Site on Grand Canal Harbour (currently travelers site)

Lands remaining (i.e. when all units are replaced the final blocks for demolition will free up land not needed for social housing since all tenants will have been rehoused by then.)

Part of depot lands

Site at Meath Place (sale or land swap with Health Services Executive)

The decision to implement procurement of social housing via PPP was made at a time when central government had established through the mechanism of National Treasury Management Agency that the PPP model presented the best use of public assets. The severe downturn in the economy which led to the recent collapse of a number of PPP projects (none within the Liberties area) has lead to a reappraisal with a view to establishing more robust risk assessment criteria.

The creation of smaller parcels of land for redevelopment is one possible outcome of this reassessment process. By the time any of the projects in the Liberties are ready for redevelopment a decision regarding PPP as a procurement method for social housing will have been taken and can then be applied.

The schemes in the Liberties, which are currently being designed by the City Architects Department, do not envisage the use of PPP. When designed it is proposed to submit them to the DOEHLG for funding as part of the standard capital housing allocation programme. The schemes, which have already been notified, to the DOEHLG by Housing Construction include Garden Court, and Marrowbone Lane (Paving Depot).

Like other areas of Dublin, land ownership within the Liberties can be difficult to pin down in relation to small parcels of land. The lands owned by major landowners including Dublin City Council, Diageo, National College of Art and Design, Digital Hub and Health Services Executive, can be shown in the final plan, it was already included in the community planning report. However substantial amounts of land are owned by other landowners and it is not proposed to try to show all of these pieces of land.

Phasing of Social HousingThe demolition and replacement of social housing is an important ingredient of the plan as it will improve the quality of life of tenants through a higher standard of rented property. Inevitably the phasing of such a complex rehousing project will take time to achieve, the duration and complexity are directly related to the aspiration to retain the tenants in-situ. Chapter 8 of the Plan relates Phasing and Implementation. Section 8.1.2 of the plan acknowledges that a phasing strategy will be necessary for the replacement of the City Council Flat Complexes at Vicar Street, Basin Street and Pimlico in order to afford existing tenants the opportunity to move directly into the new accommodation in close proximity to their current residence, thereby safeguarding the long-established residential and community neighbourhoods.

An indicative phasing strategy is shown in map format in Section 8.1.2. The draft plan states that further consultation with residents will be undertaken before finalisation of the replacement housing programme.

It is not considered appropriate to prescribe the funding mechanisms for the City’s Council’s Housing Programme. The DLAP refers to a number of options which will be determined by the availability of funding from a number of sources and the economic climate. (See also response to social housing topic 10)

While the Housing Department will play a central role in the social housing aspects of the project a wider City Council role is required to meet the myriad of aspects of the plan related to the development of a more sustainable urban area and to take advantage of the location and investment in public transport in the area.

In this context the community gains in terms of improved public realm, infrastructure, schools, health centre, parks, library, pool and other essential ingredients will serve a much wider constituency than the public housing tenants and as such their delivery will extend beyond housing and even beyond the City Council since much of the redevelopment will happen on private owned lands.

Life of Plan and Review MechanismsThe Planning & Development Act, 2000 and Amendment Act, 2002 makes provision for a local area plan to be amended at any stage throughout the life of the plan.

This provision enables a plan to be amended if necessary to take account of changing circumstances. Section 8.9 of the DLAP states that the planning authority shall undertake to regularly review the individual site Masterplans to reflect any changed circumstances.

A further statement can be inserted to the text to indicate that it is possible to amend the plan and also the life of the plan may be extended or renewed after the six-year period, if necessary.

Implementation & Oversight GroupOne submission raised the issue of the potential loss of institutional knowledge due to the employment of consultants in the development of the draft Local Area Plan. There should be no need for concern about a possible loss of institutional knowledge as the plan has been developed and written by Dublin City Council officials working with its consultants. This is common practice and was also used in the development of the Local Area Plan for Phibsborough.

It is important to recognise that the regeneration of the Liberties is part of an ongoing process of which the plan is only the start. The methodology proposed is that each department and section within Dublin City Council has something to contribute towards regeneration as part of its existing capital and revenue programmes.

The coordination necessary to bring about the maximum gain in terms of regeneration will come from within Dublin City Council through the project management of the regeneration but it is also envisaged that the public forum process already started will continue so that the community of residents and stakeholders can stay in touch with the regeneration and influence its delivery.

It is envisaged that the Liberties Regeneration Manager and her team will continue to play a key role working through the public forum and possibly establishing a ‘Public Forum Co-ordination Group’ as was discussed at the outset of the plan preparation process. Draft terms of reference for the public forum meetings were discussed at the public forum and submissions were sought. The final terms of reference were subsequently published in a newsletter and also posted on the website. Accordingly, it is considered appropriate to continue to utilise these existing structures at least for the initial implementation phase. In this regard, the public forum meeting process could continue, albeit with three to four meetings per year instead of the monthly meetings.

Economic AnalysisThe purpose of designating the area as a regeneration area is to create a coherent and explicit strategy which can inform and guide existing programmes both within Dublin City Council but also externally particularly in other areas of the public sector. Therefore the plan will serve to provide a vehicle for sourcing funding and giving impetus to new projects such as replacing social housing, developing a library, improving the public realm and creating new parks and amenities for leisure, sport, culture and recreation, since these are areas which traditionally receive grants from central government.

Money will also be forthcoming from development levies and through community gain via direct provision of amenities on land owned by private developers, and also the realisation of assets through a small and targeted sale of some public land in the area.

Also since much of the proposed development will take place on privately owned lands an important responsibility for the City Council as planning authority is to provide much needed certainty about planning and also provide clarity about the city council’s vision for the area of which their land forms a part. The principles, site masterplans and height strategy set out in the DLAP are designed to achieve this in terms of area-specific guidance, as well as the quantum and location of community and social infrastructure.

The comments and suggestions in relation to the preparation of a robust implementation strategy including economic analysis are very relevant and full consideration will be given to the issues raised once the plan is adopted. While a local area plan is essentially a land use strategy to guide future sustainable development in the area, the importance of developing a finance and funding model to inform the mix of uses and the quantum is of course acknowledged. However it is beyond the remit of a local area plan to include specific details on development economics although clearly such an analysis was an essential aspect in the development of the indicative masterplans for the sites shown in the plan. This is especially relevant given that the plan sets out a medium to long-term strategy, whilst the economic circumstances are subject to change.

Aspects of the plan which relate to social housing, community facilities, public realm, transport and other infrastructure rest with the public sector and the plan provides a basis for developing proposals in relation to these and will also be of assistance in the allocation and sourcing of funding. Once the plan has been given a statutory basis a financial assessment of the proposals will be developed by Dublin City Council including for the physical and soft infrastructure provision. This in turn will inform the city-wide Section 48 Section, or alternatively, a Section 48 Scheme for the Liberties Area.

RecommendationsLife of Plan and Review MechanismsInsert Text at end of Paragraph 1 of 8.4The Liberties Regeneration Office, as part of Dublin City Council, will continue to project manage the regeneration of the Liberties Area to oversee the implementation and monitoring of the LAP. Dublin City Council will continue to liaise via the existing mechanism of the Public Forums.

Amend Text Paragraph 1 of 8.9

From This Draft LAP will have effect for a period of six years in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2000. Thereafter the Draft LAP will be reviewed as appropriate.

To This Draft LAP will have effect for a period of six years in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2000. A local area plan can be amended at any stage during the lifetime of the plan and thereafter, the plan will be reviewed as appropriate to assess whether it is necessary to re-new the life of the plan in order to achieve the overall objectives.”

Release of Public Lands

Insert Land Ownership map originally shown in document published and circulated locally entitled The Liberties Community Planning Report dated October/November 2007 page 61 into the Local Area Plan after Section 4.3 Land Use and show it as map entitled Major Land Holdings.

Issue No. 30: Community Gain

Submission Nos: 36, 38, 71, 77

A total of three submissions make specific reference to the issue of community gain, two of which were made on behalf of community interests and one from a key stakeholder with ownership of two of the significant development sites.

Community Interests

A submission made by a public representative advises that the public services and facilities should be provided in tandem with new residential units. The Liberties Development Action Group submission asserts that there is no indication whatsoever of any community gain provisions in the plan to address the inequality and deprivation in the Liberties Area. To support this claim, it cites that there are no proposals for any dedicated youth facilities. The submission states that the proposed interventions in public realm would confer significant benefits on all future private development and on this basis asserts that developers must be obliged to make some contribution to the existing resident community in return for investment of public monies.

A further submission contends that the DLAP shows no indication of any significant community benefits arising from the proposals for the Guinness Lands. It states that the zoning changes proposed for the subject site will confer enormous enrichment on the landholders and accordingly, the City Council must put community gain arrangements in place before changes in zonings can be countenanced.

Stakeholder Submission

Diageo refers to the fact that the Draft LAP outlines an extensive range of community gain elements to be developed as part of the redevelopment of significant sites within the Liberties. Specifically, it submits that the range and nature of projects identified on Guinness Lands is extensive and includes inter alia, - a park of city-wide significance, a school (primary and / or secondary), a theatre, a heritage museum - in addition to a range of local amenity, city wide civic, cultural and recreational facilities.

The submission quotes a section of the draft plan as follows: ‘permission for each development phase will be dependant upon provision through direct and indirect means of a predetermined amount of works to infrastructure, public realm, community buildings and other improvements’. On this basis, it submits that planning permission will be dependant upon the delivery of direct and indirect community gain and asserts that it is wholly inappropriate to determine whether a planning application should be granted or refused on the basis of the quantum of planning gain to be delivered.

The submission also states that it is important that the Final LAP is fully cognisant of the total financial burden on developers within the Liberties. In this regard, it emphasises that in addition to bearing the cost of direct community gain developers will also have to pay a contribution under the general Section 48 Contribution Scheme ‘in respect of public infrastructure and facilities benefiting the area and that is provided or intended to be provided by or on behalf of the local authority’ as well as two future Section 49 Supplementary Contribution Schemes (Interconnector & LUAS Line F).

In terms of the financial burden, it submits that the Final LAP must ensure that developers are not onerously encumbered as per the guidance set out in Circular PD 4 /2003. In this regard, it asserts that the most appropriate planning medium for which to achieve the delivery of community and infrastructure facilities is through a revised Section 48 Development Contribution Scheme for the Liberties Area and by using appropriate legislative provisions, where the costs of providing such facilities are equitably distributed across all developers.

In terms of the phasing schedule, the submission states that it is inappropriate to include an objective within the local area plan requiring such planning gains and as such the objective cannot be acted upon within the normal development management process. In this regard, it contends that this practice would be ultra-varies of the legal remit of the planning authority and as such is unimplementable.

In relation to the foregoing and the appropriate mechanism for delivery of community gain, the submission states that one of the principle changes of 2000 Act was the application of development contributions by planning authorities. On this basis, it asserts that the purpose of contribution schemes is to provide openness, transparency and accountability for developers and the public alike. It makes specific reference is made to the DoEHLG Circular Letter PD 4 / 2003 and quotes the following extract: ‘Planning Authorities must ensure that, when a prospective developer examines a scheme, he or

she will be able to clearly see the level of contribution they are expected pay, as well as the basis for levying the contribution’.

The submission contends that the approach in the draft plan whereby the delivery of new community and social infrastructure, shall be the subject of detailed negotiations is unsatisfactory on the basis that there is no possibility of a developer confirming the level of contribution that might be incurred. Accordingly, it requests that there be a greater level of detail in the final plan.

In relation to specific stakeholder interests, the submission contends that the range of planning gain elements to be delivered on the Guinness Lands will benefit an area extending well beyond the subject sites. Thus, it submits that the final plan must enable the cost of the provision of these facilities to be off-set against the sum of money required as payment under the various contribution schemes, otherwise there will be no incentive to develop the sites.

The submission refers to the fact that a portion of the Guinness Lands appear twice under two separate Significant Redevelopment Sites (Guinness South & Grand Canal Harbour) and requests that it be shown within one site boundary only on the basis that the draft plan states that ‘site boundary defines the area within which specific local improvements should be delivered’. It submits that any future development should not be expected to make a double contribution towards delivering the improvements and social infrastructure listed for both sites.

In summary, the submission asserts that the objectives of the draft plan in relation to community gain are ultra varies, that the development contributions in conjunction with community gain provision would be excessively high, the need for transparency of infrastructure provision across all the sites and that the correct mechanism to deliver infrastructure requirements would be way of a Section 48 Contribution Scheme for the Liberties LAP Area.

Response

Community Interests There is a strong emphasis throughout the entire plan on the provision of community facilities or quality of life infrastructure as an integral element of the regeneration strategy for the Liberties Area. In this regard, Section 6.3 sets out an extensive range of community, recreational and sports facilities to be provided as part of the development strategy, whilst the range of community facilities specific to each key redevelopment site are set out as core principles of the land-use strategy for each site and also in the series of site objectives. The range of community facilities includes for example, a new community centre and park at Bridgefoot Street, new parks at Vicar Street, Pimlico and Guinness North Lands, a new library at School Street, a new swimming pool, a multi-use games area (MUGA), a theatre and a new school facility. Furthermore, Section 8 of the Plan which relates to phasing and implementation seeks to secure the delivery of community facilities and social infrastructure in tandem with each development phase and the emerging increased population of the plan area. It is erroneous and factually incorrect to state that there is no provision for community facilities on the Guinness Lands.

It is likely that a number of specific facilities will directly serve the existing resident population, such as the community centre at Bridgefoot Street, however, it is an objective of the plan that new facilities would be accessible to all members of the local community and would serve as a point of integration between the established and new resident communities in the interest if social sustainability.

Stakeholder Submission

It is considered appropriate and reasonable that the subject lands (Guinness North and Guinness South) which consist of two key redevelopment sites would contribute to essential new community and social infrastructure for the plan area, especially given the substantial scale and extent of these lands. These lands relate to a significant quarter of the south central inner city and of sufficient scale to create a new commercial district and/or residential neighbourhood. In this regard, it relevant to note that the area of the two key sites, excluding the indicative site area for the consolidated brewery operations, is circa 15.75 Ha

The DoEHLG Draft Guidelines on ‘Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas’ (February 2008), advises that planning objectives at the neighbourhood scale should provide for, inter alia, the provision of community facilities as well as amenity and quality of life factors. In this respect, the guidelines set out details in relation to social infrastructure such as schools, healthcare, neighbourhood centre uses, public open space, playing pitches and recreational facilities. The guidelines specifically state that should identify the preferred locations of larger open spaces. The guidelines also set out recommended quantitative standards in respect of open space provision to safeguard against over-development. The Government’s Developing Areas Initiative, 2007 as well as the DoEHLG and DES Code of Practice on the Provision of Schools and the Planning System, July 2008 also focus on the provision of social infrastructure in tandem with the physical infrastructure and the delivery of residential units in order to create sustainable communities.

The DLAP sets out a series of site-specific objectives for each of the key redevelopment sites which include the requirements for the provision of new community facilities. The plan requires the following facilities in the case of the Guinness North Lands: a public park of city significance, a range of accessible open spaces, a mix of land uses to include civic and cultural facilities and a school. It is pertinent to emphasise that the public open spaces as shown on the indicative site layout equate to a relatively small portion of the Guinness North Lands, whilst the civic, cultural or tourist facilities may operate on a commercial basis, as is the case with the Guinness Storehouse. It is particularly relevant also to note that the plan does not require or specify the provision of any community facilities on the Guinness South Lands, save for the inclusion of cultural attractions within the site.

It is considered that the series of key site objectives for each of the key redevelopment sites provides significant clarity and certainty to developers regarding the requirements for community infrastructure provision. In this regard, the requisite community facilities are listed for each site and are included as core principles in each site strategy, in accordance with recent ministerial guidance.

The inclusion of the mechanisms for the delivery of each element of infrastructure in the plan, which may vary depending on the nature of stakeholder involvement, would not be appropriate in a local area plan. However, there is potential merit in the proposal to the preparation of a Section 48 Scheme for the Liberties LAP Area. Alternatively, the strategic elements of community infrastructure and public realm improvements proposed in the plan area could be incorporated into the city-wide Section 48 Development Contribution Scheme. These options will be given detailed consideration in the context of the forthcoming review of the existing Section 48 Scheme. It is also envisaged that a financial appraisal of the provisions in the plan will be undertaken subsequent to adoption.

The concerns regarding the potential for excessively high contributions are noted and will be given full consideration at the implementation stage of the plan. In addition, it is considered appropriate to omit any reference to the potential for a Section 48 Scheme for Public Realm Improvements and that consideration will be given to the potential inclusion of such projects under a city-wide Section 48 Scheme or a Section 48 Scheme for the Liberties. It is recommended that a number of amendments to the text be made to take cognisance of the above. It is recommended that the portion of lands in the Guinness South which appear also in the Grand Canal Harbour Site, be omitted to safeguard against confusion.

Recommendations

Insert Objective under Sports, Leisure & Recreation Objectives (P. 88)

To ensure that community and recreation facilities in the plan area cater for all age groups, including youth clubs, particularly in multi-purpose spaces and community halls or civic centres.

Amend Significant Redevelopment Site Drawing – Grand Canal

Amend the Redevelopment Site Boundary on the Figure Ground Drawing of the Grand Canal Harbour Site to omit those lands shown also on the Guinness South Lands.

Omit Text Paragraph 8.1.2 (P. 198)

Permission for each development phase will be dependant on provision through direct or indirect means of a pre-determined amount of works to infrastructure, public realm, community buildings and other improvements.

Amend Section 8.4 (Paragraphs 1 - 6) (P. 200)

FromExisting Text

ToSection 48 Development Contribution Scheme Consistent with city-wide planning practice all development proposals within the Liberties Draft LAP area will be subject to general financial levies as set out under the Dublin City Council Contribution Scheme made under Section 48 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000. Contributions will fund works to be undertaken by the City Council including roads, water and drainage schemes, open spaces, cultural / arts projects and other amenities that facilitate development.

It is considered reasonable that all new development in the Liberties regeneration area shall contribute to the provision of new community and social infrastructure to serve the entire Draft LAP area Central to the overall success of the Draft LAP will be the delivery of the following area wide community facilities:

Civic Centre containing a library and arts centre at Pimlico One or more new pedestrian bridges linking the Quays to Croppy’s Acre Swimming Pool at Watling Street New public parks at Pimlico, Marshalsea / Bridgefoot Street, Vicar Street, Guinness Park(s) and refurbishment of parks/open spaces at Oscar Square, Park Terrace, St James's Graveyard and St Catherine's Park". Extension of the fibre optic infrastructure within the Liberties to provide connectivity between key development sites All weather pitch and extended gym at St. Catherine’s Leisure Centre Community Law Centre Primary Care Centre at Pimlico New and Improved community childcare facilities in accordance with the requirements of Dublin City Council's Childcare Committee. Contemplative Garden with new centre for CREATE on Earl Street South with provision for an archaeology dig in the future at former Thomas Abbey.

The Planning Authority will give consideration to the inclusion of the strategic social and community infrastructure provision in the general financial levies as set out in the city-wide contribution scheme, or alternatively, a specific scheme may be prepared for the Liberties LAP Area.

In terms of public realm improvements, in all instances, it will be the preferred approach of the Planning Authority to require individual development proposals to contribute directly to public realm improvements in the general interface between private and public ownership.

However, the Planning Authority is cognisant that significant residual areas of the Draft LAP Area will not benefit from these direct interventions. It is considered desirable that the quality of the public realm throughout the Draft LAP area should benefit generally from large-scale new development in the Draft LAP Area. Accordingly, Dublin City Council will give consideration to the inclusion of such area-wide public realm improvements in the city-wide, or alternatively, area specific Section 48 Development Contribution Scheme.

Omit Text Section 7.1 Significant Redevelopment Sites P. 141

A redevelopment site boundary is also included defining the area within which specific local improvements should be delivered. This boundary also defines the area within which developers will be required to contribute directly or indirectly to delivering the improvements listed.

Issue No. 31: Land-Use Zoning

Submission Nos: 41, 43, 45, 51, 59, 66, 67, 68, 74, 77

General – ProcessAn Taisce refers to the requirement under the Planning & Development Act 2000, whereby a local area plan must be consistent with the objectives of the development plan. It submits that this is not the case on the Draft LAP on the basis that it is necessary to undertake re-zoning in respect of a number of sites in order to fulfil the objectives of the Draft LAP. The submission asserts that as a consequence of the need to re-zone that the draft plan is inconsistent with the development plan and is therefore ultra varies. The Grange Gorman Development Association also submits that the Draft LAP is inconsistent with the City Development Plan on the basis that it necessitates the re-zoning of several sites

Objections to Proposed Re-zonings

Re-zoning Recommendations From Z1 & Z5 to Z10An Taisce objects to a number of the specific re-zonings proposed as well as process. In this regard, the submission asserts that the proposal to re-zone many areas to ‘Zoning Objective Z10’ is of particular concern as this is the only zoning designation in the City Development Plan which does not list open space as a ‘permissible use’ nor is it ‘open for consideration’. It also submits that this proposed re-zoning would be contrary to proper planning and sustainable development, the wishes of the resident community and also the environmental benefits of open space provision. It expresses particular concern given that four out of the five proposals for re-zoning to Z10 would be from either Z1 / Z15, both of which make clear provision for public open space (10% and then 25% respectively). In addition, it also states that the ‘Z10 Zoning Objective: Inner Suburban’ is not appropriate by virtue of the inner city location of the subject sites.

Re-Zoning Recommendation for Guinness Lands (North) From Z7 to Z5Diageo expresses concern regarding the re-zoning proposals in relation to the Guinness Lands (North) on the basis that the site of the consolidated brewery operations has not been finalised and that industrial uses are limited under the proposed Z5 Zoning Objective. The submission also refers to the proposed park layout in the context of land uses. It acknowledges the precautionary statement in the draft plan regarding future operational requirements, but states that the park encroaches on the boundary of the consolidated brewery site, specifically, introducing amenity uses at this location, which in turn would restrict the potential for the brewery site to extend if necessary. In this regard, it is submitted that the draft plan land use assumptions within the indicative site boundary for consolidated brewery operations without any meaningful recourse to the actual operational requirements of Diageo. It respectfully submits that these premature assumptions are premature and that the final configuration on the nature of the space has yet to be finalised.

Re-zoning Requests

Cork Street / Brickfield Land From Z6 to Z4 & Specific Site Objective Ely Properties that the request the re-zoning of lands at the above location from Zoning Objective Z6: Employment/ Enterprise to Zoning Objective Z4: District Centre to facilitate the delivery of a city centre student village. It submits that the Z4 Zoning is the predominant zoning along the Cork Street Corridor and that this zoning would allow for greater flexibility in terms of accommodating the land uses associated with a student village and would facilitate a more vibrant land-use. In support of the rezoning request, it submits that employment generation, as per the key objective under the existing zoning, would be far greater than if the existing factory units were to re-open, as well as a more vibrant land-use.

The submission also requests that the new zoning objective be supported by a specific site objective to provide for a student village and complimentary uses, or alternatively, that student accommodation be included as a specific land use class within the permissible uses under the Z4 Zoning Objective. It notes that student accommodation is currently not identified as a specific land use class under the current City Development Plan.

Cork Street / Brickfield Lane (Bru Chaoimhin / HSE Site) From Z15 to Z14 The HSE submission refers to the fact that the existing facility on the above lands functions as a community day care unit for the elderly and that to develop the services further by partial development of the site. The submission seeks that the lands be re-zoned from Zoning Objective Z15: ‘To provide for institutional and community uses’ to Zoning Objective Z14’ To seek the social, economic and physical development and / or rejuvenation of an area with mixed use of which residential and Z6 would be the predominant uses’. The stated rationale is to facilitate development of the southern portion of the site with non-health care uses (residential and commercial), which would be compatible with a Z14 Zoning Objective. The submission is accompanied by a masterplan layout, which it submits maintains the visual and social setting on the existing buildings along Cork Street.

Newmarket From Z6 to Z10 A key stakeholder submission refers to the fact that the plan identifies Newmarket for mixed-use purposes. In this regard, it draws attention to inconsistencies between the written statement of the City Development Plan which identifies Newmarket as a Framework Development Area (FDA) and as such designated Zoning Objective 14 and Map E which shows it as Zoning Objective Z6. The submission states that far greater flexibility is afforded under Z14 and considers that this is most appropriate tool to establish the principles of any re-zoning of the site in accordance with the DLAP Strategy. On this basis, it is submitted that Zoning Objective Z10 is the most appropriate to achieve a mix of uses and to realise the development strategy for Newmarket. It submits that this would deliver the rich diversity of uses and would also afford greater flexibility in this economic climate.

Flexible Zoning to Facilitate Anchor Retail FacilitiesA submission made by Tesco Ireland refers to the potential population increase in the plan area over the next 10 years as stated in the DLAP (+6,000) and comments that this relates to full time population only and fails to take account of the substantial number employed within the area. It submits that the demand for retail services within LAP will be substantially greater with the emergence of employment clusters. On the basis of the foregoing, the submission requests appropriate zoning to facilitate the deliverability of retail floorspace and submits that the provision of retail floorspace in areas outside of the ‘Significant Development Sites’ can also be achieved through the provision of a flexible zoning matrix whereby convenience retaining is permitted in principles on all suitable zonings.

In support of the request, the submission states that the method of forward planning by way of restrictive zonings has long been recognised as inhibiting development and that whilst there has been a shift in more recent times towards more general zonings, key sites suitable for more local or anchor retail facilities cannot be delivered in the absence of a flexible zoning matrix. It further claims that the introduction of restrictive zoning may also reduce competition and the potential for retail-led regeneration.

Support for Re-Zoning Proposals

Grand Canal Harbour (Northern Portion) From Z10 to Z5 Grand Canal Harbour Development Company support the proposed re-zoning of the subject site from Z10 to Z5 (Inner Suburban to City Centre), which it considers appropriate, given the strategic location of the subject lands to high quality public transport infrastructure. It submits that such a re-zoning supports the overall role of the site within the plan area as a focus for mixed-use development and the site’s function as a cluster of building heights and a key area of public realm.

Grand Canal Harbour (Southern Portion) From Z10 to Z5 Dundonell Estates supports the overall re-zoning recommendations at Grand Canal Harbour.

Digital Hub Site (Southern Site) Z5 Manor Park Homes welcomes the mixed-use zoning proposed for the southern part of the Digital Hub Lands and highlights that this zoning is reflective of the need to provide for a mixed-use development at the Digital Hub. It requests the planning authority to maintain this current zoning in final LAP.

Response

The DLAP does not include any re-zoning proposals but does set out a series of land use zoning recommendations. The re-zoning of a number of the significant redevelopment sites would be subject to a separate future statutory variation process in accordance with Section 13 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000.

Zoning Objective 10The Zoning Objective Z10 is considered an appropriate use for lands within the plan which adjoin proposal for extended city centre zoning (Z5), but which by reason of the marginal location to the established city centre use and also by the intended uses set out in the strategy, would not be applicable. The Z10 Zoning Objective which provides for mixed-use development of office, retail and residential is appropriate on the basis it facilitates a vibrant mix of uses, but would also safeguard the amenity of established surrounding uses on the basis that the range of permitted uses although similar to Z5, would not be as intensive or wide-ranging. Open space provision would be a requirement for residential development in accordance with the quantitative and qualitative standards for residential development, however, on review of the permissible uses and uses open for consideration, it appears to be omitted by error in the current development plan. This may be rectified by a future variation process, however, it is also recommended that the relevant re-zoning proposals for Z10 also have a site specific objective for the provision of open space in accordance with the current development plan standards.

Guinness LandsIn relation to the Guinness North Lands, the expressed concerns regarding the pre-mature nature of the indicative land-uses and the extent of the consolidated brewery site are noted. The DLAP does acknowledge that the site boundary as provided by the company, is indicative and that states that ‘detailed studies by Diageo will be essential to confirm their specific requirements to ensure a fully upgraded manufacturing plant’ (P. 171). It also states that ‘The LAP recognises that the exact boundary may vary depending on firmer plans for the consolidation of the brewery site. Proposals for re-development of the remaining lands can only be agreed fully when the industrial site boundary is finalised’ (P. 172). The analysis of the site also fully acknowledges the importance of the brewery operations and that the site boundary may vary. The analysis also states that ‘although once finalised respect for the defined industrial site boundary has to drive any re-development proposals’. Similar statements are made in the plan in relation to the Guinness South Lands. Nonetheless, it is considered appropriate to include a statement in the DLAP to ensure that the re-zoning of the subject lands would not proceed pending confirmation of the consolidated brewery site by Diageo and the preparation of a masterplan for these lands.

Brickfield Lane / Cork StreetIt is considered appropriate that the northern or uppermost portion of the subject lands with frontage onto Cork Street and of a plot depth to the existing to facilitate a modern block format, be recommended for re-zoning from Z6 to Z4. The Z4 Zoning Objective would enable a greater vibrancy of uses at this location and would be consistent with a number of frontage plots along Cork Street. It is not, however, considered appropriate to include a specific site objective for the creation of a ‘student village’ on the basis that this would be too restrictive and also the provision of such uses or accommodation would need to be the subject of a comprehensive analysis.

Bru ChaoimhinThe HSE lands are currently zoned Z15 Institutional Land (Long Term Institutional) and the DLAP recommends that they be re-zoned to Z12 Institutional Land (Future

Development Potential). Zoning Objectives 12 provides for the development of other uses on these institutional lands but seeks ‘To ensure the existing environmental amenities are protected on any future use of these lands’. Furthermore, Z12 requires the provision of 20% open space in any redevelopment of the site. In terms of the subject lands, the existing open space area along the frontage of the site provides an important visual context for the setting of the existing hospital building, a protected structure, for the provision of visually accessible green space along the Cork Street Corridor and also to create a green north-south route between the Weir Home and the Bru Chaoimhin. Z12 is considered the most appropriate zoning objective for the subject lands and affords sufficient flexibility of uses. Accordingly, it is not recommended to amend the re-zoning recommendation in respect of the subject lands to Z14. In the event that the zoning proves prohibitively restrictive, further consideration may be given to this matter as part of the forthcoming development plan review process.

New MarketThe Draft LAP objectives in relation to the Newmarket seek to deliver a multi-functional square and city-wide destination with active frontage, to encourage day and night-time activities and also to secure ground floor commercial and enterprise space. Zoning Objective 10 would facilitate such a rich mix of uses with active frontages given the office, retail and residential would be the predominant uses. It is recommended that the lands currently designated Zoning Objective Z6 / Z14 in the Newmarket FDA (Z14) be re-zoned to Zoning Objective Z10.

Tesco Ireland In response to the request for a more flexible zoning matrix to facilitate convenience retail in a greater number of land use classes, it is considered that this issue would be more appropriately addressed as part of the forthcoming review of the development plan. In this regard, it would be outside the remit of a local area plan to determine such higher-level policy.

School Street SiteIn response to a number of submission requesting that a detailed guidance be set out in the DLAP for a site on School Street which is shown as part of the overall Pimlico Key Development Site, a strategy with an illustration of land-uses, building layouts and building heights has been prepared for inclusion in the DLAP.

It is also relevant to note that the DLAP recommends that the park adjoining this site be re-zoned from Z1 to Z9. However, the proposed zoning which by its very nature as open space is very restrictive, would in fact preclude possible ancillary uses associated with the proposed new library, such as a café which would in fact be desirable as a local amenity and contribution to the streetscape. It is also relevant to note that the provision of a new public park is included as a key site objective, and also as a list of community facilities to be provided in the DLAP under the list of Social Objective under Section 6.3.

It is recommended that the recommendation to re-zone the subject lands from Z1 to Z9 be omitted from the Table of Re-Zoning Recommendations.

Recommendations

Amend Re-Zoning Objective Z10To include a Site Specific Objective: To provide that development makes provision for open space in accordance with the qualitative and quantitative standards in the City Development Plan 2005-2001.

Site Specific Objective would relate to the relevant lands at St. James Harbour / Grand Canal Harbour, the Depot Lands (Allingham Street Extension) and Newmarket.

Amend Paragraph 8.5 P. 201

Insert the following text at Paragraph End:

The re-zoning of the Guinness Lands North and South shall be subject to confirmation by Diageo of the specific requirements of the consolidated brewery site and the preparation of a masterplan in order to protect the industrial land-use at this location in the interim period.

Insert Re-Zoning Recommendation for Lands at Brickfield Lane / Cork Street immediately west of the Depot Lands (Bru Caomhin) to relate to the northern portion of the lands with frontage onto Cork Street from Zoning Objective Z6 to Zoning Objective Z4.

Insert Re-Zoning Recommendation for lands currently designated Zoning Objective Z6 with the Newmarket FDA (Z14) to Zoning Objective Z10.

Omit Re-zoning Recommendation for Pimlico Park from existing Z1 to Recommended Z9.

Issue No. 32: Strategic Environmental Assessment

Submission Nos: 27, 48, 50, 54, 64

Six of the submissions received during the public display period directly refer to the ER. A number of submissions made passing references to the ER however made no elaboration on the information contained therein. The responses to these submissions seek to address the points made in the relevant submissions which relate directly to the ER, whilst the recommendation states where there is a requirement to update the Environmental Report. A number of localised environmental issues were raised by a number of submissions and these are addressed in the response to other topics.

Traffic Noise & Air Quality Unit, Roads and Traffic, Dublin City Council A Strategic Noise Plan for Dublin City is currently being finalised. Consideration should be given in the DLLAP for the inclusion of a statement such as ‘cognisance will be taken of the Dublin Noise Agglomeration Noise Action Plan in relation t any major developments in the area’

Response

The issue of Noise is addressed in S.4.7.2 of the ER including reference to the Dublin City Noise Mapping Project

Updating of ERMinor updating of the ER will be required to ensure consistency with the recently adopted Strategic Noise Plan.

Submission 27On reading the accompanying SEA Report it appears that the area once developed will become an overflow for those moved out from Meath Place as part of its development.

Response

The above point is understood to refer the flowing text, incorporated into Section 7: Evaluation of LAP objectives of the ER:

‘Provide new high quality mixed-tenure residential accommodation at Allingham Street and on the Paving Depot site on Marrowbone Lane. New homes on the Paving Depot to be social housing to accommodate tenants relocated from adjacent estates to be demolished, surplus to be private/affordable assist in achievement of social mix.’

It should be noted that this text is taken directly from the DLLAP document (Section 7.4). Although this submission makes reference to the SEA, no specific comments on the environmental issues are included.

Updating of ERHaving regard to the response above it is considered that no updating of the ER is required.

Submission: Water Services Division, Dublin City Council The Water Services Division is happy with these draft sections (4.8.3 Water Supply and 8.3 Water (MM2) with the exception of an addition to Section 4.8.3. This amendment is shown in the attached file (requested addition shown underlined).

In terms of catering for a significant quantum of new development in the entire Dublin City Council area, the following elements of water supply infrastructure at a strategic or regional level, are essential to ensure an adequacy of supply: Ballymore Eustace Water Treatment Works Extension; Leixlip Water Treatment Works Extension; Storage Reservoir at Saggart; the assessment of the arterial water main network supplying the Dublin City Council area and the consequent replacement and/or reinforcement of elements of this network and New Water Supply Sources (Shannon / Desalination).

ResponseThe above text is considered appropriate and will be incorporated into the updated ER

Updating of ERThe above text will be incorporated into the Environmental Report with Section 4.8.3 (Paragraph 2) to read as follows:

Treatment Works Extension; Leixlip Water Treatment Works Extension; Storage Reservoir at Saggart; the assessment of the arterial water main network supplying the Dublin City Council area and the consequent replacement and/or reinforcement of elements of this network and New Water Supply Sources (Shannon / Desalination).

Submission Nos. 48 & 50The DLLAP does not place sufficient importance on the significant archaeological heritage of the Liberties area.

Response

The archaeological heritage of the Liberties area is addressed in Section 4.9 of the ER which acknowledges that the Liberties area has an extremely rich historical character. The ER specifically highlights that sub-surface archaeological material is of heightened significance and importance in the DLLAP area as the city centre is generally entirely built over with few standing ancient monuments. The ER also highlights (S.4.9.3) that the key problems in respect of cultural heritage, is the pressure for redevelopment of brownfield sites.

It is important to note that the DLLAP is at the lowest level of the statutory planning policy hierarchy and provides for a localised development strategy. There are therefore several tiers of planning policy, heritage strategies and archaeological publications over and above the DLLAP strategy to which readers may refer if of particular interest. The purpose of the accompanying ER is to concisely address key environmental issues of local concern, inform the DLLAP strategy and to include mitigation measures where appropriate in a succinct fashion so as to inform key stakeholders and decision makers. Environmental issues of citywide concern or which are dealt at a higher level of the hierarchy are not addressed in detail in the ER. It was therefore not considered necessary or appropriate to the functionality of the ER, at this level of the planning hierarchy, to include detailed narrative of the archaeological heritage of the area. However, it was considered entirely necessary and appropriate in the ER to make strong and specific reference to significant importance of the local cultural heritage, particularly subsurface archaeology.

It is also important to note that the adoption of the DLLAP strategy does not in any way erode the statutory provisions of the Dublin City Development Plan 2005 – 2011 in respect of archaeological conservation and protection. The Development Control provisions of the City Development Plan will still prevail including the requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment if necessary. The area is noted as being largely located in a ‘Zone of Archaeological Importance’ in the Dublin City Development Plan. Accordingly, all proposed new development in the DLLAP area will be the subject to the provisions of the Dublin City Development Plan and all other higher level mandatory statutory provisions including National Monuments Legislation. In this regard, the Dublin City Development Plan 2005 – 2011 states:‘Development on Archaeological Sites and in Zones of Archaeological Interest

When considering planning applications in the Zone of Archaeological Interest and on sites of known archaeological interest, the Planning Authority will have regard to the view and recommendation of the National Monuments Service and other interested bodies, such as the Heritage Council, before arriving at a decision.

In order that the Planning Authority's policy on archaeology is implemented, the following will be necessary prior to lodgement of a planning application:

• The applicant shall consult with the City ArchaeologistIn certain cases, it may be necessary for the applicant to employ, at his/her own expense, a qualified archaeologist to carry out site investigation works

The merits and demerits of foundation type (piled, raft, etc.) shall be assessed, having regard to the potential of such foundation to avoid undue damage to archaeological strata.

When planning permission for development involving sub-surface excavation is being granted, attention will be drawn to the legal obligation to report the discovery of archaeological finds to the National Museum of Ireland.

All new basement development within medieval centres shall be discouraged where it is deemed undue damage to archaeological deposits will occur. Redevelopment in the medieval city shall have regard to the following:

Retention of the medieval street pattern; The plot width; The use of appropriate materials; The medieval character and existing height of buildings in the area; Vistas of the existing medieval monuments or other historical monuments;

and The existing paving and street furniture of an area

The provisions outlined above are further strengthened in the ER which includes a specific mitigation measure (MM4; S.8.5) which provides that development proposals should not give rise to the integrity, quality or context of archaeological materials and that pre-development archaeological testing, surveying, monitoring and recording should be carried out where appropriate.

Updating of ERHaving regard to the response above, it is considered that the ER, together with the statutory provisions of the Dublin City Development Plan 2005 – 2011, contains appropriate mitigation measures in respect of archaeology. No update of the ER is required.

Submission 54The Draft Local Area Plan has a statutory obligation to consider alternatives. In relation to the considered strategies for the built environment and the impact on the Landscape Environmental Protection Objectives, I have very strong concern that there was significant confusion of density with height. It appears from the Environmental Report that height was inextricably linked with densification. This was presented as series of incrementally increasing steps of development with an increase in heights at each stage. I would submit that a further alternative, increasing density without the subsequent increase to height and the planning issues that impact on the skyline entails was not considered and that the equation given in the draft LAP was that increased height in so called ‘clusters’ is the only route to redevelopment and regeneration.

Response

The SEA process is required to identify, describe and evaluate responsible alternatives, taking into account the objectives and geographical scope of the Draft LAP. Alternatives must be realistic and capable or implementation, and should represent a range of different approaches within the statutory and operational requirements of the particular plan. Sometimes the preferred strategy will combine elements from various alternatives considered.

The ER puts forward three development scenarios in addition to the ‘do nothing’ scenario. The three scenarios tested were – Low Growth, Medium Growth and High Growth. Development scenarios were tested against building heights, density and land uses. In each scenario, the baseline development intensity proposed is significantly higher that what is currently present in the DLLAP area. It is recognised that high rise development does not necessary equate to high-density. However, as stated above, the ‘low growth’ scenario presented in the ER is a high density alternative as compared to the current conditions in the DLLAP area. It was not open to Dublin City Council to

consider a lower density alternative given the restrictions by higher level plans and policy documents. Accordingly, the function of the ER was to test the capacity of the DLLAP area for further growth. Accordingly, it was necessary to test both increased height and increased density.

It should be noted that it is not the function of the ER to assess every nuance of each development scenario. Such an assessment is more appropriate at a project level in the context of an EIA. As stated above, in many instances the preferred strategy will combine elements from various alternatives considered. Combining different scenarios is inherent to the process as it is recognised that the detailed development of sites in the LAP area would be required to address a range of criteria in response to its context and combing low, moderate and high development intensities. This is the case in the DLLAP strategy which adopts the Medium Growth scenario

Updating of ERHaving regard to the response above it is considered that no updating of the ER is required.

Submission 64The mention of civic amenities (such as the park area and the library in Pimlico) is welcome but do not permeate the draft LAP in the way that contentious private developments do. This method of compensating negative environmental effects – ‘softening the blow’ in other words – is well described in the Strategic Environmental Assessment (pg 140 of the Environmental Report document accompanying the LAP) where it blatantly speaks of ‘mitigation measures’ to ‘balance out negative impacts with other positive ones. Let us reverse this for a moment an say that the park in Pimlico will of course be overshadowed by a 12 and two 9 storey towers barely fifteen meters away.’

ResponseThe inclusion of mitigation measures in an environmental assessment procedure is entirely prudent and in accordance with statutory obligations. All new development proposals will be subject to all of the development control provisions of the DLLAP and the Dublin City Development Plan 2005 – 2011 including, where necessary, a project level EIA and a shadow analysis study.

Updating of ERHaving regard to the response above it is considered that no updating of the ER is required.

APPENDIX 1

ISSUE / SUBMISSION ANALYSIS TABLE

Issue No.

Issues Content

Summary of Issues Refer to Submissions

1 Status of the LAP

Cork Street & Maryland Residents Ass – PPP Process & Housing Proposals

An Taisce submit that the Draft LAP is ultra vires. It is suggested that the status of the plan be changed from “draft” to “discussion” document to reflect their views.

Grangegorman Development Agency – Re-zoning in conflict with CDP

30, 41, 45,

2 Public Consultat-ion

Call for more consultation and more engagement in the plan.The majority of the submissions received regarding public consultation indicated that the public consultation undertaken was inadequate.

21, 30,36, 38, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 57, 72

3 Vision for the Liberties

Broadly welcome that an overall planning framework is being developed for the large number of sites coming on stream in the near future.

7, 19, 23, 26, 31, 32, 35, 36, 40, 41, 43, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 63, 64, 66, 67, 71, 74, 75, 76, 77

4 Policy and Planning Context

Height Maximising the City’s Potential is not seen as an adequate

guidance document on height Concern at the lack of reference to DEGW study Local residents concerned that their opinions on height

have been ignored

Density Clarify and quantify reference to ‘higher density’, The LAP does not adequately demonstrate how the

promotion of higher density will ensure sustainable communities

Concern that height is being confused with density.

6, 9, 14, 16, 17, 18, 23, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 54, 57, 60, 61, 64, 65, 68, 71, 72, 73, 77

5 Study Area Descript-ion

Population and Housing Figures based on 2006 census, which is two years old. Question the relevance

30, 71

6 Character Areas

30

7 Draft LAP Develop-ment Strategy

How can the redevelopment take place without strong economy or demand

Plan’s Response to issues is aspirational Concern that plan is overly prescriptive for key

development sites Site specific site analysis and masterplans to be provided

for the key development sites Calls for and objections to changes in zoning (dealt with in

more detail in significant redevelopment sites)

16, 30, 41, 43, 45, 51, 59, 66, 67, 68, 77

8 Six Themes

Finds no reference in any document either adopted or proposed regarding the rationale for the particular themes chosen. It is not clear to An Taisce on what grounds these themes were identified and they submit that sustainability is the only theme which should be overarching and should infuse all aspects of the LAP.

DHDA welcomes and supports the six-themes approach.

41, 71

9 Economic

Retail Need to attract quality retail investment in to the area Increase retail floor plates Importance of maintaining the street trading tradition in the

Liberties Tesco Ireland raised the following issues with respect to

retail provision in the area. It is important that the operational requirements of a major

convenience store are considered at Plan stage. Adequate car parking should be provided for retail

developments.

Digital / Creative / General Guinness Enterprise Centre Digital Hub Development Agency NCAD – Knowledge Hub Designation Welcomes and agrees with the economic objectives of the

plan Digital Hub needs to be consolidated – should RTE move

from Montrose/ Central government should consider what major

office/employment uses should be located over interconnector hubs.

DCC should lobby for ‘recentralisation’ of the public service at major transport hubs

Tourism Heritage can be utilised to enhance the tourist appeal of

the Liberties

Employment and Industry Economic objectives to be more concise and avoid

repetition

14, 20, 32, 34, 36, 52, 56, 60, 67, 68, 71, 76, 77, 79

Reference to be made to Guinness lands in Economic Objectives – General

Objective to encourage small entrepreneurs by requiring reduced rental levels and short term leases not provided for in planning legislation

10 Social(Housing)

Housing Concern that there wont be enough social housing as the

population is set to increase by 7000 What will happen if tenants don’t want to move to new

accommodation Need to spread extra social housing units built to new

apartment standards Concern that housing policy is not evidence based Welcome an increase in voluntary housing in the area No separate consultation for social housing tenants

undertaken DCC housing dept. not involved in process If development levies were used would it take 9,000

private units @ 13k each to fund 400 replacement Student housing Population and Housing Figures based on 2006 census,

which is two years old. Question the relevance Worried about the phasing of housing projects i.e. that

later stages in the projects wont go ahead

13, 30, 36, 38, 52, 57, 59, 61

11 Social(Commun-ity Facilities)

Community and Social Infrastructure A number of submissions referred to the deficit in

community and social infrastructure and the desire to make the Liberties area more family oriented by improving the range of local shopping, providing accessible open spaces, increasing the quality and diversity of housing and generally providing or improving community and cultural facilities.

Question the legitimacy of extensive developer contributions towards community gain. Concern raised that excessive contributions will discourage development

Education Trust - Wishes to be consulted about the educational aspects of the Draft LAP

Horse Culture Promote horse culture in the Liberties Set up dedicated trails and housing facilities for horses Ensure that horse waste is dealt with adequately by

owners

8, 9, 10, 15, 24, 31, 36, 38, 40, 61, 63, 71, 77, 79

12 Cultural NCAD Submission 31, 56, 7113 Spatial

& Urban Form

Height Strategy

High-rise development will have a negative impact and change character of surrounding area

6, 9, 14, 16, 17, 18, 23, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36,

(Height Strategy & Density)

High-rise will change character and devalue property Maximising the City’s Potential is not seen as an adequate

guidance document on height Concern at the lack of reference to DEGW study Local residents concerned that their opinions on height

have been ignoredDensity

Clarify and quantify reference to ‘higher density’, The LAP does not adequately demonstrate how the

promotion of higher density will ensure sustainable communities

Concern that height is being confused with density.

38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 54, 57, 60, 61, 64, 65, 68, 71, 72, 73

14 Spatial & Urban Form

(Public Realm Improvements)

Public Realm Plan for improvements short-term and medium term Objective for major public realm improvements St. Margaret’s Avenue – New Through Route

Green Spaces Amount and type of open space Sports Facilities Allotments Promote tree planting and public realm improvements in

all residential areas Further measures are proposed to enhance and protect

biodiversity in the areaWelcomes green spaces and linkages where they serve a demonstrable public function. For a number of the LAP proposals they serve to confer further profitability on adjoining developments and his appears to be their sole function

11, 12, 13, 15, 24, 26, 30, 31, 44, 49, 52, 62, 63, 71, 76

15 Spatial & Urban Form

(Heritage)

Architectural Heritage Conservation study for the entire area Character of Thomas Street should be preserved. City Walls should be enhanced and protected. Request to extend ACA westwards Grand Canal Harbour Dev – intention to retain and re-use

protected structure (curved warehouse). Draft LAP identifies retention of harbour walls as an objective – submits that full retention necessarily required – wish to use retention and re-interpretation approach, request rewording.

Diageo – RPS – Powerhouse & Silo Provide for significant interventions in building formats to

facilitate future adaptation whilst protecting historic features

ESB building in Newmarket is shown as protected, it is not and should not be.

Archaeology Archaeological integrity of the plan and certain

4, 6, 9, 13, 14, 16, 26, 29, 31, 35, 37, 41, 43, 46, 48, 50, 54, 55, 71, 74, 75, 77

development schemes questioned There appears to be no consideration of the principle of

preservation in situ in the cases where archaeological material is found to be present.

The unique and unusual survival of urban archaeology both medieval and post-medieval in the area means that it is an area of regional, national and international cultural heritage importance.

Industrial Heritage support a street/building naming project that will promote

local heritage awareness Concerned at the lack of reference to the unique industrial

heritage of the area. The indicative development envisaged for Grand Canal

Harbour totally ignores the heritage value of this important complex and fails to recognise it in its context.

It is essential that industrial sites in the area be appraised using the methodology established in the Dublin City Industrial Heritage Record (DCIHR)

Grand Canal Harbour scheme needs to respect industrial footprint, ideally should be restored to its former use as a harbour, with interpretative centre, linked to Guinness storehouse

16 Movement & Access

Movement, Traffic and Parking

Good analysis and Specific requirements described for improvements to pedestrian infrastructure – need commitment

Welcomes restricted parking Suggestions for cyclists and pedestrians vg Traffic management needs to be addressed more fully Road realignment off quays is ill-conceived – It displays

low urban design potential There has been a large response to traffic and

transportation issues. In overall terms they can be grouped into the following main areas of concern.

Impact of construction traffic Issues in relation to existing car parking difficulties,

commuter parking and potential overflow from new developments

Issues in relation to public transport Issues in relation to increased localised traffic and new

entrances on residential areas Not enough clarity in future traffic management plans. St. Margaret’s Avenue – New Through Route

5, 21, 23, 31, 35, 36, 38, 39, 44, 47, 52, 61, 62, 64, 66, 67, 70, 71, 73, 77

17 Sustainab-ility

Environment Include objective re waste recycling depots Disruption noise and dirt from construction

1, 7, 15, 16, 26, 47, 71

Concern re deteriorating environmental quality Concerns raised about potential flooding in the area Further measures are proposed to enhance and protect

biodiversity in the area18 Significa

nt Redevelop-ment Sites

GeneralIdentify Maltings & Frawleys as key development sites

76

19 Vicar St / Iveagh Markets

Cllr – Vicar Street residents do not want a hotel in the area 31, 36

20 Pimlico Submission No. 61 & Cross Ref to Housing Sub 64 – Park will be overshadowed by 2 X 9 and 12 storey towers.School Street Site

13, 30, 31, 33, 36, 44, 57, 61, 64

21 Depot Lands

30, 66

22 Bridgefoot Street/Oliver Bond

Siting of a park on the land intended for a community centre on Bridgefoot St. Concern that Bridgefoot Street PPP appears to have been abandoned and the community has not been informed

30, 36, 65, 69

23 St. James’s Harbour (Grand Canal Harbour)

Height Re-introduction of Water Heritage Archaeology Densities

Particular concerns with notional development of Grand Canal Harbour in relation to the built heritage.No good reason to refer to Grand Canal Harbour as St James HarbourEdmund Rice Trust preference for Location 4 for school (p.160 DLAP)

13, 14, 19, 29, 31, 35, 37, 40, 43, 48, 51, 55, 65

24 Marylands

52, 65

25 Guinness Lands(North of Thomas St)

Densities not in sync with proposals for Spencer DockHeuston and Spencer Dock are the two major transport interchanges in the city with significant development potential. Proposed densities along Victoria Quay bear no relation to the vision being developed at Spencer Dock.

4, 5, 13, 30, 31, 32, 38, 65, 77

26 Guinness Lands(South of Thomas

Modify to relate to above two key development sites

Welcome DLAP generally Views from Storehouse towards GCH is important Masterplan is proposed for Diageo lands and time needed

52, 65, 77

St) to develop it Revised layouts provide for Victoria Quays and the

proposed park Concern that DLAP is showing too low a height for Quays Landmark building was expected for Victoria Quay Boundary in DLAP not in accordance with Diageo’s stated

requirement for consolidated brewery operation No problem with protected status for powerhouse, but

would have concern about giving silo protected status, it would interfere with brewery consolidation

The north and south lands should be shown with different characters

DLAP should acknowledge importance of protecting brewery operation

DLAP in conflict with DCDP (City Development Plan) Also conflict with previous Heuston Framework Plan. Diageo expected to provide too much community gain,

some of it shown on this land should be funded across all the developers in the area

Diageo lands shown as being within two contribution areas27 Newmar

-ket Newmarket’s importance is understated in the DLAP ESB building in Newmarket is shown as protected, it is not

and should not be Seeking Z10 zoning in Newmarket Square Newmarket a setpiece urban space, redevelopment to

respect original plot widths and incorporate surviving fabric Use of space for markets/events to be pre-planned in

advance to avoid objections later on

32, 46, 65, 74

28 Digital Hub

Height & Density Economic Importance WiFi Creative Cluster Cultural Significance

32, 54, 58, 65, 68, 71

29 Phasing & Implementation

How can the plan be delivered if there is no demand for development and the sale of units will not pay for the rest of the development

Need for a monitoring body – DCC Implementation team, a model to enable full participation by local councillors and the community

A number of submissions raised concerns over the delivery of the Plan objectives given the scale of development proposed and any existing or future inhospitable economic conditions.

Concern raised that the schemes planned to be phased in at a later date will not happen

18, 20, 23, 30, 32, 36, 60, 64, 71, 75, 76, 77

30 Commun-ity Gain

Diageo expected to provide too much community gain, some of it shown on this land should be funded across all the developers in the area

Diageo lands shown as being within two contribution areas A number of submissions referred to the deficit in

36, 38, 71, 77

community and social infrastructure and the desire to make the Liberties area more family oriented by improving the range of local shopping, providing accessible open spaces, increasing the quality and diversity of housing and generally providing or improving community and cultural facilities. Plan needs to tackle this.

Question the legitimacy of extensive developer contributions towards community gain. Concern raised that excessive contributions will discourage development

Suggests Section 48 Development Contribution scheme pertaining to the Liberties LAP area

31 Land-Use Zonings

Calls for and objections to changes in zoning Brickfield Lane / Cork Street: Request from Z6 to Z14 &

Specific Obj Draft LAP does not have regard to the operational

requirements of Diageo - recommends rezoning from Z7 to Z5, which would limit industrial uses.

41, 43, 45, 51, 59, 66, 67, 68, 74,77

32 SEA SEA Report does not consider Archaeology.(Note – Internal Water Division Report Suggests Amendments to SEA)

27, 48, 50, 54, 64

Appendix 2

Environmental Report: Addendum 1

Report on Submissions Made During the First Public Display PeriodFrom the 30th of September 2008 to the 11th of November 2008

on the

Strategic Environmental Assessment

of the

Draft Liberties Local Area Plan

SECTION 1.0: INTRODUCTION

This is Addendum I to the Environmental Report (ER) of the Draft Liberties Local Area Plan (DLLAP) Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA).

Section 2 of this Addendum Report details responses to the submissions on the ER which have been made during the first period of public display of the Draft Plan and the ER. Also provided are any proposed updates to the ER as a result of these submissions. It is noted that changes are not made to the original ER; this addendum supplements, and should be read in conjunction with, that report.

Six of the submissions received during the public display period directly refer to the ER. A number of submissions made passing references to the ER however made no elaboration on the information contained therein. The responses in this Addendum seek to answer points made in the relevant submissions which relate directly to the ER. Proposed updates to the ER are provided, if appropriate, in order to accommodate the points made in the submissions. A number of localised environmental issues were raised by a number of submissions and these are responded to in the context of the Manager’s Report on the submissions received to the DLLAP.

Section 3 provides a summary of the amendments arising from the Manager’s Report together with the implications these may have to the ER. The purpose of this summary is to inform the Manager and the Elected Members of the implications to the environment that any amendments to the DLLAP strategy may have.

SECTION 2.0: SUBMISSIONS, RESPONSES AND CHANGES TO ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

Note:At each point a summary of the submission text is shown in italicsIt is followed by the response of Dublin City CouncilThen, any proposed updates to the ER are described

2.1 Submission by Traffic Noise & Air Quality Unit, Roads & Traffic Department, Dublin City Council.

A Strategic Noise Plan for Dublin City is currently being finalised. Consideration should be given in the DLLAP for the inclusion of a statement such as ‘cognisance will be taken of the Dublin Noise Agglomeration Noise Action Plan in relation t any major developments in the area’

Response The issue of Noise is addressed in S.4.7.2 of the ER including reference to the Dublin City Noise Mapping Project

Updating of ERMinor updating of the ER will be required to ensure consistency with the recently adopted Strategic Noise Plan.

2.2 Submission from Margaret Donnelly, Apartment 3, The Old Distillery, Allingham Street, Pimlico, D.8 (Submission #27)

On reading the accompanying SEA Report it appears that the area once developed will become an overflow for those moved out from Meath Place as part of its development.

Response The above point is understood to refer the flowing text, incorporated into Section 7: Evaluation of LAP objectives of the ER:

‘Provide new high quality mixed-tenure residential accommodation at Allingham Street and on the Paving Depot site on Marrowbone Lane. New homes on the Paving Depot to be social housing to accommodate tenants relocated from adjacent estates to be demolished, surplus to be private/affordable assist in achievement of social mix.’

It should be noted that this text is taken directly from the DLLAP document (Section 7.4). Although this submission makes reference to the SEA, no specific comments on the or environmental issues are included.

Updating of ERHaving regard to the response above it is considered that no updating of the ER is required.

2.3 Submission from Water Services Division, Dublin City Council

The Water Services Division is happy with these draft sections (4.8.3 Water Supply and 8.3 Water (MM2)) with the exception of an addition to Section 4.8.3. This amendment is shown in the attached file (requested addition shown underlined)

151

In terms of catering for a significant quantum of new development in the entire Dublin City Council area, the following elements of water supply infrastructure at a strategic or regional level, are essential to ensure an adequacy of supply: Ballymore Eustace Water Treatment Works Extension; Leixlip Water Treatment Works Extension; Storage Reservoir at Saggart; the assessment of the arterial water main network supplying the Dublin City Council area and the consequent replacement and/or reinforcement of elements of this network and New Water Supply Sources (Shannon / Desalination).

ResponseThe above text is considered appropriate and will be incorporated into the updated ER

Updating of ERThe above text will be incorporated into the Environmental Report with Section 4.8.3 (Paragraph 2) to read as follows:

‘Treatment Works Extension; Leixlip Water Treatment Works Extension; Storage Reservoir at Saggart; the assessment of the arterial water main network supplying the Dublin City Council area and the consequent replacement and/or reinforcement of elements of this network and New Water Supply Sources (Shannon / Desalination).’

2.4 Submission from William O. Frazer, 67 Clover Hill, Bray, Co. Wicklow (Submission Nos. 48 & 50)

The DLLAP does not place sufficient importance on the significant archaeological heritage of the Liberties area.

ResponseThe archaeological heritage of the Liberties area is addressed in Section 4.9 of the ER which acknowledges that the Liberties area has an extremely rich historical character. The ER specifically highlights that sub-surface archaeological material is of heightened significance and importance in the DLLAP area as the city centre is generally entirely built over with few standing ancient monuments. The ER also highlights (S.4.9.3) that the key problems in respect of cultural heritage, is the pressure for redevelopment of brownfield sites.

It is important to note that the DLLAP is at the lowest level of the statutory planning policy hierarchy and provides for a localised development strategy. There are therefore several tiers of planning policy, heritage strategies and archaeological publications over and above the DLLAP strategy to which readers may refer if of particular interest. The purpose of the accompanying ER is to concisely address key environmental issues of local concern, inform the DLLAP strategy and to include mitigation measures where appropriate in a succinct fashion so as to inform key stakeholders and decision makers. Environmental issues of citywide concern or which are dealt at a higher level of the hierarchy are not addressed in detail in the ER. It was therefore not considered necessary or appropriate to the functionality of the ER, at this level of the planning hierarchy, to include detailed narrative of the archaeological heritage of the area. However, it was considered entirely necessary and appropriate in the ER to make strong and specific reference to significant importance of the local cultural heritage, particularly subsurface archaeology.

It is also important to note that the adoption of the DLLAP strategy does not in any way erode the statutory provisions of the Dublin City Development Plan 2005 – 2011 in respect of archaeological conservation and protection. The Development Control

152

provisions of the City Development Plan will still prevail including the requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment if necessary. The area is noted as being largely located in a ‘Zone of Archaeological Importance’ in the Dublin City Development Plan. Accordingly, all proposed new development in the DLLAP area will be the subject to the provisions of the Dublin City Development Plan and all other higher level mandatory statutory provisions including National Monuments Legislation. In this regard, the Dublin City Development Plan 2005 – 2011 states:

‘Development on Archaeological Sites and in Zones of Archaeological Interest

When considering planning applications in the Zone of Archaeological Interest and on sites of known archaeological interest, the Planning Authority will have regard to the view and recommendation of the National Monuments Service and other interested bodies, such as the Heritage Council, before arriving at a decision.

In order that the Planning Authority's policy on archaeology is implemented, the following will be necessary prior to lodgement of a planning application:

• The applicant shall consult with the City Archaeologist• In certain cases, it may be necessary for the applicant to employ, at his/her own expense, a qualified archaeologist to carry out site investigation works

The merits and demerits of foundation type (piled, raft, etc.) shall be assessed, having regard to the potential of such foundation to avoid undue damage to archaeological strata.

When planning permission for development involving sub-surface excavation is being granted, attention will be drawn to the legal obligation to report the discovery of archaeological finds to the National Museum of Ireland.

All new basement development within medieval centres shall be discouraged where it is deemed undue damage to archaeological deposits will occur. Redevelopment in the medieval city shall have regard to the following:

Retention of the medieval street pattern; The plot width; The use of appropriate materials; The medieval character and existing height of buildings in the area; Vistas of the existing medieval monuments or other historical monuments;

and The existing paving and street furniture of an area

The provisions outlined above are further strengthened in the ER which includes a specific mitigation measure (MM4; S.8.5) which provides that development proposals should not give rise to the integrity, quality or context of archaeological materials and that pre-development archaeological testing, surveying, monitoring and recording should be carried out where appropriate.

Updating of ERHaving regard to the response above, it is considered that the ER, together with the statutory provisions of the Dublin City Development Plan 2005 – 2011, contains appropriate mitigation measures in respect of archaeology. No update of the ER is required.

153

2.5 Submission from Richard Darby 28a Smithfield Market (Submission #54)

The Draft Local Area Plan has a statutory obligation to consider alternatives. In relation to the considered strategies for the built environment and the impact on the Landscape Environmental Protection Objectives, I have very strong concern that there was significant confusion of density with height. It appears from the Environmental Report that height was inextricably linked with densification. This was presented as series of incrementally increasing steps of development with an increase in heights at each stage. I would submit that a further alternative, increasing density without the subsequent increase to height and the planning issues that impact on the skyline entails was not considered and that the equation given in the draft LAP was that increased height in so called ‘clusters’ is the only route to redevelopment and regeneration.

ResponseThe SEA process is required to identify, describe and evaluate responsible alternatives, taking into account the objectives and geographical scope of the Draft LAP. Alternatives must be realistic and capable or implementation, and should represent a range of different approaches within the statutory and operational requirements of the particular plan. Sometimes the preferred strategy will combine elements from various alternatives considered.

The ER puts forward three development scenarios in addition to the ‘do nothing’ scenario. The three scenarios tested were – Low Growth, Medium Growth and High Growth. Development scenarios were tested against building heights, density and land uses. In each scenario, the baseline development intensity proposed is significantly higher that what is currently present in the DLLAP area. It is recognised that high rise development does not necessary equate to high-density. However, as stated above, the ‘low growth’ scenario presented in the ER is a high density alternative as compared to the current conditions in the DLLAP area. It was not open to Dublin City Council to consider a lower density alternative given the restrictions by higher level plans and policy documents. Accordingly, the function of the ER was to test the capacity of the DLLAP area for further growth. Accordingly, it was necessary to test both increased height and increased density.

It should be noted that it is not the function of the ER to assess every nuance of each development scenario. Such an assessment is more appropriate at a project level in the context of an EIA. As stated above, in many instances the preferred strategy will combine elements from various alternatives considered. Combining different scenarios is inherent to the process as it is recognised that the detailed development of sites in the LAP area would be required to address a range of criteria in response to its context and combing low, moderate and high development intensities. This is the case in the DLLAP strategy which adopts the Medium Growth scenario Updating of ER

Having regard to the response above it is considered that no updating of the ER is required.

154

2.6 Submission from John O’Rourke, 26 Barbazon Square, D.8 (Submission # 64)

The mention of civic amenities (such as the park area and the library in Pimlico) is welcome but do not permeate the draft LAP in the way that contentious private developments do. This method of compensating negative environmental effects – ‘softening the blow’ in other words – is well described in the Strategic Environmental Assessment (pg 140 of the Environmental Report document accompanying the LAP) where it blatantly speaks of ‘mitigation measures’ to ‘balance out negative impacts with other positive ones. Let us reverse this for a moment an say that the park in Pimlico will of course be overshadowed by a 12 and two 9 storey towers barely fifteen meters away.’

ResponseThe inclusion of mitigation measures in an environmental assessment procedure is entirely prudent and in accordance with statutory obligations. All new development proposals will be subject to all of the development control provisions of the DLLAP and the Dublin City Development Plan 2005 – 2011 including, where necessary, a project level EIA and a shadow analysis study.

Updating of ERHaving regard to the response above it is considered that no updating of the ER is required.

155

SECTION 3.0: RESPONSES TO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARISING FROM THE MANAGER’S REPORT

Draft Liberties Local Area Plan 2009 - 2015Summary of Amendments Arising from Managers Report

Topic Implications for ER

Topic 3: Vision for Liberties Amend Over-arching Objective No. 4 to include the

provision of broadband infrastructure throughout the area in support of the digital media economy.

No Likely Implication

Topic 5: Study Area Description Amend text in Study Area Description 4.11

Service Infrastructure, paragraph 3, P.52 to include the provision of improved broadband infrastructure.

No Likely Implication

Topic 9: Economic Include reference to Guinness Enterprise Centre as

a Business Interest Stakeholder Include reference to Dublin City Council’s Retail

Strategy Include additional reference to linkage between

tourism and heritage

No Likely Implication

Topic 10: Social – Housing Include data on local authority housing in LAP Include additional text on potential funding

mechanisms and the disposal or public lands in the interest of transparency.

No Likely Implication

Topic 12: Arts & Culture Add the following objective into Section 6.4 of LAP

Development Strategy (Cultural): Actively seek the delivery of public art and culture

instillations with a digital media dimension for areas surrounding, and relating to the Digital Hub

No Likely Implication

156

Topic 13: Spatial & Urban Form – Height

Amend Height Strategy in Section 6.5.3 of the LAP Development Strategy to eliminate the height cluster at Grand Canal Harbour and to replace with a singular landmark element and also to reduce the height of the taller building at Digital Hub from a maximum of 52 m to 40m.

Amend Height Strategy to ensure that any potential taller buildings flanking Heuston Square to the east and within the View Corridor from Phoenix Park must form part of a cohesive masterplan for the Heuston Square Area and must demonstrate enhancement of this important vista of the city skyline. This approach acknowledges the potential benefit of enclosure or enhancement of the vista with a landmark element.

Potential impact on EPO A1 & EPO L1.

Note: EPO L1 of the ER provides that new buildings of significant height should contribute positively to the city skyline and avoid significant adverse landscape impacts. The overall reduction in building heights across certain higher lying areas of the DLLAP area and the potential increase in building height at lower lying locations could have the potential to mitigate any adverse landscape / townscape impacts, however, the initial proposals were part of a coherent and area-specific urban design analysis.

Some updating of the ER may be required. However, the strategic assessment and EPOs are likely to remain unaltered.

Topic 15: Spatial & Urban Form (Heritage)

Include a series relating to the protection of archaeological heritage.

Include a series of objectives relating to the protection of industrial heritage.

Include an objective with specific reference to the findings and methodology of the Dublin City Industrial Heritage Record (DCIHR)

Include an objective to take cognisance of the City Walls Conservation Plan, St. Luke’s Conservation Plan and the National Policy on Town Defences.

Include an objective to seek preparation of a Conservation Assessment and Industrial Archaeological Survey of the Diageo / Guinness Lands as part of any masterplan proposals, as well a record and evaluation of how particular historical elements of the complex may best be incorporated into a new visual context on re-development and consolidation of the brewery operations (Omit Specific Reference to Power Station, Pool, and Silo as these will be assessed by overall assessment).

Potential impact on EPO CH1.Note: The inclusion of these objectives would have a largely beneficial impact on the status of EPOs. However, as set out in Section 2.3 above, the ER together with the statutory planning hierarchy includes robust cultural heritage protection measures

157

Topic 16: Movement Include the Preferred Route Line to LUAS Line F

(Plan currently shows two options) Omit the proposal for the creation of a new route

through St. Margaret’s Avenue. No Likely Implication

Topic 17: Sustainability Include reference to the recently adopted City

Council’s Noise Plan.ER (S.4.7.2) includes reference to Noise Mapping Project & Plan. Some updating of Final ER may be required to ensure consistency with final adopted strategy.

Topic 20: Pimlico Site Include Detailed Guidance & Site Layout for School

Street Site on Pimlico Layout. New Layout enables creation of a pedestrian route

and new spaces, heights shown as two corner elements of 8-9 and 7-8 storeys.

Omit the proposal for the creation of a new route through St. Margaret’s Avenue

No Likely Implication

Topic 22: Bridgefoot Street / Oliver Bond Include Detailed Guidance & Site Layout for

Bridgefoot Street / Oliver Bond. The site strategy and layout accords with the series

of core principles set out in the DLAP and will include the creation of a new park, a new link between Bridgefoot Street and the Digital Hub, a perimeter block of residential units, a mixed-use community and commercial building to create active frontages and maximum building heights of 4-5 storeys.

No Likely Implication

Topic 23: Grand Canal Harbour Eliminate height cluster & amend to include a

singular landmark structure to a maximum height of 16-storeys.

Amend site layout to reduce building heights from 23-storeys, 20-storeys tower elements to singular 16-storey building with other mid-rise buildings of 9-11 storeys and to show a marginal increase in building heights on the southern part of the canal basin from 3-4 to 4-6 storeys.

Amend text and site objectives to seek a Conservation Assessment & Archaeological Appraisal for the Grand Canal Site, to include a record and evaluation of all structures in accordance with NIAH & DCIHR Method.

See Topic 13 & 15 Above

158

Topic 25 Newmarket Recommendation to Re-zone from Zoning Objective

Z6 (Enterprise / Employment) to Zoning Z10: Mixed Use to facilitate the creation of a vibrant nixed-use city-destination quarter with active ground uses.

No Likely Implication

Topic 26 Guinness Lands North

Amend approach in DLAP from site layout to take cognisance of pending finalisation of consolidated brewery site and as an alternative approach to specify that a comprehensive masterplan be prepared as a pre-requisite to any planning application for the Guinness North lands. The masterplan shall address and demonstrate how the proposed development can meet the strategic objectives of the Draft Liberties Local Area Pan and the Specific Key Site Objectives.

Insert a series of key principles for the Masterplan Amend Site Layout to show core principles and

possible locations of individual mid-rise to landmark structures of 10, 12 & 16 storeys.

See Topic 13 & 15 Above

Topic 27 Guinness Lands South Amend text and site objectives to seek a

Conservation Assessment & Industrial Archaeological Appraisal for the Guinness Lands and to include a record and evaluation of all structures in accordance with NIAH & DCIHR Method.

Amend site layout to show reduction in buildings heights to reduce the height of the tower at the corner of Grand Canal Place / Portland Street West from 16-18 storeys to 8-11 storeys.

See Topic 13 & 15 Above

Topic 28 Digital Hub Clarify current discrepancy between indicative

maximum heights shown in Section 6.3.5 Height Strategy (52m) and heights shown in the Key Site Layout (40 m) to ensure consistency and confirm appropriate height as 40m.

See Topic 13 Above

159

Topic 29 Phasing & Implementation Include statement to the effect that The Liberties

Regeneration Office, as part of Dublin City Council, will continue to project manage the regeneration of the Liberties Area to oversee the implementation and monitoring of the LAP and also will continue to liaise with the Public Forum Co-ordination Group.

No Likely Implication

Topic 31 Land Use Zonings Re-zoning recommendation for Newmarket Site from

Z6 to Z10 Re-zoning recommendations for Pimlico Park to

revert to existing zoning provision of Z1 rather than the proposed recommendation to Open Space (Z9) to accommodate possible underground parking facility.

Re-zoning recommendations for Guinness North & South Lands to be amended to indicate that re-zoning from Z7 to Z5 would be pending finalisation of consolidated brewery site and the preparation of a masterplan.

No Likely Implication

Topic 32 SEA

Summary of Submissions and Manager’s Response Addressed in this Addendum 1 Report

Appropriate Assessment Screening for Appropriate Assessment has been

undertaken in accordance Article 6(3) of the EU Habitats Directive and with Circular Letter SEA 1/08 & NPWS 1/08 issued by the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The outcome of the Screening Process and AA Statement into ER Addendum.

To be incorporated in to Addendum 2 of ER.

160

Appendix 3

List of those who made Submissions

Sub No Prefix First Name Last Name Title Organization

Name Address Address Address

12 (Anonymous)3 Mr Shane de Blacam de Blacam &

Meagher ARCHITECTS

4 St. Catherine's Lane West

Dublin 8

4 Mr Des Whelan5 Mr Michael Cullinan 2 Essex Quay Dublin 86 Mr Damien Cassidy The National

Conservation and Heritage Group

26 Westmoreland Street

Dublin 2

7 Mr Declan McCormac Sustainability Consultant

CODEMA 50 Guinness Enterprise Centre

Taylor's Lane

Dublin 8

8 Mr Eamonn Walsh Fianna Fáil Representative

Dublin South West Inner City

9 Mr William Fine 57 Liberty Court Blackpitts Dublin 810 Mr Martin Lacey 15i Newcourt New Street Dublin 811 (Anonymous)12 Fiann O Nualtáin13 Mr Des Whelan14 Mr Aengus O Snodaigh 347 Ballyfermot

RoadDublin 10

15 Mrs Dorothy Fine 57 Liberty Court Blackpitts Dublin 816 (Anonymous)17 Mr Luke Binns 30 Kirwan Street Dublin 718 Ms Mary Smith 1 Galtymore

DriveDrimnagh Dublin 2

19 Mr Des Nolan 69 Dodder Park Road

Rathfarnham Dublin 14

20 Mr Nicholas Murnona 4B Rainsford Avenue

Dublin 8

21 Mr Derek Harte 4 Allingham Street

Dublin 1

22 Mr Andy Richardson de Blacam & Meagher Architects

4 St. Catherine's Lane West

Dublin 8

23 Mr David King Transport Planning Manager

Railway Procurement Agency

Parkgate Business Centre

Parkgate Street

Dublin 8

24 Ms. Deirdre McDermott DMD Urban 9 Poolbeg Street Dublin 2

161

Sub No Prefix First Name Last Name Title Organization

Name Address Address Address

25 Ms Frances Heaslip Coordination Unit

Department of Communications, Energy & Natural Resources

26 Mr Kieran Doyle O'Brien 17 Rutledge Tce South Circular Road

Dublin 8

2728 Mr Ciarán Doyle 2 Glen Close Dublin 1829 (Anonymous)30 Mr Charlie Hammond Chairperson Cork St &

Maryland Resident Association

4 Ivy Terrace Cork Street Dublin 8

31 Mr Justin Dolan 9C Rainsford Avenue

Dublin 8

32 Ms Jill Zordan Urban Capital 149 Francis Street

Dublin 8

33 Mr Mick McDonagh Director Urban Design

Mitchell & Associates

Fumbally Court Fumbally Lane

Dublin 8

34 Mr John McInerney Centre Manager

Dublin Business Innovartion Centre

T/A Guinness Enterprise Centre

Taylor's Lane

Dublin 8

35 Mr Alan Mee Alan Mee Architects

Top Floor 9 Meath Street

Dublin 8

36 Cllr Críona Ní Dhálaigh Sinn Féin Constituency Office

347 Ballyfermot Road

Ballyfermot

37 Ms Mary Teehan Buildings Archaeologist

Dublin Civic Trust

4 Castle Street Dublin 2

38 Ms Mary Smith Liberties Development Action Group (LDAG)

1 Galtymore Drive

Drimnagh Dublin 12

39 Ms Elaine Bohn40 Mr Gerry Bennett Chief

ExecutiveEdmund Rice Schools Trust Ltd.

Meadow Vale Clonkeen Road

Blackrock

41 Mr Ian Lumley Heritage Officer

An Taisce The Tailors' Hall Back Lane Dublin 8

42 Mr Junius Horne Manager / Secretary

Dublin South City Co-operative Housing Society Ltd

3 Newcourt New Street Dublin 8

43 Ms Aoife McCarthy McGill Planning Ltd

3 Mount Street Crescent

Dublin 2

162

Sub No Prefix First Name Last Name Title Organization

Name Address Address Address

44 Mr Brian Pluymen 4 St. Margaret's Avenue

off Plimico Dublin 8

45 Mr Pirooz Dáneshmandi Chairperson Grangegorman Residents Alliance

3 Marne Villas Rathdown Road

Dublin 7

46 Mr Peter Keenahan 3 High Road Kilmainham Lane

Dublin 8

47 Mr William Fine 57 Liberty Court Blackpitts Dublin 848 Mr Franc Myles 67 Kickham

RoadInchicore Dublin 8

49 Ms Róisín Hyde The Tramway 50 Cork Street

Dublin 8

50 Mr William O. Frazer 67 Clover Hill Bray Co. Wicklow

51 Ms Patrena Slowey Associate Director

RPS Planning & Environment

5th Floor, Block E

Iveagh Court Harcourt Road

52 Chris Garde 11 Lourdes Road

Maryland Dublin 8

53 Ms Lorraine Owens Liberties Street Traders Association

54 Mr Richard Darby 28a Smithfield Market

Dublin 7

55 Dr Ron Cox Company Secretary

Industrial Heritage Association of Ireland Ltd

c/o Civil Engineering Archive

Museum Building

Trinity College

56 Ms Sinead Hughes Murray Ó Laoire Architects Ltd

Fumbally Court Fumbally Lane

Dublin 8

57 Ms Celine Graham 17 Pimlico Terrace

Dublin 8

58 Mr Gerard Doherty P. Elliott & Co. Ltd

Plato Business Park

Damastown Mulhuddart

59 Mr David Mulcahy Town Planning Consultant

67 The Old Mill Athgarvan Co. Kildare

60 Mr David Kelly61 Ms Florrie McSweeney 3 St. Margaret's

AvenuePimlico Dublin 8

62 Ms Susan Cogan 41 Francis Street Dublin 863 Mr Fergus Desmond 28 The Weavers Meath Place Dublin 864 Mr John O'Rourke 26 Brabazon

SquareThe Coombe Dublin 8

65 Mr John Crane Liberties Against Unsuitable Development

163

Sub No Prefix First Name Last Name Title Organization

Name Address Address Address

66 Mr Fergal O'Connell Gerry Cahill Architects

24a Upper Baggott Street

Dublin 4

67 Mr Paul O'Neill Senior Planner

GVA Planning & Regeneration Ltd

Second Floor Seagrave House

19 - 20 Earlsfort Terrace

68 Ms Suzanne McClure Senior Planner

Stephen Little & Associates

Latin Hall Golden Lane Dublin 8

69 Ms Máirín Ó Cuireáin Project Co-Ordinator

Robert Emmett Community Development Project

Mendicity Institution

Island Street Dublin 8

70 Mr Bernard Thompson General Secretary

National Association of Building Co-operatives

NABCO 33 Lower Bagott Street

Dublin 2

71 Ms Edel Flynn Director of Commercial Operations

Digital Hub Development Agency

Digital Exchange Crane Street Dublin 8

72 Ms Avril Gannon Six Terrace Area Action Committee

2 Chadworth Terrace

Hanbury Lane

Dublin 8

73 Mr John Henry Director / CEO

Dublin Transportation Office

Floor 3, Block 6 rish Life Centre

Lower Abbey Street

74 Mr Declan Brassil Director Declan Brassil & Company Limited

Lincoln House Phoenix Street

Smithfield

75 Mr Brian Kenny Spatial Policy Unit

Department of the Environment, Heritage

& Local Government

Custom House

Dublin 1

76 Ms Ann Mulcrone Managing Partner

Reid Associates

2 Connaught Place

Crofton Road

Dun Laoghaire

77 Mr Christopher McGarry Operational Director

RPS Planning & Environment

5th Floor, Block E

Iveagh Court Harcourt Road

78 Mr Andy Richardson de Blacam & Meagher ARCHITECTS

4 St. Catherine's Lane West

Dublin 8

79 Ms Margaret McMullin & Carley Hamilton

164