I have given the following feedback in relation to proposals online until midnight today.
A proposal like this should not be presented as solely drawings with no explanatory text. The reasons for and purposes of the specific changes proposed should be set out, as well as considerations as regards any changes considered but not currently proposed.
The proposal is to put bollards along the footpath beside the zigzagged area and the marked car parking/waiting areas. Is this intended to prevent footpath parking at these locations? If not, what are these bollards for? It’s my impression that there isn’t footpath parking at these locations. However, the zigzagged area is subject to illegal car parking/entry. Google maps show traffic cones placed to prevent this. Bollards on the footpath, of course, won’t address the problem of illegal parking on the carriageway. This presumably results from the road layout providing an additional section of the carriageway off the (already wide) main westbound lane. It’s not surprising that the subsequent modification by road markings hasn’t eliminated this parking. Surely it would make more sense to widen the footpath here so there is no additional carriageway space off the main eastbound lane?
The visual narrowing of the road at this location would also help address the main concern identified in the road safety audit. The road widens significantly at the school, leading to increased vehicle speeds. This has to be addressed. Some tree planting, sited to maintain necessary sightlines, could help with this as well.
Why is a zebra crossing or a controlled crossing not proposed here?
Given work is to be done at this location, this is an appropriate time to consider the installation of bus shelters at the stops outside the school.
I have given the following feedback in relation to proposals online until midnight today.
I have been raising the unsatisfactory condition for people walking and wheeling on Tuckett’s Lane for some time. The footpath is only on one side of the road, which would be ok if it was adequate, but it isn’t adequate. It narrows to a pinch point too narrow for wheelchairs and most pushchairs just uphill from the park, with no ramped access. (See attached photo.) I asked for this to be addressed when the lane was dug up for surface water works. I raised the need to address the quality of the lane for people walking and cycling at the earliest possible opportunity, and pointed out that this was consistent with the direction agreed by the full Council in late 2022. (https://meetings.fingal.ie/ieIssueDetails.aspx?IId=58033&Opt=3&AIID=82573)
The response was effectively that this was a different area of responsibility and that the opportunity to improve the lane while resurfacing after the water supply wouldn’t be taken. I was told that the issue would be referred to Active Travel. I have forwarded the relevant correspondence by email.
I’m concerned that the proposal on display is to address the situation immediately at the school but not the situation 100m away, despite the declared aim of Fingal Safer Schools to “Improve access routes to school by enhancing walking and cycling infrastructure.”
Downhill from the park, the footpath has steps due to its steepness, but there is no dishing to enable people using wheels to access the carriageway.
Without a doubt some of the motor vehicle delivery traffic to the school is a result of the inadequacy of the walking routes to the school. Therefore, the above issues with Tuckett’s Lane should be addressed to facilitate greater numbers walking rather than being driven, in accordance with the aim of the project.
As part of that, the four arms of the Tuckett’s Lane/ St. Lawrence’s Terrace/ St. Nessan’s Terrace junction should be marked with zebra crossings.
The footpath on Tuckett’s Lane between the above junction and the school is also substandard and should also be widened.
The drawing is hard to understand, being marked in yellow on a faded photographic background. Am I correct that bollards are proposed to prevent cars parking on or accessing the footpath? There are no indications on the map that there is an intention to restrict car parking on the carriageway at these locations, yet a number of the submissions seem to understand that this is proposed. If this is a misunderstanding it should be clarified to those who made submissions.
The crossing point in front of the school should be made into a zebra crossing.
One of the submissions correctly points out that the footpath across from the school on the west side of St. Peter’s Terrace ends at a height blocked off with railings. This should be redesigned to facilitate people walking.
The opportunity should be taken for locating additional trees/rain gardens in this area.
I have made an observation on the draft Dunsink Local Area Plan. It’s main points:
Luas should be delivered along with housing, not after.
The proposal to delay the light rail line until long after extensive housing is provided is contrary to the principles of Transport-oriented Development and inconsistent with the Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy.
The assessment of alternatives in the Strategic Environmental Assessment is not meaningful and does not comply with the requirements of the SEA Directive.
The proposals in the draft LAP as regards car parking present opportunities for significant economic savings for residents and for major improvements in welfare and the public realm.
The proposed combined light rail and cycle/pedestrian bridge over the M50, consistent with the relevant provisions of the Fingal Development Plan, is very welcome.
The alteration of River Road to a quietway with no through motor traffic requires minimal initial investment and should be implemented as part of, or before, phase 1 of the LAP.
The land to the west of the Navan Road train station is ideally suited for transport-oriented development and the zoning shoul be changed to the mixed use Metro Rail Economic Corridor to provide housing as well as employment.
The land to the east of the station includes a large area of wetland. The wetland area should have the development zoning removed from it.
At Monday’s meeting the Council agreed to my motion to write to the Minister for Housing to ask that sites with housing planning permissions but which are currently used as car parks no longer be exempted from the Residential Zoned Land Tax.
I became aware of this exemption in the context of the recent Variation to the County Development Plan, where we rezoned green belt and rural land despite the availability of well-located, fully serviced residential land with planning permissions. In the Variation process, I asked for details of the undeveloped sites with planning permission and found that these sites included two on car parking at Blanchardstown Shopping Centre for 1319 apartments, and one on car parking in Santry for 192 apartments.
Congratulations are due to Abbey Park and District Residents Association for yet again standing up for proper planning and sustainable development in their area. Their Judicial Review challenge to a permission for an 11 storey residential tower beside Stapolin Educate Together National School has been successful. The application was refused by Fingal County Council but that refusal was overturned by An Bord Pleánala (ABP, now An Coimisiún Pleanála, ACP) on appeal.
In the High Court, Holland J ruled that ABP had failed to address the inadequate playground provision, which was a material contravention of the Fingal Development Plan. The file has been remitted to ACP for decision, with the assistance of the Judge’s observations on a number of the other grounds in the judicial review challenge, on which he did not make findings.
The judgement will be of particular general value in reminding planning authorities of something surprisingly contested by ACP in the hearing, i.e. that they have “a duty to seek to protect the residential conditions and amenities…of those, usually as yet unidentified or unidentifiable, who will live in the dwellings proposed” and in reminding them that [w]hile opposed planning applications are in practice considerably adversarial, they are primarily inquisitorial processes.”
I attended Leave No Trace training on beaches and dunes on Bull Island on 6th May. Although three Biodiversity officials from Fingal were there, unfortunately nobody from Operations managed to attend this time. (The Area Committee agreed in 2024 to my proposal that the Council would investigate the possibility for communities in the Howth/Malahide Area and Council officials to participate in training for communities on beaches and dunes for climate adaptation, but it seems this wasn’t followed up.)
I found the training to be excellent and I have written to the Director of Services firstly to recommend that all dealing with beach management, both in operative and supervisory roles, benefit from similar training.
I also point out that we face issues with the imminent start of the bathing season and associated mechanical raking, seeking a meeting on the beach as soon as possible to discuss these. These include the following:
On the same day as the training, I received a response at the Area Committee in follow-up to the meeting in February with two local residents about erosion issues. I note the reference to staying 2m away from the foot of the dunes. The photo below shows dune grass trying to grow on an area in front of the dunes which is in places up to 30m deep. We should be ensuring that raking is kept 2m away from any location where dune vegetation is trying to grow. The location of the ropes should support this.
The ropes have stretched and hang to the sand even where the dune hasn’t grown up around the posts. The sand has built up leaving many posts and some stretches of rope submerged. The posts and ropes need to be relocated accordingly.
Concrete bases for the lifeguard hut seem to have been installed on the same day as the training. This was done by cutting into the foot of the dune. Below are two photos, one from 7th May, and one from 13th. You can see that blown sand has already, by 13th, covered the most windward of the concrete pads. (You can also see the scouring in front of the most leeward of the pads.)
Overall this is an area where the dune system is building up sand. The idea of concrete foundations is entirely unsuitable to the location. I suggest the lifeguard hut should be well above the sand level on a foundation of poles into the beach. (The same principles apply to the foundations being used for bins.) The question of Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Directive for the work done needs to be addressed.
New positive signage should be installed on the rope posts. Here’s an example shown at the training.
At the eastern end of the beach, sand-trap fencing (chestnut palings) should be installed to catch sand and facilitate dune recovery and growth.
The Area Committee response said
“The seaweed is then deposited approximately 1 meter in front of the dunes at various locations along the beach. This seaweed (a) acts as a natural fertiliser for Maram Grass growth promotion, whose roots are essential for the stabilisation of sand dunes, and (b) to act as an anchor point to encourage sand deposition, the precursor of new dune formation.”
I am informed by people who walk on and pick litter on the beach every day that the seaweed is not spread along the front of the dunes as would be required for this to work but is mounded at one location far from where the public uses the beach.
I’m very concerned by this element of the Area Committee response:
“Beach raking removes debris, often perceived to be unsightly, making the beach more attractive for visitors, tourists and families. The improved aesthetic appeal positively impacts tourism and community well-being, contributing to a positive perception of the coastal area.”
The Area Committee response seems not to recognise the presence of voluntary litter picking on the beach and to overestimate the degree of work required outside of the most busy periods. In addition, it is worth comparing the cost of improved beach management with the expense currently being incurred in Portrane to address coastal erosion.
I have asked for this site meeting to be organised as soon as possible, and definitely before any beach raking starts.
The Land Development Agency which bought the undeveloped land at Stapolin last year has opened a public consultation (archived) in relation to its proposals to amend the existing planning permission for the part of the Stapolin area which will include the permanent access to Clongriffin train station. The consultation includes drop-in events at Racecourse Community Centre today and next Wednesday from 5 to 8 pm.
The information supplied to date is quite general but the LDA have made a detailed proposal to Fingal County Council in the Large Scale Residential Development process, which unfortunately isn’t publicly available. I have asked them for these document and submitted a request to them under the Access to Information on the Environment Regulations.
The Council Executive have put proposals on public display for parking charges on Harbour Road Howth. The proposal is to charge €1.70/hr, with a 3 hour time limit. The large car-parking areas at the Harbour are managed by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, who have previously indicated that they would cooperate with Fingal in regulating parking. However, they’re not involved in the current proposal.
I have submitted a response to the consultation. It goes into detail on
the need to cooperate with the Department / Harbourmaster in developing an integrated scheme,
the need to extend the scheme over the areas currently affected by excessive parking demand or which will suffer from displaced car parking
the need to address safety issues and improve conditions for people walking in Howth.
