I have submitted a number of motions to amend the proposed Variation, informed by the responses to the public consultation on the Variation. They reflect the following:

I support the bringing forward of the development of the Dunsink lands and Iarnród Éireann’s proposal that higher densities should apply near rail stations.

The Council made some important decisions in the last County Development Plan process, to rezone brownfield employment-only sites for mixed or residential use. This approach was good and it should inform our response to this Variation.

Unfortunately the Executive has decided to recommend the rezoning of Green Belt land rather than brownfield sites. I consider that this advice is contrary to national, regional and local policy, and contrary to proper planning and sustainable development.

I support the proposals in two of the submissions for residential or mixed use zoning on land currently zoned for employment-only uses. One is the brownfield former Wavin site in Balbriggan identified in this submission, the other land to the west of Navan Road Parkway railway station (some, but not all of the land identified in this submission.) The Balbriggan site is 9.65ha and the Navan Road Parkway site is 18.7ha. Taking account of the national guidelines, these parcels could be expected to accommodate over 500 units and 1700 units respectively. Those density estimates are very approximate; actual densities would depend on whether residential-only or mixed use zonings are applied, and would be subject to detailed analysis of specific local impacts and capacities. My motions seek the initiation of a variation process to change the zoning of these pieces of land, a process which would include consideration of those issues.

The Settlement Capacity Audit, undertaken before the draft Variation was proposed, underestimated the current settlement capacity of the county. It omitted 1511 housing units on brownfield sites currently used as car parks in Blanchardstown and Santry for which planning permission has been granted, and the Kellystown Local Area for which the Local Area Plan indicates indicates between 1065 and 1610 units. Taken together, the total underestimate is between 2500 and 3000. There is more detail on this in in my submission to the public consultation.

I made an observation to the NTA’s consultation, in support of the carriage of pets on public transport.

I have made observations on an application for 1,350 housing units at Belcamp. The area was to have a Local Area Plan but that requirement was irresponsibly removed from the Fingal Development Plan in 2023. I previously made a submission on an application on this site which was later withdrawn.

Although close to the existing urban area, this site, unlike most of the zoned land in Fingal, lacks easy access to public transport. Supplying public transport to the site is a central challenge which hasn’t been adequately addressed. An east-west route through the site should be protected for light rail, as I have argued since 2007.

I received a response on Friday 23rd to my queries of 9th January. It shows that important sites with permission for housing or zoned for housing have been omitted from the Settlement Capacity Audit. This includes 3 sites (Blanchardstown and Santry) with existing planning permissions amounting to 1511 units, and one Local Area Plan area (Kellystown) where the Council intends to seek Part 8 approval for the access road this year, with capacity for between 1000 and 1500 units.

I have made a submission to the public consultation with the following recommendations:

• The bringing forward of the Dunsink development is welcome and appropriate. This land is well sited and it really didn’t make sense to defer its development.
• The proposals to rezone green belt and agricultural land should be dropped. A number of the proposed sites were considered and rejected for rezoning in the development of the 2023 Development Plan. The Green Belt zoning has always been intended as a permanent zoning and the proposas to eat into green belt land undermine the proper planning and sustainable development vision for the County. In addition there are grave concerns about flooding and public transport access which haven’t been investigated as they should have been.
• In the light of the over-calculation mentioned above, it is not necessary to find other lands for zoning to replace these rezoning proposals.

I have put more details on the calculations below.

A Variation to the County Development Plan has been proposed by the Council Executive and is out for public consultation until 29th January.

It is in response to a direction from Central Government to increase the housing targets for the County. It is proposing to bring forward the zoning of land at Dunsink which I strongly support. However, it also includes a number of scatterred rezoning proposals eating into the green belts around towns in Fingal, which have been established planning policies for decades.

The total additional zoning proposed would be for 5000 housing units, based on a Settlement Capacity Analysis which appears to have omitted some important sites zoned for housing including sites which have existing planning permissions. This is because the Settlement Capacity Analysis is based on the Residential Zoned Land Tax and land with existing permitted uses is excluded from the tax even if it has residential planning permissions.

I have written to the Council officials about the calculations, asking for some more details.

Subsequent to An Comisiún Pleanála reopening it’s consideration of the appeal on the demolition and replacement of Deer Park Hotel, I have made observations on additional submissions from the applicant, based on the three issues in my appeal: sustainability of demolition, pedestrian access, and the proposed additional road.

(Update 6th November: I have received the Development Pipeline Analysis commissioned from EY.)

Fingal’s Development Contribution Scheme is up for review. There are some significant decisions to be taken. I will be arguing for us to end an exemption which favours car parking over housing, and to do what we can to facilitate shared spaces, communal, social and cultural facilities.

A Development Contribution Scheme sets out the rate of development contribution levied on new developments to (partially) fund the infrastructure that enables the developments. A draft was brought to the full Council last week, but we didn’t have time to get into the details of it. It is based on an analysis by EY, which also hadn’t been circulated.

In addition to seeking the EY report and any other relevant background information, I have asked for answers to the following questions in order to prepare a response to the public consultation. I will make a more detailed submission when I have the necessary information.

(Update: I received responses to these questions a few hours before the meeting on 8th December. My motion to apply the same rate to residential and commercial development was defeated (16 votes in favour to 18 against) and my motion to exempt “Communal, social and cultural facilities associated with a housing development from the levy was defeated (16 votes in favour to 20 against.) My motion to index-link renewables from a 2025 baseline was agreed unanimously.)

My observation on Phase 1F of this development south of Station Road in Portmarnock focuses on the following:

• the urgent need to improve walking and cycling infrastructure in all directions from this area
• designing the new neighbourhood to prioritise walking and cycling, including by
  • clustering the car parking in one location
  • creating residential streets oriented towards walking and cycling rather than acting as car parking access routes
  • filtered permeability
  • designing residential streets which are shared between cycling and occasional vehicles rather than a separate cycletrack.
• not materially contravening the Fingal Development Plan limit on car parking
• providing for the childcare needs of the existing and future residents

An Coimisiún Pleanála have accepted that they should have circulated the applicant’s response to my planning appeal to me for comment and conceded the legal challenge I took against them.

They will now reconsider the file and enable me to make a submission on the applicant’s response to my appeal.

Background and details: