Monthly Archives: September 2005

Baldoyle/Portmarnock Area Plan sent back for full study

By a vote of 10 to 9, the Council supported a motion by the 3 Green
councillors to revoke the draft area plan for the area around
Portmarnock Dart Station and to get a new area plan drawn up after
studies are done on the impact on wildlife and biodiversity,  the
land contours are mapped so that the new housing can be placed where it
won’t intrude on the Green Belt, and the initial design work is carried
out on the Millennium park.

The full motion agreed by the Council follows:
That the Draft Local Area Plan be revoked and a new Draft be drawn up following the carrying out of:
•    biodiversity studies (as mandated by the Council’s Heritage Plan Action 70)
•    initial design work on the Millennium Park
•    the production of contour maps and visibility
analysis to determine appropriate site ground levels and building
heights in order to meet Development Plan Specific Objective 234: “The
visual impact on the Green Belt of this new housing in Portmarnock will
be minimised by its siting, design and by planting”
and including the following in the Draft:
•    provisions to meet the concerns in relation to
biodiversity and parks and contour maps and visibililty referred to
above
•    provisions requiring high standards of design and
construction to meet energy efficiency, renewable energy, water
efficiency and other sustainability criteria
•    the proposed street network(s) for all road users
(including specific extra provision for pedestrians and cyclists where
appropriate), specifying cycling walking and bus networks with a higher
level of penetration through the area than cars as recommended by the
DTO, but without increasing traffic conflicts for such road users.
•    including as recommended by the Regional Planning
Guidelines and the DTO “building forms and layouts that allow for the
penetration of areas by pedestrians, cyclists and public transport”.
•    An outline of the SUDS-based drainage to be used in the area including consideration of ecological impacts
•    a public marketplace, on land taken in charge by
the County Council, within the limits set by the 2005 Public Safety
Zones Report .”

Is it safe for cyclists to put ramps on a hill?

It seems to me that ramps on a hill risk knocking cyclists freewheeling
downhill off their bikes.  This is what Fingal is currently doing
at Yellow Walls Road in Malahide, a location used by lots of children
going to school.  I’m particularly aware of it because it’s part
of my route to Fingal County Council’s offices in Swords and while it’s
outside my area, I’m concerned because of the risk that someone could
be seriously hurt.

I would be grateful for any feedback on this.  Below, I have put copies of correspondence on this subject.
________________________________________
From: Daithí Ó hÉalaithe / David Healy [mailto:verdire@eircom.net]
Sent: 6 May 2005 18:01
To: Peter Caulfield (peter.caulfield@fingalcoco.ie)
Cc: Dto (dto)
Subject: Seabury/Old Yellow Walls Traffic Management Scheme

Dear Peter,

I refer to the above scheme proposal.  As you know this is a
potentially important route for cyclists accessing local schools and
travelling between Swords and Malahide.

You indicated at today’s meeting  (5th May 2005) of the local area
commitee that the scheme would be subjected to a safety audit.  As
you know I am particularly concerned that the placing of ramps on a
hill as proposed is potentially dangerous to cyclists.  I am also
concerned that the footpath widths proposed are sub-standard with
predictable consequences of pedestrians using the carriageway to pass
each other.  

I am just writing to formally ensure that these issues are noted for the purpose of the safety audit and addressed in it.

Is mise, le meas,

David Healy

Cc: Dublin Transportation Office (please circulate to officer(s) responsible for cycling facilities and pedestrian issues.
{mospagebreak}OLD YELLOW WALLS ROAD SHUTTLE LIGHTS

Stage 1 Road Safety Audit

Report   
September 2004   

Prepared for:   
       
Clifton Scannell Emerson
Seafort Lodge
Castledawson Avenue
Blackrock
Co. Dublin
Ireland

Prepared by:   
Steer Davies Gleave
1 York Place
Leeds
LS1 2DR

[t] +44 (0)113-242 9955
[i] www.steerdaviesgleave.com   

 
Contents    Page
1.    INTRODUCTION    2
2.    ITEMS RAISED FROM THIS (STAGE 1) AUDIT    4
General    4
Signals    5
3.    AUDIT TEAM STATEMENT    8

 
1.    INTRODUCTION
1.1    This report results from a Stage 1 Safety Audit
carried out on a proposed traffic management scheme along Old Yellow
Walls Road, Malahide, Ireland.
1.2    The scheme forms a component of an area wide
traffic management scheme seeking to address issues of road safety,
excessive vehicle speeds and rat-running through residential areas to
the west of Malahide town centre. The Old Yellow Walls Road scheme
additionally seeks to address issues arising from narrow carriageway
and footway widths.
1.3    Old Yellow Walls Road is subject to 30 mph speed
limit and currently caters for a two-way all day traffic flow of 15,000
vehicles. The road accommodates two bus routes with approximately 6
buses per hour in each direction.
1.4    The scheme proposes a consistent cross-section of
a 5.0m carriageway with 1.5m footway, speed tables and a short section
of one-way shuttle working controlled by a new traffic signal
installation.
1.5    The scope of the audit is defined as the length
of Old Yellow Walls Road between Hillcrest and Millview Road. 
1.6    The Design Organisation is:
Clifton Scannell Emerson Associates, Seafort Lodge, Castledawson Avenue, Blackrock, County Dublin, Ireland.
1.7    The audit was carried out by:
Andrew Barker BEng (Hons) CEng MICE
Steer Davies Gleave (Leeds), Principal Consultant.
Matthew Gatenby MEng MILT MIHT
Steer Davies Gleave (Leeds), Senior Consultant.
1.8    The Audit was carried out in the Leeds office of
Steer Davies Gleave on the 9th and 10th September 2004 following a site
visit on 8th September 2004. The audit comprised of an examination of
the documents forming the audit brief and an examination of the site.
This information was considered sufficient for the purpose of carrying
out the road safety audit requested.
1.9    Andrew Barker undertook the visit to the site in
the afternoon and evening of 8th September 2004 (15:00-18:00hrs). On
the day of the site visit the prevailing conditions were fine and the
road surface was dry.
1.10    The Audit was undertaken with reference to the
Highways Agency standard HD 19/03 and to The Institution of Highways
and Transportation "Guidelines for the Safety Audit of Highways".
Comments and recommendations in this report are on the road safety
implications of the scheme, as presented, and do not verify the
compliance of the design to any other criteria.
1.11    The following reference documents were studied as part of the audit:
•    Clifton Scannell Emerson drawing no. 02_089/109,
titled “Old Yellow Walls Road Traffic Management Plan – Alternative
Option Shuttle Lights”, dated August 2004.
•    Clifton Scannell Emerson drawing no. 02_089/111,
titled “Old Yellow Walls Road Alternative B – Shuttle Lights Full
Area”, dated August 2004.
•    Clifton Scannell Emerson drawing no. 02_089/002,
titled “Old Yellow Walls Road – Traffic Count Locations”, dated
22/11/2002.
•    Accident data printout for the period 1994 to 1999.

2.    ITEMS RAISED FROM THIS (STAGE 1) AUDIT
General
Problem
2.1    Location: Entire length of highway link, except shuttle section.
2.2    Summary: Narrow carriageway width may increase
the risk of accidents due to vehicles clashing. Increased risk to
cyclists. Increased risk to pedestrians from vehicles encroaching onto
footway.
2.3    The proposed carriageway width of 5.0m is
narrower than existing. Whilst speeds may be lower and heavy goods
vehicles are to be banned from using the link, use by 2.45m wide
double-decker buses remains. This is particularly relevant on the bend
located at the west end of the proposed scheme.
Recommendation
2.4    Maximise the width of carriageway by locally widening to match the extent of the highway land available.
Problem
2.5    Location: Old Yellow Walls Road, between Estuary Road and Millview Road.
2.6    Summary: The standard and nature of the highway
link differs appreciably from the surrounding highway network.
Increased risk of accidents due to unexpected driving conditions.
2.7    Old Yellow Walls Road, between Estuary Road and
Millview Road has a lower standard of alignment, forward visibility and
carriageway/footway width than roads in the surrounding highway
network.
Recommendation
2.8    Employ ‘Road Narrows Dangerously’ traffic signs on the approaches to the sub-standard section.
Signals
Problem
2.9    Location: Shuttle section
2.10    Summary: Increased risk of vehicle collision due to drivers not clearing one-way section.
2.11    It is anticipated that at peak periods delays
will be experienced by vehicles queuing on the approaches to the
signals. Driver frustration may result in vehicles ‘following through’
the section despite the signal turning red.
Recommendation
2.12    Introduce a system of “all-red extension”
detection loops between the signal installations to monitor vehicles
clearing the one-way section, and extend the all-red clearance period
when necessary.
Problem
2.13    Location: Shuttle section – signal locations
2.14    Summary: Risk of vehicles striking signal heads/poles.
2.15    Several of the proposed signal pole locations have insufficient clearance from vehicular traffic.
Recommendation
2.16    Re-site poles such that signal heads are a
minimum of 300mm from carriageway edge (or greater in areas of high
carriageway crossfall). 
Problem
2.17    Location: Shuttle section – signal locations
2.18    Summary: Risk of vehicular accidents due to non-standard layout of signal heads.
2.19    Whilst it is appreciated that the design is at
an early stage, the proposed signal locations appear non-standard in
terms of location and of primary/secondary provision. This is
especially relevant due to spatial constraints and the possible
reliance on third party land.
Recommendation
2.20    Re-position signal heads. 
Problem
2.21    Location: Shuttle section – westbound stop-line
2.22    Summary: Risk of accidents from vehicles emerging from private driveway with inadequate visibility.
2.23    The location of the stop line will result in
poor access/egress manoeuvres for users of the private driveway.
Visibility will be impaired by the presence of waiting vehicles.
Recommendation
2.24    Re-position stop line and consider use of ‘Yellow-box’ markings. 
Problem
2.25    Location: Shuttle section – westbound stop-line
2.26    Summary: Risk of shunt accidents for westbound vehicles approaching stop line.
2.27    Forward visibility to the westbound stop line
location and nearside primary signal head is sub-standard. The
mitigation proposal to cut back the hedgerow may prove unworkable
beyond the current highway boundary. The proposed off-side primary
signal will experience masking by eastbound traffic.
Recommendation
2.28    Employ warning sign ‘Traffic Signals Ahead’ on nearside as well as proposed off-side location.
2.29    Re-position signal/stop line to achieve 50m
forward visibility, giving consideration to the likelihood of future
hedge growth.
Problem
2.30    Location: Shuttle section – stop-lines
2.31    Summary: Risk of shunt and overshoot accidents for vehicles approaching stop lines.
2.32    Both stop are located on down-gradients.
Recommendation
2.33    Employ high skid-resistant surface on the approach to the signal stop-lines.

3.    AUDIT TEAM STATEMENT
3.1    I certify that I have examined the drawings and
documents listed at the beginning of this report and have visited the
site.  The examination has been carried out with the sole purpose
of identifying any features of the design that could be removed or
modified in order to improve the safety of the scheme.  The
problems identified have been noted in this report together with
associated safety improvement suggestions that I recommend should be
studied for implementation.  I have not been involved with the
scheme design.
AUDIT TEAM LEADER

Signed    ………………………………………     Date    …………………
            Andrew Barker BEng (Hons) CEng MICE
Steers Davies Gleave
1 York Place
Leeds, LS1 2DR
UK

AUDIT TEAM MEMBERS

Matthew Gatenby MEng MILT MIHT
Steers Davies Gleave
1 York Place
Leeds, LS1 2DR
UK

 

CONTROL SHEET

Project/Proposal Name:    OLD YELLOW WALLS ROAD SHUTTLE LIGHTS

   
Document Title:    Stage 1 Road Safety Audit

   
Client Contract/Project Number:   
   
SDG Project/Proposal Number:    205959
   
ISSUE HISTORY

Issue No.    Date    Details
1    13/09/2004    1st Issue
REVIEW

Originator:    ADB
   
Other Contributors:    MCG
       
Review By:    Print:    Andy Barker
       
    Sign:   

DISTRIBUTION

Clients:    Geoff Emerson, Clifton Scannell Emerson Associates
   
Steer Davies Gleave:    File

{mospagebreak}
From: David Healy / Daithí Ó hÉalaithe [mailto:verdire@eircom.net]
Sent: 27 September 2005 11:36
To: ‘leedsinfo@sdgworld.net’
Cc: Jeroen Buis (jeroen.buis@dto.ie)
Subject: Attn: Andrew Barker, re: Safety Audit for Old Yellow Walls Road

Dear Mr. Barker,

I refer to the safety audit carried out on the Old Yellow Walls Road
scheme, a copy of which I attach.  I also attach below
correspondence to the Transport Department of Fingal County Council in
relation to the safety audit. 

I would be grateful if you could indicate whether the two issues I
raised in my letter were considered as part of the safety audit and if
so what the results of that consideration were. 

Cllr. David Healy
Green Party/Comhaontas Glas
 
www.davidhealy.com
54, Páirc Éabhóra, Beann Éadair, B.Á.C. 13
01 8324087
087 6178852

From: Daithí Ó hÉalaithe / David Healy [mailto:verdire@eircom.net]
Sent: 6 May 2005 18:01
To: Peter Caulfield (peter.caulfield@fingalcoco.ie)
Cc: Dto (dto)
Subject: Seabury/Old Yellow Walls Traffic Management Scheme

Dear Peter,

I refer to the above scheme proposal.  As you know this is a
potentially important route for cyclists accessing local schools and
travelling between Swords and Malahide.

You indicated at today’s meeting  (5th May 2005) of the local area
commitee that the scheme would be subjected to a safety audit.  As
you know I am particularly concerned that the placing of ramps on a
hill as proposed is potentially dangerous to cyclists.  I am also
concerned that the footpath widths proposed are sub-standard with
predictable consequences of pedestrians using the carriageway to pass
each other. 

I am just writing to formally ensure that these issues are noted for the purpose of the safety audit and addressed in it.

Is mise, le meas,

David Healy

Cc: Dublin Transportation Office (please circulate to officer(s) responsible for cycling facilities and pedestrian issues.

Bad road design is putting pedestrians and cyclists at risk

Bad road design in new housing estates in Fingal is putting pedestrians
and cyclists at risk.  Most of these roads and streets are being
built by developers, and it seems that the planning system is failing
to ensure that basic design rules for pedestrians and cyclists are
being implemented.

Ironically the greatest risk for cyclists comes from "cycle facilities"
supposedly provided for their benefit.  The greatest risk for
pedestrians comes from the roundabouts which are being used everywhere
as well as wide curves (high curve radii) which encourage motorists to
cross pedestrians’ path at speed.  I have submitted a motion to
the Transport Strategic Policy Committee of the Council and taken some
photographs of some of the ridiculous designs. Motion for Transport SPC:

That the Manager report on the mechanisms operated in the Council to
ensure that road designs submitted by developers are checked for

   1. safety for pedestrians and cyclists

   2. compliance with the Provision of Cycle Facilities: National
Manual for Urban Areas or subsequent guidance being developed by the DTO

   3. provision of an environment which encourages walking and cycling

both at planning permission application stage and at the stage of
compliance submissions in relation to granted permissions, with
particular reference to road designs such as that at Robswall in
Malahide, and Applewood in Swords.

Below are some photos from new developments in Fingal.

{mosimage}
New footpath in Portmarnock unusable by wheelchair or pushchair.

{mosimage}
Cycle track in Swords with no way of getting onto it.

{mosimage}
Cycle track in Swords endling in boulders, no exit from it.  Note
it is inside the
footpath which breaches the national  manual. In any event, there
is no reason for these cycle tracsk. Cyclists on these roads should be
accommodated
on the carriageway.  I observed cyclists completely confused as to
how to use these roads.

{mosimage}

New
urban centre in Applewood Swords: If there isn’t room for parking and a footpath, which gets squeezed?

Meeting of Dublin North East Greens

There will be a meeting of Dublin North East Greens at 7pm on Thursday
29th September in Baldoyle Library.  All those interested in
finding out more about the Green Party/Comhaontas Glas and inputting
into Cllr. David Healy’s work are welcome.

Local Environment Fund available

Applications are due by 7th October for funding under the "Local Agenda 21 Environment Partnership Fund".  *

This should be of interest to all community organisations to work on
sustainable development or environmental issues.  Details are
at:http://www.fingalcoco.ie/YourLocalCouncil/Services/Environment/EnvironmentalAwarenessEducation/LocalAgenda21/#d.en.86

(Local Agenda 21 was supposed to be a process arising from the Rio
Earth Summit in 1992 whereby communities would convert to sustainable
development through a process of involving the various
stakeholders.   This has not happened in Ireland. 
Instead the local environmental grants have been renamed.)

Playground in Sutton

At the Area Committee meeting on 15th September, after public
consultation, the committee decided to drop the proposal for a
playground at Greenfield Road in Sutton.  It also agreed to
approve the proposed playground at Howth Harbour.

I agreed with both these decisions.  Having given an election
commitment to support playgrounds, I feel I should explain my decision
in relation to the Sutton site.  The overriding consideration was
the lack of any positive support for the playgrounds or indication of
any local demand for them.  The purpose of these small playgrounds
is to provide a facility for local use.  None of the 30 separate
submissions indicated a demand for a playground in this area.

A copy of the report on the public consultation is below.

FINGAL COUNTY COUNCIL

MALAHIDE/HOWTH AREA COMMITTEE
(SERVICES B)

PLANNING, PROPERTY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, HOUSING, COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND AMENITIES, GENERAL BUSINESS]

THURSDAY 15TH SEPTEMBER 2005

ITEM NO. 39 (b)

PROPOSED PROVISION OF A PLAYGROUND AT GREENFIELD ROAD, SUTTON – REPORT
PURSUANT TO PART XI OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACTS 2000-2002

Fingal County Council proposes to provide a playground at one of two
possible locations, shown as A and B on site location map of Greenfield
Road, Sutton. The sketch plans of the proposed development were
presented to the Malahide/Howth (Services B) meeting on the 16th June
2005 where it was agreed that the procedure pursuant to Part XI of the
Local Government Planning and Development Acts 2000-2002 be initiated.

In accordance with Part VIII of the Planning and Development
Regulations 2001 public notice of the Council’s intention to provide
the playground was published in the Irish Independent on the 5th July
2005 and a site notice was erected on site the same day.

Plans and particulars of the proposed development were made available
for inspection between the hours of 9.30 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. and 2.00
p.m. to 4.00 p.m. on working days from Tuesday 5th July 2005 until
Wednesday 3rd August 2005 at the following offices of Fingal County
Council:-

•    Parks Division, Fingal County Council, County Hall, Main Street, Swords
•    Baldoyle Library, The Mall, Baldoyle, Dublin 13

Submissions or observations with respect to the proposed development
dealing with the proper planning and sustainable development of the
area in which the development would be situated were to be made in
writing to Mr Gerry Fitzgerald, Senior Executive Parks Superintendent,
Parks Division, Fingal County Council, County Hall, Main Street, Swords
on or before Wednesday 17th August 2005.

The period during which submissions or observations in respect of the
proposed development may be made to the Local Authority has expired.
This report is being submitted to the Council in accordance with the
requirements of Article 179(3) of the Planning and Development Act 2000
which states that a report, in accordance with sub-article (b) shall –

“(i) Describe the nature and extent of the proposed development and the principal features thereof”

Each proposed playground will be approximately 400 square metres in area (20m x 20m)

Will be equipped with play equipment suitable for children under 8 years of age.

Playground boundary will be secured with a railing 1.2 to 1.5 metres high.

The area will be surfaced with tarmac with safer surface (rubber tile,
rubber wet pour, loose rubber or wood fibre) provided within the
critical fall areas.

The playgrounds are intended to serve the needs to children living
locally and should not be seen as a regional facility. Though there may
be visitors from other estates when the playgrounds open.

Fingal County Council will seek, by public tender, qualified
contractors to design and construct the playground including all
surfacing, boundary treatment and play equipment

“(ii) Evaluate whether or not the proposed development would be
consistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of the
area to which the development relates, having regard to the provisions
of the Development Plan and giving reasons and considerations for the
evaluation”.

The area in which it is proposed to develop the proposed playground is
zoned “F” in the 1999-2004 Fingal County Council Development
Plan.  This zoning objective is “to preserve and provide for open
space and recreational amenities”.  It is considered that the
proposed development would not be contrary to this objective.

“(iii) List the persons or bodies who made submissions or observations
with respect to the proposed development in accordance with the
Regulations under sub-section (2)”.

See Appendix A

“(iv) Summarise the issues, with respect to the proper planning and
sustainable development of the area in which the proposed development
would be situate, raised in any submissions or observations, and give
the response of the Manager thereto”.
See Appendix B

“(v) Recommend whether or not the proposed development should be
proceeded with as proposed, or as varied or modified as recommended in
this report, or should not be proceeded with, as the case may be”.

Given that location B is close of a drainage gripe that occasionally
fills with water, and that there is no practical way at present to
eliminate this risk, the Council is of the opinion that location A
would be the preferred location for the playground.  Given that
this site is located adjacent to a busy road this proposal should only
proceed on the condition that a road crossing is provided. If the
members approve of the proposal the appropriate arrangements will be
made to proceed with the development of the facility.
Appendix A

LIST OF PERSONS OR BODIES WHO MADE SUBMISSIONS OR OBSERVATIONS ON OR BEFORE 4 p.m. ON WEDNESDAY AUGUST 17TH 2005

Appendix B
SUMMARY OF ISSUES RAISED IN SUBMISSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS ON PROVISION OF PLAYGROUND AT GREENFIELD ROAD, SUTTON.

SUBMISSION    RESPONSE
1    Visually Obtrusive    The Council is
of the opinion due to the proposed size of the playground ie 20m x 20m
that residents’ views of the bay area will not be obstructed.
2    Safety of Children-(a) Proximity to main road (b)
Rodents at Shoreline    (a) The provision of a
playground at this location will depend on the provision of a
pedestrian crossing. Should the Members approve this project
discussions will be held with the Council’s Transportation Department.
(b) Any reports of vermin at this location would be immediately referred to the Health Services Executive for immediate action.
3    Disturbance of  Winter Feeding Ground of Brent
Geese    The species of geese in question regularly
inhabit used open space in this and other locations in the County. The
Council does not consider that the provision of a playground at this
location would adversely affect the geese. However, the Wildlife
Service will be requested to examine the matter and it’s views will be
taken on board.
4    Exposure from Coastal Wind    The
Council recognises that limited use of the playground at certain times
of the year due to weather conditions will occur. It is envisaged by
the Council that the playground would only be used by children on
suitable dry days, therefore the issue of shelter is not seen as a
factor that would stop the playground being used.

5    Car Parking    Whilst  the
proposed playground is intended to serve the needs of children living
locally it is indeed for all children and this will therefore result in
additional usage in summer. The Council  is of the opinion
that  there is adequate car parking available adjacent to the
Church. The provision of a playground at this location will depend on
the provision of a pedestrian crossing.
6    Anti-social behaviour/Vandalism
It is not anticipated that either of the proposed locations would
represent more of a risk from anti social elements  than other
similar type playgrounds in situ throughout the County.
7    Need for such a facility    The
Council’s view is that the provision of a playground in this facility
will improve the level of facilities in this area  for children
and is in line with Council policy on play facility provision.
8    Too close to sea  and drainage trench.
Area  prone to flooding.    Location B is prone to
flooding in extreme weather conditions. Should the playground proceed
at this location the reports of consultants working on drainage in
Dublin bay area at present will guide its design. Location A is not
prone to flooding.
10    Coastal location would lead to rapid corrosion of
equipment    The equipment in the proposed playground
would be of galvanised steel construction, which should reduce
corrosion. It will be finished to a high quality.
11    Baltray, Howth would be a better
location    It is Council policy to provide a number of
playgrounds in each electoral area. The location suggested can be
investigated.

Playground in Howth

The proposed playground at Howth Harbour was approved by the area
committee on 15th September.  I proposed that it be approved and
that it be designed with a local maritime theme and in consultation
with Howth Sutton Community Council.  This was agreed and the
playground will be built in time for next Summer.

Howth SAAO Committee to meet

As I am now chair of the Howth/Malahide Area Committee, I am also chair
of the Howth Special Amenity Area Order Committee.  Unfortunately
the Committee has not met for about 2 years;  there has been no
clear explanation of why this is the case.  I will be ensuring
that the SAAO Committee meets regularly and I submitted a motion in
relation to this to the Area Committee on 15th September, which was
agreed.

Consultation on Baldoyle Millennium Park to start soon

I have been pushing the Council to take action in relation to the
Millennium Park in Baldoyle which is supposed to be provided as part of
the housing development in Stapolin.  n response to a motion of mine at the area committee meeting, the
Parks Department have reported that they are to initiate public
consultation in relation to the design of the Millennium Park in
Baldoyle.   Within a month or so they will invite public submissions about the
design of the park.  After these are considered, a draft design
will be drawn up and put on public display.

Motion and full report below.

MALAHIDE/HOWTH AREA COMMITTEE
(SERVICES B)

 PLANNING, PROPERTY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, HOUSING, COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND AMENITIES, GENERAL BUSINESS

THURSDAY, 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2005

ITEM NO.  47

MILLENIUM PARK, BALDOYLE – PLANS

Motion:    Councillor D. Healy
“That the Manager bring forward plans for a consultation and design
process with the local community and with community and sporting
organisation in order to prepare for the drawing up of plans for the
provision of the Millennium Park in Baldoyle.”

Report:
It was stated in the Baldoyle Portmarnock Action Area Plan that ‘The
design and layout of the parkland shall be subject to consultation with
the Council, Baldoyle Residents Association and other relevant
associations and local clubs prior to the submission of a planning
application’.

To date the Planning Department has received planning permission for
phases 1 and 2 and has required by condition the provision of 9
hectares of parkland on the southern boundary to the rear of Admiral
Park to be set out and developed as playing pitches.  The details
of these works have been agreed and work is well in progress and
expected to be handed over in early Autumn 2006.  In discussion
with Planning and Parks Departments, an additional 9 hectares is also
to be provided as playing pitches over and above the planning
requirement.  

The design of the remainder of the park is currently subject of
discussions between the Developer and the Council.  There are also
an extensive section of ecologically sensitive lands which will require
very sensitive planning and design and also will need to be fully
compliant with the requirements of the Department of the Marine,
Environment and the Wildlife service.  

The Council are shortly to invite the public to make submissions
regarding the design of the park.  Following consideration of the
submissions and consultation with interested parties, a draft plan will
be prepared for the park and put on display for a month, pursuant to
Part VIII procedures as set out in the Planning Act.