MINISTER FOR the Environment John Gormley is expected to amend the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown development plan unless councillors drop a proposal to increase the volume of retail space in the area by up to 20 per cent.
In a letter earlier this week to the council, his department said the proposed amendment – adopted on March 10th against the advice of county manager Owen Keegan – would contravene retail planning guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area (GDA).
The amendment, tabled by Cllr Jim O’Leary (FG), replaced the term “lettable retail floorspace” with “net sales area” throughout a chapter of the draft development plan dealing with the provision of shopping facilities.
“The department is of the view that the amendment contravenes the 2005 guidelines, which clearly differentiate between the relevant definitions,” the letter said, noting that “net sales area” typically constituted 80 – 90 per cent of the total lettable area.
“The effect of the amendment is to increase the total retail floorspace permitted in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown during the life of the plan by 10 to 20 per cent compared with that envisaged by the GDA retail strategy,” the department warned.
It said this would be a “material alteration” to the draft plan and, as such, should have been published for public consultation in accordance with the relevant section of the 2000 Planning Act “and should not therefore have proceeded”. The draft development plan is due to come into force on April 8th and, if councillors do not amend the disputed definition of retail space, the Minister would have no option but to use his powers under the 2000 Act to bring it into compliance.
Mr Gormley earlier issued a direction to Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council to reconsider the rezoning of Park Village, near the N11 in Carrickmines, from a neighbourhood centre to a potentially much larger district centre — also against planning advice.
When the matter came to a vote on March 10th, cathaoirleach Marie Baker (FG) had to use her casting vote to uphold the Minister’s direction after receiving legal advice from the officials that the council had to accept it — whether or not the members agreed.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Showing posts with label Development plan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Development plan. Show all posts
Sunday, 21 March 2010
Monday, 10 November 2008
Gormley challenges council's builders list
DONEGAL COUNTY Council's plan to draw up a list of small builders and guarantee them planning permission for up to two "one-off" houses a year is being challenged by Minister for the Environment John Gormley.
"The Minister's position is that compilation by the councillors of an annual register of small builders who will then be permitted to build two houses each per year is not appropriate for inclusion in a land-use plan," a spokesman said.
"It is akin to business support - and preferred business support at that - which may be open to legal challenge as it confers preferred development rights on local builders to the exclusion of others from outside the locality.
"This is the fourth case where [Mr Gormley] may have no option but to intervene because a council is not adhering to planning legislation and policy. He believes it highlights an issue where councillors act . . . against the interests of the wider community."
The spokesman said the council's Small Builders Policy - believed to be the first of its kind in Ireland - raised "potential ethics, probity, fairness and competition issues" and also amounted to an abuse of the county development plan.
The Department of the Environment wrote to Donegal County Council last June outlining its "serious concerns" about certain aspects of the then proposed draft variation of the county plan.
"The Minister continues to have serious concerns about the potential planning implications of the proposal, but requires further information about the plan in terms of the number of units/builders etc, in order to determine whether he will intervene," the spokesman said.
Last Friday, Dave Walsh, principal officer in charge of spatial policy, wrote to Donegal county manager Michael McLoone requesting the council to outline clearly how the small builders policy would operate.
He asked on what objective criteria were the applicants for inclusion on the register to be assessed: who could qualify as a builder for the purposes of the register; who would adjudicate on applicants; and what "preferential treatment" they would receive.
Mr Walsh also asked what safeguards would be put in place "to ensure that . . .the proposed system fully accords with the local government ethics framework".
Mr Walsh wrote: "The introduction of this policy could also have significant adverse planning implications for the council . . . [G]iven the lack of detail contained in the proposed variation . . . it is not possible to fully quantify and adequately assess the full planning implications."
The letter "strongly advised" the council to seek legal advice on whether the plan was "well-founded, proportionate and robust to potential legal challenge" and also whether it was valid, given that no environmental assessment was carried out.
"I would appreciate if you would revert to the department with the additional information . . . so that we can assess whether further action is warranted by the department in this matter," Mr Walsh's letter concluded.
The Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
"The Minister's position is that compilation by the councillors of an annual register of small builders who will then be permitted to build two houses each per year is not appropriate for inclusion in a land-use plan," a spokesman said.
"It is akin to business support - and preferred business support at that - which may be open to legal challenge as it confers preferred development rights on local builders to the exclusion of others from outside the locality.
"This is the fourth case where [Mr Gormley] may have no option but to intervene because a council is not adhering to planning legislation and policy. He believes it highlights an issue where councillors act . . . against the interests of the wider community."
The spokesman said the council's Small Builders Policy - believed to be the first of its kind in Ireland - raised "potential ethics, probity, fairness and competition issues" and also amounted to an abuse of the county development plan.
The Department of the Environment wrote to Donegal County Council last June outlining its "serious concerns" about certain aspects of the then proposed draft variation of the county plan.
"The Minister continues to have serious concerns about the potential planning implications of the proposal, but requires further information about the plan in terms of the number of units/builders etc, in order to determine whether he will intervene," the spokesman said.
Last Friday, Dave Walsh, principal officer in charge of spatial policy, wrote to Donegal county manager Michael McLoone requesting the council to outline clearly how the small builders policy would operate.
He asked on what objective criteria were the applicants for inclusion on the register to be assessed: who could qualify as a builder for the purposes of the register; who would adjudicate on applicants; and what "preferential treatment" they would receive.
Mr Walsh also asked what safeguards would be put in place "to ensure that . . .the proposed system fully accords with the local government ethics framework".
Mr Walsh wrote: "The introduction of this policy could also have significant adverse planning implications for the council . . . [G]iven the lack of detail contained in the proposed variation . . . it is not possible to fully quantify and adequately assess the full planning implications."
The letter "strongly advised" the council to seek legal advice on whether the plan was "well-founded, proportionate and robust to potential legal challenge" and also whether it was valid, given that no environmental assessment was carried out.
"I would appreciate if you would revert to the department with the additional information . . . so that we can assess whether further action is warranted by the department in this matter," Mr Walsh's letter concluded.
The Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Sunday, 2 November 2008
Mayo councillors up in arms over county plan reversal
County councillors in Mayo are to make a last-ditch attempt to persuade government planners that their new county plan - which allows for one-off housing - should not be reversed.
The councillors will present the case for their plan at a joint Oireachtas committee meeting on Tuesday.
The county development plan received the unanimous backing of the 31 councillors earlier this year. However, in July, environment minister John Gormley issued a directive to the council to ‘‘prioritise and develop residentially zoned lands in the Castlebar-Ballina hub over other locations in the county’’.
He said the council should ‘‘apply the appropriate planning policies . . . on sustainable rural housing, by reverting to the reasonable and pragmatic settlement policies in the draft development plan’’. Councillors were unhappy with the directive and sought legal advice on whether it could be challenged in the courts.
Fine Gael controls the county council and its whip on the authority, Paddy McGuinness, said solicitors had told them that current planning legislation gave the minister ‘‘absolute power’’.
‘‘We have been told it is unlikely to stand up to constitutional challenge and we will not waste the council’s money if that is the case. But this will affect councils all over the country when they go to submit their new six-year county development plan,” he said.
‘‘We are so angry, after two years of working on this plan, that the minister believes Mayo people should be herded into the towns of Ballina and Castlebar. Seventy per cent of the county’s population live outside of towns and villages in their own dwellings, and that is how it’s been in Ireland through the centuries,” said McGuinness.
The councillors have sought meetings with Gormley, but have not secured one to date. McGuinness and several other councillors will now make their case to environment and local authority officials at a joint Oireachtas committee on Tuesday.
‘‘The directive issued to Mayo county council is legally binding. Department officials will brief the committee about the directions to the council this week, and will listen to the councillors’ concerns, but there will be no meetings outside this,” said a spokesman for the department.
Sunday Business Post
www.buckplanning.ie
The councillors will present the case for their plan at a joint Oireachtas committee meeting on Tuesday.
The county development plan received the unanimous backing of the 31 councillors earlier this year. However, in July, environment minister John Gormley issued a directive to the council to ‘‘prioritise and develop residentially zoned lands in the Castlebar-Ballina hub over other locations in the county’’.
He said the council should ‘‘apply the appropriate planning policies . . . on sustainable rural housing, by reverting to the reasonable and pragmatic settlement policies in the draft development plan’’. Councillors were unhappy with the directive and sought legal advice on whether it could be challenged in the courts.
Fine Gael controls the county council and its whip on the authority, Paddy McGuinness, said solicitors had told them that current planning legislation gave the minister ‘‘absolute power’’.
‘‘We have been told it is unlikely to stand up to constitutional challenge and we will not waste the council’s money if that is the case. But this will affect councils all over the country when they go to submit their new six-year county development plan,” he said.
‘‘We are so angry, after two years of working on this plan, that the minister believes Mayo people should be herded into the towns of Ballina and Castlebar. Seventy per cent of the county’s population live outside of towns and villages in their own dwellings, and that is how it’s been in Ireland through the centuries,” said McGuinness.
The councillors have sought meetings with Gormley, but have not secured one to date. McGuinness and several other councillors will now make their case to environment and local authority officials at a joint Oireachtas committee on Tuesday.
‘‘The directive issued to Mayo county council is legally binding. Department officials will brief the committee about the directions to the council this week, and will listen to the councillors’ concerns, but there will be no meetings outside this,” said a spokesman for the department.
Sunday Business Post
www.buckplanning.ie
Tuesday, 28 October 2008
Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown Development Plan Submission Deadline
Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council's final deadline for submissions is 5:00 p.m. on Monday 3rd November 2008. This is less than a week.
If you wish to discuss a submission or the planning processes involved in making a submission, please contact bps immediately on 0404-66060.
If you wish to discuss a submission or the planning processes involved in making a submission, please contact bps immediately on 0404-66060.
Wednesday, 30 July 2008
A councillor's view on planning - detailed design controls for every site in Dublin?
Madam, - During our economic boom Dublin sprawled and saw valuable green spaces gobbled up by developers. Despite the fact that five areas in the city were earmarked for high-rise buildings under the current Development Plan, it is indeed remarkable that Liberty Hall remains the City's tallest building.
Having been a member of Dublin City Council for the last four years I am convinced that one of the major reasons for this problem is the built-in vagueness and uncertainty which has underpinned planning for many decades. The preparation of the next City Development Plan for 2011-2017 is currently under way. The first phase of public consultation will begin in February.
In my opinion a completely new approach is required. I believe that land use zonings and height and density rules should be drawn up on a site-specific basis with complete clarity. Everyone will then know what can be built and where. The city needs development on a planned and sustainable basis. Clear rules will reduce delay and uncertainty for developers and give the residents of the city confidence in the planning process. - Yours, etc,
Cllr OISÍN QUINN, Temple Villas, Rathmines, Dublin 6.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Having been a member of Dublin City Council for the last four years I am convinced that one of the major reasons for this problem is the built-in vagueness and uncertainty which has underpinned planning for many decades. The preparation of the next City Development Plan for 2011-2017 is currently under way. The first phase of public consultation will begin in February.
In my opinion a completely new approach is required. I believe that land use zonings and height and density rules should be drawn up on a site-specific basis with complete clarity. Everyone will then know what can be built and where. The city needs development on a planned and sustainable basis. Clear rules will reduce delay and uncertainty for developers and give the residents of the city confidence in the planning process. - Yours, etc,
Cllr OISÍN QUINN, Temple Villas, Rathmines, Dublin 6.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Monday, 23 July 2007
Gormley orders council to redraw development plan
ENVIRONMENT Minister John Gormley yesterday intervened in the controversial Monaghan County Development Plan ordering councillors to go back to the drawing board.
He issued a formal direction instructing the county council to vary the plan in the interests of future sustainable development in the county.
He made the intervention following concerns about the extraordinary levels of zoned land proposed in the plan, which was adopted on March 20 this year. It had provided for an astounding increase of population in the county over the next six years, approving planning for an additional 102,000 people.
That was an increase of 182% on the total population of 58,000 currently living in the county.
The Green Party leader said that the rationale for such an increase in zoning could not be substantiated. It would have meant that some villages in the county might have seen their population increase four-fold or five-fold.
“The practice of zoning for residential development in a sporadic and haphazard fashion in random green-field sites, which extend outwards from villages and do not have the necessary services to support the proposed development, does not conform with proper planning principles and such development is not sustainable,” said Mr Gormley.
He also said he was dissatisfied with the council’s rejection of the department’s advice to use the distinction between Clár and non-Clár areas as a basis for distinguishing between weaker rural areas and rural areas under strong urban influence. He instanced those areas close to the main towns of Monaghan, Carrickmacross and Castleblayney and along the N2 National Primary Route .
“Councils have a duty and obligation, when making development plans,” said the minister, “to ensure that the greater common good will prevail from their decisions and the future development of their areas is based on sound planning principles”.
Irish Examiner
He issued a formal direction instructing the county council to vary the plan in the interests of future sustainable development in the county.
He made the intervention following concerns about the extraordinary levels of zoned land proposed in the plan, which was adopted on March 20 this year. It had provided for an astounding increase of population in the county over the next six years, approving planning for an additional 102,000 people.
That was an increase of 182% on the total population of 58,000 currently living in the county.
The Green Party leader said that the rationale for such an increase in zoning could not be substantiated. It would have meant that some villages in the county might have seen their population increase four-fold or five-fold.
“The practice of zoning for residential development in a sporadic and haphazard fashion in random green-field sites, which extend outwards from villages and do not have the necessary services to support the proposed development, does not conform with proper planning principles and such development is not sustainable,” said Mr Gormley.
He also said he was dissatisfied with the council’s rejection of the department’s advice to use the distinction between Clár and non-Clár areas as a basis for distinguishing between weaker rural areas and rural areas under strong urban influence. He instanced those areas close to the main towns of Monaghan, Carrickmacross and Castleblayney and along the N2 National Primary Route .
“Councils have a duty and obligation, when making development plans,” said the minister, “to ensure that the greater common good will prevail from their decisions and the future development of their areas is based on sound planning principles”.
Irish Examiner
Sunday, 18 February 2007
Draft Clonmel and Environs Development Plan 2008
Clonmel Borough Council and South Tipperary County Council have prepared a Draft of the Clonmel and Environs Development Plan 2008 incorporating a Strategic Environmental Assessment. This Plan has been prepared in accordance with Section 11 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 following initial public consultation.
The Draft of the Clonmel and Environs Development Plan 2008 is available for public inspection from the 29th January 2007 until the 12th April 2007, during normal office hours (9.00am to 1.00pm and 2.00pm to 5.00pm) on any day on which the said offices are open to the public, at the following locations.
Clonmel Borough Council, Town Hall, Parnell Street, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary.
Planning Office, South Tipperary County Council, Aras an Chontae, Emmet Street, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary.
County Library, Emmet Street, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary.
It is also available by clicking the following link:
Draft Clonmel and Environs Development Plan 2008
Submissions or observations with respect to the Draft Plan may be made in writing to the Town Clerk, Clonmel Borough Council, Town Hall, Parnell Street, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary and marked " Submissions on Draft of the Clonmel and Environs Development Plan 2008". Any submissions or observations received will be taken into consideration by the Planning Authority before the making of the Plan.
Please note that the latest date for receipt of submissions is 5.00 p.m. on Thursday, 12th April, 2007.
The Draft of the Clonmel and Environs Development Plan 2008 is available for public inspection from the 29th January 2007 until the 12th April 2007, during normal office hours (9.00am to 1.00pm and 2.00pm to 5.00pm) on any day on which the said offices are open to the public, at the following locations.
Clonmel Borough Council, Town Hall, Parnell Street, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary.
Planning Office, South Tipperary County Council, Aras an Chontae, Emmet Street, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary.
County Library, Emmet Street, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary.
It is also available by clicking the following link:
Draft Clonmel and Environs Development Plan 2008
Submissions or observations with respect to the Draft Plan may be made in writing to the Town Clerk, Clonmel Borough Council, Town Hall, Parnell Street, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary and marked " Submissions on Draft of the Clonmel and Environs Development Plan 2008". Any submissions or observations received will be taken into consideration by the Planning Authority before the making of the Plan.
Please note that the latest date for receipt of submissions is 5.00 p.m. on Thursday, 12th April, 2007.
Sunday, 14 January 2007
Material Contravention in Longford
I had a call today about a development in Longford Town which requires material contravention of the existing Development Plan for Longford Town Council. They were looking for the details. Here they are:
Notice of Proposed Material Contravention of Longford Town Council Development Plan, 2004 - 2010 Planning and Development Act, 2000 Material Contravention of Development Plan for Longford Town Council, 2004 - 2010 Planning Application Ref. No. PL 06/56 Application for demolition of existing factory unit and construction of proposed new residential development contained in 3 blocks: Block A will consist of 4 two storey 3 bedroom houses; Block B will consist of 5 three storey 4 bedroom townhouses; and Block C will consist of 6 three storey 4 bedroom town houses (total no. of residential units 15 within the proposed development) and all associated site works, at Glack, Longford. By KUBE Developments Ltd. Notice is hereby given in accordance with Section 34(6) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, that Longford Town Council intends to consider deciding to grant a permission (subject to conditions) for the proposed residential development at Glack, Longford. The development would contravene materially the following objective of the Development Plan: Zoning Objective 3.1.4 (Primarily Industrial / Commercial) of the Longford Town Council Development Plan 2004 - 2010, which reads as follows: 3.1.4 Primarily Industrial / Commercial • To primarily provide for industrial and commercial / retail / office development This dual zoning is weighted towards industrial development with commercial development also acceptable. Larger scale retail developments will be considered in light of the retail strategy as set out in this plan and the findings of the retail strategy once completed and adopted. Hi-tech business / office and light industrial developments are considered appropriate within this zoning. Particulars of the development may be inspected at the offices of Longford Town Council, Market Square, Longford, during normal office hours (Monday to Friday, 9.15am to 1.00pm and 2.00pm to 5.00pm) from Tuesday, January 9th 2007. Any submission or observation as regards the making of a decision to grant permission, received not later than 4 weeks after the 9th January, 2007 will be duly considered by the Planning Authority. Signed Dan Rooney Town Clerk 9th January, 2007
Notice of Proposed Material Contravention of Longford Town Council Development Plan, 2004 - 2010 Planning and Development Act, 2000 Material Contravention of Development Plan for Longford Town Council, 2004 - 2010 Planning Application Ref. No. PL 06/56 Application for demolition of existing factory unit and construction of proposed new residential development contained in 3 blocks: Block A will consist of 4 two storey 3 bedroom houses; Block B will consist of 5 three storey 4 bedroom townhouses; and Block C will consist of 6 three storey 4 bedroom town houses (total no. of residential units 15 within the proposed development) and all associated site works, at Glack, Longford. By KUBE Developments Ltd. Notice is hereby given in accordance with Section 34(6) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, that Longford Town Council intends to consider deciding to grant a permission (subject to conditions) for the proposed residential development at Glack, Longford. The development would contravene materially the following objective of the Development Plan: Zoning Objective 3.1.4 (Primarily Industrial / Commercial) of the Longford Town Council Development Plan 2004 - 2010, which reads as follows: 3.1.4 Primarily Industrial / Commercial • To primarily provide for industrial and commercial / retail / office development This dual zoning is weighted towards industrial development with commercial development also acceptable. Larger scale retail developments will be considered in light of the retail strategy as set out in this plan and the findings of the retail strategy once completed and adopted. Hi-tech business / office and light industrial developments are considered appropriate within this zoning. Particulars of the development may be inspected at the offices of Longford Town Council, Market Square, Longford, during normal office hours (Monday to Friday, 9.15am to 1.00pm and 2.00pm to 5.00pm) from Tuesday, January 9th 2007. Any submission or observation as regards the making of a decision to grant permission, received not later than 4 weeks after the 9th January, 2007 will be duly considered by the Planning Authority. Signed Dan Rooney Town Clerk 9th January, 2007
Sunday, 17 December 2006
Economic development and planning
INTRODUCTION
The activities of development interests have always had an effect on urban planning. The question is then: what effect they are having now and what brought it about? As the purpose of the paper is to investigate economic development, a starting point is to determine the impact of economic changes on urban areas over the past two decades. Specifically, changes in the way that development interests are organized, their power, and demands for space will be examined. The effects on planning that show up on the landscape is affected should allow conclusions to be drawn.
In a broad sense, development interests can include any person or organization that has an interest in increasing the value or use of land. How they are organized is taken to mean how they are organized over space: the location decisions made by development interests shows up in the urban landscape. The industrial and business uses involved include: head-office, research, and clerical functions, production, warehousing, and transportation activities, and service and supply functions.
A demand for various types of land uses or buildings should suggest a pattern in the urban landscape. This should demonstrate how the landscape is being shaped by development interests. Another pattern is how different sorts of industrial and business activities organize themselves over space.
INFLUENCES IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE
The central theme of this paper is economic development and its influence on urban planning. Hence, a review of recent economic changes that have spatial implications is in order. Logan and Moltch identify three historical processes that affect the structure and conditions for growth dynamics of cities:
- technological revolution
- the formation of a global economy
- the emergence of an information form of economics production and management
Other authors, such as Peter Hall, have identified similar influences. Each of these processes will be discussed. These must be seen in light of the economic restructuring that is occurring in national and international economic systems. The economic change that is causing the restructuring of the economies of cities and regions is one of shifting away from an industrial economy based on the production of material goods to what is commonly called an information economy (Hall, 886). There has in addition, been growth in international capital (Logan & Molotch, 40). Two manifestations of this are the influx of new capital and well-to-do people and the withdrawal of investment and population (Fainstein, 5).
At the core of economic restructuring are economic forces that have influence on the global scale. Logan and Molotch identify a group of influential forces which they call the 'growth machine'. In it, those seeking "exchange value" (ie., to increase the value of land) often have common interests with others who control property in same area. Entrepreneurs attempt by collective action and often in collective alliance with other business people to create conditions that will intensify land use in the area (Logan & Molotch, 32). The growth machine is composed of interlocking pro growth associations and governmental units. Private sector members generally oppose government intervention. There is as well, the notion that the free market should decide land uses (Logan & Molotch, 32).
CHANGES IN ORGANIZATION:
The organization of industries over space is undergoing change, both at the global scale and internally. In a "global economy" local interests are shaped by the changing ordering of international spatial relations. There is then a regional dependence on foreign events. For example, in the USA, there has been a shift in new manufacturing investment to the south and western parts of the country away from the north and east. Consumer goods manufacture is now going to lower wage locations abroad (Logan & Molotch, 249).
"Globalization" of the world economy has led to deindustrialization in some cities that previously had large concentrations of older less competitive manufacturing industries. This has produced mass unemployment in the manufacturing sector and as well, in the goods handling industry. Docks, ware houses and freight movement are particularly hard hit as employment areas in inner city locations contract and move to locations that can accommodate the new containerized methods (Hall, 884).
The proces of economic restructuring is exemplified by emerging high technology firms. These are not necessarily bound to certain locations such as was often the case for older industries. Old industries, such as iron-ore smelting, often had to locate in particular areas for reasons of proximity to scarce or bulky materials or resources or markets. New firms can be much more selective about location. They do tend however, to cluster in a few locations and not others to gain the advantages of synergy (Hall & Markusen, 144). It would be simplest to say that there are many suitable locations. These firms also tend to favour locations detached or peripheral form older urban seedbeds of innovation (Hall & Markusen, 144). High-technology industry does not directly generate as much employment as is commonly supposed (Hall & Markusen, 144).
An almost unlimited mobility is now an option available to many firms. Instead of expending energy organizing the place they are in, people can move residence or investment. A mobile firm can be called 'footloose' (Logan & Molotch, 39). The ability to move as needed affects spatial patterns and landscape. Not being bound to a particular location, the city is not seen as principally as a place to live or work (Logan & Molotch, 51). The consequences of change are not their concern.
CHANGES IN POWER OF DEVELOPMENT INTERESTS:
One result of economic restructuring is the intensification of the formation of truly multi-national firms. An effect of this is an increase in control activities at headquarters locations in a relative few countries. This makes for a concentration of economic 'control points' in fewer urban areas (Logan & Molotch, 201). Also, there is a tendency for larger firms in big cities to swallow up smaller ones. This concentrates decision making in larger cities (Logan & Molotch, 202).
As firms grow in size, they are better able to take advantage of economies of scale such as the separation of control functions from production activities. Control functions can be located in big city skyscrapers and production functions in the 'field'. The separation of branch operations influences the landscape in two ways. The first is that there may be fewer spin-off benefits to local entrepreneurs. Branch operations can operate in economic isolation and do not stimulate so much growth in local economic sectors and thus can be of less value to local growth (Logan & Molotch, 203). Hence, firms can 'make or break' local economies or even large ones depending on their decisions. The second is that there may be agglomeration if a firm wishes to take advantage of synergistic effects and" just-in-time" deliveries.
An indication of their power is the ability to locate virtually anywhere desired and their footloose nature. Firms can move and locate where it is to their greatest benefit. As well, they can position the various functions where the greatest benefit will accrue.
CHANGES IN DEMAND FOR LAND:
The multi-locational firm is made necessary on one the hand by the processes of the "globalization" of the world economy and made possible on the other because of technological advances. Firms must respond to economic demands and opportunities and arrange themselves accordingly. Various activities such as production, distribution and administration do not have to occur at the same site. The local effects of a firm depend on what specific functions are being located in a given area. The benefits and negative impacts on a community will vary from one city to the next. Sassen provides a summery of this:
The spatial dispersion of production, including its internationalization, has contributed to the growth of centralized service nodes for the management and regulation of the new space economy...To a considerable extent, the weight of economic activity over the last fifteen years has shifted from production places such as Detroit and Manchester, to centres of finance and highly specialized services.
(Sassen, 1991 in Hall, 886)
Greater freedom of location for firms allows for cities to develop specializations in certain types of uses. This specialization will, according to Logan and Molotch, produce a hierarchy of cities (Logan & Molotch, 251). Certain functions will be more desirable than others. For example a warehouse could be considered less desirable than a research centre due to the number and nature of jobs. As well, the two uses would create different planning outcomes.
Some cities developed a competitive edge: they could offer superior, less expensive space. Redevelopment took place either in already existing Central Business Districts (CBD's) or within near-by areas occupied by residences or small business. Some required the demolition of occupied structures. The largest projects took place on vacant land generated by the abandonment of obsolete transportation, manufacturing, whole sale market or port facilities or created by landfill. Canary Wharf for example (Fainstein, 35).
The emerging industry of the economy of the future is the that of the information based high-technology firm. The location criterion for information industries comes down to access to information (Hall, 886). High-level business services, especially those that require face to-face contact, or have national or international character, will be concentrated in the traditional central areas in the largest and specialized cities such as London (Hall, 887). However, other industries with the same need for access for information are free to locate in other, possibly less glamorous areas. This leads into new forms of industrial arrangement, the Edge City and the 'technopole'.
EDGE CITIES:
This new form of urban centre, the so called Edge City, contains all functions in a spread out form. They are typically situated on lands a distance from old downtowns and were villages or farmland 30 years before. Differing from the typical post-WWII suburb, Edge Cities will contain tall office buildings, white-collar jobs, shopping and entertainment, prestige hotels, corporate headquarters hospitals etc (Garreau, 5). The variety of functions can be confusing: office buildings are situated juxtaposed to shopping malls, strip shopping centres, rich beside poor (Garreau, 9). The automobile is supreme: these developments are built at the 'automobile scale'.
In general, they started to form as people moved to the suburbs in the post-war period. Following this, retailing moved. This is exemplified by the extensive mall construction on the 1960' and 1970's in the USA and Canada. Finally, employment moved out to join where the workforce lived and shaped (Garreau, 4). These areas cannot grow unless and until there are jobs: people have to live there firs1 (Garreau, 87).
A demand existed for large scale buildings that would not always have been possible to have been built in the old downtowns. They needed massive amounts of car parking and support from people from all over the region. The land requirements for some uses, such as hyper-markets, could not be met (Garreau, 23). For example, Sears Corporation moved to an Edge City where they were able to consolidate operations, enhance the quality of the workforce and the living and working environment (Garreau, 28). However, it often the fast growing entrepreneurial high technology firms locating there (Garreau, 29).
A key component of an Edge City is office space. Industrial and warehouses workers do not demand spaciality retail, high-end services, bookstores, restaurants or hotels (Garreau, 31). Proximity to highways and airports also important (Garreau, 39). Factors in the attraction of Edge Cities are the typical push factors: dirt, crime, stress, congestion and costs. Pull factors include: greater safety, new housing and space (Garreau, 55). Big corporations move out for the advantage of being near major transportation interchanges. Moreover, they do not necessarily have to be near other companies (Garreau, 79).
An advantage of Edge Cities is that they can make it easier for people to live close to their jobs. In contemporary lifestyles, it is often the case that the place of residence has to be convenient to two places of work. Edge Cities are a cheap and efficient way to house large numbers of people close to jobs (Garreau, 87).
There are problems with some Edge Cities. Sun City region in Arizona, USA is a privately owned development with its own private police force and has resisted incorporation to avoid taxation (Garreau, 184). Many Edge cities in the USA are private but often assume the duties of a municipality such as libraries, fire department swimming pools, water, garbage collection. They are like shadow governments but are not elected in the sense of a municipal government and thus have little accountability (Garreau, 184-5). This new form of privatized living arrangements has serious implications for control over who is allowed to live there and the freedoms available to residents.
TECHNOPOLES:
A desirable specialized area is the "technopole". More than chance clustering evolving into agglomeration economies and synergistic effects, it is a planned centre for the production of high technology industry. These may be developed by the private sector or by the co-operation or partnership between the public and private sectors (Castells & Hall, 1). They are promoted by governments of all levels as a panacea for economies hurt by economic restructuring (Castells & Hall, 223).
Large corporations and small business locate in technopoles. Networking between other firms is important and made possible by technological advances (Castells & Hall, 4). Factors important to investors include: good buildings and building sites; an attractive environmental setting; excellent highway access and proximity to an international airport; excellent international tele-communication facilities; good quality housing for managers; and, east access to a substantial pool of well trained and motivated labour (Castells & Hall, 241).
These new industrial areas that are developed outside of traditional industrial areas have regional impacts. The aim is to create new industrial jobs to replace jobs lost from old industries that are contracting. However, re-industrialization using these sorts of industries creates fewer jobs than are lost (Castells & Hall, 223). In spite of not being the desired 'cure all', it does remain a tool for regional development. Technology now becomes another factor to be planned for.
INFLUENCE ON PLANNING:
Changes to development interests show up in how land is planned. This begs the question: for whose benefit is much of the contemporary development for? The combination of changes in organization, power and demands appears to have assisted in the creation of new forms of city environments. Furthermore, development activity also appears to have been self-serving in-as-much-as according to Fainstein, builders and developers were more interested in stimulating economically productive activities rather than enhancing the quality of life. The emphasis was on constructing commercial office space over housing and public facilities.
The impact of the development industry had in the 1980's was enormous and suggests why contemporary development firms are so important. In London England, there was the Broadgate development and in New York City USA, the Trump Tower. These are mammoth projects that have the capacity to generate fortunes for a few (Fainstein, 3).
The global and information economy brought a growing need of space to serve expanding financial institutions. There was demand for appropriate space for expansion. Office space that met technological demands of computer age and development of luxury residential and high end consumption facilities (Fainstein, 33). This resulted in the wide scale construction of offices and luxury residential units since there is less profit in building industrial space or affordable housing (Fainstein, 26).
Two divergent outcomes are evident. One consequence of the above development strategy was that many people were left or forced into reduced circumstances. The juxtaposition of rich and poor often resulted and the problem of homelessness was exacerbated. There was displacement from factory jobs because of economic restructuring. Gentrification and financial hardship dislodged people from their homes. At the same time, others were experiencing good fortune. Large projects overwhelmed neighbourhoods. Those opposed could be passed off as being against progress. Office vacancy rates were high but large projects were still proposed (Fainstein, 26)
Pressure was on to build which created an oversupply. (Fainstein, 64). Planning became piecemeal and accommodating to development interests. This is reflected in the landscape. Most office projects and upper income condominiums were erected as single site efforts where as they would have previously (hopefully) been part of a larger development programme. Development that is un-coordinated with its surroundings resulted in checker board development pattern, a miss-match of architectural styles, uncontrolled congestion and a sharp juxtaposition of rich and poor. (Fainstein, 101).
CONCLUSION
The affect on planning has that it has had to deal with various new demands that exert a powerful influence on cities. The following lists some implications for planning in light of the changes to development interests discussed here:
- the demand for new forms of built environments such as Edge Cities and technopoles which draw development out of the traditional CBD's;
- at the same time, dual demand for development of additional office space in CBD's and industrial locations in suburban areas
- the decline of older industries;
- the construction of massive amounts of office space and luxury housing;
- the demand for very high quality office environments such as Canary Wharf in London;
- having to deal with the rise of 'global cities' such as London;
- the use of technopoles as regional development tools;
- having to deal with a developer led planning environment; and,
- having to deal with highly mobile, multi-locational firms that can locate virtually anywhere that is to their advantage.
The combined mobility of firms and separation of functions lead to a fine sorting out of activities across space according to cost and amenities. There is also a sorting by quality or order according to need to be in a more prestigious location. These are evident is a dual dispersal and concentration pattern at the urban-regional, national, and international levels.
At the urban-regional level, firms which need the advantage or the prestige of locating in the CBD will do so. Other firms can locate in suburban areas or in smaller cities. Industry will move out of the older, central city to new locations in the suburbs or smaller centres. There can be an ordering of uses on the lines of: head-office, clerical, production, and warehouse functions with increasing distance from the CBD. Research functions can be located in the most appropriate technopole. All parts of the firm can be held together with modern communications systems.
On the national level, firms can disperse to lower cost centres or regions while locating other parts of their operations in major cities.
On the global scale, firms can locate according to the advantages or disadvantages of each country. For instance, certain uses can be located in lower wage, Third World countries. Alternatively, certain cities, namely London, New York and Tokyo hold great advantages for locating there in spite of the costs.
Concentration and dispersal is evident at each of the three levels. This fine sorting is logical since firms will locate so as to maximize their gain and minimize their costs. Every area has advantages and disadvantages for each type of function and desired amenity. How this is addressed is revealed in the landscape.Friday, 8 December 2006
IPI SUBMISSION TO DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN GUIDELINES
I just emailed details of the IPI's submission on the Draft Development Plan Guidelines to a Councillor, I thought it might be useful to others. It's also available on the Irish Planning Institute's website: http://www.irishplanninginstitute.ie/index.jsp
The preparation of draft development plan guidelines by the Department is welcomed by the IPI. The development plan is at the heart of the Irish planning process and the guidelines will assist in setting standards and ensuring best practice. The development plan provides the framework for future decision making and its positive and proactive role should be stressed and reinforced whenever possible. We wish to take this opportunity to comment on the document from our experience as practitioners. Our detailed comments follow the chapter structure of the draft guidelines.
As a preamble we wish to state that the implementation of the development plan, through the development management system, is the real test of the success of the plan. This interaction is often not given enough attention during the drafting process. This may arise due to the separation of development plan preparation and development management systems within planning authorities. The result can be that the best intentions of policies are undermined by over emphasis on interpretation of development management standards, or that overly numerous and conflicting policies sow confusion and make the development management process unpredictable. If through these new guidelines we can achieve development plans that are practical, understandable and consistent with enough flexibility to allow for good development in the right location, then the planning system will be significantly strengthened.
Naturally, resourcing of the Forward Planning section is crucial and the setting up a permanent department, staffed by experienced planners and technicians with appropriate budget and tools is essential.
Overview
Codes of Conduct
It is suggested to make the planning system more accountable and transparent is for members to “only make written motions on amendments” to the plan (as against verbal motions). This happens in some planning authorities but not all and written motions would help rationalise decisions, thus encouraging best practice as well as encouraging decisions based on proper planning and sustainable development.
Chapter 1: Introduction
The development plan is the primary tool for implementing polices at national and regional levels and as such it is imperative that the spirit of the policies in such plans are embraced by all citizens. All zonings in the County Development Plan as set out in the Guidelines should be justifiable ‘by reference to reasonable needs’. The zoning of lands should be directly linked to the population estimates for an area and members at all times should recommend the zoning of lands based on the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
1.8 Duty to Secure Objectives
One of the biggest problems facing planning authorities is the statuary requirement to zone land on a regular basis (every six years) without any statutory equivalent timeframe on the provision of services. Proactive policy guidance should be given for those areas within the functional area of the Planning Authority which are experiencing a high level of development pressure combined with a poor level of infrastructural provision. For example, the planning policies for the area should be consistent with the internal policies of the water services section / environment section within the Council. Target areas for the provision of infrastructure should be identified and specific objectives to rectify the problems should be written into the Plan.
The provision of some schemes can be, and especially major infrastructure schemes can take 10 to 15 years to realise. A longer horizon is needed if we are to ensure the services fit the zonings. Given the chronic deficit in services (water, sewers etc.) there may be a case to be made for joint public and private partnerships in their delivery. Best practice in this regard could be outlined in the document. On reading the document it is implied that the responsibility for delivering ALL the services rests with the planning authority. If this is in fact the intended view then “a massive shake up” of the delivery system is required. There are many examples of zoned lands in the country being refused permission because of infrastructure prematurity, for example in Kildare. The resultant catch-up of infrastructure significantly adds to the level of financial contribution needed, which is often met with resistance from the developers and the general public. Use of phased indications of land or areas of “future zoning” through long term development boundaries would help frame a longer strategic plan for the future of towns and villages, assisting the planning of infrastructure so that current and future zoning needs have clear time frames. In cases where lands are zoned in areas not serviceable within the initial years, tools such as ‘long term housing/industrial” zonings could be used to give a clearer reflection of reality and not place the local authority under pressure to deliver the impossible, and the landowner an expectation of delivery immediately.
Chapter 2: Role of the Development Plan
Section 2.2 on the need for consolidation and sustainable development
Where high density development is to be permitted along quality public transport corridors or close to city and town centres, this has to be supported by flexibility to reduce car parking requirements in the development plan, where appropriate and there is adequate parking in the vicinity.
Section 2.16 – 2.17 on the role of adjoining authorities
The absence of co-ordination of policies, objective and development standards between different authorities can result in a completely different quantum of development being permitted within the same city. Co-ordination/co-operation with adjoining authorities is essential in order to implement policies and objectives contained in a development plan. There are numerous examples of instances where lack of co-operation/co-ordination has lead to significant and serious delays in implementing development plan policies and objectives. In this regard, and as part of the development plan process, a programme for implementation should be agreed between the relevant authorities as part of the development plan preparation process in order to ensure a smooth implementation. In relation to the duty to secure objectives, and the 2 year ‘Progress Report’, development plans should be formulated in a manner which allows for monitoring/review objectively as possible. While this is referred to in Section 3.22, the need for clarity and measurability is this regard could be further stressed.
In addition, rural planning authorities adjoining major urban centres should be strongly advised to prepare their development plans in co-operation with these neighbouring urban authorities. This is in the interest of an integrated planning approach, appropriate planning of the urban/rural fringe and strategic retail planning to ensure that the sequential approach for major retail out of a town or city is not compromised by the policies of a neighbouring planning authority.
Chapter 3: Development Plan Format
It is suggested that plans should be structured into the following sections, entitled; Strategy, Objectives + Policies and Supporting Information, following on from 3.4.
Part B outlining Polices & Objectives to implement the plan strategy should make specific reference to the Settlement Strategy in particular which now forms one of the most important aspects of County Development Plans in particular. While it was acknowledged that land use zoning objectives form part of the implementation of a Settlement Strategy, it is suggested that a more comprehensive subsection dealing with this issue could be included under Part B.
The suggested structure for development plans does not refer to development standards. This is one of the most widely used sections of development plans and should be located after the policy and objectives section. In this context, the requirements and standards for new development should be a separate part (i.e. Part C), as this is a distinct part of a development plan that does not sit comfortably within the policies and objectives section.
As aforementioned, the content of development standards can serve to undermine the proactive policies and objectives contained earlier in the plan. For instance, it may be the policy of the planning authority to promote higher densities in accordance with the Residential Density Guidelines. However, the development standards may request high car parking requirements and significant separation distances from boundaries. An inflexible implementation of car parking standards or not allowing pathways/ playground areas be included as part of open space provisions, can seriously reduce the development potential of appropriate sites to achieve higher density. Furthermore, it can make it virtually impossible to move away from conventional housing layouts. The main objective should be the delivery of quality development in appropriate locations and flexible standards could be applied where it is demonstrated that the proposed development would not affect the development potential of other sites nor compromise the existing amenities of the area.
A suggested “flexibility” clause should be included into the development control standards section. This type of flexibility within the Plan could serve to assist the planning officer in promoting high quality design proposals at appropriate locations, rather than being restricted to standards which are not relevant to a particular development or location.
Section 3.7 Population Estimates
Many development plans do not state target populations. This statement is essential to clarify the amount of housing needed, infrastructure, zoned land etc. This should be a mandatory element in development plans, as most other elements within the plan flows from it. The Settlement Strategy in 3.10 should also give clear population indicators as to the extent to which settlements are to be allowed to grow over the plan’s time period. It is vital that population targets are consistent with national and regional guidelines.
Section 3.8 Housing Strategy
Planning Authorities should work in conjunction with the housing section in the delivery of social and affordable housing and specifically in relation to agreement with developers in respect of same. This is not the practise in all local authorities and very often housing section in isolation negotiates agreements.
Section 3.12 Inter-relationship between land-use planning and transportation
Again, a statement adding that car parking space provision standards should be relaxed in higher density development locations should be included in this paragraph, where public transportation is available or is planned for within a reasonable period of time.
Section 3.13 Retail Planning
Likewise a statement facilitating the relaxation of parking standards in relation to city and town centre locations would complement town centre revitalisation policies and the national aim to keep large retail developments in the urban areas.
All retail strategies should be up to date in order to allow for sufficient growth in this sector during the lifetime of the plan in line with settlement strategy projections. This sector is experiencing rapid transition, therefore it is essential that a new retail strategy be prepared in tandem with the preparation of the development plan for the functional area.
Section 3.18 Development Management
Consistent standards are required between development plans and local area plans. For example, a development plan may require 20square metres of private open space per one or two bedroom apartments. A local area plan may require 10square metres of private open space per bedspace, resulting in a requirement of 30-40square metres of private open space for the same two bedroom apartment, depending on the size of the second bedroom. The definition of a double bedroom may also vary, thus what is classified as a single bedroom in one plan is a double bedroom in another plan. Because of the tie-in with open space provision, this can become a serious issue for establishing the amount of development allowable under the development plan for a site.
s reasonable that objectives in relation to design issues should be somewhat flexible. For example while it is notionally appropriate to recommend minimum separation distances this may not always be possible. Therefore policies which ensure the delivery of a high quality structure/environment which will not unduly impact upon the existing amenities of the area should be considered even where such distances cannot be achieved. This is better land use planning, resulting in a more sustainable form of development.
Section 4: Development Plan Objectives
The Guidelines refer comprehensively to land use zoning, in particular in Section 4.4 – 4.9. While the designation of areas for specific uses should not be abandoned, it is suggested that there should be a move away from the conventional land use zoning approach, which is overly rigid and is a product of an era when it was necessary to segregate incompatible land uses. The conventional approach to land use zoning has led to the creation of vast single use, sterile environments which are unsustainable, particularly arising from the trip generation resulting from segregated land uses. Nowadays many land uses are far more compatible. Furthermore traditional urban areas, which we admire, tend to be mixed use areas. Some European Countries also appear to have a much more flexible approach in this regard whereby Enterprise/Employment Developments are often located within areas which are primarily residential. A future concern in relation to the conventional approach to land use zoning is that, while lands zoned for Residential/Commercial & Industrial may be developed over the plan period, Recreation & Amenity and Community facilities rarely follow in tandem and more often than not lag behind development. An alternative approach in this regard is inclusion of specific objectives in a Development Plan, which would identify areas or blocks of lands which would be the subject of masterplans to be agreed with the planning authority. These objectives could spell out type of uses/facilities which were envisaged within these areas and go so far as to require a specific percentage of a land to be developed for particular purposes. This approach has the potential to be more effective in delivering community and recreational facilities than that currently pursued.
4.7 Zoning Objectives
The Development Plan guidelines should reinforce the importance and role of higher densities in urban environments and introduce a ‘plan-led’ approach in this regard. It is acknowledged that all development plans should aim to protect the residential amenity and privacy of existing residential areas. However, more and more, the character and layout of existing areas which have little or no character value are being protected to such an extent as to inhibit the achievement of higher densities on neighbouring Greenfield/brownfield sites. In this context, and in the interest of sustainable development, the development plan guidelines should emphasises the fundamental importance of promoting higher densities in urban areas and specifically those areas identified at the upper tier of the settlement strategy. It is suggested that, in urban areas, a character assessment of particular urban areas should be carried out as part of the plan making process. This exercise would help evaluate the potential for new development to be accommodated or for significant redevelopment of an area to take place. Following on from this, specific areas where higher density would be considered appropriate, should be specifically identified as part of the plan.
Once land is zoned in relation to smaller settlements in the county development plan, it becomes very difficult to refuse permission for a development which is in accordance with the zoning, but may be considered premature, due to size and scale because a local area plan has not been adopted. Ideally the two processes of development plan and local area plan should run in parralell. Otherwise, a hiatus can exist that serves no party. However, adequate resources are essential to ensure delivery of this process. Our members in the planning authorities consider that the demands of county development plans are so great that concurrent local area planning is not feasible.
It is recognised that Local Area Plans for larger urban centres will have to be prepared after County Development Plans are adopted. However, it is also acknowledged that the Plan preparation process and review processes are cumbersome exercises. Local plans would engage the public interest more in the process, and give a more complete picture of the overall intention for the county if mini-plans to be prepared for towns and villages as part of the publication of the draft county plan. The need for significant, permanent resources for forward planning has been consistently raised by planners in the local authorities.
Considerable emphasis should also be placed on achieving objectives within the lifetime of the plan. While it is acknowledged that achieving objectives is sometimes beyond the remit of the Planning Authority, nevertheless measures, which are in within the control of planning authorities, are very often not pursued following the adoption of the plan. A regular example in this regard is the zoning of lands within the designated settlements where the only means of access is onto roads where extensions of speed limits are required in order to bring new entrances within speed limit zones. Planning Authorities regularly zone lands in such circumstances then do not follow through in terms of having the speed limit moved. This is just one example and there are many others of a similar nature.
Section 4.24 Environment
Reference should be made to groundwater protection policies and this should be linked with in with rural housing policy. Maps showing areas of vulnerable groundwater and aquifers should be included in the development plan.
Sections 4.25 – 4.29 Heritage
The policies and objectives with respect to heritage should be clear and unambiguous. Vague objectives cause frustration and discredit the overall objective of protecting Heritage. There is very often arbitrary and inconsistent application of Heritage Protection in many respects, an example of which is the buffer zones surrounding Protected Structures/National Monuments, which are often arbitrary and lack consistency. Clear policies in regard to archaeological monitoring should apply in zones of archaeological protection. The over use of Architectural Conservation Areas should be avoided. Section 4.46-51 might be usefully relocated to these sections.
Section 4.37 Development in or near Heritage Areas
Similarly, the up to date boundaries of NHA’s, SAC’s etc should be clearly defined where possible. Again, the use of buffer zones around these areas is often arbitrary and inconsistent. Guidance should be provided in this regard.
Section 4.41 Landscape Characterisation
More conclusive direction should be given to Planning Authorities on this issue as part of these Development Guidelines, as Landscape Assessment forms such a fundamental basis for the formulation of County wide polices, especially in rural areas.
Section 4.68 Community Services
The term ‘community uses’ should be expanded further as set out in the Guidelines. It is imperative that elected members and local residents have a direct input into the design of such facilities so as to ensure that they meet the needs of the local community.
In relation to reserving sites for educational purposes, the Department of Education should inform local authorities as soon as possible as to the need for such sites and a flexible approach should be taken to the development of such sites. A mechanism should be put in place where such lands revert back to a wider zoning for re-development if school sites are no longer required.
Section 4.70 Gaeltacht Areas
It is recommended that the guidelines should encourage policies to be reflective of the degree in which Irish is the spoken language of the area. Therefore, categories of Gealtacht should be identified and policies should be proportionate to the strength of the existing language in these areas.
Section 5: Process & Presentation
Development Plans should be clear, comprehensive and user friendly. It should be possible for the general public to establish the Planning Authorities policy on a particular issue and in this regard, ambiguity and vagueness should be avoided.
Section 5.1 Role of the Members
The guidelines refer to ‘constant interaction’ with the Council members in the preparation of the plan. However, the guidelines should stipulate that the members interaction with those responsible for preparing the plan should be in a pre-agreed and transparent forum. This would be helpful to members, as many come under significant pressures during this time period. A transparent process that members have to undertake would help reduce this pressure.
The guidelines should give more specific advice on whether submissions which did not form part of the public display period can be taken into consideration as part of the plan preparation process. For instance, a difficulty can arise if a member decides to raise a new issue at a council meeting, such as a new area of land to be rezoned or a new policy to be contained within the plan. Often these new issues do not form part of the public submissions to the plan. It is respected that the members have the power to raise and adopt these issues, however this type of situation raises difficulties as there is not adequate time to confer and assess the proposal. If it was required the submission of motions had to be made a set numbers of days prior to Council meetings it would allow the Executive time to adequately respond to often complex issues raised by proposed changes to the plan. A similar situation can arise once the material alteration display period elapses, this is potentially more serious as the public would not have an opportunity to make a submission following final publication. Therefore, the guidelines should set out recommendations for consideration of these types of submissions as the legislation is open to broad interpretation in this regard.
Section 5.3 Consultation with the public
In terms of plan preparation, the guidelines should outline recommendations for the level and type of consultations with the public which should take place. For instance, a planner workshop or roadshow in various locations through the functional area, could be organised by the Local Authority in the run up to the preparation of the pre-draft plan. This is the most effective way, especially for bigger groups and community groups. Workshops and exhibitions while requiring more resources results in better feed back (more voices are heard) and more acceptance by members of the public. It should be promoted as best practice. There should also be a specific process where groups which are considered socially excluded are explicitly included in the consultations.
Internal consultations
Development plans are prepared and driven by the planning department within local authorities and regularly other departments merely have a token input, often under duress. The development plan is the Local Authorities corporate documentation, drawing together, not just physical but social and economic strands. All departments within the local authority should therefore sign up to the development plan and have a meaningful input and must understand that their objectives, programmes and standards/requirements should be included in the Development Plan and should be adhered to during the life of the plan.
The Heritage and Conservation Officers often play a significant role in the development plan preparation, but no mention is made of these within the document.
Section 5.6 Issues and Options
The use of ‘Issues Papers’ is to be encouraged and strongly recommended as done in Fingal and recently by Meath County Council. Such papers raise initial questions which very often prompt people to think about the issues on the ground and which affect the different areas. There should be a logical progression from the Issues Paper to the overall policies for the County and specific policies in each of the areas. Providers of infrastructure should be asked to participate, so as infrastructure provision can be time scaled into the development plan.
Section 5.7 Making the Development Plan, the Manager’s Report
The Manager’s Report involves a huge amount of work and time and have a significant bearing on the development plan at all stages. The Guidelines should offer some practical advice, together with concrete examples. Questions sometimes arise in relation to the scope of these reports. For example, in the first Manager’s Report, in recommending the policies to be included in the draft development plan, is the Manager confined to issues raised in the pre-draft submissions (which may be limited in scope) or should the Report set out the full range of policies required, having regard to the provisions of the 2000 Act?
Section 5.11 Data Collection and Review
The Guidelines acknowledge the ‘level of data collection and analysis throughout the 6-year process requires the presence of a permanent forward planning function within planning authorities…’ It is critical that the existing staff resources within planning authorities are reviewed and augmented so as to ensure the delivery of quality service from the planning authority. This issue has been raised consistently by the IPI and most recently in the submission to the ‘Development Management Guidelines’.
While it is acknowledged that there are specialist fields and consultants are required to carry out such functions, planning authorities should not be over-reliant on consultants. All works including data collection should be carried out ‘in-house’ as far as possible. Furthermore where consultants are required, they should be given a detailed brief by the senior planner/project manager who should be informed at all stages of progress to date.
Section 5.17 Maps
Some plans have use radii to define zones e.g. 250 metres from a town centre. This is not helpful in development management, as the same parcel of land can have two completely different levels of density of development with no physical demarcation on sites. Circles on maps should be avoided and real boundaries should serve as zoning limits.
It may be unhelpful to specify a particular scale in the maps, as often graphic scale is more user friendly.
Section 5.23 Use of the Internet
The internet is now the main way which large numbers of the public access information about their planning authority. Internet access should be built into the public participation exercise and not regarded as an option.
Chapter 6: Monitoring & Evaluation
Development Plans now have a 6-year life under the 2000 Act and 6 years is a long time in a rapidly changing society. Consequently Development Plans should not be set in stone and need to reflect and be capable of being adjusted/varied to meet changing requirements. It is acknowledged that these provisions are referred to in Section 3.23 and Section 6.0. However, these provisions could possible be strengthened/reinforced.
The guidelines should clarify the scope of the Managers ‘Progress Report’ which is to be prepared 2 years after the adoption of the development plan. Different planning authorities have different views on what changes, variations, amendments does this process allow for. For example, is this part of a review process or a simple 2 year summary report on the performance of the policies and objectives?
The Progress Report after two years of adoption of a development plan has become established however the suggestion that yearly monitoring reports be prepared is both unrealistic and impracticable. It would absorb a lot of resources that could be diverted elsewhere. If it had to be submitted to the members (or they might insist on getting it) it could lead to a yearly outcry for, more residentially zoned land, for example. Notwithstanding the advances in IT referred to in the document that data in relation to planning matters is as difficult as ever to come by.
Development Plans should provide for more flexible zonings thus reducing the need for variations/material contraventions within the lifetime of the plan. As we strive to a more sustainable land use pattern the issue of permitting a variety of land-uses in close proximity is critical so as to sustain critical mass and reduce commuting. Therefore the main issue re permitting various land-uses should be compatibility. Furthermore the zoning of lands should also be commensurate with the availability of water/waste water services within the time-frame of the development plan.
Conclusion
The Draft Development Plan Guidelines will be an aid to planning authorities. Our focus in this submission is to draw attention to the practicalities of plan preparation and its following implementation. The key themes are the need for flexibility in zoning and supporting standards to enable the delivery of sustainable development and the ability to provide the necessary infrastructure in a timely way. The development plan must be the driving force for the entire local authority for it to be truly effective.
Wednesday, 29 November 2006
Planning: Development plan for Cork green belt
A new roundabout and proposed developments in the green belt alongside the Cork-Bandon road will not undermine the area's special zoning, the manager of Cork County Council, Maurice Moloney, has told The Irish Times.
The new roundabout at Garranedarragh, Bishopstown, is to be paid for by Castlelands Construction, a Cork-based development company owned by John Barry.
The company will gain access to nine hectares (22 acres) of land zoned for housing which it owns and which adjoins the green belt.
Permission granted in 2005 by the council for this roundabout, following an application from the housing land's then owners, Rosbridge Properties, was overturned by An Bord Pleanála in December 2005.
Senior planner at the council Nicholas Mansergh had objected to permission for the roundabout, as he felt its main function would be to open up green belt land for development.
Christopher Gethin, an inspector from An Bord Pleanála, having reviewed the issue, reported that the principal issue was "the harm which would arise from the proposed development in terms of its effect on the green belt".
A new private hospital, an Enable Ireland facility and a park- and-ride facility, which are to be built in the green belt, are to be serviced by the new roundabout. However the inspector was of the view that the private hospital and park-and-ride developments should be located elsewhere.
Mr Gethin quoted Mr Mansergh's view that "building roads and sewers deep into previously inaccessible lands close to the edge of the city would be the most effective way of subverting" the green belt.
"It is my opinion that the appearance and the function of the green belt in this area is of outstanding importance, and the need to resist the enabling role of the roundabout in facilitating these damaging developments, is correspondingly important," Mr Gethin reported. An Bord Pleanála agreed and refused permission.
Mr Moloney told The Irish Times that Castlelands Construction contacted the council in early 2006. He and the county engineer met executives of Castlelands. The executives explained that Castlelands now controlled all the land that would be affected by the roundabout.
"They said 'we control the land and can we, in partnership with the council, look at it as a public and private project, a mix?'."
The council then proceeded by way of a part 8 procedure. This mechanism can be used when a proposed development "is by a local authority or on behalf of a local authority", Mr Moloney said. An aspect of the procedure is that once the permission is granted by the elected members of the authority, it cannot be appealed to An Bord Pleanála.
Castlelands's proposal to the council involved it paying for the roundabout and donating for the park-and-ride facility. The offer made it possible for the council to use the part 8 procedure because control of the land to be affected is needed if the procedure is to be used. The new roundabout will be built on public and privately held land.
Mr Moloney said the proposed project was publicised and then voted on and approved by the elected members in July. "The reality here is that a number of public and private concerns were going to merge and benefit."
He said it was not the case that nothing could be developed on green belt land. The Cork development plan allows for hotels and care institutions to be built on green belt land, as long as the character of the green belt was maintained, he said.
Mr Moloney said the "corporate view" within the council on the roundabout proposal was different to that of Mr Mansergh.
"The layout and development of these projects will mitigate against further development of the green belt."
He said the council has successfully resisted development of green belt land.
The hospital proposal comes from SMCMC Ltd, a company associated with James and Philip Sheehan, who are also involved in private hospital projects in Dublin and Galway.
The new roundabout at Garranedarragh, Bishopstown, is to be paid for by Castlelands Construction, a Cork-based development company owned by John Barry.
The company will gain access to nine hectares (22 acres) of land zoned for housing which it owns and which adjoins the green belt.
Permission granted in 2005 by the council for this roundabout, following an application from the housing land's then owners, Rosbridge Properties, was overturned by An Bord Pleanála in December 2005.
Senior planner at the council Nicholas Mansergh had objected to permission for the roundabout, as he felt its main function would be to open up green belt land for development.
Christopher Gethin, an inspector from An Bord Pleanála, having reviewed the issue, reported that the principal issue was "the harm which would arise from the proposed development in terms of its effect on the green belt".
A new private hospital, an Enable Ireland facility and a park- and-ride facility, which are to be built in the green belt, are to be serviced by the new roundabout. However the inspector was of the view that the private hospital and park-and-ride developments should be located elsewhere.
Mr Gethin quoted Mr Mansergh's view that "building roads and sewers deep into previously inaccessible lands close to the edge of the city would be the most effective way of subverting" the green belt.
"It is my opinion that the appearance and the function of the green belt in this area is of outstanding importance, and the need to resist the enabling role of the roundabout in facilitating these damaging developments, is correspondingly important," Mr Gethin reported. An Bord Pleanála agreed and refused permission.
Mr Moloney told The Irish Times that Castlelands Construction contacted the council in early 2006. He and the county engineer met executives of Castlelands. The executives explained that Castlelands now controlled all the land that would be affected by the roundabout.
"They said 'we control the land and can we, in partnership with the council, look at it as a public and private project, a mix?'."
The council then proceeded by way of a part 8 procedure. This mechanism can be used when a proposed development "is by a local authority or on behalf of a local authority", Mr Moloney said. An aspect of the procedure is that once the permission is granted by the elected members of the authority, it cannot be appealed to An Bord Pleanála.
Castlelands's proposal to the council involved it paying for the roundabout and donating for the park-and-ride facility. The offer made it possible for the council to use the part 8 procedure because control of the land to be affected is needed if the procedure is to be used. The new roundabout will be built on public and privately held land.
Mr Moloney said the proposed project was publicised and then voted on and approved by the elected members in July. "The reality here is that a number of public and private concerns were going to merge and benefit."
He said it was not the case that nothing could be developed on green belt land. The Cork development plan allows for hotels and care institutions to be built on green belt land, as long as the character of the green belt was maintained, he said.
Mr Moloney said the "corporate view" within the council on the roundabout proposal was different to that of Mr Mansergh.
"The layout and development of these projects will mitigate against further development of the green belt."
He said the council has successfully resisted development of green belt land.
The hospital proposal comes from SMCMC Ltd, a company associated with James and Philip Sheehan, who are also involved in private hospital projects in Dublin and Galway.
Wednesday, 15 November 2006
Wicklow Town Development: A New Plan
Wicklow Town
Presented by buck planning services
Introduction
• Out with the old, in with the new
• Draft Development Plan for Wicklow 2007 - 2013
• Focusing on the issues which may impact on you:
- Proposed A.C.A and Z.A.P.
- Opportunity areas
- Site regeneration areas
• A new zoning map
• Conclusion
Plan-making is difficult, why?
• Different visions.
• Inertia/nostalgia.
• Planning policy direction (implement legislation, policy targets, etc.).
• Different definitions of ‘the public’.
• Different understandings of ‘public consultation’ – most expect ‘public participation.
• Powerful stakeholders, landowners, etc., expect role commensurate with their position.
• Resources available to plan-maker.
Take just one: policy direction
Must also follow ‘Act’
A development plan “shall” include objectives for:
- Zoning of land
- Infrastructure provision
- Conservation and environmental protection
- Protection of architectural and archaeological heritage
- Protection of landscape
- Regeneration
… and so on ‘and’ can include objectives for:
- The location and pattern of development
- Control of areas and structures
- Community facilities
… and so on
Conclusion? Much of the content is prescribed.
Stages – must take two years
• Advertisement in papers calling for submissions. 8 weeks.
• Report on submissions prepared in 8 weeks. Councillors consider report for up to ten weeks. Prepare draft plan in consultation with councillors. Must be in place 12 weeks later.
• Draft Plan on display within 2 weeks. Submissions invited for 10 weeks.
• Preparation of report on submissions received after 12 weeks. Councillors consider report for 12 weeks. If it is to be amended significantly the amendments must go back out on public display (within three weeks of the decision to amend). If no material alterations are made, the councillors will adopt the plan.
• If a material alteration is made (within 3 weeks) a second display period is organised and submissions again invited for 4 weeks.
• Report prepared on submissions after 8 weeks. Councillors consider report and new plan is then adopted after 6 weeks with or without the amendments).
• The plan shall have effect four weeks later.
Obtain a copy of the Department’s leaflet: “The Development Plan”. But note, it is aimed at the general public; not the practitioner.
Where is Wicklow @?
… Draft Development Plan stage
Issues arising from consultation
• Single issue based: More trains, more parking, more community and sports facilities, more pedestrian friendly, more open space, more schools, more traveller accommodation, more environmental protection, more drug treatment facilities, a marina, more bowling …
• General desires: Better design, investment, improved retail facilities, increased attractiveness to tourists, protect trees, reduce dereliction, reduce traffic congestion, more heritage protection, etc.
• Self-interest: “re-zone my land” (individuals, Wicklow Golf Club, etc.), protect our land (East Glendalough School
• Areas: Port access road (ASAP), Protect Main Street Fitzwilliam Square
• Lack of synergy with the environs – an age old problem …
Strategic aims
Mostly general, like a GW speech. This allows ‘all’ issues to be covered, but also, if you look at the main impetuses says:
1. The town centre is to serve a projected population of 25,000 to 40,000 by 2016. Up from 6,416 in 1996, 7,031 in 2002 and a preliminary 6,835 for 2006.
2. Retail floor space is to grow by:
– Convenience: 500-1,500 sq.m
– Comparison: 5,000-10,000 sq.m
3. Residentially zoned land is available to accommodate 4.632 persons at 30 units per hectare.42.7 hectares remain undeveloped. No more is required.
Commercial aims – contradictory?
• Self-sufficient but dependant on Dublin
• Supports in town and out of town retail development?
• Apparently contradictory aims is an often, painful, but necessary, aspect of planning.
Focusing on the issues which may impact on you …
Proposed A.C.A.
Why propose an A.C.A?
Section 81 (1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 states:
• A development plan shall include an objective to preserve the character of a place, area, group of structures or townscape, taking account of building lines and heights, that:
• is of special architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, cultural, scientific, social or technical interest or value,
• contributes to the appreciation of protected structures,
• is necessary for the preservation of the character of the place, area, group of structures or townscape concerned.
• ACAs are something to be proud of …
What difference does an A.C.A make?
An A.C.A impacts on proposed development ... Section 82 (1) states: “In architectural conservation areas:
1. Notwithstanding section 4(1)(h), the carrying out of works to the exterior of a structure located in an architectural conservation area shall be exempted development only if those works would not materially affect the character of the area.
2. In considering an application for permission for development in relation to land situated in an architectural conservation area, a planning authority, or the Board on appeal, shall take into account the material effect (if any) that the proposed development would be likely to have on the character of the architectural conservation area.”
Power to acquire structure/land
In an A.C.A a planning authority may acquire land situated within an A.C.A if it is of the opinion:
that it is necessary to so do in order to preserve the character of the architectural conservation area, and
(i) the condition of the land, or the use to which the land or any structure on the land is being put, detracts, or is likely to detract, to a material degree from the character or appearance of the architectural conservation area, or
(ii) the acquisition of the land is necessary for the development or renewal of the architectural conservation area or for the provision of amenities in the area.
Note: A planning authority shall not compulsorily acquire any land that is lawfully occupied as a dwelling house by any person other than a person employed as a caretaker.
Impact on you? Policies
The right place for an A.C.A?
• Anything to be proud of? To protect?
Proposed Zone of Archaeological Potential (ZAP!)
What exactly is a Z.A.P?
• A zone defined in the Record of Monuments and Places.
• An area in proximity to recorded monuments.
• A ZAP is statutorily a recorded monument.
• Any works which would impact on archaeological structures, features or deposits including demolition or alterations (major) to a building in a Zone of Archaeological Potential may require two months notice to Dúchas under section 12 of the National Monuments (Amendment) Act, 1994
Impact on you? Policies
Opportunity areas
1. The Murrough, 18 ha.
2. Convent Lands, 33 ha.
Site Regeneration: two areas
1. Whitegates
2. Abbey lands
Let’s look at the whole plan
Development Parameters
A new zoning map
New objectives
Do you share the plan’s vision?
bps planning consultants
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)