Chief Executive’s Report on Draft Plan Consultation
Volume 2 – Summary of Submissions Received
Non-planning point asking for support for Dementia Friendly Cafes will not be addressed in this report.
Response and Recommendation to issues located in (Located under relevant chapter in the CE Report):
Volume 1, part 3 under Chapter 3 & 6
Cork City Submission No.:
Person:
Organisation:
394
Darren McAdam- O’Connell
Summary of Submission and Observation:
• This submission highly commends the tone and contents of the Draft Development Plan, in particular its concentration on compact growth and the 15 minute city as addressing these issues will promote Cork as a quality European City. • Submission asserts that greater ambition needed to achieve 15 minute city. • Delivering only 7% of the required residential units in the city centre as outline in table 10.2 is a key weakness of the overall plan and seeks a review of developable land within the city centre. • Therefore, more Brownfield land should be identified as achieving the 15 minute city will be very difficult. • Objective 6.20 needs re-examination, having concerns that its wording may be used to object to any infill development which impinges on small areas of waste ground of no amenity, natural or conservation value simply because they are covered by grass and therefore could be considered open Greenspace. • Seeks Objective 6.20 be re-worded to more accurately define which lands are of amenity, conservation, heritage or other value needing protection. • City Docks proposals may fail due to being car dominated with an excessive number of parking spaces being proposed. • Considers there is a gross over estimation of car parking requirements set out for the City docks. • Sets out that the proposed floor area ratios for the Docks in table 10.3 and 10.4 are below what is to be expected in an urban area not dominated by cars.
Response and Recommendation to issues located in (Located under relevant chapter in the CE Report):
Volume 1, part 3 under Chapter 2, 6 & 10
Cork City Submission No.:
Person:
Organisation:
395
Development Applications Unit, Department of Housing, Local Government & Heritage
Summary of Submission and Observation:
The submission raises a number of points which need to be addressed in relation to appropriate assessment and various objectives.
• Nature Conservation Development plan is required to include an objective for the conservation and protection of European sites (in this case the Cork Harbour Special Protection Area – SPA no. 4030). Objectives 6.23 and 6.24 appear (from their titles) to set out to do that, but there has been an error of transposition, in that both refer to rights of way and not designated or proposed sites. Reference to Cork County Development Plan is recommended for the type of wording necessary for such objectives, and also to ensure compatibility of plan objectives for the same site. • Implications for Cork Harbour SPA of development in flood-prone areas While Objective 10.34 allows for raising polder defences, there may be a long-term limit to this. The Flood Risk Assessment for the recent planning application for a 1,100-unit residential development in the South Docks (ref. ABP 309059) referred to a possible necessity for a harbour-wide solution such as a tidal barrier or barrage. Such options have been technically assessed and are likely to have significant adverse effects on ecosystems in Douglas
182
Powered by FlippingBook