Sandyford Link Road Voted Down

The Sandyford Link Road was voted down unanimously at this month's council meeting. Eight options were presented to councillors ranging from proceeding with the whole scheme, to building the road to the Drummartin Link, to rejecting the whole thing.

At my proposal, the council agreed unanimously to reject the road.

SANDYFORD LINK ROAD NOT NEEDED

There's been loads of correspondence about the Sandyford Link Road recently. Lest anyone be in any doubt, I will be voting against this road. I said from the outset that I didn't think the road was necessary and I don't feel any different about it now.

Press statement reads:

Cllr Aidan Culhane (Lab, Dundrum) said in advance of today’s vote on the Sandyford Industrial Estate Link Road that it was clear that the road was not needed. “The bottom line on this road is that it is not necessary. Not only does the road adversely affect adjoining residents and compromise the Airfield estate, but it simply doesn’t make sense”.

The proposed road would run alongside the Luas line from Sandyford Industrial Estate to Dundrum. Cllr Culhane, Labour’s general election candidate for Dublin South, went on to say that the road would increase traffic through Dundrum, would cause chaos on the Drummartin Link, and would cause untold inconvenience in the wider area. “It’s clear that there isn’t a real purpose to this road except to facilitate development in the Sandyford Industrial Estate, but at the expense of the wider neighbourhood and the environment. We don’t need this road, and I will be voting against”.

More on Planning

The recent assertion by Hooke and MacDonald that An Bord Pleanála is acting in breach of government policy in refusing a number of large-scale, high-density schemes, particularly in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown, is simply wrong. The Board has permitted a number of these schemes in the recent past, and in turning down a number of developments recently has echoed a widespread concern among the public and public representatives about planning in the county. The debate in last week’s Irish Times Property Supplement between Ken MacDonald and John O’Connor of An Bord Pleanála reflects one of the hottest political topics in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown – just how do we manage to strike a balance between increasing the supply of housing while ensuring proper planning and development.

There is a widespread view among the public in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown that “anything goes” in terms of planning. Proposals for residential developments of up to 27 storeys have become almost routine. As councillors, we must uphold public confidence in the planning system, and it is clear that that public confidence has taken a severe dent over the past eighteen months. A recent public meeting in Stillorgan on the issue of planning was attended by over 400 people. This was not about any specific development. Those attending were not from any one estate complaining about a particular proposal. They were drawn from a wide area, and all were concerned with the state of urban planning in the county. If the supply of housing is to be increased, we must see higher densities, but in doing so, the public must be brought along.

High density cannot be avoided for the following reasons. First, the city cannot expand outwards forever, and the need to avoid further urban sprawl and rezoning of green fields necessitate higher densities. Secondly, Government policies and the Planning and Development Act require higher densities in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown. Thirdly, the advent of the Luas, together with the Dart and the Stillorgan QBC make Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown the possessor of the best public transport in the country. Fourthly, many parts of the county are actually losing population, with the growth of “empty nest” households, and new families are generally smaller than those of the previous generation. Even if you wanted to keep low-density, it can’t be done. There is a need for higher density housing in the county, but the manner of its implementation leaves a lot to be desired.

High density does not mean high rise. Increased height is inevitable, but excessive height is unnecessary. The Residential Density Guidelines state “it is possible, however, to increase density significantly with modest increases in height”. How can this be done? At its most basic, terraced houses with smaller gardens; three storey terraced houses with shared open space; duplex apartments over single level apartments, etc.

The planning process must ensure that the needs of present and future communities are met. There is a widespread concern that this is not being done. The Board’s recent refusal of developments such as the Premier Dairies site in Churchtown and the 17-storey tower at Glencairn, Sandyford, have been widely welcomed by the public.

The key word is balance. There is a need for one- and two-bedroom accommodation. High buildings, suitably located, also have their place. The Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Development Plan states that “the existing built form, scale, character, heritage and residential amenity” of an area must be respected in considering new developments. Proper application of this would result in a much lower level of appeals to the Board in the first place, and would thereby increase the supply of new housing coming to the market. A more measured approach by developers, particularly with regard to very high components of schemes, would also lead to less resistance from the community. There are many ways to build better, sustainable communties than trying to shoe-horn as many apartments as possible onto a site.

The function of the planning system is to regulate what is being built to ensure it is of a high standard. The business of property developers is to maximise the return on their investment, providing for the needs of the market at a given time. That’s fine, but planning must take into account many more factors. Policies in favour of high density cannot be allowed to turn into a free-for-all for property developers as Mr MacDonald appears to suggest.

The Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown Development Plan will be re-examined this Spring, and it appears that changes towards a more prescriptive approach will be required to find the balance between the need for more housing at higher densities, and the way in which those developments knit with the existing built environment.