Chapter 3: Settlement and Housing Strategy

Amendment No. 6 - Rural to A2 New Residential, F1 Open Space +D1 Tourism  

 I wish to make the following observations.

The above zoning proposal is inappropriate and unsuited to the locality, for the following reasons:

1. Its proximity to a designated SPA/SAC (Natura 2000 Site) and potential to negatively and irreversibly impact on a European site.
2. The proposed zoning is in a recognised flood zone and therefore not suitable for habitable zoning/ potential development. This has also been noted by consultants reviewing the draft amendments who indicate a negative impact.
3. Streetscape/Building Line -The majority of the houses on the north side of the R151 are single residential plots. Suggested zoning has potential to introduce multi residential dwellings on a single plot, out of character with the existing street scape and would be unsuitable and inappropriate (not in keeping with rural character of the area).
4. The proposed amended zoning to designate the rear field as F1 Open Space is not appropriate or sustainable for development. The field is unsuitable because:
   1. It is adjacent to a SPA/ SAC site and is in a flood zone
   2. It is remote and removed from surrounding development, lacks natural surveillance and it should be left undeveloped.
   3. Has established hedgerows which should be maintained
   4. Access to the field is dependent on access from the first field, providing limited options to allow an access to design standards.   
   5. F1 zoning is “subject to works being ancillary to and necessary for the appropriate development of adjacent lands”. In effect, this suggested F1 zoning cannot be implemented without the front field being developed (i.e. as adjacent zoning). Suggestions have been put forward for possible uses of this rear field (e.g. football pitch, car park for greenway, etc.) which are presumptive in nature and perhaps outside the remit of the intended F1 zoning in regard to ancillary adjacent site. We note that planning for the proposed Boyne Greenway is still with An Board Pléanala who have requested considerable further information and have yet to make a final decision.
   6. Poor topography limits development options and would require excessive enabling works with accompanying cost implication leading to unsustainable development of the site.
5. A defined buffer (min. 25m) is required in order to separate and protect any potential development from the Natura 2000 site. No development of any kind should be considered in this buffer.

In view of the above observations, we consider the proposed amendment No. 6 inappropriate and should not be enacted.