Údar: 
Darren McAdam-O'Connell McAdam-O'Connell

11. Placemaking and Managing Development

Chapter 11

Placemaking and Managing Development

Main points

 

  • We support Sustainable Residential Development Objectives which are well thought out comprehensive except a reference to permeability needs added.
  • Building Height Standards is very well though out and executed except we think that historic buildings should be given more weight in determining the character of the city centre rather than simply the mean hight of all buildings.
  • Density Building Height Standards are a welcome improvement but still fall short of being able to achieve critical population density needed to ensure the viability of local services and therefore end car dependency.
  • Maximum Car Parking Standards are slightly higher than we would ideally like in some cases but general represent real progress. We feel that measures to decouple parking from development (as in Tivoli ch 10) and limit free parking are as if not more important than further reductions in the parking minimums

 

We Strongly support the following objectives unchanged as they are in the current draft

 

Objective 11.1 (a)

Objective 11.1 (b)

Objective 11.1 (c)

Objective 11.1 (d)

Objective 11.1 (e)

Objective 11.1 (g)

Objective 11.1 (h).

Objective 11.1 (i).

Objective 11.1 (j).

Objective 11.1 (k).

Objective 11.2

Objective 11.3

Objective 11.4

Objective 11.5

Objective 11.6

Objective 11.7

Objective 11.8

Objective 11.13

 

 

We support the following objectives and suggest the following modification/additions to strengthen their effectiveness in achieving the Strategic objectives laid out at the beginning of Chapter 2

 

Objective 11.1 (f)

Sustainable Residential Development (access & permeability)

 

Objective 11.1 is in our opinion one of the most important objectives in the entire draft plan in particular parts (a), (b) and (h) are as important if not more important than any transport infrastructure in reducing the negative impact of Transport needs on health, the environment and quality of life of the inhabitants of cork by reducing average journey times and distances and allowing a modal shift to walking and cycling as well as making public transport more efficient. This is in short the central goal of the cork TMF to enable a shift to a more healthy, sustainable and efficient transport system.

We feel that in the measures outlined in objective 11.1 comprehensively and more than adequately address the all issues which are required to reduce average journey distance and hence car dependency, with one exception permeability. This is tangentially addressed in objective 11.1 f dealing with access of residential developments but does not specifically reference permeability. This should be remedied as suggested below.

 

Existing text      

Objective 11.1 (f)

Sustainable Residential Development

Residential developments shall be sustainable and create high quality places which:

(f)           Are easy to access for all and to find one’s way around.

 

Suggested Strengthening

Objective 11.1 (f)

Sustainable Residential Development

Residential developments shall be sustainable and create high quality places which:

(f)           Are easy to access for all, to find one’s way around and achieve a high level of pedestrian and cyclist permeability.

 

Objective 11.9

One-Off Housing: Demonstrable Need to Reside on Landholding

 

Existing text      

Objective 11.9

One-Off Housing: Demonstrable Need to Reside on Landholding

Applicants shall satisfy the Planning Authority that their proposal represents a demonstrable need to reside on the land by based on their social and / or economic links to a particular local rural area, and in this regard, must demonstrate that they comply with one of the following categories of housing need:

a. Farmers, including their sons and daughters who wish to build a first home for their permanent occupation on the family farm.

b. Persons taking over the ownership and running of a farm on a full-time basis, who wish to build a first home on the farm for their permanent occupation, where no existing dwelling is available for their own use. The proposed dwelling must be associated with the working and active management of the farm.

c. Other persons working full-time in farming, forestry, inland waterway, or marine related occupations, for a period of over seven years, in the local rural area where they work and in which they propose to build a first home for their permanent occupation.

d. Landowners including their sons and daughters who wish to build a first home for their permanent occupation on the landholding associated with their principal family residence for a minimum of seven years prior to the date of the planning application.

 

Suggested Strengthening

 

 

Objective 11.9

One-Off Housing: Demonstrable Need to Reside on Landholding

Applicants shall satisfy the Planning Authority that their proposal represents a demonstrable need to reside on the land by based on their social and / or economic links to a particular local rural area, and in this regard, must demonstrate that they comply with one of the following categories of housing need:

a. Farmers, including their sons and daughters who wish to build a first home for their permanent occupation on the family farm.

b. Persons taking over the ownership and running of a farm on a full-time basis, who wish to build a first home on the farm for their permanent occupation, where no existing dwelling is available for their own use. The proposed dwelling must be associated with the working and active management of the farm.

c. Other persons working full-time in farming, forestry, inland waterway, or marine related occupations, for a period of over seven years, in the local rural area where they work and in which they propose to build a first home for their permanent occupation.

d. Landowners including their sons and daughters who wish to build a first home for their permanent occupation on the landholding associated with their principal family residence for a minimum of seven years prior to the date of the planning application and who will not commute for the purpose of work from the land holding further than walking distance on a regular basis.

 

Comments on the tables setting out standards for development

 

TABLE 11.1 Cork City Building Height Standards

We would like to complement and endorse the methodology used to provide a rational and comprehensive framework for preferred build hights throughout the city. We also broadly support the objective clearly applied in Table 11.1 to balance respect for the existing character of the various communities in the city with the requirement in the NDP for compact growth and the acknowledgement the past developments took place at densities so low as to have a detrimental effect on communities leading to lack of service provision in communities, isolation, car dependency and anti-social behaviour.

We therefore broadly support the target heights in table 11.1 while suggesting some minor modifications.

We would suggest that the table specifically reference the use of loft/garret floors with dormer or gable end windows which are an important feature of the historic vernacular architectural heritage of the city centre (see images below) as well as a significant feature in newer suburbs. For urban settings the guidelines should refer to the number of stories in the façade and encourage one or more set back loft floors behind the parapet as typified by the historic terrace on Washington St. (see images below).

For suburban setting this offers an efficient and attractive way to increase FAR and density with challenging the suburban character of an area. We would suggest that 2/3 story developments in the out suburban area would be encouraged to use loft/dormer type design to effectively become 2.5/3.5 story with any significant increase in hight.

We have some concern that in the historic city centre heritage and a distinctive Cork feel is an important part of the character of the centre. In this context we are concerned that partially demolished and late 20thC ad-hoc replacements of demolished historic buildings should not be given equal weight in determining the charter of the city. Specifically, we are concerned that the historic charter of the city centre is 4-6 stories when loft floors above the parapet are included as typified by Washington st, Georges Quay etc, (see images below), but the current charreter is asses at 2-5 stories. Even the historic outer areas of the city which have become part of expanding city centre such as Dunbar St, Cove St and popes Quay the older buildings are generally 4 stories (see images below).

A good example of this is Washington St where the historic original terrace is 6 stories, ground floor, mezzanine, 3 tall main floors and a habitable loft behind the parapet is retained on the South side of the street while on the North side of the street 2 stories of the original 6 are retained as part of a partially demolished building. The retained south side of the street should be used to assess the character of the street not the partially demolished North side. Given this we strongly suggest that the current character of the city centre is better establish by the intact historic buildings which define the charter of the city rather than the current mean height. This should be reflected in table 11.1 by recognising the current charter as 4-6 stories and raising the upper & lower guide to 7 and 5 respectively.

We would call for a lower limit of 3 stories on all urban and inner urban development and for virtually all new urban and suburban development to talk place in such a context. We welcome that this is broadly supported in table 11.1 with 2 stories only recommended in the outer suburbs with exception of 7; North West, 10; Blarney & 11; Stone view which will continue to allow 2 story development, this is understandable if they are not considered truly inner suburban which is reasonable conclusion. However we are concerned that large areas between Douglas and the city centre is considered outer suburban despite being within walking distance of the city centre, in our view all of this area inside the South Ring should be considered in the same category as 3 Ballintemple & Blackrock or 4 Douglas.

 

 

Graphical user interface, application</p>
<p>Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, text, application</p>
<p>Description automatically generated

11.50 Tall Building Zone

 

We support the tall buildings policy which is well thought out and appropriately balances the benefits and societal costs of tall building.

We support the 4 Tall building zones laid out in section 11.50, in our view the City end of the Straight road/Carrigrohane Rd. is also a suitable location for tall buildings given the existing character of the area, it’s location of the probable route of light rail as outlined in CMATS and the lack of issues with over shadowing existing residents.

 

Table 11.2 Cork City Density Building Height Standards

One of the most welcome features and a central pillar of this draft plan is the commitment to achieve a 15-minute City where services and amenities needed to leave your everyday life if can be found within a 15-minute walk cycle or public transport ride. This is a vision we support in the strongest possible manner and the key reason we are so supportive in the draft as a whole. Much good work has obviously gone into ensuring that the commitment to compact growth and a 15 min city is reflected throughout this draft. And the consistently increased densities presented in table 11.2 a very welcome.

A 15 min city can only become a reality if a critical mass of people patronize the services within their local communities by walking or cycling to local services rather than driving to the city centre, district centres or out of town shopping centres. Services require a minimum level of population to support them within a community if the density and permeability of communities do not reach a critical level of services can only be supported if they are attracting people coming in from outside the community. This is not an issue in the city centre or district centres but for most Communities within the city local service will only survive if that critical level of population is living or working with a 10-15 walk. Even with the most optimistic levels of permeability services can only begin to be supported in a residential community when the density reaches 75-100 units per hectare. Even optimistic scenario requires a level of permeability that is not present in any existing community outside the city centre. It also requires that this high level of permeability and density is consistently maintained 10-15 mins walk in every direction. To realistically begin to achieve a 15-minute City even medium to large level developments must achieve densities significantly above this level in order to compensate for the existing lower densities of the existing community they are part of.

Outside of the city centre and Docklands the densities presented in table 11.2 simply will not deliver the critical mass of population within communities to support basic everyday services to allow the 15-Minute city to be reality. Any increase in density or permeability will reduce journey length and bring benefits but failing to attempt to reach a critical point is a missed opportunity.

An examination of the figures in table 11.2 shows that there is ample scope to increase the floor area ratio and unit density without exceeding target story count laid out in table 11.1 or requiring a higher site coverage percentage than is reasonable given character of the areas involved and the requirement for access public spaces green space etc. With Minimum Site coverage percentage varying between 67% in the city centre and 5% in the outer suburbs and the lower limit for floor area per unit in all cases being above 100m2, except in the case of the outer suburbs where the lower FAR limit of 0.2 will not provide sufficient floor area (57m2) for anything other than a 1 bed at even 35 units/ha

 

This is shown in the attached table 1

We would therefore suggest some slight increases in the floor area ratio in the city centre and outer suburbs as outlined below (the FAR figure for outer suburbs in table 11.2 seams unreasonably low as outlined above and so requires significant increase) and significant increase in the targeted number of units per hectare. With Minimum Site coverage percentage varying between 64% in the city centre and 13% in the outer suburbs and minimum floor area per unit in all cases being above 100m2. The highest Minimum Site coverage percentage in any suburban area would be 25% which is well below the 30-40% required to maintain an open suburban character.

These suggested targets are shown in attached table 2 with any suggested changes in red.

 

Calendar</p>
<p>Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Figure 11.4 Relationship between density and planning standards Source: Cork City Urban Density, Building Height and Tall Building Study.

 

Figure 11.4 is extremely useful and informative. However, it is slightly unclear if it is meant as an explanation as to the reasoning behind the other targets and objectives in this chapter or if it represents guidance for developers on appropriate features which are recommended at various densities?

We would support it’s use as guidance for developers on appropriate features which are recommended at various densities. If it is the case, we would suggest some slight changes to strengthen its support of other objectives in the draft plan.

Existing terraced houses housing in Cork City is built at densities well above 100 units per hectare and in some cases slightly exceeding 200 units per hectare. Examples include,

The area between Tower, Industry and Kevin’s Sts, including Nessan and Bridgid Sts which consists of 49 large 3 /4 bed terraced houses on 0.3625Ha including the internal streets but excluding the surrounding streets or .4254ha including the surrounding streets and nearby parking giving between 115 and 135 units/ha

Horgan’s buildings which consists of 118 small 1 /2 bed terraced houses on 0.5473Ha including the internal streets but excluding the surrounding streets or 0.691ha including the surrounding streets and nearby parking giving between 171 and 216 units/ha

The two terraces on Dalton’s Av which consists of 24 terraced houses on 0.1016Ha including the internal streets but excluding the surrounding streets or 0.1194ha including the surrounding streets and nearby parking giving between 201 and 236 units/ha

(photos attached)

Given this fact we would suggest that terraced town houses are included as an option which is keeping with the existing character of Cork City and suitable 4 densities of between 100 and 200 units per hectare.

We would suggest tightening the guidance in relation to parking provision as national climate goals and several objectives within this draft required suggest that driving should be discouraged, and that parking should be decoupled from residential units. Given this we would suggest removing on street parking as an option above 70 units/ha and dedicated communal podium or underground parking at above 100 units/ha. No parking/support car club should therefore be included in the guidance at lower densities, in our opinion it should be encouraged at all densities but should be presumed above 100 units/ha.

 

Table 11.12: Workplace Travel Plan Thresholds.

We welcome and strongly support the requirement for workplace travel plans. We would support a further lowering of the threshold to 20 jobs for a travel plan statement and 60 jobs for a standard workplace travel plan where parking is built as part of the development. We would also be willing to support a relaxation of these standards where development did not include any parking or even where a development did not include any free parking for staff or customers.

Table 11.13: Maximum Car Parking Standards.

 

We strongly support and welcome the use of maximum car parking standards rather than the outdated practice of requiring parking minimums. The reduction of car parking provision has a vital role to play in discouraging car use, particular in central City areas. The reduction in parking provision also has an important role to play in lowering the cost of housing and other developments. The highest priority for the TMF would to be to decouple of parking from other development. In particular the decoupling of parking from residential developments as including parking in the cost of housing drives up the cost of housing and makes development in the city centre less viable for everyone while benefiting only those drive.

Ideally as is suggested in the masterplan for Tivoli in chapter 10 the provision of parking should to be totally decoupled from housing with any parking that is built as part of a housing development being required to be sold separately from the housing and for similar reasons commercial developments should not include free parking. Free parking in suburban areas provides an incentive to drive and hurts the established urban core. Where parking is allowed it should always come with a planning requirement preventing the provision of free parking for staff or customers, this plan should firmly establish the principal the parking should be paid for by those who use it rather than forcing those who don’t to subsidise the costs for those who do.

We broadly welcome the standards in table 11.13 as a step in the right direction but we still fear that the level of parking permitted will inevitably become a stranded asset that is challenging to repurpose if present trends continue and if the national policy and the objective contained in this draft are successful this will happen far more quickly than most realise. And while our priority is to ensure the decupling of parking and deployment through a prohibition on free parking and acknowledging the progress that has been made, we would still like to see some further reduction in these minimums in particular in relation to residential development and in the centre and close to public transport corridors.

We would suggest that city centre retail and commercial leisure as well as Theatres, Cinemas and Auditoriums have zero parking as this is already the normal situation in the city centre.  

 

Table 11.14: Bicycle Parking Requirements.

We welcome the bicycle parking standards. We welcome the details specification of the location and nature of bicycle parking provision. The use of Sheffield stands rather that wheel grippers is to be highly commended we would prefer see residential standard for bicycle parking applying to all residential bed spaces rather than just apartments as while we are very supportive of terraced housing many of those living in terraced houses in the city have difficulty with bike parking.

We would like to an explicit reference to ensure that these standards apply to redevelopments as well as new build developments.

 

11.145 Residential Entrances/Parking in Front Gardens

We welcome the provisions of this section however we feel that in addition there should be a general presumption against allowing parking in front gardens and a general presumption that any planning application for change of use, extension, redevelopment etc where a front garden has previously been converted to parking should include the requiremen