I write to support the Council’s amended zonings as set out in Change 2.64 as they apply to the lands owned by Longview Estates and sister companies in Ballyvolane.
I also write to request correction of an apparent error in zoning in those amendments. A central area of the land holding has been identified as Light Industry (ZO 10) instead of Business (ZO 11) – see Figure 1 following.
Revising this zoning would be a non-material amendment and would reflect what was adopted by the North East Area Committee in March 2022. The submission made to the Council in respect of that area sought zoning as Business (ZO 11). The change appears to have been the result of a mis-reading of a map reference (see Section 3.0 of submitted letter for an explanation).
I write to support the Council’s amended zonings as set out in Change 2.64 as they apply to the lands owned by Longview Estates and sister companies in Ballyvolane.
I also write to request correction of an apparent error in zoning in those amendments. A central area of the land holding has been identified as Light Industry (ZO 10) instead of Business (ZO 11) – see Figure 1 following.
Revising this zoning would be a non-material amendment and would reflect what was adopted by the North East Area Committee in March 2022. The submission made to the Council in respect of that area sought zoning as Business (ZO 11). The change appears to have been the result of a mis-reading of a map reference (see Section 3.0 of submitted letter for an explanation).
Simple non material change.
We submit the change from one employment use to another employment use is “non material” in the context of the adoption of the amendments by the Area Committee as there is no increase in zoning and the intent of both zones is employment.
The Draft Development Plan Guidelines 2021 state that “Further modifications to the material amendments can be considered at this stage (the Material Amendment Stage), but only if they do not involve an increase in the area of zoned land or an addition or deletion from the record of Protected Structures (S. 12(10)(c))”.
In respect of the above, the matter of “Protected Structures” does not apply.
We submit that the change involved in correcting the apparent zoning error (making the “blue” ZO 11) are “immaterial” as they do not involve increasing the area of zoned lands in the City, or propose an increase in a zoned area / site.
Our position on the change being immaterial is further supported by the fact that the Draft Development Plan Section entitled “Summary of Land Use Zoning Objectives”, Section 12.15, categorises Zones, ZO 10, 11 and 12, as one category, namely Employment Zones. Therefore, there is no material change.
In addition, there are clear commonalities as to what is permitted in ZO 10 and ZO 11, other than the overarching definition of the sites as Employment Zones. The Draft Plan states that “uses that may be acceptable in this zone (ZO 11), subject to local considerations, include light industrial uses set out under ZO 10 Light Industry and Related Uses”. This supports the position of the correction being “immaterial”.
Finally, in testing whether the impact of the change is material or otherwise, the uses are employment uses and offer common impacts. Of note in this respect is Table 3.3 of the Draft Plan where ZO 10 and ZO 11 are categorised in the same “space”; i.e. Residential Lands are identified as Z0 1- Z0 9.