Celbridge Draft Area Plan - 3500+ new houses

Rain Ascending

daheff wrote: »

Or the fact that a lot of people who drive kids to school are then driving to work afterwards, so dont have time for a leisurely stroll to school every morning.

<<snip>>

thats why people drive kids to school.

Sam Hain wrote: »

This is the case for a small minority at most. Maybe this is your situation but that doesn't mean everyone is in the same boat as you. Laziness is at play in a lot of these cases.

Whether it's one explanation or the other, can we agree that what we should aim for in documents like the Celbridge Local Area Plan is to make it easier, safer, more enjoyable to walk and cycle to schools?

If so, then we should promote actions like:

• Increasing permeability within and between estates. (Example: North Kildare Educate Together, despite being near the back of three major estates has only one access for cars, bikes and pedestrians that takes a long roundabout route on to the road to leading to Clane. Currently, it is over a kilometer from the entrance to the nearest of these estates to that school.)
• Ensure that any new road infrastructure build in pedestrian- and cyclist-friendly movements. (Example: if we want any new bridge to be more than just encouraging more car-based traffic arising from cross-river attendance at St. Bridget's or Primose Hill National Schools, then we have to look seriously at how pedestrians and cyclists can more easily use the river crossings.)

However, both are likely to generate vocal local opposition. So it comes back to the old, ignored question: what's our vision for Celbridge?

judeboy101

The et secondary school is planned for a campus with a catholic primary school at the most eastern part of the town. The et primary school is located across the river at the most western part. Permeability has a direct link with increased anti social behaviour and crime in estates when compared to "cul de sac estates"

Rain Ascending

judeboy101 wrote: »

Permeability has a direct link with increased anti social behaviour and crime in estates when compared to "cul de sac estates"

Have you seen any sociological studies on this? Or even urban design studies? I'd be particularly interested in the latter, given that such research, if it existed, would be helpful in pinpointing the key factors.

I'm pretty sure we can all come up with anecdotal evidence either backing or attacking the assertion. I can think of one Celbridge estate that had issues a number of years ago due to easy access to another area, that could be used to support your argument. However, equally, I could point to my own experience of living in highly permeable estates where factors that one would have expected to lead to trouble (a nearby pub + takeaway in one case and a neighbouring council estate in another), but didn't.

daheff

Rain Ascending wrote: »

Whether it's one explanation or the other, can we agree that what we should aim for in documents like the Celbridge Local Area Plan is to make it easier, safer, more enjoyable to walk and cycle to schools?

I agree with this point in general. There should be more (safer off road) cycle ways (like that to Salesians) to all the schools. If they do build the new bridge over the liffey it would be great to have it wide enough(and seperated) so pedestrians/cyclist and motorists could all co-exist.

judeboy101

Rain Ascending wrote: »

Have you seen any sociological studies on this? Or even urban design studies? I'd be particularly interested in the latter, given that such research, if it existed, would be helpful in pinpointing the key factors.

I'm pretty sure we can all come up with anecdotal evidence either backing or attacking the assertion. I can think of one Celbridge estate that had issues a number of years ago due to easy access to another area, that could be used to support your argument. However, equally, I could point to my own experience of living in highly permeable estates where factors that one would have expected to lead to trouble (a nearby pub + takeaway in one case and a neighbouring council estate in another), but didn't.

http://americandreamcoalition.org/safety/Permeability.pdf

Rain Ascending

judeboy101 wrote: »

http://americandreamcoalition.org/safety/Permeability.pdf

Thanks for sharing -- appreciated.

I had a look over the document. It's not bad and raises some interesting points and points to some strong raw data. The author does over-interpret the data somewhat in a few spots and some of his recommendations are extreme (e.g. footpaths away from roads only when it's completely unavoidable!). However, he does highlight the factors associated with permeability that can increase crime rates and one can infer guidelines from his work. One point he repeats a couple of times is that too much permeability reduces the traffic on individual routes, by splitting it up too much, increasing the risk of antisocial problems. It is clear that he takes exception to estate design with high levels of permeability.

I also read another document, more focused on the Irish context, from the National Transport Authority. See

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/NTA_Permeability_Report_-_Web.08.20151.pdf

The focus here is more about opening up a few critical access routes in residential areas that are not very permeable, rather than designing new estates from scratch.

Again, not a bad document. It clearly explains some of the benefits and provides quite a thorough process for initial studies, community engagement, link design, and post-installation assessment. It proposes traffic studies to evaluate how high the traffic would be on a new access link and the resulting benefits to the community. The downside is that the security aspects are more focused on personal safety in the new access links rather than potential anti-social behaviour and crime in the connected areas -- so not all the lessons from the document you reference are incorporated. However, it is fascinating that the case study on design changes for a new access link in Knocklyon (see page 47) actually does touch on some of the points raised in the first document.

Back to the Celbridge LAP:

It highlights just five points for possible new pedestrian+cycle accesses (see MTO 1.7 on page 39) -- so the NTA document would be particularly applicable here. Three of these are from the Oldtown Mill onto Aghards Road -- that looks excessive! Perhaps one would be enough. The other two are further south: one from the Educate Together NS to Ballymakealy and a second on what, if I remember correctly, is already an informal route from St Raphael's Manor onto Church Road.

paddythe goat

celbridge and new celbridge lap 2017 to 2023.....lots of new houses, maybe too many in too short a time frame....can we build bit less over longer time frame?? give everybody a chance to bed in?....the new people, the old people, the new schools, the new creche facilities, the bus routes, the train routes, the new water supplies, the new sewage facilities, the new power cables, the new broadband facilities, the new telly services, the new phone services, the new parks, the new playing facilities..........all that and the extra traffic, on top of the daily chaos we presently have........

would love to see safer pedestrian bridges along the liffey..wider and with better lighting and more cctv........more bridges, wider and extra bridges to help movement, but not running tro housing estates....
trim has four bridges..........kilkenny city getting new bridge parallel to an old bridge in coming weeks, also got new pedestrian bridge, worth a look....
goffs on naas rd near kill has four lane bridge works well for all..cars and trucks, and buses, persons on cycles, and walkers...........can we do similar in celbridge with real and proper planning..........must plan well now,,

mloc123

Anyone know what the timeline on the new housing developments are?

Currently the only one with planning approved is behind Aldi? They still have not started to clear that ground yet so I assume there will be no new estates ready to sell for another year?

Joe Public

mloc123 wrote: »

Anyone know what the timeline on the new housing developments are?

Currently the only one with planning approved is behind Aldi? They still have not started to clear that ground yet so I assume there will be no new estates ready to sell for another year?

Depends on developers being interested.

paddythe goat

my best guess is that lap for celbridge will go back out to the public for comment for 6 weeks.........may 2017 and bit of june 2017....then if passed, expect numerous planning permissions going in to kcc.....or if over 100 houses together, i understand they may be able to go straight to bord pleanala, for approval............. think we could see numerous start ups by this time next year, unless lap suggests, various infrastructural improvements go in, before massive developments commence....that would be super if water and waste water was worked on before buildings start, also roads, and traffic congestion, and car parks, and bridges should be sorted before building begins..

am told they did this in Adamstown in Lucan, and it worked well..... maybe kcc will copy best practice...would love to see extra parks around the town for young and old, and cycle paths, and improved footpaths and improved traffic flows for cars, buses, and trucks,

its bad now, imagine the picture when we get 3,000 new units or more??
agree we need more houses all over kildare/meath/louth/wicklow/ but we must get infrastructure spot on, first.....hope it works well..........

Joe Public

Developers used to fund the local infrastructure but that day is gone, it's now up to central funding but going by the government's strategic development plan up to 2040 then Celbridge is not really in the picture so no major funding for infrastructure.

L1011

Joe Public wrote: »

Developers used to fund the local infrastructure but that day is gone, it's now up to central funding but going by the government's strategic development plan up to 2040 then Celbridge is not really in the picture so no major funding for infrastructure.

Dev levies still exist, as do infrastructure construction conditions on planning. Neither have gone despite suggestions that LPT would replace the need and a desire to reduce unit cost

Joe Public

L1011 wrote: »

Dev levies still exist, as do infrastructure construction conditions on planning. Neither have gone despite suggestions that LPT would replace the need and a desire to reduce unit cost

Not to the same extent, the money required to upgrade the road network and services in Celbridge will need government support.

scheister

Celbridge-Leixlip district Cllrs have rejected the rezoning of Donaghcumper by 4-3

http://www.leinsterleader.ie/news/news/246973/kildare-councillors-reject-celbridge-town-extension-plan.html

lucernarian

judeboy101 wrote: »

http://americandreamcoalition.org/safety/Permeability.pdf

Some of that study is bonkers. One of the top 3 reasons for burglary selection, in a study mentioned in that pdf, is isolation/quietness. Seems like the sort of thing a cul de sac provides in buckets.

The whole thing has cherrypicked evidence and doesn't do an honest appraisal of the pros and cons.

Joe Public

lucernarian wrote: »

Some of that study is bonkers. One of the top 3 reasons for burglary selection, in a study mentioned in that pdf, is isolation/quietness. Seems like the sort of thing a cul de sac provides in buckets.

The whole thing has cherrypicked evidence and doesn't do an honest appraisal of the pros and cons.

This could probably be taken as a topic on its own even though it is planning related.

I had a quick look and agree with the argument that creating through routes does increase the likelihood of crime as it becomes more difficult for locals to spot the unusual.
I presume the isolated/quiet part of the survey refers to houses not overlooked from nearby houses, if any, or just houses that are in a very quiet area.

I don't think they suggested that cul de sac(s) are more vulnerable.

2ndcoming

scheister wrote: »

Celbridge-Leixlip district Cllrs have rejected the rezoning of Donaghcumper by 4-3

http://www.leinsterleader.ie/news/news/246973/kildare-councillors-reject-celbridge-town-extension-plan.html

I've lived in Celbridge all my life, live in Castletown, and I hate that decision.

Rain Ascending

2ndcoming wrote: »

I've lived in Celbridge all my life, live in Castletown, and I hate that decision.

I assume that you are referring to the vote to amend the draft plan.

I sympathize.

The opposition to any building development in Donacomper is well organized and vocal and there is no doubt that they represent a sizeable body of opinion within Celbridge. But I've yet to hear of a good alternative proposal for the long-term development of Celbridge town centre.

And the town centre definitely needs development. For a town with in the order of 20k, have a centre with just one street is clearly an example of lop-sided development. The Donacomper proposal had the advantage of linking Main Street with one of the main secondary shopping areas, namely St Wolstan's Shopping Centre (the one with SuperValu as the anchor tenant). There aren't many other options -- the draft local area plan had a second town-centre expansion into one corner of St Raphael's, but I believe that one is much further from being ready for development.

For those that wish to keep that part of Donacomper untouched (the net effect of the councillors' motion), I would be interested in hearing what their vision is for Celbridge town centre/Main St area...

Joe Public

There's the "Preservation of the Liffey Valley" aspect to be considered as well and many feel that the Donaghcumper lands should be opened up for amenity purposes. Nothing much can be done about developments currently along the Liffey but once allowed then the amenity area is lost for the foreseeable future. Maybe if a plan is presented that will incorporate both access, housing and amenity that will suit all then progress can be made. Whatever the plan it will have to be very creative and sympathetic.

quadrifoglio verde

It's ridiculous.
Our main street today, is the same length as it was in 1946 when celbridge was a village of 539 people
Today there's 21857, that's over a 40 times increase of population with a main thoroughfare that hasn't change since when, the bridge was first rebuilt 200 years ago?

Opening up the lands to town development across the liffey from the main st will improve the town amenities.
The population is there to sustain a varied retail offering which the current town design is incapable of offering. Carrick on shannon has a population of 5900 like and can support various retail business. So too can celbridge. Build the infrastructure and they will come.
Currently it's a disaster.

What I'd like to see happening is the following.
A right turn put in place at the Wolstans-Dublin road junction. This is a new access road built into celbridge with vehicular access across the liffey coming out beside the castletown gates.
At the same time, the main street of celbridge is turned into a pedestrian zone from the top of the town down to the bank of Ireland. Vehicular access for deliveries only, before 9 am.
At the current bridge, you will be only able to turn left onto the clane road. If you need access to the developments on the maynooth road, you take the new bridge.
Both roads now become a 2 lane, one way road, which will allow traffic to move freely (or a hell of a lot more freely than it currently is).

The town centre extension is built in such a way that mirrors the main street. Except it can be three story. Retail on the ground floor and on the second and third floor a mixture of offices and apartments. Some sheltered housing could also be built with it, in close proximity to the main street extension. I would put a public park along the bank of the liffey, running from where the Abbey lodge carpark is currently up to where the new celbridge access road would be.

There would be a pedestrian walkway under the new road (underground) where after the road it would meet up with a new pedestrian bridge into castletown.

The new town extension would also have parking available, so people can park and shop in celbridge.


Tldr
Main street pedestrianised.
Main street extended and also pedestrianised (around where the 2 Euro shop is)
A T shape pedestrian street.
Celbridge becomes one way up to the Tesco lights and out the clane road
New car park built on land across from the main street
It might be hard to visualise but I've it pictured perfectly in my head

A celbridge without traffic with a strong retail core would be life changing for its residents. Personally I think it's worth sacrificing the unused green bank of the liffey that is there at the moment and the slip road by the gates. If nimbys protest, it could be put underground, coming up just before Dara Court, however that would be much more expensive.
One thing is for sure, It will transform the town a hell of a lot better than a bridge onto the ardclough road. I cannot see how that bridge will alleviate the traffic situation. You still have the main street pinch point at the bank do Ireland and horrible traffic.

Joe Public

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

It's ridiculous.

The town centre extension is built in such a way that mirrors the main street. Except it can be three story. Retail on the ground floor and on the second and third floor a mixture of offices and apartments. Some sheltered housing could also be built with it, in close proximity to the main street extension. I would put a public park along the bank of the liffey, running from where the Abbey lodge carpark is currently up to where the new celbridge access road would be.

Originally the Main St. of Celbridge was built with the gardens backing on to the Liffey so makes it very difficult to try and build on the opposite side and hope to finish up with something of beauty. The view from the other side would not be pretty as you'd end up looking into some car parks surrounded by block walls and razor wire. Some of the back gardens are overgrown and unkempt.

2ndcoming

Joe Public wrote: »

There's the "Preservation of the Liffey Valley" aspect to be considered as well and many feel that the Donaghcumper lands should be opened up for amenity purposes. Nothing much can be done about developments currently along the Liffey but once allowed then the amenity area is lost for the foreseeable future. Maybe if a plan is presented that will incorporate both access, housing and amenity that will suit all then progress can be made. Whatever the plan it will have to be very creative and sympathetic.

The Castletown grounds as is are an enormous and magnificent public amenity, far better than the vast majority of places can offer. The opposition is driven by the traditional main street powers and the Castletown RA who don't want to lose their car access at the gates, which I don't think they would need to, a small common sense roundabout (like they have about 5 of in Clane) would work for everyone.

21st century developments on the Donacomper side would be ideal to amplify the historic qualities of the main street, and I'd wager small businesses there would benefit greatly from it.

Rain Ascending

2ndcoming wrote: »

<<snip>>

21st century developments on the Donacomper side would be ideal to amplify the historic qualities of the main street, and I'd wager small businesses there would benefit greatly from it.

This is a very important point. The draft LAP makes some noises about developing Celbridge as a centre for tourism, but I don't recall reading in it anything about what should be the strategy to do that or even how to encourage the creation of such a strategy. Why do I bring this up? Well, my understanding is that Main Street historically is a classical village street supporting the Big House. So why not encourage Main Street, particularly the end closest to Castletown House, to increase the number of tourism-relevant businesses and activities? Then let developments in expansion efforts in the likes of the (now defunct?) Donaghcumper proposal focus on serving the local population.

(Note: This would only be one point in a fully fledged tourism strategy...but that is the subject for a different post.)

Rain Ascending

And we're off again...

Following the consultation on the draft plan, the chief exec's proposed alterations in response, and the local councillors' motions, we now have an official set of proposed changes to the Celbridge draft area plan. We're into a new public consultation and as stated on the Kildare County Council website, "the closing date for receipt of submissions is 5 p.m. on Wednesday 14th of June 2017."


Some of the major changes include:

• Shifting the weight of the development across to the south-east side of the river.
• Elimination of the Donaghcumper KDA
• Elimination of the western ring-road
• Provision for a future major traffic management plan, including recommendations for the phasing of development with respect to new transport infrastructure

The total number of additional dwellings is now envisaged to be 4033, up nearly 400 on the original 3658.

Spanish Eyes

Can non drivers and non cyclists access Hazelhatch station? I mean is there any shuttle of any sort? That is an amazing service, so quick into the city compared with the bus. But rather difficult to access if you don't drive or cycle really.

Sorry if I am butting in. I don't live in Celbridge but have many friends that do. Their big gripe is the little bridge onto the Main Street. Then lack of access to Hazelhatch (some do not drive and do not wish to cycle in the lashings of rain either). The Main Street is rammed with traffic all the time.

Look I know Rome wasn't built in a day. But can someone tell me why development is not happening nearer the train station? I realise it might be lack of ability to acquire land, but it seems there is lots of green space around there. With the addition of a bus service it would be ideal. Too many cars. Just too many now.

Agree with the N4. It is totally unacceptable to be stuck in traffic from Heuston until past Lucan. I don't envy you.

Anyway, I hope it all works out. Celbridge could be an absolute gem of a town. You are so fortunate to have Castletown, it is a great spot.

tcs

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Can non drivers and non cyclists access Hazelhatch station? I mean is there any shuttle of any sort? That is an amazing service, so quick into the city compared with the bus. But rather difficult to access if you don't drive or cycle really.

There is a shuttle bus. There are no signed bus stops and you just have to know where it stops. Also, it does not connect with all trains. It connects with a number of the original rush hour services but doesn't connect with any of the new trains that go to Grand Canal Dock rather than to Heuston. It doesn't connect with off peak services at all so useless to non-car owning people who wish to use it during the day. The shuttle from Hazelhatch->Celbridge leaves very promptly after the train's arrival in the station to the extent that the speed needed to get off the train, across the track and out to the car park is unreasonable for older passengers. Also it only serves the Hazelhatch Road and Maynooth Road so the distance from a lot of residential areas in town is prohibitive. If driving to the station from north of the Liffey, you risk being held up queuing for the bridge thus missing your train and having to wait a prohibitively long time for the next one.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Look I know Rome wasn't built in a day. But can someone tell me why development is not happening nearer the train station? I realise it might be lack of ability to acquire land, but it seems there is lots of green space around there. With the addition of a bus service it would be ideal. Too many cars. Just too many now.

Flood risk assessments are underway in the vicinity of Hazalhatch and there is an aspiration to do a masterplan for an Adamstown-esque development in the area in collaboration with South Dublin County Council. I'm guessing that there is no appetite for Celbridge to sprawl too far towards Hazelhatch for fear of compromising on this.

Following from the Chief Executive's report explains it:

The potential of lands in the vicinity of Hazelhatch/Celbridge rail station will be explored during the life of this LAP. Section 4.6 and Objective CSO1.4 of the Draft LAP refers to the intention of the Council to consider the longer‐term growth of Celbridge and in particular the potential of lands in the vicinity of Hazelhatch Rail Station in consultation with the NTA, Irish Rail, South Dublin County Council, the OPW and other statutory agencies and stakeholders.
The revised zoning strategy seeks to:
* Ensure that zoned lands maintain an adequate buffer from lands with an identified flood risk at Hazelhatch pending the outcome of a detailed investigation into the cause and extent of the risk and possible solutions to address the risk. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the OPW have indicated that they will appoint consultants in 2017 to carry out a detailed investigation into the flooding issues in the Hazelhatch area.
* To avoid piecemeal development at locations that are remote to the settlement of Celbridge and that would prejudice the long term potential for development in the vicinity of the rail station at Hazelhatch, should further planned enhancements of the regional rail network proceed.
* The Hazelhatch area also straddles the administrative boundaries of Kildare County Council and South Dublin County Council, and as such, it will be important to plan carefully for this area and to look at the potential for an integrated approach across both administrative areas.
* At present the lands are located outside of the development boundary identified in the Draft LAP and are peripheral to the settlement. There are adequate lands for residential development, which are sequentially closer to the town centre and more suitable for residential development.
The zoning of lands at this location is therefore considered to be premature pending clarification in relation to a number of matters.

The proposed alterations to the Celbridge LAP do however focus development on the south side of the river with higher density at the Ballyoulster Key Development Area (on existing Dublin Bus route and close distance to Hazelhatch) and a significant extension in the size of the Simmonstown Key Development Area (not on existing bus route but close distance to Hazelhatch). The lands for the Simmonstown KDA have been extended significantly towards Hazelhatch in the material alterations.

Rain Ascending

Rain Ascending wrote: »

The total number of additional dwellings is now envisaged to be 4033, up nearly 400 on the original 3658.

This is the bit that is truly bonkers. Assuming two to three people per dwelling, the LAP is pushing us towards an increase in the order of 10,000 people, in a town of over 20,000! So why is it that the already large figure of 3700 dwellings is increased further to over 4000 with these alterations?

As far as I can work out, here’s the sequence of events after publication of the draft plan:

• The Department of Environment pushed back heavily on the preponderance of development north of the river, arguing that development should be located in areas better served by public transport, i.e. south east of the river.
• In response, Kildare County Council reduced greatly the zoning for development north-west of the river, and added a lot of residential zoning on the other side. Interestingly, the resulting chief exec report reduced the aggregate number to 3273 new dwellings.
• Then the councillors come in and vote in a number of motions, the net effect being to increase the number back to 4033!

So how did our representatives screw this up so badly? I’m going to look for the voting records, but the key councillor motions are as follows:

• There were a number of motions to re-instate the Crodaun KDA after the chief exec proposed to remove it. These motions were from Bernard Caldwell, Brendan Young (for partial re-instatement), Kevin Byrne, Michael Coleman, Anthony Larkin, and Íde Cussan.
• Amazingly, Coleman, Larkin and Cussen proposed increasing the size of Crodaun! Coleman and Cussen supported a submission that appears to be connected to the owner of at least some of the relevant lands. The end result was not the elimination of the Crodaun KDA, but its reinstatement with increased size from 450 to 600 units.
• Brendan Young proposed increasing the number of residential units on the St. Raphael’s town centre expansion from 100 to 180.
• The number of dwellings on infill sites also increased – but that may be due to Íde Cussen pushing for including estimates of new houses for all the identified infill sites.
• Larkin, Cussen and Byrne had motions looking for the elimination of the Donaghcumper KDA.

Other motions were proposed, but their effects were not reflected in the new version of the LAP and so I have to conclude that these motions were defeated. But the net effect of the motions that were passed (some subset of those listed above) was the big increase in the additional dwellings planned.

I appreciate that in many cases, the councillors were well-intentioned in their motions, but their collective voting pattern has resulting in this ridiculous situation where Celbridge is at risk of excessive growth, even as they restricted the potential for growth of the commercial/retail/social core of the town.

n97 mini

Rain Ascending wrote: »

The total number of additional dwellings is now envisaged to be 4033, up nearly 400 on the original 3658.

This is hard to believe. Bigger population than Kilkenny, but not far off Clane in terms of a town centre.

judeboy101

n97 mini wrote: »

This is hard to believe. Bigger population than Kilkenny, but not far off Clane in terms of a town centre.

Imho clane has a better town center lol

Rain Ascending

Today's announcement by the NTA of "Bus Connects", their plan for revamping the Dublin bus network and its operations, has a couple of points with relevance for Celbridge:

• The proposal has 14 indicative bus corridors. The bus corridor nearest to Celbridge runs along the N4 into the city centre, starting at Junction 5 of the N4.
• Three proposed orbital bus corridors intersect with the N4 bus corridor.
• The NTA are also proposing a number of park-and-ride facilities. They suggest that one could be placed at Junction 5.

It is clear that we are at early stages of a process to redesign the network. There is a brief mention of a consultation process and maps titles have words like "proposed" and "indicative". However, it is interesting to speculate on the impact for Celbridge:

• Potential time reductions for existing bus services from Celbridge. Even if there are significant changes to Dublin Bus services, one would expect that Bus Eireann coaches would be able to exploit the routes as well.
• If the orbital bus corridors work well and interconnect well with the N4 bus corridor, it could open up new feasible public transport commuter opportunities outside the Celbridge-city-centre route.
• Possible higher frequencies from the park-and-ride to the city centre. This could make the park-and-ride attractive for Celbridge commuters and indeed others further afield. Could there be a role for a high-frequency shuttle bus service from Celbridge to the park-and-ride?

PS This is the thread where the overall proposal is being discussed, on Commuting and Transport.