Swords County Dublin
  • Home
  • Clubs
  • Popular Pages
  • History
  • Pubs
  • Shops
  • Business

Ridgewood Estate Swords - Planning

The information below is from the Fingal County Council Meeting Held on the 11th of November 2013 regarding planning at Ridgewood Estate Swords.

Ridgewood Estate Swords
Shops at Ridgewood Estate Little Forrest Cloughran / Swords
Ridgewood Estate Swords - Planning


2. TRANSPORTION 
 
Proposed Access and Increased Traffic levels along Ridgewood Avenue 
and Cedar Park 
The majority of the submissions received express serious concerns about the 
proposed access to the LAP lands from Ridgewood Avenue and Cedar Park. 
Many state that either Ridgewood Avenue or Cedar Park is not suitable for any 
additional traffic. They say currently cars park on both sides of Ridgewood 
Avenue and Cedar Park and so there is only space for one car to pass at any 
one time. They say that the situation has been exacerbated by the recent 
opening of the football pitches at the western end of Ridgewood Avenue. One 
submission says that the circular road (Cedar Park-Cedar View) carries too much 
traffic and is a danger to children going to shops and playing greens. End of 
Cedar Park should be made into a cul de sac to prevent it becoming a short cut 
or throughway. A second vehicular access into Cedar Park will result in 
additional traffic at the junction of Cedar Park and Cedar Square and this will 
increase likelihood of accidents there. This junction should be redesigned. Many 
are concerned about the potential for accidents involving children crossing to local play areas. Many of the submissions call for alternative access arrangement 
to be considered. Some submissions from Ridgewood Avenue suggest vehicular 
access should only be from Cedar Park and pedestrian access only from 
Ridgewood Avenue. 
 
Access to Ridgewood Estate 
Concern is also expressed regarding the single in/out access arrangement for 
the entire Ridgewood development. One submission notes that two access 
points are proposed into the LAP lands to allow for emergencies but the entire 
Ridgewood Estate only has one access/exit. Several submissions call for a 
second access into Ridgewood and one submission states that there should be 
another entrance from Rivervalley, as originally envisaged. 
 
Traffic Calming 
Several submissions are seeking traffic calming measures to be put in place 
within the existing Ridgewood development, particularly along Ridgewood 
Avenue and Ridgewood Place. 
 
Car parking 
A car parking provision of 1-2 spaces per house is insufficient to cater for parking 
requirements; at least 2 per dwelling should be required. 
 
Construction Traffic 
Many submissions express concerns about the potential impact of construction 
traffic in terms of inadequacy of existing roads to accommodate construction 
vehicles, damage to footpaths, also the noise, vibration and pollution effects 
associated with construction traffic and fundamentally the danger to children. 
One submission suggests construction traffic should be via the Forest Road. 
 
Public Transport 
Some submissions refer to a very limited bus service available to the residents of 
Ridgewood and say that further development will increase demands for public 
transport services. One submission queries the Development Plan Local 
Objective 325 to provide a bus only link between Rathingle and Rivervalley and 
asks where will this link run? Where will stops be located? And who will provide 
the service? 
 
Pedestrian/Cycle lanes 
Many express concern about the indicative location of the pedestrian cycle lane 
traversing the open space area at the northeastern corner of the LAP lands, 
adjoining Cedar View and would like it redesigned to avoid crossing the proposed 
and existing open space. One submission asks where the cycle lanes will be 
located. Will they just be faded white lines on a footpath? Another submission 
strongly objects to the proposed pedestrian walkway from the LAP lands to 
Cedar View as this would provide easy access to derelict lands and is concerned about child anduction at Ridgewood.
 
Response: 
General comment 
The proposed LAP lands are, effectively, the final phase of the Ridgewood 
residential development. As with any phased development, later phases have 
traffic impacts on earlier, completed phases. In this case, the LAP lands will 
have traffic impacts on the existing houses; however the outcomes of the Traffic 
Impact Assessment undertaken for the LAP indicate that the existing roads are 
within capacity and capable of accommodating the increased traffic flow. 
 
Re: Proposed Access and Increased Traffic levels along Ridgewood 
Avenue and Cedar Park 
There will be an increase in traffic generated by the proposed LAP. The volume 
of additional traffic was quantified in the TIA as approximately 150 cars in the 
morning peak hour. The approach of the LAP is to spread the effect of the 
additional traffic thereby minimizing its impact on residential amenity. The 
alternatives are as follows. 
1. Build a completely new access road to the south of Rathingle, which 
would be outside the scope of this LAP. 
2. Allow only one access to the LAP lands, thereby concentrating the traffic 
impact on one access road. In general, the observers from Cedar Park 
propose that the single access should be Ridgewood Avenue, whereas 
the observers from Ridgewood Avenue propose that the single access 
should be Cedar Park. 
Therefore, no change to the proposed access arrangements is recommended. 
However, additional traffic calming should be provided along Ridgewood Avenue 
and Cedar Park. 
 
Re: Access to Ridgewood Estate 
The Council normally seeks to have two accesses into any development of more 
than 100 houses, to avoid the disruption that would occur should a single access 
be closed (e.g. for a fire or a fatal accident investigation). Ridgewood currently 
has over 1000 houses and an additional access would be desirable but it is not 
available. The only possible option of a second access to Rivervalley has been 
discussed by the Council during the course of the 2002 LAP for Ridgewood 
(Rathingle) and was roundly rejected at that time. It would not be appropriate to 
reconsider this matter. The entire Ridgewood Housing Scheme has been traffic 
assessed on a stand alone basis. 
 
Re: Traffic Calming 
This matter was discussed by the Council, but not proceeded with due to lack of 
funds. However, it is recommended that additional traffic calming measures are put in place at Ridgewood estate, prior to the occupation of any houses.

Re: Car parking 
The residential parking standards in the County Development Plan are now 
norms (as opposed to maximums) and require 2 car parking spaces within the 
curtilage for houses with three+ bedrooms, and allows 1- 2 car parking spaces 
within the curtilage for houses with up to two bedrooms. A mix of 2, 3 and 4 bed 
roomed houses is proposed in this LAP. Given the concerns expressed by 
existing residents regarding the insufficient parking provision in Ridgewood, it is 
recommended that all houses within the LAP lands have two car parking spaces 
within the curtilage. 
 
Re: Construction Traffic 
Construction traffic for the LAP lands will have an impact on the existing 
residential development. It is possible to put conditions on planning permissions 
requiring a Construction Management Plan. Such a Plan would have restrictions 
on the times of access and egress of construction traffic – e.g. restricting 
construction traffic from accessing/egressing the site around school opening and 
closing times. It is recommended that an additional objective be inserted in the 
LAP, “TM 6”, requiring all planning applications to submit a Construction Traffic 
Management Plan. Any such plan shall include a restriction on construction traffic 
from accessing/egressing the site around school opening and closing times. 
 
Re: Public Transport 
The provision of public transport services is a matter for the National Transport 
Authority and public transport operators. This includes routes, and the location of 
bus stops. The development of the LAP lands will lead to an increase in the 
demand for public transport in the area. It is likely that the NTA and public 
transport operators will respond to such an increase by increasing the number of 
services on the relevant routes, thereby improving public transport for everyone 
in the Ridgewood/Rathingle area. 
 
The provision of a bus only link to River Valley is a Local Objective of the Fingal 
Development Plan 2011-2017 (LO325). It would open up the possibility of 
providing a viable bus route through Rathingle, which would be major 
improvement. However, this proposal is not within the scope of the LAP. 
 
Re: Pedestrian/Cycle routes 
The exact location of the tie-in of the cycle route to Cedar View should be 
designed to avoid traversing the proposed area of open space and not interfere 
with the existing open space. The development proposed within the LAP lands 
will be a low speed environment, segregated cycle lanes are not necessary. 
It is recommended that the LAP map be amended to indicate that the location of 
the cycle route connecting to Cedar View does not traverse the proposed nor existing open space in the vicinity of Cedar Place.

Recommendation: 
1. It is recommended that an additional objective be inserted at Section 6: 
“Movement and Transportation” 
 
“TM 6 Additional traffic calming shall be provided within the Ridgewood 
development and particularly along Ridgewood Avenue, Ridgewood Place 
and Cedar Park, prior to the occupation of any houses within the LAP lands.” 
 
Also, 
 
It is recommended that the following sentence;” It is recommended that additional 
traffic calming measures are put in place in Ridgewood, prior to the occupation of 
any houses within the LAP lands” 
 be inserted at the end of paragraph 6.6 “Access to LAP Lands” 
 
2. It is recommended that section 6.7 of the draft LAP be amended as follows: 
Delete the following: 
“ 
House-urban/suburban up to 2 bedrooms – 1-2 spaces within the curtilage 
House-urban/suburban up to 3 bedrooms or more – 2 spaces within the 
curtilage” 
 And replace with: 
“In this regard all houses shall have two car parking spaces within the curtilage.” 
 
3. It is recommended that an additional objective “TM 7” be inserted at Section 6: 
“Movement and Transportation” 
 
“Objective TM 7 All planning applications shall be accompanied by a 
Construction Traffic Management Plan. Any such plan shall include a 
restriction on construction traffic from accessing/egressing the site around 
school opening and closing times.” 
 
4. It is recommended that the LAP map be amended to indicate that the location 
of the cycle route connecting to Cedar View does not traverse the proposed nor existing space at Cedar View.

Playground 
Several submissions object to the proposed playground located on the open 
space at the north eastern corner of the LAP lands. Many say that there are 
already two playgrounds located along the northern boundary of the Ridgewood 
development, and a third is not necessary. Some suggest that if one is required, 
it should be located on the southern/western side of the LAP lands. One 
submission requests that Objective GI 5 requiring a children’s playground be 
omitted from the LAP and state that this requirement should be decided at 
planning application stage and not prescribed in the LAP. 
 
Protection of Trees & Hedgerows & Boundary Treatment 
Many submission express concern regarding the retention and protection of 
existing trees and hedgerows along the eastern boundary of the LAP lands and 
some request that the existing green fence there be retained as an additional 
protection measure. Some residents are concerned about the proximity of new 
houses to existing hedgerows and their homes and requests that they be 
positioned further away from the hedgerow and that additional trees are planted 
to protect privacy. Some submissions want to know what the boundary treatment 
is proposed along the existing boundary with the LAP lands. 
 
Public Open Space 
One submission from MKN Property Group (the develop of Ridgewood) requests 
that the landscaped areas adjacent to the boundary hedgerows should not be 
discounted as Class 2 pubic open space and request that the last sentence of 
section 5.3 
“"Although essential for the protection of the existing hedgerows and provide 
attractive visual amenity these areas are not calculated as Class 2 open space 
as they are not of recreational value.” be omitted from the LAP. 
 
Increase in landscape buffer 
Some submissions requests that the “greenbelt” between Cedar Park and the 
new development be maintained and significantly increased beyond the 3m 
proposed, this would further protect trees and increase amenity value to existing and future residents.

Access to Ward River Valley 
One submission wants to know where access to the Ward River Valley will be 
located and will this impact on traffic. 
 
Construction Impacts 
Several submissions express concerns about the noise, pollution and disruption 
arising during the construction period and requests that working hours-time limits 
be confined to stipulated times for the period of construction. 
 
RESPONSE: 
 
Re: Playground 
Objective OS26 of the Fingal Development Plan requires the provision of 
“appropriately scaled” children’s playground in all residential schemes in excess 
of 50 units. The proposed location of the playground on the draft LAP map is 
indicative only. In light of the objections raised to the proposed location, it is 
recommended that the indicative playground be relocated to the South Western corner of the LAP lands. The exact location will be determined at planning 
application stage. 
 
Re: Protection of Trees & Hedgerows & Boundary Treatment 
It is an objective of the LAP (GI 4) to protect the trees and hedgerows along all 
the boundaries of the LAP lands. The boundary treatment with the existing 
development will be formed by the retention of these trees/hedgerows... The 
existing green fence along the eastern boundary could be retained, save where 
necessary to be removed to allow vehicular and pedestrian access into the LAP 
lands, with additional tree planting. It is recommended that an objective to this 
effect is indicated on the LAP map. The proposed dwellings along the eastern 
side of the LAP lands would be c. 33 metres from the westerly facing houses at 
Cedar Park. For comparison purposes, the separation distance between houses 
along both sides of Cedar Park are c.27 metres and along Ridgewood Close, the 
distance is c.30 metres. 
 
Re: Public Open Space 
The linear green buffer zones (c.3m wide) along the eastern, northern and 
western boundaries of the LAP lands are proposed as green corridors in 
accordance with Objective OS 23 of the Fingal Development Plan, to protect tree 
and hedgerow boundaries, to encourage biodiversity and to maintain linkages to 
the amenity lands beyond, at Ward River Valley Park. The Fingal Development 
Plan states that green corridors do not form part of the public open space 
provision. 
 
Re: Increase in Landscape Buffer 
The function of the landscape buffer zones proposed along the eastern, northern 
and western boundaries are to act as green corridors to protect tree and 
hedgerow boundaries, to encourage biodiversity and to maintain linkages to the 
amenity lands beyond, at Ward River Valley Park. These buffer zones are 
proposed to be a minimum of 3 m in width; this is considered to be a reasonable 
area of protection and generally accords with similar green corridors within 
Ridgewood. The precise area given to these green corridors will be determined 
at planning application stage. 
 
Re: Access to Ward River Valley 
Potential pedestrian access routes to a north/south green route to Ward River 
Valley Park are indicated at 4No.locations on the LAP map: 2No. are indicated 
along the northern boundary and 2No. are indicated along the western boundary 
of the plan lands. This is to meet Local objective 336 of the Fingal Development 
Plan. It is likely that only one or two access points will be developed. These are 
proposed as pedestrian access points only, for local residents. 
 
Re: Construction Impacts 
Objective CWM 4 in the draft LAP states, ”Developers shall take adequate measures to minimize the impacts of traffic noise and dust during construction phases.” Hours of operation will be dealt with by way of a condition attached to a 
grant of planning permission. 
 
RECOMMENDATION: 
It is recommended that the following amendments are made to the LAP map: 
 
1. It is recommended that the “indicative playground” on the LAP map be 
relocated to the south western corner of the LAP lands. 
2. It is recommended that the LAP map legend includes an additional objective 
as follows: “To retain the existing green fence, augment with additional tree 
planting, along the eastern boundary, save where necessary to be removed to 
allow vehicular and pedestrian access into the LAP lands.” 
 
4. URBAN DESIGN 
 
Residential Density 
One submission wants to know the current density of housing at Cedar 
Park/Cedar view viz a viz that proposed in the LAP. 
 
Building Heights and House Type 
Several submissions raise concerns about the proposal to allow 2.5 storey 
dwellings, saying that there are no such dwellings in the existing Ridgewood 
Development and that new dwellings should be confined to 2 storeys to avoid 
overlooking, overshadowing and visual intrusion. Another contends that it is 
contradictory to seek to maintain views towards Lambay and propose 2.5 storey 
dwelling units. One submission erroneously expresses serious concern that the 
draft LAP is proposing 2, 3 and 4 storey dwellings. There is a strong preference 
for houses over apartments. 
 
LAP Map –Layout 
Concern is expressed in the submission from MKN Property Group (developer of 
Ridgewood)that the proposed layout (which seeks to retain long distance views 
to the north county and coast) will not achieve the densities of 30-33 per ha. and 
target units numbers of 170-190 proposed in the draft LAP. The developers 
contend that the proposed layout with resultant triangular plots cannot meet 
Development Plan Standards and does not reflect the existing pattern of 
development in Ridgewood. The submission seeks instead to have their submitted masterplan layout adopted as the LAP.

Re: Residential Density 
The residential densities proposed in the LAP are similar to those pertaining in 
the existing Ridgewood development. The LAP proposes a density range 
between 30-33 units per hectare. The existing residential densities at Cedar Park 
and Cedar View are in the range 31-36 per hectare.

Re: Building Heights and House Type 
The draft LAP proposes a mix of housing units to meet the diverse needs of 
future residents. 2, 3 and 4 bed roomed dwellings are proposed. No apartments 
are proposed in this LAP. Two to two and half storey dwellings are proposed to 
allow for architectural variety in the design of the new residential development 
and also to provide some larger dwellings that can adapt to the needs of growing 
families. A mix of house type and size and gives the possibility to trade- up or 
down within the existing community. 
 
Re: LAP Map –Layout 
In order for the Local Area Plan and in turn the Masterplan and scheme design to 
be successful, several elements have been examined and analysed in detail by 
the Planning Authority. 
 
Primary of these is context – this has been carefully described in the LAP written 
document. Context then leads onto elements of the place itself that are desirable 
to strive for in any further development. 
i.e. Character – it should be a place with its own identity 
Quality of the public realm – what its own contribution is and what 
improvement it makes to the existing 
Legibility – the place has a clear image 
 
Ridgewood is a large scheme laid out to a particular model which is relatively 
successful, but it does not achieve all that the Planning Authority is now required 
to consider as set out in the Best Practice Urban Design Manual (DOECLG 
2009). 
 
The Rathingle LAP phase of the Ridgewood development presents opportunities 
that did not exist or were not exploited in earlier phases. The topography and 
location of the site will allow for character, public realm and legibility to be better 
defined than has been possible up to now. To help achieve these defining 
elements, the LAP proposes to integrate the important views from the area 
towards the north, east and out over the coast, the value of which are recognised 
in the Swords Historic landscape Character Study. The LAP also takes into 
account the new well defined urban design principles incorporated into the 2011 
– 17 Development Plan. 
 
The approach by the Planning authority in the LAP map is not radical and will 
provide ample opportunity for a satisfactory scheme design. The potential blocks 
and streets and their unorthogonal layout provide great architectural 
opportunities to provide the sense of place that could have been better achieved 
in earlier phases.
The LAP recognises that to achieve the desired elements, will require specific 
architectural design solutions at particular points in the development. Innovative
and site specific design are capable of providing the required densities and at the 
same time cultivate a distinct character - a development with its own sense of 
place, as required by the Planning Authority in this LAP. 
 
Recommendation: No change. 
 
5. EDUCATION-Schools provision 
A number of submissions are concerned about the capacity of local schools to 
cater for existing residents, aside from the pressure of further residential 
development in the area. 
The submission from MKN Property Group requests that in light of the statement 
in the Draft LAP at Section 8.2.2. “with respect to primary and secondary school 
provision, capacity exists within existing schools to cater for existing and future 
needs of the LAP area”, that Objective C1 in the draft LAP, “To facilitate the 
Department of Education and Skills in ensuring adequate provision of 
educational facilities to serve the needs of the new community within the plan 
lands”, be omitted from the LAP. They are concerned that this objective might be 
interpreted to mean the provision of a school “within the plan lands”. 
 
Response: 
As part of the preparation of the Draft LAP, the issue of schools provision was 
carefully considered and is detailed in Section 8 of the draft LAP. The LAP 
proposes circa 170-190 new dwelling units. This equates to c. 550 additional 
population. The schools provision needs arising from this is estimated to be circa 
70 children, based upon guidance from the “The Provision of Schools and the 
Planning System” guidelines produced jointly by the DoECLG and the 
Department of Education and Science in 2008. 
 
Information sourced from local primary and secondary schools indicated that 
there is currently or will be (by reference to impending extensions to existing 
schools) sufficient capacity to cater for the schools need of the new residential 
community. Also, two alternative schools site have been reserved within the 
Fosterstown LAP lands for a 16 classroom primary school and an extension to 
St. Finian’s Community College is anticipated to go to construction in 2014/14 
giving an overall capacity there of 1,000 students. 
 
In the interests of clarity, it is recommended that the wording of Objective C1 be 
amended to delete reference to “within the plan lands” as this is not the intention 
of the Objective. Rather it is intended to facilitate the Department of Education to 
ensure adequate provision of school facilities within the locality, to serve the 
needs of the new community in the plan lands. 
It is also recommended that the word “existing” be deleted from last sentence in 
section 8.2.2 as follows 
“With respect to primary and secondary school provision, capacity exists within 
existing schools to cater for existing and future needs of the LAP area.” be 
amended to read; 
Page 118“With respect to primary and secondary school provision, capacity exists within existing schools to cater for future needs.

Recommendation: 
1. It is recommended that Objective C1- 
“To facilitate the Department of Education and Skills in ensuring adequate 
provision of educational facilities to serve the needs of the new community within 
the plan lands.” 
 
be deleted and replaced by the following: 
 
“C1 To facilitate the Department of Education and Skills in ensuring adequate 
provision of educational facilities within the locality, to serve the needs of the new 
community.” 
 
2. It is recommended that the last sentence in section 8.2.2 
“With respect to primary and secondary school provision, capacity exists within 
existing schools to cater for existing and future needs of the LAP area.” 
 
be amended to read; 
 
“With respect to primary and secondary school provision, capacity exists 
within existing schools to cater for the future needs of the LAP lands.” 
 
6. INFRASTRUCTURE 
 
 Foul Drainage 
The submission from MKN Property Group acknowledges that the Swords Waste 
Water Treatment Plant is being upgraded and that no dwellings shall be occupied 
within the plan lands, until the upgraded WWTP is commissioned. However, they 
are concerned about the further restriction on development in the draft LAP 
regarding network constraints identified at North Street and Forest Road in the 
Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study. These constraints, they state, are 
outside their control and so they have requested that Objective FD1 which states 
”Housing occupation can only take place following commissioning of the Swords 
WWTP upgrade works and the network constraints have been remedied”, be 
revised to omit any reference to the need for network constraints to be remedied. 
 
Response: 
The network in Swords has been modelled and the constraints have been 
identified in the GDSDS. The proposed development at Rathingle would have 
been included as part of the 2011 scenario, which required the upgrade works. 
All of the upgrading in Swords is not required to facilitate this development. The 
exact extent and locations of the upgrading can be agreed in advance of any development within the plan lands.

Summary of Proposed Amendments to LAP map: 
 
1. It is recommended that the “indicative playground” on the LAP map be 
relocated to the south western corner of the LAP lands. 
2. It is recommended that the LAP map legend includes an objective as follows: 
“to retain the existing green fence and augment with additional tree planting, 
along the eastern boundary, save where necessary to be removed to allow 
vehicular and pedestrian access into the LAP lands.” 
3. It is recommended that the LAP map be amended to indicate that the location 
of the cycle route connecting to Cedar View does not traverse the proposed nor existing open space in the vicinity of Cedar View Ridgewood.
Privacy Policy
Contact