Submission with regard to the proposed Masterplan

Some of the main issues in which consensus was reached at the Public Consultation are now listed:

1. Before any plan was drawn up a full archaeological survey must be conducted and full Conservation Plan adopted.

2. That the findings from the archaeological survey dictate the design and any finds should remain and be displayed in-situ unless this would cause damage to the said artefacts.

3. That historic maps inform development and the naming of streets or areas

4. Where building is proposed it should follow the east west line of the existing town integrating with existing streets

5. Buildings should retain the character of existing buildings in height and roofscape etc

6. Routes through the site should pedestrianised allowing for delivery vehicle access /local access only, no throughway.

7. Rejection of the site hosting a carpark.

8. Rejection of the site hosting block architecture, any buildings must be on streets that integrate with existing streets.

9. Development should ensure the area is a vibrant lived-in area, not a ‘dead zone’ at night. This precludes development type that would be daytime-only use (i.e. all office space, empty at night).

10. Approval of linear park along river and green space around Abbey

This consultation process and the summary report was to inform the re drafting of the Masterplan.

Some welcome changes were applied to the site layout plan (eg. extension of green space around the Abbey) but sadly the most fundamental issues raised in the public consultation have not been integrated to the so called ‘Final’ Masterplan.

Firstly, we only have a Draft Archaeological Report with no statutory influence.

Until archaeological investigations are undertaken, no final decisions about building footprint etc can be commenced unless the design principles and draft plan is predicated with ‘subject to findings of the archaeological investigations and the publication of the full Conservation Plan’.

Archaeology : statutory protection, so that construction needs cannot trump archaeological concerns

Secondly, the proposed layout of blocks is in direct contravention of the express wish for streets rather than block architecture. As per the Masterplan documentation, the development should: ‘Extend the medieval character of the streetscape in the city centre into the site’. This is the most fundamental tenet of the design principle approved by consensus at the public consultation.I therefore categorically reject that the so-called final Masterplanin the main area of the site be composed of blocks.

Architecture: no Blocks

Thirdly, while an effort was made to mimic the general architectural stockof Kilkennywithin the block construction it is contended that any block construction alters the essence of the city architecture. The site of the proposed blocks dominates the view from the river and should integrate with not stand apart from the existing city housing stock.

Integration with existing city

Fourthly, there is very, very strong opposition to a major throughway from CAS to John’s Bridge. Consensus was that traffic be limited to delivery hours only and allow local access but that no link road be created from CAS into the historic city centre. The road proposed in the new layout drawing passes St Francis Abbey, fragments any green area, and significantly alters the character of the area.

Pedestrianisation:  delivery access only

Fifthly, if the proposed buildings are for office use then the proposed plan directly contravenes the consensus on creating a lived-in vibrant extension of Keiran Street where people live and work and runs the risk of creating a space for anti-social behaviour and a no-go zone at night. If the intention is to gate off these office blocks for private companies this should be stated now, so that the vote on the plan is properly informed. I personally totally oppose such a proposal.

Day and Night: Vibrant lived in city extension

I also wish to raise my concern at the validity of including, inthe site layout plan of the so-called ‘final’ Masterplan, the ~ 4 acre (Market Yard) site which was not part of the public consultation process. I note that the buildings outlined in the Market Yard area in the layout drawing have a use and design which ‘have not yet been decided’. How can a vote be taken on an unknown development of an important riverside area of the city centre?

I note with concern that a number of important tenets of the original Masterplan for Abbey Creative Quarter were omitted in the recent issue. Namely,

Extend the medieval character of the streetscape in the city centre into the site

Development of Kilkenny as Ireland’s environmental centre of excellence through regeneration of the quayside quarter

Pubic property rights and the authority for disposal of public space must remain with the loca authority in order to mediate between different interests and to ensure the most appropriate development.

I would like to know if these extracts were removed as a Variation at a vote by elected members of the council or simply omitted by mistake. Please reinsert these important safeguards for our beautiful city, Kilkenny.

Finally, I second the submissions by Lucy Glendinning both for the Masterplan which presents greater detail of my concerns. Her submission reflects concerns shared by many involved in the public consultation process (widening of the linear park and protection of the wildlife area, ensuring the integrity of the green area at the Abbey rather than its fragmentation, sightline to the Abbey etc). All of the issues she raises I fully support.