I have actively participated in Brewery Revisioning Process to date. While I acknowledge that the current Masterplan draft, is a considerable improvement over the earlier drafts, it is none the less clear, that many of the issues of concern to the vast majority of people who also actively engaged in the consultation process, are neither addressed at all, or are not adequately addressed in this draft.
I submit:
1. That this entire variationas proposed is premature, is contrary to, and is at variance with The Brewery:Re-VisioningReport on Public Consultation:12 December 2014 to 9th February 2015 because:
Recommendation No 5 of this report reads:
“The Proposed Variation to the City & Environs Development Plan will not commence until the masterplan for the area has been finalised and approved by the elected members of Kilkenny County Council”.
a) The objective of this variation, as proposed is to incorporate the Materplan on a statutory basis into the City and Enviorns Development. See: 2.3.3 of Non Technical Summary: 2.4.3 and also footnote 63 of 7.4.6 of SEA environmental report: which accompany the proposed variation.
b) The Abbey Creative Quarter Masterplan has not been finalised or adopted, is a work in progress.
2. That there should be no finality as such to this Masterplan. It should evolve over the life of the development. The public should be consulted at the end of each phase of development and be modified as required. The archaeological strategy outlined in the accompanying literature, does not reflect the overwhelming view of the public consultation process, namely that the results of archaeological excavation and examination should shape and lead the Masterplan. At this point, we do not know what the archaeological investigations on site will reveal. Many of the variation objectives listed both limit such investigation and predetermine response to any discoveries of finds.
3. That with a new KCC CEO waiting to take up appointment, that this variation is again premature, as it deprives the process of the benefit of another expert voice.
4. That another variation be complied, to allow for the demolition of the Mayfair building. This variation was strongly demanded by participants at the public consultation. Architectural experts have identified the building as having no intrinsic architectural. Further, the Mayfair blocks access to the City wall and affects the line of sight between the Vicar St. entrance, Abbey, Evan’s Tower and St. Canice’s Cathedral, and is as such at variance with the existing City & Enviorns Plan.
5. I submit that a further variation be complied, to allow for partial demolition of the Brewhouse, namely of the block closest to the Abbey, as this section of the Brewhouse interferes with the Abbey curtilage.
6. That the impact of the CAS has not been included in NIS, AA and SEA reports. This is unacceptable.
7. That of the Market Yard should be removed, from this stage of the Masterplan development, as far too little attention was given to it earlier in these consultations.
8. That full investigation of a micro-brewery on the site should be explored before any further planning here takes place.