15-Minute Cities, Irish Planning Bureacuracy, and Dutch Urban Design by Ted Halligan

15-Minute Cities, Irish Planning Bureaucracy, and Dutch Urban Design

By Ted Halligan, JS Law and Political Science

With more of us than ever living in cities and urban areas, urban design plays an increasingly important part in tackling climate change. Suburbanisation and urban sprawl have had a terrible consequence for the climate, namely through fostering a culture of car dependency. One of the best ways urban designers can combat this car dependency is by creating what many are calling a “15-minute city,” this being the idea that everyone in a city should have access to all essential services they require within a 15-minute walk or cycle of their home.

This is impossible in many places in Ireland due to how many local authorities regulate land use. Most land development in Ireland will require planning permission; it is an offence to develop land without the Local Council’s permission. One of the reasons Councils can object to land being developed in a particular way is if it goes against the county development plan’s zoning objectives. The Council, in deciding its County Development Plan, will decide how it wants the County’s land to be used. The primary reason for this is to prevent land use in ways that are thought to be incompatible (i.e., building a shop or factory next door to a residential house). The map below is the county development plan drawn up by Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. The area highlighted in yellow is zoned for residential use only; it is illegal to open a shop in the areas highlighted yellow.

Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown is a good example of the negative aspects of urban sprawl. In many cases, you have kilometres of suburbs without adequate amenities nearby. This forces people to take their car if they want to, for example, go to the local shops or visit a local park. This increases car traffic on the roads, which in turn is worse for the environment.

Urban Page 72 However, there are ways of fixing this through the promotion of mixed-use zoning and creating more diverse transport infrastructure, both of which are keys to the creation of a 15-minute city. A model of what a 15-minute city would look like can be seen in Amsterdam.

Amsterdam, as well as many other Dutch cities, has embraced mixed-use zoning. Zoning laws still exist, and any development must be completed in line with the municipal zoning plan (“bestemmingsplan”). The suburbs of Amsterdam have shops and houses situated on the same street throughout housing estates; this is rarely seen in Ireland, and in most cases, it would not be allowed to be built. Another key aspect of planning in the Netherlands is to foster densification; around half of the residences built between 2002 and 2020 were built within the existing cityscape as it was in 2000. This high-density housing and allowing for land to be used commercially near residences allow for services to be moved within walking distance of people to create a 15-minute city.

This type of development can and should be encouraged at a local level in Ireland. Building at a higher density and allowing businesses to locate/establish themselves within residential areas will result in shorter journey times and give people the option not to take the car.

The second aspect of creating a more sustainable urban environment is achieved by giving people more options to move around the city. One of the main ways this can be done is through street design. Up until very recently, Dublin had been poor in implementing this. Our streets were designed with a car-centric approach, particularly from the perspective of cyclists and pedestrians. Cycling infrastructure was poor, frequently only consisting of painted lines as cycling lanes on roads if at all, and pedestrian infrastructure can often be challenging to navigate due to poorly designed intersections. This actively discourages people from walking and cycling as it is perceived as being slower and/ or unsafe. It is also particularly harmful for people with young children and disabilities for this reason.

An example of this can be seen below at the intersection between the Drumcondra Road and Griffith Avenue (This intersection is due to be redesigned). If you were to follow the rules of the road here as a pedestrian, you would continue along Griffith Avenue (the green line). You would follow the orange line, stopping at six sets of lights because there are no pedestrian lights along the green line. The reason for this is because this intersection was designed to accommodate cars first and pedestrians have been an afterthought; this is a blatant example of car-centric design.

Page 73 Space Again, the Netherlands is leading the way in this area. Modern Dutch street design incorporates all road users, pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles. Taking this holistic approach to street design allows people to choose what transport method they want and does not force them into the car. There is far more space apportioned to cyclists and pedestrians and extensive traffic calming measures to make the street more comfortable to navigate for other road users. This approach to infrastructure design gives people options as other transport methods are convenient to use outside of the car, encouraging greener forms of transportation.

Recently, local councils in Dublin have been moving towards a more inclusive model of street design. This can be seen through Dublin City Council’s COVID Mobility Measures: widening paths and construction of safer cycling infrastructure and Dún Laoghaire Rathdown’s construction of the Blackrock cycle route, as well as a general expansion of cycling infrastructure across the county. This reprioritisation of street space away from cars and towards pedestrians and cyclists is a positive step forward as it encourages/incentivises people to out of their vehicles.

Local Government has a large part to play in helping to tackle climate change. There are many lessons in urban design that can be taken from the Netherlands, particularly in relation to street design. We are certainly moving in the right direction, however, a more holistic approach would include a more relaxed attitude towards zoning, which also must come from the county councils. These factors illustrate how Local Government can encourage people out of their cars and on to their feet by creating a 15-minute city.

Star Wars: The Battle for Environmental Regulation of Outer Space

By Eoin Jackson, JS Law and Matthew O’Shea, JS Law and Business

In recent years, demand for environmental regulation has gained momentum. Such demand has focused on ensuring that both states and corporations are held accountable for polluting the environment and the atmosphere of this planet. However, as the reader will be aware, human activity extends beyond the confines of Planet Earth. Space debris consisting of pollutants such as defunct satellites, fragments of space rockets and launch materials has become a growing problem with the rise of space exploration. National Geographic reports that space debris leads to an increased risk of collision with live spacecraft, greater difficulty with launching satellites, and the potential for harm as debris crashes to Earth.

The authoritative instrument concerning space exploration is the Outer Space Treaty 1967. While comprehensive, this has a number of deficiencies when it comes to the protection of the orbital environment. These deficiencies will be examined and recommendations will be made to ensure that we do not continue our pollution of the planet into the final frontier.

The Problem with Space Debris The European Space Agency (ESA) describes space debris as “all non-functional, human-made objects, including fragments and elements thereof, in Earth’s orbit or re-entering into Earth’s atmosphere.” This reflects the evolution of space exploration and is cognisant of the growth in human activity. However, the Outer Space Treaty provides no clear definition of space debris and does not address sustainable space exploration in an adequate

Space Page 74 manner. In fact, there is no current international consensus on what constitutes space debris, making it difficult to impose any liability on those who are responsible for its potential damage.

Article VII of the Treaty imposes liability on any State that sends an object into space, which subsequently causes damage to another State, whereas Article IX imposes a duty to act “with due regard to the corresponding interests” of other nations. However, it is submitted that this does not adequately address the issue of debris, which is becoming more and more prevalent, and is insufficiently clear on how those exploring space should act. Without adequately defining what actually constitutes space debris, the door is left open for orbital debris to go unaddressed and unpunished, while the interpretative issue is left with lawyers. The consequences of a growing presence of space debris include damage to existing satellites and space stations, as well as more frequent occurrences of space debris falling back into the Earth’s atmosphere, with a further potential of damage to our environment. In 2006, space debris colliding with the International Space Station took a chip out of a reinforced window, serving as a foreboding sign of potential things to come. It is thus worthwhile to adopt a formal definition such as that of the ESA, which would allow for greater clarification and culpability for those engaging in space exploration, and better reflect modern conceptions of space debris.

Liability

As previously mentioned, the liability of a state under the current regime is limited to damage caused by an “object” sent into space that subsequently causes damage to another state. This leads to several issues when considering liability in the broader context of space debris and environmental protection. Firstly, the absence of a legal definition of space debris makes it unclear whether it falls into the category of “object” for the purposes of the Treaty. Secondly, liability only applies when damage is caused to another State and not the orbital environment. This provides little incentive for actors to take proactive measures in favour of sustainable space exploration. Space debris remains present regardless of whether it has collided with another nations objects, thus liability must reflect the precautionary principle in favour of removing ecological danger before it worsens the existing environment. Finally, the strict focus of the Treaty on “states” makes it unclear as to how to impose liability on private corporations. As will be discussed in further detail, the future of space exploration is increasingly being left in the hands of the free market. The current regime provides for no direct measure to impose liability where it is a corporation and not a State opting to launch an object. While it can be argued that a State could be held liable where they facilitate the launch by the corporation, the absence of balance in this theory would place an onerous burden on space faring nations.

It is therefore submitted that liability should be expanded to encompass all “actors” responsible for space debris. Further, that such liability should adopt a precautionary approach that obligates these actors to prevent pollution prior to damage to others. This need for greater regulation becomes all the more apparent as we look towards the future of space exploration.

Going Forward: The Growing Need for Authoritative Action

Man-made material is entering orbit and beyond at a rate the Outer Space Treaty could never have envisaged. Private corporations such as Elon Musk’s SpaceX have reached a stage of readiness for space exploration, and it has been reported that there are now between 70-90 launches into space per year. This is far beyond what the framers of the Outer Space

Treaty could have perceived when drafting it in the 1960’s, before man had set foot on the moon. As technology advances, and the atmosphere-defying capabilities of nations and private corporations alike increase, it is expected that this level of 70 to 90 launches per annum can only increase, bringing with it more frequent instances of space pollution. This indubitably brings about a greater need for authoritative action to be taken in this area.