Councillors Banner Councillors
Default text size Large text size Extra large text size High contrast text

Home : Corporate Services : Corporate Services : Council Meetings : Kildare County Council Meetings : 2010 : Minutes



Print this Document

Minutes of the Special Planning Meeting of Kildare County Council on Monday 15th March 2010 at 2pm in Áras Chill Dara, Naas
Present were: Councillors B. Weld in Chair, S. Griffin, M. Nolan, T. Lawlor, M. Heydon, S. Lanigan, K. Byrne, J. McGinley, F. Browne, M. Wall, P. McEvoy, P. Kennedy, S. Moore, C. Murphy, L. Doyle, M. Miley, S. Doyle, P. Kelly, F. O’Loughlin, W. Callaghan, T. O’Donnell

Apologies: Cllr. C. Purcell

In attendance: J. Lahart, M. Kenny, P. Whelan, L. Griffin, C. Shinners, F. Breen & M. Foley.  Also David L’Estrange CAAS

John Lahart referred to the timescale for the review of the CDP, circulated again to the members, along with the schedule of meetings for this pre-draft stage.  The members were currently in the period of consideration of the pre-draft Plan which was due for publication in mid April.  He reminded the members that due to the tight time schedule, it was preferable that they sign off on changes to the draft as they considered each chapter, so that those changes could be applied to the text.  Cllr. S. Doyle said it was pre-emptive to sign off until all the chapters had been considered.

John introduced Deirdre Scully who made a presentation on the Draft Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area 2010-2022.

The following issues were raised by the members:

• Why Celbridge was not included with Maynooth/Leixlip/Collinstown as they were all interdependent
• What impact the Census 2011 would have on the RPGs
• How the vacancy rates were calculated
• Why Naas was not part of the greater Dublin area (towns in Meath & Wicklow were)
• Why Naas was removed from the Primary Dynamic Cluster in the current RPGs (Naas/Newbridge/Kilcullen)
• Can the members decide how to split the 65% hinterland population allocation
• Where does growth go if there are infrastructural blockages

In reply, Deirdre Scully said:
• The towns included the metropolitan area were those served by mainline rail and who stood to benefit from the proposed DART underground interconnector.  The RPGs were driven by the NSS and Smarter Travel initiative, which directed the Regional Authorities to promote growth on the metro rail lines. 
• 6.5% is the vacancy rate based on key research carried out by DIT & UCD
• There is a range of reasons why the metropolitan area boundaries are set the way they are – NSS, SPGs, transport strategies.  The principle is to consolidate the metropolitan area to get the best value
• The approach in these RPGs is to deal with clusters through the economic and settlement strategies
• The population split was set by central government and divided between the seven local authorities in the region.  The objective is to have the most growth in the major towns.  The RPGs don’t dictate the split for the smaller towns
• The approach to growth is a pyramid one; key decision makers must decide where investment goes so as to provide infrastructure and avoid mismatches

Deirdre pointed out that the members were welcome to make submissions to the Draft RPGs by 26th March.  The Deputy Mayor thanked Deirdre for her presentation.

Continuation of Consideration of Motions

Cllr. Weld said it had been agreed at the meeting of Party Leaders earlier that there was no need for debate on motions which were agreed by the Manager.  This was accepted.

11. Cllr. Murphy

Core Strategy – Section 2.11 Sectoral Strengths Chapter 2-13 (pg 2-13)

The major strength of Celbridge is around the internationally important Castletown House together with the nationally important Donaghcomper House, the collective designed landscapes that comprise the Castletown, Donaghcomper and St Wolstans demesnes, together with the Liffey Valley and its potential for tourism an economic driver should be identified as Celbridge’s strength.

Response:

Agreed subject to Modification.  Section 2.11 Sectoral Strengths (4th Bullet) states:
 
“Celbridge and Kilcock are designated as supporting centres to Maynooth and Leixlip and will support the knowledge based economy focusing on manufacturing/ office based industry, logistics and tourism”.

This bullet point will be expanded to include “natural and built heritage”.

Chapter 5- Economic Development, Section 5.8 Chapter 5-15 (pg 5-15) Sustainable Tourism recognises a wide range of tourist attractions in North Kildare including Castletown House and Demesne which are open to the public for use.

Section 5.9.5 Chapter 5-20 (pg 5-20) also recognises the importance of Inland Waterways. In this regard, ED 24 states “To maximise opportunities for the use of canals and other waterways as tourism and recreational amenities….”

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Murphy, seconded by Cllr. Byrne to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

12. Cllr. Miley

Core Strategy – Section 2.15.2 Economic Development Chapter 2-14 (pg 2 -14)

To remove policy 2.15.2 policy CS5, remove it from the County Development Plan.

Extract from Proposed Draft Plan:
CS 5 states:  “To support the development of the identified strategic growth centres of Maynooth, Leixlip and Naas as focal points for regional critical massing and employment growth”.

Response:

Not Agreed. This policy reflects section 3.7.4 of the Draft RPGs.  Naas, Maynooth and Leixlip have been identified as the primary economic growth towns in the county.

It would not be appropriate to remove these key growth areas which have been identified to achieve economies of scale, population growth and targeted investment in physical, green and social infrastructure. The proposal would undermine the attractiveness of County Kildare as a location for employment and for national investment.  The draft RPGs indicate that these areas provide the most effective long term use of resources to develop enterprise, retain and develop talent and attract new economic activity and business, not just the towns themselves but also in County Kildare.

The RPGs inform and direct the Development Plans of each Council within the Region. They provide the clear policy link between national policies and local authority planning policies and decisions. In accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2000, the Planning Authority must “be consistent with such national plans, policies or strategies as the Minister determines relate to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area” (Section (9)(6) P and D Act).

The Mid-East Regional Authority Economic Strategy (2009) states that the mid east region should be considered as a critical engine for growth in the Greater Dublin Area.  Maynooth, Leixlip and Naas as economic hubs that form part of the 5 Economic Development Corridors identified for strategic economic development within this strategy.

Agreed, on the proposal of Cllr. Miley, seconded by Cllr. Murphy, to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

Comment Cllr. Wall
Core Strategy – Section 2-10 Overall Economic Strategy Chapter 2-12 (pg 2-12).

That Kildare County Council explain why the only primary economic growth town or cluster in the South of the County is Newbridge which is to be clustered with Naas.

Response:

Policy CS 6  (Section 2.15.2, Chapter 2-14) to be amended to include reference to Athy as follows:

“To encourage and facilitate new employment opportunities within the secondary economic growth centre of Athy and within the identified economic growth clusters and towns.”

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Wall to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

13. Cllr. Murphy

Settlement Strategy – Section 3.3 Settlement Hierarchy, Map 3.1 Chapter 3-2(pg 3 -2).

Map County Kildare Settlement Hierarchy needs amendment.

Response:

Agreed.  Please refer to addendum for the revised Map 3.1

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Murphy, seconded by Cllr. McGinley to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

14. Cllr. Murphy

Settlement Strategy – Section 3.3 Settlement Hierarchy, Table 3.1 County Kildare Settlement Hierarchy Chapter 3-2(pg 3 -2).

Text  re: Maynooth/Collinstown/Leixlip needs amendment

Response:

Agreed.  Amend Section 3.4.1 to reference the Maynooth-Leixlip (including Collinst own) as a Large Growth Town II. Please refer to addendum for all relevant revised Tables 3.1, 3.3 and 3.4 and Map 3.1

Agreed, on the proposal of Cllr. Murphy, seconded by Cllr. Kelly to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

15. Cllr. Wall

Settlement Strategy – Section 3.3 Settlement Hierarchy, Table 3.1 County Kildare Settlement Hierarchy Chapter 3-2(pg 3 -2).

Castlemitchell / Churchtown as a rural node within its plan considering the importance of the National School to the area and the affect of not including it in the plan will have on the development of the school and the other social infrastructure in the community.

Response:

Not Agreed. The overall settlement hierarchy has been informed through an analysis of towns/ villages/ settlements / rural nodes throughout the county to accommodate future growth. Key issues considered included the following:
Draft RPGs
Existing population base
Level of social and physical infrastructure
Environmental constraints
DoEHLG Sustainable Residential Guidelines.
SEA

Under the current CDP Castlemitchel is designated a rural node.  However, given the limited social and physical infrastructure and the fact that this node did not experience an increase in the number of dwellings over the period of the current plan it was deemed that this area was of a lower order to other locations throughout the county.
Seconded by Cllr. Miley.
 
It was agreed to take Motion 16 at this time also.

16. Cllr. Miley

Settlement Strategy – Section 3.3 Settlement Hierarchy, Table 3.1 County Kildare Settlement Hierarchy Chapter 3-2(pg 3 -2).

Please find attached settlements and rural nodes from County Development Plan 2005/2011 that these villages, settlements and rural nodes are retained in the new County Development Plan.
Ellistown, Newtownmoneenluggagh, Kildoon, Booleigh, Castlemitchell, Williamstown, Clongorey/Blacktrench, Ballyteague, Lullymore, TIcknevin, Tipperkevin, Killina.
Seconded by Cllr. Wall.


Not Agreed. At a number of Council and SPC meetings the existing strategy in relation to Policy Theme Boundaries was identified as being unsuccessful and requiring a comprehensive review. On foot of this, extensive survey work was carried out as part of the review of the CDP, to inform a new settlement strategy based on the following:
The Draft RPGs
The changing economic circumstances
New national legislation regarding environmental protection and wastewater management
The need for a sustainable pattern of growth over the course of the new CDP
The results of the survey work and the approach applied to devising the new settlement strategy were presented to the Technical Working Group.

The 37 Policy Theme Boundaries set out in the 2005 CDP are retained with 6 being designated as Villages, 19 designated as Rural Settlements (with Kilteel also designated a rural settlement) and 12 as Rural Nodes. The 12 Rural Nodes set out in the current CDP 2005 have not been identified as designated settlements for the following reasons:
Their limited social and physical infrastructure
Their limited population base
No notable increase in the number of dwellings over the period of the current plan
No notable increase in the level of social infrastructure over the period of the current plan

The proposed settlement hierarchy is based on identifying the rural settlements in the County that have a population and social infrastructure base which is sufficient to justify further development at a scale appropriate to their existing size. The settlement hierarchy implements the rates of growth set out in the DoEHLG guidelines ‘Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas’ (2009). 

It is considered that adding further lower order settlements to the settlement hierarchy will result in decreasing the potential of other settlements to develop in a sustainable manner, while also placing significant infrastructural construction and maintenance costs on the Council to facilitate limited levels of growth. 

A lengthy discussing took place in which the majority of the members argued in favour of retaining these rural nodes mainly on the basis that they would help keep people on the land and restrict one off houses.  Michael Kenny replied that the revised settlement strategy arose from work done for the Technical Working Group and concern at how some settlements developed and national guidelines on the rate of development in villages viz. a viz. waste water treatment issues.

The Manager’s recommendations in relation to Motions 15 and 16 were rejected by 14 votes to 3 and it was agreed to reinstate the omitted rural nodes.


17. Cllr. McGinley

Settlement Strategy – Section 3.3 Settlement Hierarchy Chapter 3-2 (pg 3 -2), Section 3.4.4 Role of Large Growth Towns I and II Chapter 3-3 (pg3-3)

That the necessary changes be made to reflect the fact that Maynooth is no longer a Large Growth Town 11 in the RPG's.  It is Maynooth-Leixlip (including Collinstown).

Response:

Agreed.  The proposed draft plan will be changed to reflect this Motion in line with the Draft RPGs.

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. McGinley, seconded by Cllr. Byrne to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

18. Cllr. Miley

Settlement Strategy – Section 3.4.4 Role of Villages Chapter 3-3(pg 3 -3).

Remove “These villages will support local enterprises for local demand”

Change To “These villages will support local enterprises for self sustainability”

Response:

Agreed with Modification.  Change wording in section 3.4.4 to read as follows: 
“These villages will support local enterprises that support their sustainable growth”

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Miley, seconded by Cllr. S. Doyle to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

19. Cllr. Miley

Settlement Strategy – Section 3.4 Designated Role of Settlements, Chapter 3-4(pg 3 -4).

3.4.5 Role of Rural Settlements and Rural Notes.

A lot of these villages have not finished development. A lot of ad hoc development taking place on the outskirts of it and the centre of it hasn’t fundamentally developed. The policy needs to encourage development local or other wise to finish off the whole centre of these villages. This needs to be encouraged.

Response:

Agreed.  The extent of the existing Policy Theme Boundaries allows for a fragmented development pattern where significant new residential development can take place at some distance from the settlement core.  The reviewed rural settlement strategy set out in Section 17.6 of the proposed Draft CDP seeks to address this issue by way of ‘Development Strategies’ for each of the 20 rural settlements. These development strategies specifically identified the settlement core, the extent of the existing settlement and sites for settlement expansion. The development strategies therefore promote the sequential development of settlements, encouraging the development of sites within or close to the core. 

Chapter 17 (Section 17.4 & 17.6) sets out the policies and objectives for Villages and Rural Settlements and is focused on prioritising the development of the village/settlement core through the use of the sequential development approach. However, due to the following, there are exceptions to this;
The settlement strategies (Map 17.16 – 17.35) include sites with valid planning permissions that have not been taken up.
Due to the extent of the existing Policy Theme Boundaries, some of these planning permissions are located on sites some distance from the identified settlement core.
This approach has resulted in exceptions to the sequential development approach in some of the settlement strategies (Map 17.16 – 17.35). 

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Miley, seconded by Cllr. S. Doyle to accept the Manager’s response.

20. Cllr. McGinley

Settlement Strategy – Section 3.5 Housing and Population Allocation Chapter 3-4 / 3.5 (pg 3 -4-3.5).

That Table 3.2 Housing and Population Allocation on Chapter 3-5 be changed from years 2011-2017 to 2006-2017.

Response:

Agreed.  The title of Table 3.2 to be amended to read as follows:

‘Table 3.2 Housing and Population Allocation 2006-2017’

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. McGinley, seconded by Cllr. Byrne to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

21. Cllr. Murphy

Settlement Strategy – Section 3.5 Housing and Population Allocation Chapter 3-4 / 3.5 (pg 3 -4-3.5).

Table needs amendment

Response:

Agreed.  As above.

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Murphy, seconded by Cllr. Byrne to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

22. Cllr. Murphy

Settlement Strategy – Section 3.6 Development Capacity Table 3.4 Development Capacity of Existing Zoned Land per Settlement Chapter 3-10(pg 3 -10).

Pg 3-10 Table 3.4 needs amendment
Response:

Agreed.  Please refer to addendum for the revised Table 3.4

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Murphy seconded by Cllr. McEvoy to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

23. Cllr. McGinley

Settlement Strategy – Section 3.7 Infrastructural Deficiencies and Environmental Constraints Chapter 3-11 (pg 3 -11).
That Section 3.7 be changed to state that Planning Permission will not be granted for housing developments until the necessary roads infrastructure is in place first e.g. Ardclough Road, Celbridge and ring road in Maynooth from Blacklion to Straffan Road.
Extract from Proposed Draft Development Plan:
3.7 Infrastructural Deficiencies and Environmental Constraints
The development targets set out for each designated settlement are subject to the capacity of necessary physical infrastructure and the ability of receiving environments to accommodate any proposed growth.
All potential developments will be subject to adequate physical services being available in terms of transportation infrastructure, potable water, wastewater and surface water drainage. 

Response:

Not Agreed.  The function of the CDP is to outline the strategic direction for the County and to set out the Council’s objectives over the Plan period. While the Plan references key infrastructural priorities at a county level (as per the mandatory objectives set out in the Planning and Development Act), it would be inappropriate to list individual road infrastructural constraints that are more appropriately dealt with at a Local Area Plan (LAP) level.

Local infrastructural issues are also assessed in detail during the Development Management process and permissions may be restricted or refused pending provision / upgrading of necessary infrastructure to facilitate any particular development.

Cllr. McGinley amended the motion to remove the reference to specific roads.

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. McGinley, seconded by Cllr. Byrne to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

24. Cllr. McEvoy

Settlement Strategy - Section 3.5, Housing and Population Allocation Section 3.6 Development Capacity Section 3.7 – 3.8 Chapter 3-4 – 3-12 (pgs 3 -4 – 3-12).
Given that the population targets can inherently encourage the overprovision of residential development; and given that development constraints due to the delays in the provision of new foul water treatment and fresh water treatment may be relaxed during the period of the plan, that proportional phasing of development take place to prevent excessive rates of growth in settlements.

Explanation:  That the provision of physical and social infrastructure be in place or due for completion before permissions are granted. The use if Grampian Conditions has been condemned by An Bord Pleanala as bad practice where the scheduled provision of common and community facilities is aspired to rather than planned and underway.

Response:

Agreed.  Section 18.4.1 deals with development capacity and states that “where land is being developed for housing, a number of considerations will be taken into account in the assessment of the proposal including “the capacity of the physical and social infrastructure to cater for the design population”. Furthermore, Policy C2 of the proposed Draft Development Plan states “To actively promote the provision of community, educational, social and recreational facilities in tandem with future housing development. In certain large mixed use schemes the frontloading of such infrastructure may be required prior to the commencement of development. In this regard, applicants will be required to submit a social infrastructure assessment for residential schemes on zoned land which are greater than 50 units, for residential schemes on unzoned land which are greater than 10 units or where deemed necessary by the planning authority.

A reference to phasing of development can be incorporated into section 18.4.1 pg 19-9 where social and physical infrastructure constraints are identified.

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. McEvoy, seconded by Cllr. Murphy to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

25. Cllr. Lawlor
Settlement Strategy – ‘Table 3.3 Settlement Hierarchy: Population & Housing Unit Allocation 2006-2017 ‘

The population figures for Kill appears incorrect with 351 units allocated for 2006-2017, but the population estimate for 2009 (3,062 persons) is above the population target for 2017 (3,001 persons)

Response:
Agreed.  The population estimate for 2009 is not needed for this table and was only included to show the population estimates for the villages, rural settlement and rural nodes where no census figure is available.  As it complicates the role of the table to show the allocations of population and units for the period 2006-2017, the 2009 population estimate column is removed. Please refer to addendum for the revised Table 3.3.

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Lawlor, seconded by Cllr. Nolan to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

26. Cllr. Murphy

Housing – Section 4.11 Rural Housing Map Ref 4.1 Chapter 4-14 (pg 4-14 Map Opposite).

Map opposite should include Collinstown.

Response:

Agreed.  Map 4.1 will be amended to show Collinstown

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Murphy, seconded by Cllr. Kennedy to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

27. Cllr. Murphy

Housing – Section 4.3 Housing Location and Density Chapter 4-2 (pg 4-2).


4.3   Institutional Lands – large buildings set in substantial open lands …..   Many of these large houses will be listed buildings.   There is a need to consider the context of many of these houses I would wish to see this broad statement balanced by referring to the adjoining landscape.     The same applies to the table on page 4-5 where quite high densities are provided for

Response:

Agreed. Section 4.4, Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 will be amended to add the following:

‘Proposed development must also have regard to the policies and objectives for architectural and archaeological heritage set out in Chapter 12 of this plan’

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Murphy, seconded by Cllr. McEvoy to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

28. Cllr. McGinley

Housing – Section 4.5 Housing Mix Chapter 4-6 (pg 4-6).
That a Clause be inserted in Chapter 4 stating that Duplex units will not be allowed.

Response:
Agree with Modifications.  Duplex units allow for a mix of unit types within a development as an alternative to apartment units. The DoEHLG Urban Design Manual (2009) notes the adaptability of certain houses allows for conversion to Duplex units with ground floor apartment /commercial area uses, thereby encouraging residential life within town centres.

However it is recognised that duplex developments often pose design difficulties. It is recommended that a policy be included facilitating duplex units in limited circumstances where it can be demonstrated that they are appropriately designed to the highest design standards.

Cllr. McGinley proposed that the Manager’s recommendation be amended to include the word “very” before “limited circumstances”.  The recommendation, as amended, was adopted on the proposal of Cllr. McGinley, seconded by Cllr, Byrne.

29. Cllr. McGinley

Housing – Section 4.4 High Quality Design Chapter 4-6(pg 4-6).

That Section 4.4 be strengthened stating Kildare has more than enough apartments at present (include the number built and unsold) and that were there is a proven need for apartments the minimum acceptable standards are those adopted by Dublin City Council.

Response:

Agreed with Modifications.  Where apartments are deemed appropriate standards in relation to apartments shall comply with Section 18.4.5 (to be amended to 19.4.5).  Floor Areas in this section will be amended to the following (DCC standards):
1 bedroom unit: 55m2
2 bedroom unit range from 80-90m2
3 bedroom unit 100m2.

Storage space outlined in table 18.5 reflects DCC standards and private open space standards contained in the proposed draft plan are higher than the DCC standards.

This issue will also be reviewed in the context of Chapter 19 (Development Management Standards) which forms part of the agenda for the meeting on the 25th March 2010.  Cllr. S. Doyle asked for details of the ratio of one bed apartments permitted and it was agreed that it would be available for the next meeting.

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. McGinley, seconded by Cllr. S. Doyle to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

Motion 30. Cllr. Murphy

Housing – Section 4.6 Social and Affordable Housing Chapter 4-6(pg 4-6).

4.6. Overall design approach is to create a community rather than a new housing development………that should not be site specific but the integration of the site with the neighbouring settlement must also be part of the approach. 
(example of what I mean is Moyglare Hall Maynooth,   well designed within the site boundary but footpath to the village was afterthought) 

Response:

Agreed.  Add the following bullet point to section 4.4:

The physical design of the proposed development shall implement the policies and objectives set out in Chapter 16 (Urban Design Guide) and the development standards set out in Chapter 18 (Development Management Standards) of this plan.

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Murphy, seconded by Cllr. McGinley to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

31. Cllr. Murphy

Housing – Section 4.7 Special Needs Housing Chapter 4-7/ 4-8(pg 4-7 & 4-8).

4-7. Special Needs Housing- We should approach the design standards in a universal way, door widths, plumbing installed with a view to modifications if required in a cost effective way,   over the lifetime of the house.   “The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has pioneered this approach” People can stay in the area they have connections with if a disability occurs during their life rather than at birth if modifications are not expensive.  

Response:

Agreed.  The concept of universal design applies to all proposed housing developments.

 It is recommended to add the following to as section 4.4.1 (Universal Design):
‘High quality design should be guided by the principle of universal design. Universal design is the design of an environment so that it can be accessed, understood and used to the greatest extent possible by all people regardless of their age, size, ability or disability. The proposed design of new residential communities shall consider people's diverse needs and abilities throughout the design process, to design for adaptable environments that meet the needs of all. This universal design approach should be incorporated from the early stage of planning integrated neighbourhoods in order to reduce the need for costly and wasteful retrofits over the medium to long term.’

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Murphy, seconded by Cllr. McGinley to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

32. Cllr. Murphy

Housing – Section 4.7.5 Student Accommodation Chapter 4-8(pg 4-8).

4-8.  Purpose built student accommodation Maynooth.   Despite such provision at Manor Mills the cost is prohibitive and the pattern of settlement tends to be several students occupying a 3-4 bedroom house.   About 45% of the students commute mainly from west Dublin.    The higher densities allowed for in this section did not materialise in the area opposite Tesco.   Not happy with the approach unless the accommodation is student specific and perhaps within the College Grounds.  Referred also to HP 14

Response:

Not Agreed. Section 4.7.5 details that appropriately located and designed student accommodation ‘should be located convenient to the college, particularly by foot, bicycle and public transport and, generally, either within the college campus or appropriately zoned land within Maynooth town.’

It is considered that the definition above is appropriate. Furthermore, this is a matter for the forthcoming review of the Maynooth Local Area Plan.

A brief discussion took place at the end of which Cllr. Murphy agreed that the issue could be dealt with through the LAP process.

Agreed, on the proposal of Cllr. Murphy, seconded by Cllr. McGinley, to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

33. Cllr. McEvoy

Housing – Section 4.8.4 Apartment Developments Chapter 4-9 (pg 4-9)

That for small towns with limited public amenities, that the quantum of apartment units be limited to proportionate fraction, say 15%, of the overall residential units.
Explanation: That it be an objective to encourage community development which is consistent with significant family oriented occupancy – where the volume of dwelling types are sufficient to offspring to a mature age. Large fractions of apartments tend to encourage relatively short term occupancies for transient, commuter work forces. 

Response:

Not Agreed.  A countywide standard that limits the quantum of apartments for all settlements in the county is not considered appropriate.  A review of the amount of existing apartments in each settlement and the appropriateness for any additional apartment developments are specific issues that should be addressed at Local Area Plan stage. 

Section 4.8.4 identifies that “the provision of apartment schemes may be considered at appropriate locations in town centre, village and settlement core areas and specifically at locations close to public transport nodes or in exceptional circumstances where a significant demand for smaller units of accommodation is evident”. The quantum of apartments appropriate at any location may be informed by a statement of housing mix as provided for in policy HP9 (section 4.9.3).

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. McEvoy, seconded by Cllr. Murphy, to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

34. Cllr. Murphy

Housing – Section 4.10 Housing Objectives Chapter 4-11(pg 4-11).

Section 4-10.  HP 15 options for older people and the elderly.  Many older people who would not describe themselves as elderly (60-70 for example) might be referred to,   the cost of heating, carbon tax,  over accommodation, these people may be in the market for smaller housing units, not necessarily apartments.   We should not presume it will all be about sheltered needs.  Would like to see small expansion of the text here to allow for this, it is a pattern I have noticed in some new housing estates over the past few years.

Response:

Agreed.  Add the following text to policy HP15 to add the following:
‘To ensure the housing mix of new residential schemes takes accounts of the needs of the elderly in terms of appropriately designed and sized units.’

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Murphy, seconded by Cllr. McEvoy, to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

Comment: Cllr. Murphy
Housing – Section 4.3 Housing Location and Density Chapter 4-2(pg 4-2).

Higher residential densities, this paragraph is too loose I don’t have a specific proposal but it might be worth having some wording prepared.   

Response:
It is recommended that the following text be added to the end of Section 4.4 (High Quality Design) to further clarify this policy:

‘The density levels set out in Table 4.2 are indicative and are subject to the design principles set out in Chapter 16 (Urban Design Guide), the development standards set out in Chapter 19 (Development Management Standards) and area specific densities set out in Local Area Plans/Village Plans’

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Murphy to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

35. Cllr. McGinley

Economic Strategy  - That the statement in Chapter 5-7 / 5-8 that additional lands must be rezoned in the Maynooth LAP for employment use be removed as this need is already catered for in the Collinstown LAP.

Response:

Not Agreed.  The Draft RPGs identify the Core Economic Area in the north east as Maynooth and Leixlip – both identified “on equal footing as the principal economic growth centres in this cluster (including Celbridge and Kilcock), with both having interconnecting sectoral strengths”. Currently only 5 hectares of zoned employment lands are located within the development boundary of the Maynooth Local Area Plan.  This level of zoning could not deliver on Maynooth’s pivotal role in employment provision for the north-east or for the County in general.

The importance of NUI Maynooth must also be recognised. It has already established synergies with major employers and this must be built upon with the focus of employment in this cluster in hi-tech / bio/tech sectors, research and development, ICT and manufacturing. ER5 of the draft RPGs also recognises the importance of critical massing and capacity building in skills and education and Maynooth with the location of NUI, Maynooth has clear locational advantages in this regard.

Regarding Collinstown the LAP zones all land as Major Town Centre (42.26Ha) to include a range of uses comprising retail, employment, civic, cultural and residential use.  Employment uses proposed include industry and warehousing – providing spin off industries for Intel and Hewlett Packard, incubator and associated commercial enterprises. Reference is made to a business park fronted by office and warehousing type activities.

The development of Collinstown however, is estimated to take place over a period of 20 years (2010 – 2030) and will be subject to a Masterplan. Further more, development of the lands are contingent on the “Development of a new station to serve Collinstown and West Leixlip within the subject lands (pg34) “The railway station shall be delivered as part of Phase 1 of the overall development proposal”. PT1 also states “To enact the land use zoning set out in this Plan in-line with the delivery of specific improvements to the public transport facilities servicing the site, namely, the development of a new train station at the centre of the site to serve the Collinstown development ….”  “The permitting of developments under the Collinstown LAP is contingent on the delivery of these improvements” .

The delivery of a range of uses including potential employment opportunities may therefore not materialize in the short term.

A lengthy discussion took place during which it was argued that there was no need for more employment land in Maynooth as there was sufficient land at Tesco and the Business Park and also at Collinstown and that there were traffic constraints already in Maynooth.  It was counter argued that pockets of land were required for industrial development to enhance the existing ICT and high tech industries.  Cllr. McGinley agreed to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. McGinley, seconded by Cllr. Murphy, to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

36. Cllr. Murphy

Economic Strategy  - Table 5.3 Economic Development Hierarchy County Kildare (pg 5-9)  needs to list Collinstown - I would also argue it should include Celbridge.

Response:

Agreed with Modification.  Amend Hierarchy of Employment Centres from Primary Economic Growth Towns to Primary Economic Growth Towns / Clusters.

Celbridge is listed in the Metropolitan Area supporting Maynooth and Leixlip.

A footnote to be added to Leixlip referencing “Including the expansion area of Collinstown.”

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Murphy, seconded by Cllr. McGinley to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

37. Cllr. Murphy

Economic Strategy  - Section 5.5.3 Channeling residential developments to urban centres with supporting social and community facilities.  (pg 5-11).  

It may not be the chapter to deal with this,   the development plan is basically a physical plan,  the SEA  while a new feature,   is a robust examination of environmental impacts,  the missing piece is the social development of our communities which is a major element of what  make towns attractive or unattractive locations to live in or invest in.    A social needs assessment needs to be part of the planning process.  

Response:

Agreed.  This is dealt with in Chapter 11. The scale of new residential development is subject to an assessment of availability of local social infrastructure in the area.  Section 11.14.1 (Community Services & Facilities) sets out the policy requiring a Social Infrastructure Assessment (SIA) for residential schemes on zoned land which are greater then 50 units and for unzoned land for schemes greater than 10 units. The SIA is required to ensure the scale of developments is in tandem with the level of community, educational, social and recreational facilities.

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Murphy, seconded by Cllr. McGinley to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

38. Cllr. Murphy

Economic Strategy - Section 5.5 Factors Influencing Future Economic Development (pg 5-11)
We can anticipate with the level of unemployment and the range of skills available that self employment and the micro business sector will become larger,   we need to provide for incubator units,  which are committed to in the plan however  clustering these in a way that shared  administration might help to add to their viability, 

Response:

Agreed.  Amend Objective EO8 as follows:

To acquire suitable land subject to the availability of funding, for creative and innovative entrepreneurial initiatives and the provision of clustered incubator units.

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Murphy, seconded by Cllr. McGinley, to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

39. Cllr. Murphy

Economic Strategy - Section 5.6.1 Enterprise Development There is however a need to zone lands within the primary economic growth centre of Maynooth.”  (pg 5-12) 
The economic growth centre should be a cluster and should include Maynooth, Collinstown, Celbridge and Leixlip.   It seems to me that we are selling ourselves short by not including all the settlements given their very close proximity and their relationship with Collinstown. 

Response:

Agreed subject to Modification. Amend following sentence “It is necessary to ensure that sufficient land is zoned for enterprise development particularly in the primary and secondary economic growth towns.”

To
“It is necessary to ensure that sufficient land is zoned for enterprise development particularly in the primary economic growth towns / clusters in north Kildare (Maynooth, Leixlip , Celbridge and Kilcock) and central Kildare (Naas and Newbridge) and secondary economic growth town of Athy.”

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Murphy, seconded b Cllr, Kelly, to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

40. Cllr. Murphy

Economic Strategy – Section 5.10 Economic Development Objectives (pg 5-21)

E02 i Isolating Celbridge from Leixlip and Maynooth makes no sense.
EO2 (i) & (ii)
(i) To promote and facilitate the development of regional large scale employment generating developments as a priority in the Primary Economic Growth Centres of Maynooth and Leixlip in the Metropolitan area, Naas in the Hinterland area and the Secondary Growth Centre of Athy in the south of the county.
(ii) To recognise the supporting role of economic clusters (Celbridge and Kilcock to Maynooth and Leixlip) and (Newbridge to Naas) in the delivery of critical mass to deliver regional scale employment opportunities.

Response:

Agreed subject to Modification.  Amend EO2: (i) as follows:
To promote and facilitate the development of regional large scale employment generating developments as a priority in the Primary Economic Growth Centres of Maynooth and Leixlip/Collinstown supported by Celbridge and Kilcock in the Metropolitan area, Naas in the Hinterland area supported by Newbridge and the Secondary Growth Centre of Athy in the south of the county.

Agreed on the proposal Of Cllr. Murphy, seconded by Cllr, Kelly, to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

41. Cllr. Lawlor

Economic Strategy – Section 5.10 Economic Development Objectives (pg 5-21)

That the word appropriate be removed from the objective EO2(v) as this can be subjective.

EO 2 (v) To promote rural economic development by adopting a policy framework that recognises the need to promote the long-term sustainable social and environmental development of rural areas, economic diversification and facilitate the growth of appropriate rural enterprises.
 
Response:

Agreed.  Delete appropriate - as the context for this objective is outlined in section 5.7 and supported with detailed policies and objectives in Chapter 10.

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Lawlor, seconded by Cllr. Nolan to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

42. Cllr. Murphy

Economic Strategy – Section 5.9.3 General Tourism Policy

The plan should make reference to Maynooth Castle and the Guinness connection with north Kildare. Also the plan should promote Genealogy based tourism.

Response:

Agreed with Modifications.  To include the following policy as ED 18: “To promote County Kildare’s Cultural, Literary, Historical, genealogical, archaeological and architectural heritage as tourism generating opportunities.”

Detailed reference to particular heritage items can be accommodated in the forthcoming Local Area Plan for Maynooth.

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Murphy, seconded by Cllr. McGinley to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

43. Cllr. Murphy

Economic Strategy – Section 5.9.4 Tourist Infrastructure Policy.

ED 22: To provide for a network of Bus bays at tourist locations which would appeal to the bus tour sector.

ED 22 states “To improve roads and to provide adequate car parking facilities and access in scenic areas subject to availability of resources and protection of the environment”

Response:

Agreed. To reword ED 22 as follows:

ED 22: To improve the surrounding road network and to provide adequate car parking and bus parking facilities at all tourist attractions, including scenic areas, subject to the availability of resources and the protection of the environment.

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Murphy, seconded by Cllr. McGinley, to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

44. Cllr. Murphy

Economic Strategy – Section 5.9.5 Inland Waterways Tourism Policy

ED28 states “To promote and develop the Grand Canal towpath as a cycleway in cooperation with Waterways Ireland”.

Some work done by Dublin City and South Dublin Council, small section in Kildare (couple of hundred yards) gap. Could build on this.  

Response:

Agreed.  To amend objective ED 28 as follows:

“To promote and develop the towpath along the Grand Canal as a cycleway, in co-operation with Waterways Ireland and neighbouring Local Authorities.”

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Murphy, seconded by Cllr. McGinley to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

45. Cllr. Murphy

Movement and Transport Section 6.2.2 Transport 21 (2006-2015) (pg 6-2)

(A)  The Interconnector is mentioned, given that it will produce an estimated 75 million extra passengers when up and running, this is a massive opportunity for the whole Greater Dublin Area.   The electrification of Maynooth and Kildare Lines are part of the project and are referred to in the plan.   Need to look at constraints, for example,   there is a single track between Maynooth and Kilcock.  
(B)  There is a pricing system that operates as a disadvantage to Kildare.  
(C)  We should also be seeking a direct route to docklands. 
(D)  Collinstown Train Station not referred to. 

Response:

(A) The Interconnector – Agreed with Modifications.

The projects listed at Section 6.2.2 of the Plan are those outlined in Transport 21 – the Government’s Capital Investment Programme 2006 to 2015.  The interconnector project is just one of a number of key projects of relevance for County Kildare.  Responsibility for the provision of rail infrastructure, including identifying and addressing constraints in the capacity of the system lies with Iarnrod Eireann.  It is a policy of the Plan to liaise and co-operate with the agencies responsible for the provision of infrastructure. 

It is proposed to include a new policy in the Development Plan as follows:  
To support the electrification of the Maynooth and Kildare rail lines.

(B)  Pricing system disadvantage – Not Agreed.

See response to previous item.

(C) Direct route to Docklands – Not Agreed. 

The Docklands are outside the Development Plan Area.  However, LUAS Line C1 Connolly through the Docklands, terminating at The O2 has been operational since December 2009. Services along the Maynooth Line are via Connolly Station, thus direct access to Docklands is facilitated along this route  Existing LUAS Red line from Tallaght to Connolly, via Heuston Station can also avail of the route to Docklands.

(D)  Collinstown Station - Agreed

It is proposed to include a new policy in the Development Plan as follows:  
To support the delivery of a new railway station at Collinstown, as envisaged in the Collinstown Local Area Plan 2010.

Cllr. Murphy argued that the Interconnector should be specifically referred to in the policy as it was such an important project.  It was agreed that the wording of the policy would be amended.

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Murphy, seconded by Cllr. Kelly, to accept the Manager’s recommendation, as amended.

46. Cllr. Lawlor

Movement and Transport Section 6.5.3 Roads Programme (Pg 6-8)

Can we identify the Junction number in RP8. Is there a map to accompany this proposal.

RP 8 :  To improve safety and capacity at the M4 Maynooth Interchange and to investigate the future connection of the M4 west of Maynooth. 

Response:

Comment.  The Junction referred to in the first part of Policy RP8 is Junction 7 (Straffan Road Interchange).  The second part of the policy allows the investigation of a possible future interchange to the west of the town.  Preliminary studies have yet to commence on this.  No sites have been identified for this possible future connection. 

Proposed Change:  Amend policy RP8 to read as follows:

RP 8: To improve safety and capacity at the M4 Maynooth Interchange (Junction 7) and to investigate the provision of a future connection to the M4, west of Maynooth. 

Cllr. Lawlor said his motion should have referred to the Johnstown Interchange but his point was that there should be appropriate naming and numbering of interchange junctions.  This was agreed.

47. Cllr. McEvoy

Movement and Transport General

While seeking to avoid complete repetition with national policy documents, that the explicit provisions for cycling and cycle parking that were included in the previous plan be incorporated into the transport policy section.

Explanation: The objective being to increase emphasis on the value and merits of cycling which often takes lower priority to other mode of transport in towns.

Response:

Not Agreed. The Council’s provisions in relation to Cycle Parking are outlined at Section 19.6.7 of Chapter 19 Development Management Standards.  Table 19.10 also lists the requirements for the provision of bicycle parking for new developments. The standards are revised upwards from those requirements outlined in the CDP 2005-2011.  

Chapter 6 also contains a number of references to sustainable transportation and identifies cycling and walking as key factors in the achievement of sustainable transportation objectives.  Ref. ST 2, ST 5, ST 8, ST 9 and ST 10. 

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. McEvoy, seconded by Cllr. Murphy, to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

48. Cllr. McEvoy

Movement and Transport Section 6.5.1 General Transport (Pg 6-6/6-7)

Given objectives for improved public transport use set out in Transport 21 and Smarter Travel, A Sustainable Transport Future (2009) and National Climate Change Strategy, that a county policy be made identify and develop Park and Ride facilities along bus routes, in particular, for settlements that are not directly served by rail networks.

Response:

Agreed with Modifications. The Draft Plan Objective GT 4: To prepare parking strategies and investigate the appropriate locations for vehicular, bicycle, park and ride facilities within the county. The Council will seek to provide these facilities either on its own or in co-operation with others. 

Add the following:
The locations of such facilities can be identified where appropriate through the Local Area Plan process.

Cllr. McEvoy pointed out that parking facilities can also be located outside LAP areas.  Michael Kenny undertook to revert with appropriate wording to strengthen the policy.  This was agreed.

49. Cllr. McEvoy

Movement and Transport Section 6.5.1 General Transport (Pg 6-6/6-7)

That the standardisation for signage, boundary markings and information panels for parking areas be assessed and planned for using the best national and international practices. That the CDP provide for the adoption and use of these standards in the planning process and possible future regulatory approaches

Response:

Agreed. Amend Objective GT 3 as follows: 
The Draft Plan contains Objective GT 3:  To improve road, street, town and village signage by undertaking a survey to assess the proliferation, gaps and quality of signage and to develop a signage policy for the future provision of signage within the county. 

It is envisaged that parking signage would also be included in this objective. 

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. McEvoy, seconded by Cllr. Lanigan, to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

50. Cllr. McEvoy

Movement and Transport Section 6.5.2 Sustainable Travel (Pg 6-7)

That it be county policy to seek to inset public bus stops to prevent traffic congestion in towns and on regional roads.

Response:

Not Agreed.  Suggested policy should not be included in the CDP as;  (a) inset bus stop result in delays to public transport services due to the fact that the buses pull in off the main carriageway to pick up passengers and then have to wait for a break in traffic to rejoin the main carriageway, (b) it is also worth noting that other local authorities are moving away from the 'inset' bus stop and having all bus stops on carriageway, (c) inset bus stops can result in vehicles parking in them,

A brief discussion took place and it was agreed that this issue could be dealt with when the Development Management Standards were being discussed at a future meeting.

51. Cllr. Murphy & 52. Cllr. McGinley – deferred to meeting of 22nd March

53. Cllr. Murphy

Water Drainage and Environmental Services Section 7.5 (Pg 7-5)

The expansion of Ballygoran Reservoir is not specifically mentioned why?

Response:

Agreed with Modifications.  Section 7-5 lists a number of water supply projects identified in the Water Services Investment Programme 2010-2012 which are to be advanced to construction stage.  The list is not exhaustive and in this regard, it is not intended to list each and every project.  The augmentation of Ballygoran reservoir falls within item (ii) of the listed projects. 

It is proposed to amend the text as follows: 

7.5  Water Supply Projects…..
…..The Council is seeking to advance to construction stage the following projects:

(ii)  Network improvements to facilitate a revised water distribution regime including a strategic link from Castlewarden to Ballygoran and the augmentation of the Ballygoran reservoir.

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Murphy, seconded by Cllr. Kelly, to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

54. Cllr. Murphy

Water, Drainage and Environmental. Services Section 7.6.4 (Pg 7-8)

Maintenance of River Liffey
Flooding occurs when:  “The capacity of a watercourse’s channel is exceeded blocked or restricted.”

While  responsibility is generally the riparian landowner,   major water courses such as the Liffey require some management and maintenance.   In sections of the river there are large silt islands,  debris etc.  some of which can be caused by interventions upstream by the Council or others.  Removing these islands it would seem would add to the capacity of the water course and may reduce the need to do more expensive remedial works down stream. 

Response:

Agreed with Modifications. The Liffey is the responsibility of the ESB who controls the flow of water in the River Liffey.  The removal of silt ponds etc. from the river channel could be a complex operation with the agreement of Fisheries Boards, National Parks & Wildlife Service of the DOEHLG etc. being required.

It is proposed to amend following Objective WD11 as follows:

WD 11: To continue to undertake works under the Arterial Drainage Programme as prioritised and agreed and as may be amended over the period of this Plan.

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Murphy, seconded by Cllr. Kelly, to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

55. Cllr. McEvoy

Water Drainage and Environmental Services Section 7.7 Surface Water Policy (Pg 7.10)

That it become policy to locate sewage storage and pumping stations outside flood zones.

Response:

Not Agreed. There is an objective in the Plan WD 9, to prepare a countywide flood risk assessment and management policy.  In the meantime, all new developments are required to be assessed in accordance with The Planning System and Flood Risk Management – Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009), where a potential flood risk exists. In addition, policies for new developments are outlined in Section 7.7, which covers all types of new development likely to have an impact on flooding.  It is envisaged that sewage storage and pumping stations would be included and assessed for impacts as part of new schemes. 

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. McEvoy, seconded by Cllr. Kennedy, to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

56. Cllr. Murphy,

Water, Drainage and Environmental Services Waste Management 7.10.1 (Pg 7-15/7-16)

Need a positive statement about seeking to minimise the number of collections particularly early morning.   Noise is a big issue.   

Response:

Not Agreed.  It is considered that this is not a matter for the CDP.  

This motion will be referred to the Environment Section for consideration. 

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Murphy to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

57. Cllr. Murphy

Water, Drainage and Environmental Services Section 7.10.2 Litter (Pg 7-16)

7 day street sweeping in towns should at the very least be an aspiration.

Response:

Not Agreed.  It is considered that this is not a matter for the CDP.

This motion will be referred to the Environment Section for consideration. 

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Murphy to accept the Manager’s recommendation

58. Cllr. McGinley

Water, Drainage and Environmental Services Section 7.10.2 Litter (Pg 7-16)
That 7.10.2 Litter, L1 be changed as follows: To strongly enforce the provisions of the Litter Pollution Act 1997 by prosecuting offenders.

Response:

Agreed.  Proposed to amend policy L 1 as follows: 

L 1:  To strongly enforce the provisions of the Litter Pollution Act 1997, by prosecuting offenders, where applicable.

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. McGinley, seconded by Cllr. Nolan, to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

59. Cllr. McEvoy

Water, Drainage and Environmental Services Section 7.10 (Pg 7-15/7-16)

That the council work with the retail sector to align the selection and use of packaging materials with the capabilities of the recycling collection services within the county

Response:

Not Agreed. It is considered that this is not directly relevant to the CDP but may be considered during the preparation of the Waste Management Plan and will be referred to the Environment Section for consideration. 

The Draft Plan makes reference at EN 2: To facilitate the implementation of the County Kildare Waste Management Plan 2005-2010 and any subsequent revisions thereof during the period of the plan. 

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. McEvoy to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

60. Cllr. Murphy

Energy and Communications Section 8.12 Communications Policies (Pg 8-8/8-9)

Communication Masts where there is a commercial element they should require planning permission, with Garda stations they can be located in very inappropriate locations.

Response:

Not Agreed.  Exempted Development Regulations apply.  The County Development Plan cannot over-ride existing legislation in this area.  However, the Council permitted to be consulted in relation to Part 9 developments (State Development).  

A brief discussion took place during which the members expressed concern at the location  of masts close to schools etc.  Michael Kenny pointed out that the departments of Justice and Defence were exempt under the Planning Acts and that local authorities were consultees only on planning applications for masts on Garda stations etc.  He agreed to revert to the members with suitable wording for a policy.

61. Cllr. McEvoy

Energy and Communications Section 8.5.8 (Pg 8-4)

That in the absence of standards, that the installation of ground source heating systems be compliant with water quality directives.

Response:

Agreed with modifications.  Proposed change to Section 8.5.8 as follows: 

The Council will encourage the provision of ground source heating pumps for space heating and cooling, as well as water heating for both residential and commercial developments, subject to the protection of water quality and adherence to any other relevant planning and design requirements which may arise during the period of the plan. 

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. McEvoy, seconded by Cllr, Kelly, to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

62. Cllr. McEvoy

Energy and Communications – General

That a Sustainability Matrix be developed for resource use and development management

Response:

Not Agreed. The settlement strategy for the county, which has informed the remainder of the Plan and which has been assessed under the SEA process and has been informed by the Regional Planning Guidelines, is based on the principles of sustainability.  

Such matrices tend to be completed by applicants and may not always inform the development management process.  The results of an assessment of a proposed development on a sustainability matrix could be called into question regarding the reliability of results. 

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. McEvoy to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

63. Cllr. Murphy

Chapter 9  - Retail Section 9.4.2 (pg 9-5)

Revitalising town Centres is referred to as is sequential testing,   the fact that some of our town centres are in fact village centres and are incapable of accommodating large scale development,  particularly if it is car dependent,   this needs some additional comment. Pg 9-5

Response:

Not agreed.  The County Retail Hierarchy Table 9.1 (pg 9-4) lists both town centres and village centres within the County. The initial focus of retail development is in revitalising town and village centres and accords with National Policy.   Where these sites are not available the application of the sequential test applies (refer section 9.4.2). It should also be noted that under the RPG that the term town centre is generic and covers city centres, town centres, district centres and large village centres.

Policy R 33 also seeks “to facilitate the local provision of shops and services in Tier 2 Level 4 Village Centres to meet the needs of existing and expanding populations”.

On the basis of the foregoing large scale retail development may not be an appropriate type of development in designated village centres.

Furthermore, Policy R 34 reads as follows;

‘It is the Council’s policy to positively respond to and encourage applications for small retail developments in designated Village Centres, particularly those that will facilitate the re-use and regeneration of existing land and buildings, in the interests of consolidating and reinforcing the traditional heart of the centres’.

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Murphy to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

64. Cllr. McGinley – agreed to defer to meeting of 22nd March

65. Cllr. McEvoy

Chapter 9 – Retail

That the Council work with the retail sector to align the selection and use of packaging materials with the capabilities of the recycling collection services within the county.

Response:

Not agreed. This is not a matter for the Kildare County Development Plan. The motion will be referred to the Environment Section.

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. McEvoy to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

66. Cllr. McEvoy

Chapter 9 – Retail

That suitable park and ride facilities be identified and implemented as part of the retail strategy for Tier 1, Level 3 Sub County Towns to offset the use of private vehicle use in the hinterland areas.

Response:

Not agreed. It is considered that the policies included in Chapter 6 (Movement and Transport) are adequate with regard to the provision of park and ride facilities in the county. The following policies/objectives are included in this regard;

NR 9 ‘It is the policy of the Council to co-operate with other agencies in the provision of additional links between the national road network and public transport especially rail and bus transport including strategic park and ride facilities’.

GT 4 ’It is an objective of the Council to prepare parking strategies and investigate the appropriate locations for vehicular, bicycle, park and ride facilities within the county. The Council will seek to provide these facilities either on their own or in co-operation with others’.

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. McEvoy to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

67. Cllr. Murphy

Chapter 9 – Retail

Tesco – how is Maynooth the 3rd largest retail centre county wide when a retail strategy was in place,  is the strategy  enforceable should it be strengthened. Pg 9-8
Response:

Comment - Maynooth has evolved to be the third largest retail centre after Naas and Newbridge, which is in accordance with its level in the County Retail Hierarchy. Following the delivery of Collinstown over the twenty years from 2008 as the Metropolitan Area Level 2 Major Town Centre to serve North East Kildare, it would be anticipated that Maynooth would not remain the third largest retail centre in the County.

The principal objectives of the Draft County Retail Strategy have been incorporated into the proposed Draft CDP. As such the specific objectives of the Draft CDP are proposed statutory objectives. Following the adoption of the CDP all future planning applications will be assessed having regard to the stated objectives of the County Development Plan.

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Murphy to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

Conclusion

This concluded the discussion on the motions.  Michael Kenny reminded the members of the next meeting on 22nd March and asked them to submit their motions by 1pm on 16th March.

Cllr. Weld thanked the members and staff.