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 22nd March 2010 at 10am in Áras Chill Dara, Naas
Present were: Councillors C. Purcell Mayor, S. Griffin, B. Weld, T. Lawlor, K. Byrne, J. McGinley, F. Browne, M. Wall, P. McEvoy, S. Moore, C. Murphy, S. Doyle, M. Nolan, M. Miley, P. Kennedy, M. Hayden, S. Lanigan, R. Daly, L. Doyle, D. Scully, P. Kelly, F. O’Loughlin & W. Callaghan

In attendance: M. Malone County Manager, J. Lahart DOS, M. Kenny Snr. Planner, P. Whelan, L. Griffin, F. Breen, B. Padden, C. Shinners & M. Foley

Also in attendance: D. L’Estrange CAAS

John Lahart opened the meeting saying that this was the third meeting in a series of four, dealing with motions and comments for Chapters 10, 11, 17 & 4 (Rural Housing only).  He referred to the final meeting scheduled for Thursday 25th March for which motions had already been submitted and he asked that if there were any further motions, that they be sent in as soon as possible.  He asked that motions for this meeting on aviation matters, be deferred till Thursday as expert advice was being sought.

Cllr. Griffin referred to a meeting of the Regional Authority that evening at which a motion was to be debated relating to the provision of another international airport in the region and he sought direction from the Councillors as to what stance Kildare would take on this matter.

Cllr. McGinley proposed the following motion:
To investigate the feasibility of providing an airport in the County, having regard to Government policy relating to the development of an additional airport in the Region.    

Seconded by Cllr. Griffin and agreed.

Cllr. Moore suggested that a casino should be “open for consideration” in the county in a location such as The Curragh or Punchestown racecourses.

Michael Kenny proceeded to deal with issues raised at the last meeting and deferred to this meeting:

1. Cllr. McGinley (Ref Sub No. 29)
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 standards:
1 bedroom unit: 55m2
2 bedroom unit range from 75m2
3 bedroom unit 90 m2.

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. McGinley pointed out that this motion had been adopted at the last meeting on 15th march.  Michael Kenny replied that there was an inconsistency in standards as the floor area for some apartments was now greater than for some houses.

It was agreed on the proposal of Cllr. McGinley, seconded by Cllr. S. Doyle, to increase the minimum house size.

2. Cllr. Murphy (Ref Sub No. 45)

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 and upgrading including twin tracking of the Maynooth and Kildare rail lines.
(B)  Pricing system disadvantage – Not Agreed.
Not a matter for the Development Plan.
(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.
(A) Amend text of commentary at section 6.1 to include:
One of the key projects delivered to date has been the Kildare Rail Project comprising the quadrupling of critical sections of track between Cherry Orchard and Hazlehatch on the Heuston-Kildare line, as well as associated ancillary works such as signalling and station developments. However the Council is aware of existing constraints along the Kilcock rail line including the proximity of the Royal Canal and its current single track capacity which may need to be addressed prior to the delivery of future projects.
Other key projects of relevance to Kildare include………

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

3. Cllr. Lawlor (Ref Sub No. 46)

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:
Section 6.5.3 – All references in Section 6.5.3 to Interchanges/Junctions will be numbered.

RP 3: M7 Newhall Interchange – Junction 10
RP 5: M7 Monasterevin Interchange – Junction 14
RP 6: M7/M9 Interchange – Junction 11 (M7), Junction 1 (M9)
RP 7: N7 Johnstown Interchange – Junction 8
RP 8: M4 Maynooth Interchange – Junction 7

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

4. Cllr. McEvoy (Ref Sub No. 48)

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.

Policy NR 9 (Section 6.4.1) 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. 

The above policies and objectives should cater for the provision of park and ride facilities, particularly along bus routes.

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

5. Cllr. McEvoy (Ref Sub No. 50)

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 

The policy proposed in the motion 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,

Further query raised re: ½ inset bus stops in rural locations and provision of services to wheelchair users.  Further Consideration

Comment:  Earlier comments still apply.

In addition, the reason for having on line bus stops is so that buses can pull up close to the raised kerb (Cassel Kerbs) and lower their ramps to allow mobility impaired users to embark and disembark safely. Vehicle overtaking can occur at rural bus stops due to the fact that there will be gaps in traffic where overtaking manoeuvres can occur. All new bus stops in County Kildare are required to provide access for mobility impaired road users. Bus Eireann and Dublin Bus have recently upgraded a large number of their bus stops to provide access for mobility impaired users.

A brief discussion took place.  It was agreed to amend Cllr. McEvoy’s motion to add the words “where appropriate” and to revisit the issue again when considering the Development Control Standards.

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. McEvoy, seconded by Cllr. Griffin, not to accept the Manager’s recommendation and to adopt the motion as amended.

6. Cllr. Murphy (Ref Sub No. 51)

Movement and Transport Aviation Section 6.6 (Pg 6-12)

Safeguarding – need to clarify if that also applies to stopway’s and clearways.   While the IAA has responsibility for separating planes in the Air they have no function in physical planning.  Safeguarding has serious implications for those living in close proximity to an Aerodrome/ Airport or for those carrying out business in such locations. Very difficult to see how the section in the Development Plan will be interpreted if a planning application came in for runway extension, it’s much too vague.

Response:
Deferred until Development Plan meeting of March 25th.

7. Cllr. McGinley (Ref Sub No. 52)

Movement and Transport Aviation Section 6.8 Aviation Objectives (Pg 6-14)

That Aviation Objective 6.8 (To investigate the feasibility of locating an airport in the county) be deleted.

Response:
See earlier motion re location of airport

8. Cllr. Murphy (Ref Sub No. 60)

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:
Agreed with modifications

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). 

Suggested new inclusion at Section 19.9.3 Chapter 19 Dev Management Standards:

The location of commercial masts on State buildings will be discouraged. All masts on State buildings shall have regard to national and council policies regarding schools in residential areas etc.

Michael Kenny added that clarity could be sought from the Departments of Justice & Defence regarding the allegation that they sometimes increase the size of masts in order to accommodate commercial elements.

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

9. Cllr. McGinley (Ref Sub No. 64)

Chapter 9 Retail, Section 9.5.4 (pg 9-9)

 That R 17 on Chapter 9-9 be deleted

Policy R 17 reads as follows:
‘It is the policy of the Council to identify out of centre locations for retail development to enable Maynooth to sustain its role and importance in the county’s shopping patterns, with a particular emphasis on the bulky goods sector to enable deficiencies in North East Kildare to be redressed’.

Response:
Not agreed

Zoned lands in the recently adopted Leixlip, Collinstown and Celbridge Local Area Plans 2010 could facilitate the provision of bulky goods. It is considered reasonable to retain the proposed objective R 17 relating to Maynooth in order to provide for a land use that is not already adequately catered for in the town. During the review of the Maynooth Local Area Plan due regard will be had to the need for and the zoning of suitable lands for the sale of bulky goods.

The motion was seconded by Cllr. Griffin and following a brief discussion in which the point was made that the decision had already been taken to provide for bulky goods in the Leixlip/Collinstown area and that there was no need to put pressure on Maynooth for same.

It was agreed not to accept the Manager’s recommendation and to adopt the motion.

10. Cllr. McEvoy That Kildare County Council continual monitor the policies of enterprise
agencies in the state, such as the IDA, Enterprise Ireland and Forfas, with
the objective identifying opportunities and deficits with regard to
facilitating and locating employment in the county.

Explanation: That the economic development include an objective to align and
frame policy statements, details of undeveloped/ available developed sites
with the needs of enquiries handled at national level. That state level
promotion include opportunities located in Co Kildare.

Response:
Agreed

The Council will continue to work with all the key state agencies and other stakeholders to seek opportunities for employment creation in the county.

The Council is also preparing a report on the availability of infrastructure to support employment creation in the county. This report will cover such issues as Energy, Transportation, Water Services, Telecommunications and availability of lands zoned for employment. The report will be published on the council's website and be copied to key employment promotion agencies.

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

11. Cllr. Murphy – deferred to 25th march.

12. Cllr. Cllr. McEvoy
Walking and Cycling

‘To promote by securing the development of a network of safe cycle routes and footpaths on new and existing roads and on routes reserved exclusively for pedestrians and cyclists’. (See Fingal Pol TP 22 – page 106.  Also Meath –
INF POL 23 – page 139.)

Response:
Agreed

The context section of the Plan refers to a number of National/Regional policy documents including National Cycle Policy Framework (2009-2020), DTO Cycling Policy (2006). 

Objectives in the Plan include:
ST 2 to encourage and facilitate safe walking and cycling routes as a valuable form of transport, alternative to the car. 

ST 5 To provide for safer routes to schools within the county and to encourage walking and cycling as suitable modes of transport.

Add the following policy;
‘To promote by securing the development of a network of safe cycle routes and footpaths on new and existing roads and on routes reserved exclusively for pedestrians and cyclists’.

The identification of specific locations for cycle routes and pathways, may be dealt with more appropriately at Local Area Plan level.

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

13. Cllr. McEvoy
New Walkways and cycle routes should be established on a legal and permanent basis. (See Meath – 3.3.2 –3rd pt – col 3 – page 114.)

Response:
Not agreed

The identification of specific locations for cycle routes and walkways, may be dealt with more appropriately through the Local Area Plan process or through the Transportation SPC.

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

14. Cllr. McEvoy
(A) Road safety for pedestrians and cyclists would be improved by lower speed limits and priority over motorized transport (See Roscommon – 10.3.1 – 2nd paragraph – last sentence)

(B) by providing linear parks, footpaths, cycle paths and public lighting in towns and villages. (See Leitrim – 2.05.03 – Pol 5.3a).

Response:
(A) Agreed

The Development Plan already contains a wide range of policies in relation to;
• Safe walking/ cycling
• Design of new neighbourhoods and their walkability
• Priority for pedestrians
• Linkages of new and existing developments.
However it is proposed to insert policy to investigate role and use of lower speed limits in towns and villages to improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists.

Amend Section 15.8 Overall Layout Design as follows;
• Priority shall be given to pedestrians and cyclists by providing routes that are direct, safe and secure.
• Streets shall be designed and well lit to give control to pedestrians and therefore encourage pedestrian activity.

(B) Section 15.8.6 – Cycling and Pedestrian Linkages - necessary to promote integration and sustainable development patterns.

Section 15.8.7 - Shared surface streets may occur where the character is most urban, typically in the town centres. These streets should be designed as shared level surfaces, where pedestrians and cyclists have equal priority. 

In addition the following policy statement is included in Chapter 14;
GI 1: To facilitate and promote, the development of Green Infrastructure which allows for the development of active and passive recreation and the protection and enhancement of heritage and landscape features.

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

15. Cllr. McEvoy
Footpaths on the outskirts of towns and villages should be extended where appropriate, and adequate public lighting should be provided.

Response:
Agreed with modifications

Chapter 6 Section 6.4

Amend policies contained in the Draft Plan as follows;
TP 7: To provide, extend and maintain street lighting on the public road/footpath network throughout the county in accordance with best international practice.
TP 8: To seek the provision and extension of comprehensive footpath links to town and village centres and schools where deficits exist and promote permeability throughout towns and villages in the county.

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

16. Cllr. McEvoy
Walking & Cycling – Linkages – Develop linkages with walking and cycling trails such in adjoining counties. (See Offaly – 17.Pol16-05 & South Dublin 9.5.10.i.)

Response:
Agreed with modifications
CR 4: To develop, in conjunction with the Irish Sports Council and adjoining Local Authorities, long distance walking and cycling routes.

Policy in current Proposed Draft Plan
CR 7:  To facilitate, where appropriate, the provision of cycle-ways or walkways along the extent of the canals and watercourses in the county in co-operation with landowners, Waterways Ireland, DoEHLG and other Local Authorities.

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

17. Cllr. McEvoy
Walking/Cycle Routes should be signposted/waymarked.  (See Meath ED POL 66
– page 121. See also Fingal – Obj GBP16 – page 163.)

Response:
Agreed with Modifications. See addition to existing policy in plan;

CR 3: To develop and implement a County Walking Strategy for the county in consultation with statutory bodies and landowners, and in accordance with recommendations of County Kildare Walking Routes Project, 2005. This strategy will seek to identify established walking routes in the county, evaluate these routes and make recommendations for their promotion.

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

18. Cllr. McEvoy
Cycling

Cycle routes should be named.(see South Tipp 7.1.4 – 4th para.)

Response:
Agreed with modifications

To include the following as a new policy in Chapter 14;

‘To promote the expansion of cycle facilities throughout the county and to liaise with Failte Ireland, the Sports Council, the National Transportation Authority and other bodies in the development of cycling touring routes throughout the county and region, in particular in areas of high amenity’.

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

19. Cllr. McEvoy
Establish a complete network of interlinked cycleways throughout the County and integrated with the DTO strategic cycle net work for the Greater Dublin
Area. (See South Dublin 7.8.1.iii.)

Response:
Agreed with modifications;

To include the following as a new policy in Chapter 14;

‘To promote the expansion of cycle facilities throughout the county and to liaise with Failte Ireland, the Sports Council, the National Transportation Authority and other bodies in the development of cycling touring routes throughout the county and region, in particular in areas of high amenity’.

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

20. Cllr. Griffin
Chapter 8;
Add Micro Hydro Developments.

Response:
Agreed with modifications

Include micro-hydro developments in para. 8.5.2 and 8.11.3 as follows;

8.5.2  Hydro-Energy
There are two ESB hydroelectric power stations located in the county - Golden Falls and Leixlip. Another is located at Poulaphouca in Wicklow close to the county boundary with Kildare. The Council will encourage the use of rivers for hydro energy production. It is important that hydro schemes, including micro-hydro schemes incorporate proposals for landscaping of dam walls and ancillary developments and measures to minimise noise emissions, in order to reduce the overall impact of hydro schemes.

8.11.3  Hydro
It is the policy of the Council:
HE 1:  To seek to ensure that proposals for hydro energy installations including micro-hydro schemes, have regard to the free passage of fish and other water based amenity activities. The Council will have regard to the recommendations of the Regional Fisheries Boards in relation to the protection of fisheries resources, and the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources in assessing proposals.
HE 2:  To seek to ensure that, in sensitive landscapes, powerlines connecting the hydro unit to the national grid will be laid underground.

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

21. Cllr. Miley
Concern in relation to rural based enterprise. If we curtail rural based enterprise we are going to limit our rural areas as we have done in the past and we are going to stagnate.
Response:
Not Agreed
Full detail on policies and objectives for rural development are contained in Chapter 10. A very wide range of economic activities in rural areas are identified including:
• agriculture,
• equine,
• horticulture,
• agri-food sector,
• forestry,
• boglands,
• tourism,
• green energy projects,
• mineral resources,
• rural enterprises and
• one-off enterprises in rural areas.
In relation to Rural Enterprises, the Plan advocates the development of Rural Based Enterprises as a means of sustaining the rural economy including agriculture, horticulture, forestry, tourism, energy production and rural resources based enterprise.  The Plan will also facilitate one off rural based enterprises, criteria for which are outlined at Table 10.4 of the Plan.  The key aim of the Rural Development Strategy is to support the provision of a high quality rural environment.  It would be inappropriate from a sustainable planning perspective to facilitate all types of enterprise in rural areas and in this regard the Plan seeks to promote enterprises that complement the rural economy or do not impact significantly on the amenity of rural areas.  

A significant quantum of zoned and serviced lands has been identified in various locations in the many towns and villages of the county, through the LAP and village planning process.

A brief discussion took place in which some members argued in favour of the motion so as to encourage economic activity in rural areas.  Michael Kenny pointed out that it was catered for in the policy and it was important not to be too restrictive and to have built in safeguards for issues such as water, roads etc.

It was agreed on Cllr. Miley’s proposal to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

22. Cllr. Murphy
Chapter 10-15  Rock Quarries
Road reinstatement to be carried by the Quarry, however it should also state that it should be ongoing rather than after the site has been exhausted.

EI 11 any change should also be stated here.

Response:
Agreed with modifications

Amend text of Section 10.7.4 Post Closure of Extractive Industry as follows:

Furthermore, allowing rehabilitation of quarry faces to take place parallel to extraction operations and providing planting on earth mounds at quarry entrances, significantly reduces visual impacts while allowing for ecological and habitat recovery.  Road reinstatement should also be ongoing during operations,, rather than after the site has been exhausted in the interests of roads and traffic safety.

Amend policy EI 11  To ensure that the full cost of road improvements (including during operations and at time of closure), which are necessary for the quarrying of sand and gravel, shall be borne by the industry itself and that the industry shall also contribute to the recreation and amenity of the county. 

Further consideration of the costs to be levied on the developer may be dealt with during the review of either the Development Contribution Scheme or a Special Levy.

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

23. Cllr. McEvoy
(2)    Forestry should not obstruct existing rights of way, traditional walking routes and recreational facilities. Based on Leitrim 3.O3.09 – 3rd para, South Dublin 12.12.6.(i) & DLR 7.1.22 – last pt in list of pts.

Response:
Agreed with modifications
The following policy is already contained in the proposed Draft Plan
FT5: To promote forestry development of appropriate scale and character whilst ensuring that such development does not have a negative impact on the countryside, (including public access/rights of way and recreational facilities) or cause pollution or degradation of wildlife habitats, natural waters or areas of ecological importance.
Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. McEvoy, seconded by Cllr. McGinley, to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

24. Cllr. McEvoy
(4)    Forestry will not be permitted on ridgelines.(See Dun Laoghaire Rathdown – 7.1.22 – 3rd para. & Kildare – 1st para on page 184.

Response:
Agreed with modifications

Section 10.4.5 states: Forestry activities should be appropriate in terms of nature and scale so they are not visually intrusive on the landscape, cause damage to important habitats or the ecology of the area.

Chapter 14 of the Plan, Section 14.7.3 states that it is policy of the Council to:

LU 2: To ensure that developments on steep slopes (i.e. >10%) will not be conspicuous or have a disproportionate visual impact on the surrounding environment as seen from relevant scenic routes, viewpoints and settlements.

It is proposed to add a new Policy at Section 10.5.6 as follows:

To require all applications for new forestry developments to have regard to the policies and objectives for the landscape character areas outlined at Chapter 14 of the Plan.

Cllr. Lawlor asked whether there would be any implications for windfarms from this policy and Michael Kenny undertook to revert with clarification.

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

25. Cllr. McEvoy
(5)    Forestry shall not be visually intrusive on the landscape (See Mayo 4.11.4 – 3rd para.)

Response:
Agreed with modifications

Section 10.4.5 states: Forestry activities should be appropriate in terms of nature and scale so they are not visually intrusive on the landscape, cause damage to important habitats or the ecology of the area.

As per response to previous item, it is proposed to include a new policy as follows:

To require all applications for new forestry developments to have regard to the policies and objectives for the landscape character areas outlined at Chapter 14 of the Plan.

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

26. Cllr. McEvoy
10.8.1 Extractive Industry:

EI 5: Add: Not to permit developments that would impinge on existing Right of Ways or walking routes. (See Mayo – P/ED-E1 5 – page 54. & Sth Tipp – 5.6.2 – pt iii. )

Response:
Agreed with modifications

Existing rights of way and walking routes already referred to at Policy EI 4.

Policy EI4 states
‘To ensure that extraction activities address key environmental, amenity, traffic and social impacts and details of rehabilitation.  In the assessment of planning applications for new development, intensification of use or diversification of activity, the Council will have regard to the nature of the proposal, the scale of activity proposed, the impact on the adjoining road network,  the effect on the environment including important groundwater and aquifer sources and the likely effects that any proposed extractive industry may have on the existing landscape and amenities of the county including public rights of way and walking routes’  

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

27. Cllr. McEvoy
Develop a network of rural footpaths, cycleways, mountain biking trails and
bridle paths. (See  Fingal Obj TO31 – page 107 & GBP7 – page 158)

Response:
Agreed with modifications

See addition to existing policy in Plan

CR 3: To develop and implement a County Walking Strategy for the county in consultation with statutory bodies and landowners, and in accordance with recommendations of County Kildare Walking Routes Project, 2005.

This strategy will seek to identify established walking routes in the county, evaluate these routes and make recommendations for their promotion.

Comments:
Policies CR1-CR7 in the Plan

These policies cover the development of long distance routes, canal side routes including cycle routes, Sli na Slainte, heritage trails etc.

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

28. Cllr. Griffin
Chapter 10;
Add new section 10.2.3
It is recognised that there will be locally generated growth in rural areas over the period of this plan and that consideration shall be given at local level to assessing such local needs and that applying the principles of the Department’s Sustainable Rural Housing Guidelines. The consideration and provision of such one off housing will normally occur on unzoned lands in rural areas and so will be assessed separately to the extent of zoned and serviced lands in the towns and villages in the county.

Response:
Not Agreed

The Council’s policies for one off housing are contained at within Chapter 4 of the Plan.  Section 4.11.2 outlines the policy context and includes a reference to Sustainable Rural Housing – Guidelines for Planning Authorities issued by the Dept of Environment, Heritage and Local Government in 2005. 

Chapter 10 Rural Development deals with the development of the rural economy in the context of rural industry and employment generating land uses.  Section 10.1 of the Plan states

‘In addition rural areas, particularly those close to the larger towns have experienced rapid population growth and have faced much pressure for non rural based development.  The need to manage the demand for one-off rural housing is also recognised and is addressed in detail in Chapter 4’


Agreed to defer to discussion on Chapter 4 on 25th march.

29. Cllr. McEvoy
Chapter 10:

10.4.5  Forestry:
(1)    Many plans provide for access to forestry and woodlands including
Meath – RD POL 7 – page 231, Carlow – page 46 – last pt & South Dublin
9.4.6ii & 9.5.8. The Council will encourage access to forestry, including
private forestry, for walking routes, mountain bike trails, bridle paths plus
other non-noise generating activities.

a. This is not unreasonable for the Kildare CDP since substantial public grants available.

Response:
Agreed with modifications

Include new policy in Section 10.4.5 as follows;

‘It is a policy of the Council to encourage private forestry developers to provide access through their forests for walking routes, mountain bike trails, bridle paths plus other non-noise generating activities as part of an integrated development’

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

30. Cllr. Murphy
Chapter 11-15

Section 11.10 (Childcare Facilities)
Many (in fact most working parents) prefer to avail of a childminder rather than a Crèche Facility, need a sentence on this.  (legislation allows for up to 6 children to be minded etc)

Response:
Agreed with modifications

Under Article 5 of the Planning & Development Regulations 2001 - 2006 “Childminding facilities” for 6 children or less are exempted development and do not require a planning permission. The exemption therefore caters for these child minding facilities.

However it is proposed to include the following after the first paragraph under Section 11.10 of the proposed Draft Plan;

Many parents/guardians prefer to avail of a childminder rather than a crèche facility. Small childminding operations for six children or less are normally exempt from requiring planning permission.
 
Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Murphy, seconded by Cllr. S. Doyle, to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

31. Cllr. Murphy
Affordability
Community Crèche facilities should be encouraged to deal with the affordability issue. 

Response:
Agreed

To amend policy CPF2 in section 11.14.8 (Childcare and Pre-school Facilities) as follows:

CPF2: To facilitate and encourage the provision of childcare facilities, including community crèche facilities, of an appropriate type and scale, at appropriate locations throughout the county.

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

32. Cllr. Murphy
11-14
C2:   “applicants will be require to submit a Social Infrastructure Assessment (SIA)  for residential schemes on zoned land which are greater than 50 units…….”  
The criteria for a social Infrastructure assessment is much too narrow,   what is it matched against?  We need to provide in the plan for a measurement the leisure audit will be part of this. 

Response:
Agreed with modifications

The requirement for a Social Infrastructure Assessment (SIA) for new developments is included to ensure that decisions regarding new residential development, that would be of a significant scale relative to an existing town/ village/ settlement, are informed by an assessment of the capacity of existing social infrastructure in that centre, on a case by case basis. 

The framework for the SIA covers an extensive list of social infrastructure including: education, childcare, healthcare, transportation infrastructure and a wide range of community facilities, local amenities and recreational facilities. It requires applicants to demonstrate both the range and capacity of existing social infrastructure in a settlement. The SIA therefore identifies were a settlement has a limited range and/or capacity of existing social infrastructure. The population potential of a proposed development can therefore be assessed against both the capacity of existing social infrastructure.  It is acknowledges that smaller settlements will have less social infrastructure, but the SIA allows for an assessment of whether the basic needs of a growing area can be met in terms of; schools, shops, community facilities, sports and recreation facilities. Government policy in relation to the provision of school and childcare facilities in tandem with new residential development are set out in specific guideline documents for Planning Authorities.   The emerging open space strategy for the County will also assist in assessing deficiencies in settlements.  The SIA therefore allows the Planning Authority to make an informed decision on whether a settlement has sufficient social infrastructure to accommodate the population growth arising from new housing developments.

It is proposed to amend Policy C2 of the proposed Draft County Development Plan 2011-2017 to clearly state that unsustainable levels of population growth does not take place in the absence of adequate levels of social infrastructure;

Amend Policy C2 to reads as follows:

‘It is the policy of the Council 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 (SIA) for the following:
residential schemes on zoned land which are greater than 50 units, for residential schemes on unzoned lands in Village Plans (refer to Chapter 17) which are greater than 10 units, for residential schemes on unzoned land which are greater than 10 units or where deemed necessary by the planning authority. The suitability and scale of proposed developments will be assessed against the level of social infrastructure in towns/villages/settlements. The Planning Authority will seek to ensure that unsustainable levels of population growth does not take place in the absence of adequate levels of social infrastructure’.

Cllr. Murphy asked that a matrix be provided which could be used to determine the level of facilities required based on population size.  Lorcan Griffin pointed out that the SIA policy had been strengthened and was more than about ticking boxes, but about showing how facilities can be provided.  Cllr. Lawlor raised the issue of community gain and consequences for same from a recent Supreme Court judgement.  John Lahart explained that arising from the court case the Manager had asked the DOEHLG to look at the legislation to allow developers make an offer for community gain.

Further discussion took place and it was agreed that there was a need to expand the policy statement C2.

Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Murphy, seconded by Cllr. S. Doyle, to accept the Manager’s recommendation based on an expanded policy

33. Cllr. Murphy
SC5  Simon Wallace is doing an audit of leisure facilities, should be able to identify gaps and have a more strategic approach to filling them.   

SC5: To facilitate local community groups / sporting organisations in the development of sport and recreational facilities, in particular, through land use zoning within the local area plan process as appropriate.
Response:
Agreed with modifications

Amend the following policy on page 11-10;
SC5: To carry out an audit of leisure facilities and to facilitate local community groups / sporting organisations in the development of sport and recreational facilities, in particular, through land use zoning within the local area plan process as appropriate.
Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Murphy, seconded by Cllr. McGinley to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

34. Cllr. Murphy
SC9   is the Fire service subject to the embargo?  if so can we plan for
improvements as is stated.  


SC9: To improve fire service provision where required to all settlements / areas in which population and / or demands have increased.

Response:
Agree subject to modification

This motion also applies to policy SC8 (libraries).

Amend SC8 and SC9 to add:
‘Subject to the availability of resources and finance’

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

35. Cllr. Murphy
Community and Ed Objectives
Lack of community facilities in the village …should be provided in tandem with further development   How?

Response:
Same as for Motion 32.

36. Cllr. Murphy
No performing arts space in North Kildare want to see positive statement included.

Response:
Agreed

Amend Section 11.14.5 to add the following policy:

AC6 To support the provision of a performing arts space in North Kildare.

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

37. Cllr. Murphy
Chapter 17  
Village Plans
Johnstown – population 2002 = 282   Current population 900 Statement on amenity and recreation
“There is a shortfall of formal recreational areas in Johnstown the residents of the village are reliant on Naas and Kill for their formal recreational needs.
“CE2  and AM1   only require investigation of such provision.  Yet there is still land available for new residential development.  
The Infrastructure need assessment required with planning applications of more than 50 houses will not consider this need, the basis of it is too narrow. 
No more development should take place in the absence of this need being met.

Response:
Agreed with Modifications

(a)A population total of approximately 900 persons was calculated for Johnstown following a house count as part of the preparation of the Proposed Draft Village Plan.

(b)Policy VRS 9 of Section 17.4 sets out the threshold for Social Infrastructure Assessment in Villages and Settlements and it reads as follows:

To require the submission of a social infrastructure assessment for schemes in excess of 10 number units in villages / settlements. Where deficiencies exist facilitate the development, measures shall be proposed as part of a development scheme in order to provide for additional suitable social infrastructure (services / facilities). Significant development will be restricted where there is an absence of a sufficiently developed local infrastructure such as schools and community facilities to cater for development.

It is envisaged that development proposals on zoned lands in Johnstown will be informed by the Social Infrastructure Assessment and as a result may require the proposal to incorporate or contribute to social infrastructure in line with objectives CE 2 and AM 1 of the Johnstown Village Plan.

It is proposed to amend policy C2 in section 11.14.1 Community Services and Facilities as follows:

C2: 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 (SIA) for the following:
• For residential schemes on zoned land which are greater than 50 units
• For residential schemes on zoned lands in Village Plans (refer to Chapter 17) which are greater than 10 units
• For residential schemes on unzoned land which are greater than 10 units
• Where deemed necessary by the planning authority.

Cllr. Lawlor sought clarity on what was allowed in the matrix (17.6) viz. a viz. what paragraph 17.3 said.  It was agreed to revert on 25th march.

38. Cllr. Murphy
Flooding:   Works further upstream from Straffan have created new flooding issues,  probably  need a more general statement on the River Liffey and flooding i.e. best practice is that is downstream towards upstream,  do accept there are flashpoint area’s where homes were flooded so there will be an exception to this but they do require a downstream impact assessment.      The river basin at Straffan is full of silt islands, dead trees and debris.    Need to have a maintenance statement included in the plan.   FL 1 may need alteration. 

Response:
Agreed with Modifications

Specific objectives relating to flooding inside the Straffan village plan boundary are included in section 17.5.12.14.  The Liffey is the responsibility of the ESB which controls the flow of water in the river.  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.

As per motion No 54 agreed on the 15/03/10 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 to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

39. Cllr. Murphy
17-48
Water Supply – Ballygoran reservoir is mentioned as is “Water capacity is sufficient for the future needs of the village.”   Reservoir is inadequate,   how does this statement square with this.

Response:
Agreed.

This statement is incorrect, The following text shall be omitted from the Straffan Village Plan Section 17.5.12.7

“Water capacity is sufficient for the future needs of the village”

And replaced with the following:

“Water capacity is insufficient at present but this issue will be resolved with the proposed upgrade in capacity of the Ballygoran Reservoir”

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

40. Cllr. Lawlor
Village plans

VRS5 That phasing be encouraged to extend beyond the current proposed plan

Response:
Not Agreed

Policy statement VRS 5 along with the other policies of section 17.4 of the Proposed Draft Plan set the parameters for the appropriate development of villages and settlements of Kildare in a planned sustainable and coordinated manner. A key principle of this will be the encouragement of the development of village centre lands, appropriate infill sites and appropriately phased land. The future framework for development of the County beyond the lifetime of the new County Development Plan once adopted will be determined by any subsequent adopted County Development Plan.

A brief discussion took place and it was agreed to modify the Manager’s recommendation to provide for phasing and to revert with the appropriate wording.

41. Cllr. Lawlor
VRS6 This policy be removed as it is too restrictive for villages

Policy Statement  VRS 6 reads as follows:

To generally control the scale of individual development proposals to less than 10-12 units in accordance with the Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas (2009). Larger schemes will only be considered where they relate to important strategic sites (e.g. infill within the core of a village / settlement or redevelopment of backlands).

Response:
Not Agreed

Many of the villages and settlements in Ireland grew substantially over the last decade. Much of this growth has been due to considerable population overspill from the larger towns and cities such as Dublin.

County Kildare was no different to many similar counties and areas, for example, North Fingal, South Meath and north Wicklow. To this end the Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government issued guidance on the matter.

The aim of the DoEHLG guidance is to provide for new development in a village or settlement at an appropriate scale and pace in order to facilitate sustainable population growth and the development of community and other facilities and infrastructure to support that growth. The proposed policy seeks to ensure that villages and towns can more readily assimilate and cope with new development which doesn’t overwhelm existing facilities e.g. schools. 

Section 28 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended) requires Planning Authorities to have regard to ministerial guidelines.

Same response as for Motion 40.

42. Cllr. Lawlor
That open for consideration be removed from the matrix as this is too vague.

Response:
Not Agreed

The ‘Open for Consideration’ designation is applied to uses in a particular zone that may not be considered acceptable in principle in all parts of that land use zoning but in certain circumstances may be acceptable where the Council is satisfied that the proposed use would not conflict with the general objectives of that zone. The designation allows for greater flexibility and may permit a use at a certain location subject to the relevant planning criteria being adhered where otherwise it may not have been permitted.

The approach taken by the Council in relation to Land Use Zoning matrices has been consistent in recent plans with the basic designations being ‘Permitted in Principle’, ‘Open for Consideration’ and ‘Not Permitted’ and it is considered that this approach should be retained for the County Development Plan.

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

43. Cllr. Lawlor
Re Johnstown development plan
That the Old Johnstown garden centre site be zoned Recreational

Response:
Not Agreed,

It is considered that the current zoning ‘Village Centre’ is appropriate at this location close to the historic centre of the village and backing on to the N7. This land use zoning allows for a variety of village centre uses. In addition if a suitable Community / Recreational use was proposed on this site it would be deemed acceptable on the ‘Village Centre’ zoning subject to relevant planning criteria being adhered to.

Seconded by Cllr. Scully who proposed amending the zoning to Community/Recreational in order to ensure that the site is used for community activity only such as for a playground.   John Lahart pointed to the unsuitability of the site so close to the N7 for playground.

Agreed on the Proposal of Cllr. Lawlor, seconded by Cllr. Scully, not to accept the Manager’s recommendation and to amend the zoning on the old Johnstown Garden Centre Site to Community/Recreation.

44. Cllr. Lawlor
Clarification for the criteria for rural housing in an area of high sensitivity - At what age can a person who has grown up in an area of high sensitivity can fulfil the local need criteria ?

Response:
Comment

Must be resident of the area for a period of 20 years or more (grown up or spent substantial periods of their lives). 

A lengthy discussion took place during which the following points were made:

• An adult of 18 years cannot apply for planning permission in an area of high sensitivity
• Current rural housing policy is more certain and clear
• People won’t be able to build on their own land
• How were sensitivities determined
• Other criteria exist which will adequately protect the rural countryside; this is too restrictive
• Part time farmers & children of farmers excluded from building

In response John Lahart and the Manager pointed out:
• Table 4.3 points to a range of criteria to qualify; a “catch all” policy was not suitable
• Have to have regard to environmental constraints, hence need for sensitivity map showing areas of low, medium & high sensitivity
• There is a rationale behind the map which is based on objective considerations and independent expert advice, taking account of impact on the landscape, the capacity to absorb additional development and environmental sensitivities.  If changes are to be made they must be based on informed opinion and consideration of the facts as presented, otherwise the members’ decision could be called into question.
• This policy only affects 3 to 4% of the population, those with no functional need to live in the county

Cllr. Miley proposed that the rural housing policy as contained in the current CDP be retained.  He was seconded by Cllr. Weld.  Cllr. Miley also proposed removing the sensitivity map and he was seconded by Cllr. S. Doyle.  Cllr. Murphy argued that the map should not be removed without consideration as to what would replace it.  Cllr. McEvoy said there was an obligation to manage the rate of growth and an overarching policy was required.

A vote was taken and Cllr. Miley’s proposals were agreed by 17 votes to 2.

The issue of carrying out a strategic environmental assessment of this change of policy was raised and the Manager cautioned that there must be clear criteria for this revised policy so that the CDP would be legal and robust.  It was agreed on Cllr. Griffin’s proposal that SEA advice would be sought and the Manager would revert on 25th march with advice as to the soundness of the revised policy.

45. Cllr. Lawlor
RH4 That the documentary evidence required be identified or that an affidavit be provided

Response:
Agreed with Modifications

The KCC Planning Pack for one-off house applications contains a list of the documentation required to be submitted as evidence of compliance with rural housing policy.  It is up to the applicant to submit the relevant details and any other additional information that assists the planning authority in assessing the application.  An affidavit may be submitted but it should be supplementary to the other evidence submitted.  It is not the intention of the Plan to place an undue legal/financial burden on applicants when other documentary evidence is sufficient and in this regard, an affidavit is not a necessity.  However, it is proposed to include reference to same in a revised wording of Policy RH 4.

Amend policy as follows:

RH 4  To manage the provision……….Documentary evidence of compliance with the rural housing policy must be submitted as part of the planning application, including a separate statement by the applicant on the need to reside in the area.  An affidavit may be submitted to support the documentary evidence. However, it is not necessary if other documentary evidence clearly demonstrates compliance with Local Need.  Applicants must demonstrate, depending on the location of the site, that they comply with one of the categories outlined in Local Need Schedules 1-3.

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

46. Cllr. Lawlor
RH6 Where no other entrance onto a local road is available that access onto a regional road is allowed provided the applicant meets the local planning criteria.

Response:
Not Agreed 

Regional Roads are described at Chapter 6 as being roads that link the principal towns in the county and also serve local traffic.  They are generally of a high standard and in some cases carry a considerable volume of traffic. 

The purpose of the policy (RH6) is to avoid the premature obsolescence of regional roads, where the 80km/hr speed limit applies. This has been a long standing policy objective of the Council. The creation of excessive levels of individual entrances is unsustainable in the long term, is a traffic hazard and a risk to public safety and hinders future investment in roadworks along the Regional road.

Policy (RR1 Chapter 6) reiterates the same policy, with the following exceptions:
• Developments of a strategic, local, regional or national importance, particularly where there is a significant gain to the county, through employment creation or other economic benefits.
• Where it is proposed to demolish an existing dwelling and replace with a new dwelling, where there is an existing entrance onto the Regional Road.

The Motion seeks access to be permitted onto regional roads provided the applicant meets the local planning criteria.  

As all applicants for one off houses are required to meet local planning criteria, it is considered that to permit new accesses onto a regional road, to all applicants wishing to do so, would undermine this policy and lead to a significant deterioration in the carrying capacity and strategic role of regional roads. 


Cllr. Lawlor sought clarity on road definitions (regional/local) and it was agreed that John Lahart would revert at the next meeting.

47. Cllr. Lawlor
RH13 Where there is a likelihood of more than one family member seeking planning permission over a period of time that the council actively engage with the family members to provide a recessed cluster development.

Response:
Agreed with Modifications 

Policy (RH 13) addresses the provision of cluster style layouts for family members. 

However, it is proposed to add the following:
To encourage the provision of a recessed cluster form of development.  The cluster shall be appropriately set back into the landscape from the public road.  Clusters shall not exceed five houses for immediate family members and will be subject to normal, planning, siting and design considerations.  Where there is a likelihood of more than one family member seeking planning permission over a period of time, the Council will engage with the family members to provide for an appropriate site layout capable of accommodating a recessed cluster development. 
Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Lawlor to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

48. Cllr. Lawlor
RH16 An applicant who wants to replace an existing dwelling on the same footprint and of the same size need not comply with the local need criteria.

Response:
Not Agreed 

The intention of Policy RH14 – RH 17 (inclusive) is to seek to retain as many older houses in the countryside as possible. 

To support this policy persons seeking to refurbish/restore existing dwellings are not required to show their compliance with local need.

However, in order to avoid situations where houses in the rural countryside are being purchased with the sole intention of demolition and replacement, it is considered more appropriate and sustainable to seek compliance with local need for the new house.


A brief discussion took place.
Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Lawlor, seconded by Cllr. Nolan, not to accept the Manager’s recommendation and to adopt the motion.

49. Cllr. Miley
On rural housing policy retain the existing policy which was
amended by the guideline document in 2007 by this council

Response:
As for Motion 44.

50. Cllr. Miley
Aviation 6.6 add in an extra policy that airfields within county Kildare
operate under their current planning permissions.

Response:
To be discussed at meeting of 25th March

51. Cllr. Miley
RD 6 at the end of this policy could mw add and local enterprises

Response:
Response: Agreed
Amend policy as follows: 

RD 6 To encourage expansion and employment in local enterprises and industries such as agriculture, horticulture, forestry, peatlands, food crafts, tourism and energy.
Agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Miley, seconded by Cllr. Wall to accept the Manager’s recommendation.

52. Cllr. Miley
10. 7.6 an addition that no landfill would be granted permission in the
eastern up lands

Response:
Defer until meeting of 25th March

53. Cllr. Miley
RH 4 including a separate statement by the applicant on the need to reside
in the area remove this from the county development plan.

Response:
Not Agreed

A statement on the need to reside in the area is something that many applicants currently make when making a planning application.  It is often useful to the assessment of the application and indicates an applicants need for and commitment to living in the rural area.  A statement on the need to reside in the area can accompany the documentary evidence submitted and should not be viewed negatively. 

Cllr. Scully pointed out that RH4 is now affected by the decision taken on motion 44.  Motion is redundant.

54. Cllr. Miley
At the end of RH6 put in will not apply to family members.

Already dealt with.

This concluded the motions.  John Lahart pointed out that there was a need to finish deliberations on the proposed draft plan at the meeting on 25th March due to statutory time constraints regarding the publication of the plan.  He asked that any additional motions be submitted by close of business that day.