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

 

KILDARE COUNTY COUNCIL

Minutes of Special Planning Meeting
held at 10am on Friday, 12th November 2010 at
Áras Chill Dara, Devoy Park, Naas, Co Kildare

Members Present: Councillor B Weld (Mayor); Councillors S Griffin, M Nolan, T Lawlor,
S Langan, C Purcell, K Byrne, J McGinley, F Browne, M Wall, P McEvoy, P Kelly, S. Moore, C Murphy, L Doyle, M Miley, W Callaghan, S Doyle, P Kennedy, P MacNamara, R Daly, D Scully, M Heydon, T O’Donnell, F O’Loughlin

Also Present: Mr. M Malone, County Manager, Mr. J Lahart (Director of Services), 
Michael Kenny (Senior Planner), Anita Sweeney, Caroline Shinners, Lorcan Griffin, Billy Joe Padden, Mary Foley and other officials.

Cllr. Lawlor took the chair in the absence of the Mayor.

Discussion on SEA Report

Conor Skehan from CAAS Environmental Consultants who had prepared the Strategic Environment Assessment Report outlined the role of the SEA process which is to make the members aware of the environmental consequences of their decisions.  He said that alternative development scenarios had been described in the SEA Report and their analysis had found that scenario 4 – centred development based on building strong urban centres and protecting the rural hinterlands -  was the best option.

A lengthy discussion took place in which the following points were made by the members and responded to by Conor Skehan:

Cllr S. Doyle - Scenario 4 drives the metropolitan area and doesn’t consider rural areas or provide flexibility for them.  Reply: Scenario 4 clarifies for people where development will be facilitated subject to environmental constraints.  It provides a clear and obvious basis for different policies.  It provides for provision of infrastructure in areas more suitable for development.  The DOEHLG respects such policies and is supportive of them

Cllr. Murphy - Would the Council be in compliance with regulations if they chose a different scenario?   Reply: The members must be aware of the scrutiny of the DOEHLG who could say the members could have avoided public expenditure by choosing a different scenario

Cllr. Murphy - There are sensitive areas within robust areas such as the Liffey Valley, so maps are not absolute.  Reply: Many maps are generalised but maps showing landscape character areas provide more detail

Cllr. Miley - What are consequences of living on one or other side of a line on a map dividing robust and sensitive areas such as on the Wicklow border?  Reply: Landscape character assessment map shows transition zones with different sets of rules.  Planners can use their discretion in their interpretation and each application would be examined on a case by case basis

Cllr. Griffin - Can the SEA mapping system be used to identify some settlements for elimination?  Reply: the settlement pattern is based on the social dynamics of the county.  Sometimes it is more difficult to achieve objectives due to constraints; sometimes it is worth the price.  Most environmental problems can be solved but they can be expensive to solve.  SEA informs the price of such decisions.

Cllr. Wall – how can members ensure people get planning permission; will a line on a map be used to prevent planning permission even in suitable areas?  Reply: If the site is right anything is achievable depending on the skill of the individual architect and landowner working with the planner.

Cllr. Miley – can there not be a general policy rather than lines on a map; concern for people in some areas in south Kildare who can’t get planning permission.  Reply: Maps are generalisations, layered with detail.  Many issues must be considered such as flooding, water, land etc.

Cllr. S. Doyle & Cllr. Murphy – expressed concern that policies were being based on a crude map rather than a detailed map showing sensitivities. Include text that detailed map in SEA Report be consulted in tandem with map 4.3.  Reply: Agreed that a suitable text will be devised that will accompany the map.  Executive to revert with suitable wording

Cllr. S. Doyle – apply quotas in highly sensitive areas in proportion to ratio of existing rural housing exists.  Reply: quotas are not an appropriate environmental consideration.

Adjournment

The meeting adjourned for 30 minutes to allow the members to consider the responses to the motions for today’s meeting.

Chapter 2 – Core Strategy

Motion 1 – Cllr. S. Doyle

The Core strategy of the CDP is predicated on a number of reports and guidelines to which we are obliged to comply. Notwithstanding this, it is proposed that a policy protecting the balanced development of the County be introduced, without a corrector mechanism it is likely that the focus, demand and pressure on the Metropolitan area will result in a de-prioritisation of the remainder of the County. To counter balance this scenario, a suggested mechanism should be a policy that prevents any one settlement growing at a rate significantly beyond that of the remaining settlements within the County, or that the balance of growth prescribed for all the electoral areas should be reached in a proportionate manner to be reviewed on a 24 month basis.

With regard to the above it is also proposed that Scenario 2: Structured Development Strategy, as outlined by SEA reports in section 6 of Volume II, be the strategy of choice rather than Scenario 4: Centred Development Strategy. Scenario 2 allows for a more balanced and flexible development strategy while still recommended as 'most environmentally robust'.

Manager’s Response - The RPGs set the agenda for the strategic development of the Greater Dublin Area for the period 2010-2022.  The Planning & Development (Amendment) Act 2010 and the DoEHLG Development Plan Guidelines for Planning Authorities (June 2007) both require the Planning Authority to implement the settlement strategy set out in the RPG’s.  The RPG’s are based on allowing sustainable development in line with infrastructure, environment, socio-economic, etc by identifying where development is strategically best located for the next 12 years.

The settlement strategy is based on the principle of proportionate growth in each of the settlements with the allocated growth levels being proportionate to the existing population base of a settlement.  However, the RPGs have given higher priority to the four metropolitan towns in the northeast of the county, with a requirement for 35% of the projected population growth of the county over the plan period being designated in these centres.  The inclusion of a policy which “prevents any one settlement growing at a rate significantly beyond that of the remaining settlements within the County, or that the balance of growth prescribed for all the electoral areas should be reached in a proportionate manner to be reviewed on a 24 month basis” would be contrary to the settlement strategy set out in the RPGs.

The four scenarios set out in the Environmental report of the SEA were examined against environmental sensitivities in the county, with Scenario 4 being chosen as the most sustainable development strategy for the county.  The SEA identified that “Scenario 2 lacks high level strategic vision for the targeted enhancement and protection of rural areas” (ref page 110 of SEA environmental report) and identified that there is “probable conflict with a number of strategic environmental objectives” (ref page 113 of SEA environmental report). This is not the case with Scenario 4 which results in the least amount of conflicts with the strategic environmental objectives (listed on p.108).  The adoption of scenario 2 would therefore be contrary to the findings of the SEA.

Manager’s Recommendation – No change.  Following a brief discussion, agreed.

There were no other motions in relation to submissions on Chapter 2.  The members agreed with the Manager’s recommendations on submissions on pages 41 to 51.  There were no other issues raised in relation to Chapter 2 of the Draft CDP except in relation to the text change required regarding the environmental sensitivities map.  The Manager agreed that any such change would be brought back to the members.

 

Chapter 3 – Settlement Strategy

Motion 2 – Cllr. Murphy & Cllr. McEvoy

Delete the current objective SO6 (Section 3.9) Chapter 3, of the Draft CDP which reads;

‘It is an objective of the Council to retain separation areas between the development boundaries of the counties towns and villages in the interest of avoiding coalescence of settlements and to retain their distinctive character and identity’ and replace with;

‘It is an objective of the Council to identify and retain green  belt areas between the development boundaries of the county’s towns and villages, in the interest of avoiding coalescence of settlements and to retain their distinctive character and identity’.

Reason: According to the Regional Planning Guidelines, the essential characteristic of green belts is their permanence. The objective of green belts is to retain attractive landscapes, to provide for the establishment of visual breaks between urban areas, to secure the preservation of the setting and special character of historic towns, to ensure accessibility for recreational and visual amenity uses for urban-based populations and to protect land for agricultural, forestry and related uses from urban generated pressures.

Manager’s Response - The RPGs definition of what constitutes a greenbelt is recognised and it is proposed to amend objective S0 6 accordingly.

Manager’s Recommendation - Agreed subject to modifications.

Amend objective SO6 (Section 3.9) to read as follows:

‘It is an objective of the Council to identify and retain green belt separation areas between the development boundaries of the county’s towns and villages in the interest of avoiding coalescence of settlements and to retain their distinctive character and identity’

Manager’s recommendation agreed.

Motion 3 – Cllr. C. Murphy

Agree with the submission but not with the Managers recommendation want what is proposed incorporated into the plan. 

Submission 342 (b) refers as follows:

Monitoring & Implementation

The Plan should be amended to include a new Chapter setting out how the Draft Plan is to be implemented and the range of quantifiable targets and monitoring measures required to secure implementation.

Manager’s Response - The motion refers to a submission requesting the inclusion of a separate chapter in the CDP to set out monitoring methods for the CDP (please refer to p. 70 of the Managers report.  It is considered that the Managers recommendation to include the following objective in chapter 3 of the CDP (section 3.9) is sufficient in this instance:

SO9: To prepare a preliminary monitoring evaluation report on the likely significant environmental effects of implementing the County Development Plan, to coincide with the Manager's report to the Elected Members on the progress achieved in securing Plan objectives within two years of the making of the Plan.  (This review is required under Section 15 of the 2000 Planning Act, as amended).

Manager’s Recommendation – No change

Manager’s recommendation agreed.

Motion 4 – Cllr. C. Murphy

Overprovision of land should be excluded in the lifetime of this plan.

Manager’s Response - Chapter 3 sets out the policies for achieving a settlement strategy in the county for the plan period which is in line with the RPGs.  Table 3.3 sets out the settlement hierarchy and allocated population/housing unit growth targets.  Table 3.4 sets out the development capacity of all existing zoned land in the county by settlement.  The settlements which are over zoned are identified in chapter 3 and sections 3.8 and 3.9 set out policies and objectives to address issues of over-zoning through the review of LAPs and town plans. These policies and objectives therefore address the issue. Section 19(2)(B) of the Act, states that ‘where any objective of a Local Area Plan is no longer consistent with the objectives of a Development Plan for the area, the Planning Authority shall as soon as may be (and in any event not later than 1 year, following the making of the Development Plan) amend the Local Area Plan so that its objectives are consistent with the objectives of the Development Plan’

Manager’s Recommendation – No change.

In response to a query from Cllr. Murphy, Lorcan Griffin said there is an obligation to overzone by up to 50%.

Agreed with Manager’s recommendation.

Motion 5 – Cllr. C. Murphy

Quantum of Land should form part of the broad strategy for the County Development Plan which then forms part of the LAP process.  

Manager’s Response - The CDP sets out a clear framework for the review of Town Plans and LAPs.  See response to no.4 above.

Manager’s Recommendation – No change

Manager’s recommendation agreed.

Motion 6 – Cllr. C. Murphy

The mid term review is too late, if settlement strategies form part of Local Area Plans prior to that review and where there is a subsequent over-zoning of land.  Otherwise we could see a need for down-zoning land.  We need to quantify what is already zoned/committed but not developed, the extent of the overhang needs to be quantified and the projected growth needs to factor in such matters as emigration when calculating needs.

Manager’s Response - Chapter 3 clearly identify “the extent of the overhang” of overzoned land.  The CDP and the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act sets out a clear framework for the review of Town Plans and LAPs in line with the recently adopted RPGs. Downzoning is provided for in said act in section 12 (d) (6)  See response to no.4 above.

Reliable figures in relation to emigration and other demographics for the county can only be incorporated from the results of the forthcoming Census figures, to be assessed as part of the RPG’s review, which will coincide with the 2 year review of the CDP. 

Manager’s Recommendation – No change

Manager’s recommendation agreed.

Motion 7 – Cllr. C. Murphy

The manager recommends a sequential approach be included.  Is this workable given that the Council have no control over when planning applications are made.  If it is not workable we need to amend this recommendation.  

Manager’s Response - The Manager’s recommendation to adopt the sequential approach to development comes directly from National Policy {NSS and section 4.19 of the DoEHLG guidelines (Development Plan Guidelines for Planning Authorities, 2007, and the Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas, 2010)}.  The DoEHLG have therefore tasked Planning Authorities with the role of implementing sequential development through the Development Plan and Development Management process.

Manager’s Recommendation – No change

Manager’s recommendation agreed.

Motion 8 – Cllr. S. Doyle

Can you please confirm that the allocation for rural dwellers is 4,164 for the period of the plan, as outlined in Table 3.3 of this chapter?

Manager’s Response - Chapter 3 sets out the settlement strategy for the county, with an allocation of c. 4,164 units for the rural area from 2006-2016.  Section 4.11.1 of the plan (Rural Housing) states that the level of rural housing development granted in the county over the period 2005-2009 averaged approx 500 units per annum. The settlement strategy set out in chapter 3 of the Draft CDP allocates 15% of the unit growth target for the county (c. 400 units per annum) for the rural area.  The plan therefore recognises the need for a 20% reduction in the level of rural one-offs granted during the plan period. (ref section 4.11.1 of the Draft CDP)

Manager’s Recommendation – No change

Manager’s recommendation agreed.

There were no other motions in relation to submissions on Chapter 3.  The members agreed with the Manager’s recommendations on submissions on pages 54(except sub110), 55 to 57, 59, 60(except sub 253), 61(except sub 290), 62, 63, 64(except 331), 65, 66, 67(except 179), 68(except sub 298), 69, 70(except 342).  On page 58, submission 215, it was agreed to replace the words “in accordance with” with “consistent with” in the Manager’s recommendation.  There were no others raised in relation to Chapter 3 of the Draft CDP.

Chapter 4 – Housing

Motion 9 – Cllrs. Byrne, MacNamara, Purcell & McGinley

That submission 299 (b) and (c) be accepted and that the Managers Report be rejected.

INFILL DEVELOPMENT

299(b) additional paragraph at end of 4.12 RH 12 to read as follows:

‘Notwithstanding the above, special regard will be given to the circumstances of immediate family members of a landowner on single infill sites in a line of existing cottages with 5 or more houses alongside 250 metres of road frontage’.

RIBBON DEVELOPMENT

299(c) Additional paragraph at end of 4.12 RH13 to read as follows;

‘In the case of immediate family members the limit of five houses shall not apply’.

Manager’s Response - The Managers recommendation in this instance is considered sufficient and the promotion of backland development in rural areas and the development of rural clusters of greater than 5 units of the county are not considered appropriate.

299(b) Manager’s Response (INFILL DEVELOPMENT)

Not Agreed. The appropriateness of an infill development in a rural area needs to be considered in terms of the level of existing development and the degree to which the infill development further adds to any negative environmental/traffic/ visual impacts to the area. The appropriateness of infill development in a rural area therefore needs to be considered on a case by case basis.

Manager’s Recommendation – No change. 

Cllr. Purcell proposed the rejection of the Manager’s recommendation and was seconded by Cllr. Miley.  A brief discussion took place and a vote was taken.  The proposal was agreed by 15 votes to 3 and the manager’s recommendation rejected.

299(c) Manager’s Response (RIBBON DEVELOPMENT)

Not agreed. Notwithstanding the use by family members, the development of a cluster of more than 5 houses in a rural area is considered inappropriate in terms of the level of development in a rural area and such development is more appropriately guided to designated rural settlements.  Such a policy would be contrary to the DoEHLG guidelines for Rural Housing (2005)

Manager’s Recommendation – No change

Cllr. Purcell proposed the rejection of the Manager’s recommendation and was seconded by Cllr. Miley who added that the words “if no other site is available” should be added to the motion.  John Lahart cautioned about the need to reference other appropriate standards.  It was agreed to revert with suitable wording.

Motion 10 – Cllr. A. Lawlor

That the applicant if acceptable for a one-off house in another county adjoining Kildare, but has land within the 5km local need rule in Kildare, would also be acceptable in Kildare.

255(b) It is suggested that reference to ‘in rural areas in Kildare’ in Categories 2 and 3 be amended to ‘in rural areas in Kildare or within 5km of the County border’.

Manager’s Response - The Manager’s recommendation of a 3km policy from adjoining counties is considered appropriate as this policy is limited to allow only for exceptional circumstances, where land in the adjoining county is not available. The Manager has recommended an amendment to the policy to clarify its implementation as follows: 

255(b) Manager’s Response - An amended policy relating to applicants from bordering counties seeking permission for a one-off house on family land within 3km of the Kildare border is already proposed in the Manager’s Report. However it is recommended to make a further amendment to include the word “proposed” before the word site.

Manager’s Recommendation - To amend policy RH19 of section 4.12.5 of the Draft CDP further to include the word proposed.

RH 19: To assess applications for one-off housing, in areas bordering neighbouring counties, where the proposed site is located on family land within County Kildare, at a distance of up to 3km from the county boundary and to facilitate applicants who can demonstrate that no suitable family owned site is available in the adjoining county and that all other aspects of rural housing policy including local need*, siting and design are complied with.  The applicant shall also fully demonstrate that they are building their first rural dwelling and that it will be for their permanent place of residence.

*Applicants will be required to demonstrate that their local need albeit relevant to the adjoining county, is similar to that required under Table 4.3 (Schedule of Local Need), with appropriate supporting documentation demonstrating same.

Cllr. Miley proposed that the distance be extended to 5km and was seconded by Cllr. Nolan.  The Manager’s recommendation, as amended, was agreed.

Adjournment

The meeting adjourned for lunch.

Motion 11 – Cllr. S. Doyle

4.8.2/ Backland development

Within this section, it should be acknowledged that good design for a single site can act in setting a recommended standard and pattern for any future backland development in the area and while it is preferable to take a comprehensive approach to backland development patterns in an area, issues of ownership may make this approach prohibitive. Therefore the following line should be added to the end of this paragraph, comprehensive plan for the development of the entire backland area, or where an individual application is of a high enough design that will set a recommended standard for the entire area.' This should also be reflected in HP 18.

Manager’s Response - Section 4.8.2 (Backland Development) and policy states that ‘backland development will generally only be considered where the proposed development forms part of a comprehensive plan for development of the entire backland area.’  Policy HP19 reflects this and adds that ‘each application will be considered on its merits.’  The policy on backland development in settlements therefore prefers the adoption of an overall plan for backland development but does allow for a case by case assessment. Given the issues raised it is considered that the existing policy is sufficient.

Manager’s Recommendation – No change.  A brief discussion took place following which the members agreed with the Manager’s recommendation.

Motion 12 – Cllr. S. Doyle

4.8.4/ Apartments

Amend para that starts 'The  provision of apartment schemes may be considered at appropriate locations in town centres of higher order settlements and specifically at locations close to public transport nodes or in exceptional cases where a significant demand for smaller units of accommodation is evident. Apartment dwellings are not deemed suitable villages settlements or rural nodes.'

Manager’s Response - Section 1.10 of the ‘Guidelines for Planning Authorities on Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas’ and Chapter 3 of the ‘Urban Design Manual – A Best Practice Guide’ promote the concept of Universal Design which is defined as: ‘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’. 

In accordance with national policy, it is therefore considered reasonable that the possibility of mixed tenure and mixed accommodation types to include apartment type developments be considered in all residential areas in appropriately located sites to adequately cater for all sectors of the population.  This may range in suitability from Granny flats in rural nodes and rural settlements to more identifiable apartment type developments close to dedicated public transport services and community/physical infrastructure within the counties larger towns.  It will be the role of the Local Area Plans, town plans and development management to consider the appropriateness of apartment dwellings for different areas, using the specific polices set out in the DoEHLG guidelines referred to above.

 

Manager’s Recommendation – No change.  Cllr. S. Doyle said she felt strongly about the inappropriateness of apartment blocks in village settlements or rural nodes but John Lahart cautioned on imposing a blanket ban.  Cllr. McEvoy proposed changing the additional phrase to “Apartment dwellings are generally not seemed suitable….”  It was agreed to defer the motion in order to find a suitable wording.

Motion 13 – Cllr. S. Doyle

Table 4.2 Understandably this table indicates outer density limits for a range of locations within settlements. Can planners confirm that these indicators will still allow for low density development in all settlements where it is deemed necessary to offer a range of house types and address current deficits in housing supply?

Manager’s Response - Table 4.2 sets out ‘indicative’ density levels for a range of locations within various settlement types, in accordance with national planning policy.  It will be the role of each LAP and Town Plan to implement specific density parameters for individual sites within a town.  Table 4.2 therefore acts as a guide for density standards that will be implemented on a case by case basis, in accordance with relevant national planning policy, during the forthcoming review of town plans and LAPs.

Furthermore, the Manager has a further recommendation to the following objective proposed in the Manager’s Report to replace the words “Masterplan and Action Plan” with “planning strategies

It is considered that the reworded objective will aid in the designation of densities and house types for future development of individual towns and villages as part of the LAP/town plan review process.

Manager’s Recommendation - To amend the proposed objective to be added to section 4.10 of the plan to read as follows:

To carry out a survey of the existing housing stock as part of the review of Town Plans and LAPs and also  to require this housing stock survey as part of the preparation of planning strategies within the County.

Manager’s recommendation agreed.

Motion 14 – Cllr. S. Doyle

Map 4.1 Motion: Remove map 4.1.

This map is a crude tool to curtail the high levels of demand for one off rural housing. It is also the product of selecting scenario 4 in chapter 6 volume II of CDP, Scenario 2 which is also recommended as appropriate offers more flexibility. The current policies applied correctly can be as effective in restricting the proliferation of one off housing in areas that are subject to high demand. Further policies with regard to environmental sustainability prohibit the construction of housing in unsuitable locations, these determinations should be made on an individual site by site analysis and not such a broad sweeping map. In conjunction with these policies, the application of a quota policy will ensure that the unit targets set out in the settlement hierarchy will not be over reached. The quota system could be distributed throughout the County in direct proportion to the % of existing rural housing in each electoral area. The current eligibility criteria policies, that are prescriptive and appropriate, would still be required. These quotas could be distributed every 6 months and if not reached for that period, can be carried forward. This policy has two very important effects, firstly it is a finite control on the rural housing targets and secondly should enable planning to deliberate over one off rural planning files in a less labour intensive manner. It also addresses concerns raised from the dept. of environment.Motion: To implement a quota policy for the proportionate distribution of one off rural housing that will act in conjunction with the current policies on rural housing in the existing CDP.

Manager’s Response – In light of the submission received from the DOEHLG The Manager has recommended the inclusion of Map 4.1 in the CDP, which was originally recommended for inclusion in the proposed Draft CDP (please refer to p.32 of the Managers report).

The submission from the DOEHLG states that an area based rural housing policy should be implemented to reflect high pressure and sensitive rural areas.  In line with the recommendation of the DoEHLG, the Manager has recommended that the rural housing policy originally proposed to the members be adopted.  This area specific rural housing policy is in accordance with the DoEHLG guidelines for rural housing.

Manager’s Recommendation – No change

Agreed to include a map showing rural housing policy areas, subject to appropriate wording to accompany the map.

There were no other motions in relation to submissions on Chapter 4.  The members agreed with the Manager’s recommendations on submissions on pages 73, 74, 75, 76, 77(except 225), 78, 79, 81, 82(except 299), 83(except 350), 84, 85, 86, 87. Cllr. S. Doyle inquired as to why the proposal in submission 108(a) on page 80 could not be accepted.  Lorcan Griffin replied that situations have arisen where existing vernacular dwellings are being replaced by large houses by people who don’t meet the local need criteria.  This policy related to those cases only.  In relation to submission no. 93 on page 77 Cllr. Murphy inquired as to whether the policy precluded new entrants to the industry.  It was agreed to revert on 17th November with an answer. In relation to Sub. 299(a) on page 82, it was agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Miley, seconded by Cllr. Wall to remove the words “in exceptional circumstances”.

There were no others raised in relation to Chapter 4 of the Draft CDP.

Chapter 10 – Rural Development

Motion 15 – Cllr. P. McEvoy.  Withdrawn

That in 10.8.1 Extractive Industry – EI 4 is amended as per the bold text below:

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, walking routes and access to the countryside

There were no other motions in relation to submissions on Chapter 10.  The members agreed with the Manager’s recommendations on submissions on pages 225 to 232 and on page 24, issue No. 8 in Volume 1B. There were no others raised in relation to Chapter 10 of the Draft CDP.

Chapter 17 – Settlements & Village Plans

Motion 16 – Cllr. M. Nolan. 

With the ongoing works of the flood relief scheme in Johnstown, this will restrict the amount of land available for amenity/ community development. This proposal will cater for amenity/ community development for the village in the long term. Can clarification be given regarding policy NR 3 in relation to these lands as they do not adjoin an interchange and if there is a proposal for the use of these lands under this policy can this be identified. 

Deferred to 17/11/10

Motion 17 – Cllr. M. Nolan. 

For the protection of Johnstown House B19-22, a listed building removal of the non-native trees are necessary as part of the flood alleviation scheme. When during the lifetime of the Plan is it proposed to carry out this survey and by whom. 

Deferred to 17/11/10

Motions 18 to 23 were taken together as they dealt with the same issue and the Manager’s response and recommendation was the same for all.

Motion 18 – Cllr. A. Lawlor

Re submissions on Kilteel: That the existing development boundary be retained as per the current development plan.

Motion 19 – Cllr. A. Lawlor

Re submissions on Eadestown: That the existing development boundary be retained as per the current development plan.

Motion 20 – Cllr. B. Weld

This submission requests the existing lands to the North of the Church be retained within the Rathcoffey Theme Boundary.

Motion 21 – Cllr. B. Weld

This submission requests the existing lands to the South East of the graveyard be retained within the Staplestown Theme Boundary. The land owner is prepared to accept a condition restricting the lands to family members only.

Motion 22 – Cllr. T. O’Donnell

That the Milltown rural settlement map (Map Ref 17.28) be amended to include the area shown in the attached so that is included within the settlement boundary with a status of ‘Settlement Expansion’.

The area is bounded by the road into Clongownagh, an existing settlement to the south, an existing land boundary to the east and a line beginning with the perimeter of existing development to the north and continuing in a straight line to the eastern boundary.

Motion 23 – Technical Working Group

'That the existing Village & Settlement boundaries outlined in the current CDP are maintained, and that a sequential approach to their development be adhered to. Prior to the review of the CDP 2011 - 2017, KCC members will undertake a review of all settlements with a view to prioritising the development of same, having regard to strategic location, social and civic infrastructure and environmental impact. In the interim proposals for development will be considered having regard to the sequential approach.'

Manager’s Response – Please refer to the appendix attached entitled: Rural Settlement Strategy for the Draft Kildare CDP 2011 – 2017

Manager’s Recommendation – No change

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

Cllr. S. Doyle – leave settlement boundaries as they are but denote a timeframe to downsize them during the period from the adoption of the CDP to the mid term review

Cllr. Murphy – need for balanced development; most settlements are too large; remove ones that are too difficult to service but allow 12 months to do so, so as to make decisions on solid grounds

Cllr. Griffin – need to examine SEA report in this context; insert wording to allow two years to re-draw settlements

Cllr. Moore – sequential approach is inhibiting if one landowner blocks another by not developing in sequence

Cllr. McEvoy – settlements are too many & too big; no centre of gravity with sequential approach

Cllr. Lawlor – number of villages have been downgraded to settlements; awaiting legal advice on downzoning of those lands; defer motion until clarification of legal advice

John Lahart responded by reminding the members that they are obliged to consider proper planning and sustainable development issues only.  There is no mechanism in law to defer dealing with certain aspects of the CDP due to lack of time.  If the policy theme boundaries are not revised there will be a mismatch with the core strategy and population projections and the Manager will be obliged to bring it to the attention of the Minister.  A lot of analysis has been done by the planning department on the availability of infrastructure which is a robust basis for decision making.  The ownership if parcels of land cannot be a factor in the decision making.  The basis for the Plan is founded on strong evidence and decisions must be fact based.  A sequential approach to development will cause difficulties if land does not become available sequentially.  There is no legal basis for an intention to vary the Plan in two years time.

The Manager added that the purpose of a mid term review is to deal with issues which arise subsequent to the adoption of the plan.  The members cannot knowingly defer making a decision on an aspect of the plan at this stage.  The plan could be open to challenge if the members decide to defer this issue.

Following further discussion it was agreed to engage with the TWG to see how the members can comply with planning legislation and satisfy their requirements in relation to the settlements.  The motions were deferred to the next meeting.  Consideration of any other aspects of Chapter 17 was also deferred to the next meeting.

Chapter 18 – Environs Plans

Motion 24 – Cllrs Byrne, MacNamara, Purcell & McGinley

That submission 99 be accepted and that the Managers Report be rejected

Re lands at Monread: Naas Sports Group wishes to undertake future development of lands at Monread for sports based recreational facilities.

(a)   Request that the subject lands be zoned ‘Leisure and Amenity’ in the Naas Environs zoning map.

(b)   Request also that a considerable further area of land including the Palmerstown and Naas Golf Courses should be considered to be zoned ‘Open Space & Amenity’

Manager’s Response - Policy RA8 (Section 14.11.4) of the Draft CDP states the following:

‘It is the policy of the Council to promote town centre sites for sports and recreational facilities and to facilitate out of town sites, where appropriate, (following a sequential test) in servicing large hinterland communities, where the site includes comprehensive off road parking, conforms to all safety guidelines and is in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area’.

Having regard to the above it is noted the submission states that a sequential test was carried out however no evidence of this is submitted. Furthermore it is noted that the subject lands are not located close to future projected populations with the majority of new residential zonings being to the south of Naas.

The Transportation Department has serious safety concerns regarding the use of the existing motorway accommodation bridge over the M7 that is used to access the subject site. This bridge at present does not accommodate two way traffic flow and has no pedestrian facilities. The zoning of lands to the north of this bridge may be premature pending the provision of a new access bridge that will accommodate two way traffic flow and include adequate pedestrian facilities.

The Draft ‘Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines’ (DoEHLG, June 2010) state that “Development plans must include policies which will ensure that investment in national roads will be safeguarded by preventing the premature obsolescence of those roads as a result of inadequate control on frontage development.”

Having regard to all of the above it is considered that the proposed access to the subject site would cause serious traffic concerns and would not be in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of this area.

The Draft Naas Development Plan rezones 18.4ha of land from ‘I’ (Agricultural) to ‘F’ (Open Space and Amenity) at Caragh Road Sports Centre to allow for the future expansion of facilities at this location. Furthermore Objective RAO16 (Chapter 10) states that ‘it is an objective of the Council to seek to improve and extend in co-operation with statutory and voluntary bodies the sporting facilities at the Caragh Road including investigating the development of a regional sports facility.’

An appeal was made to An Bord Pleanala on a recent refusal by KCC (10/217) for the development of a multi-sport complex on the subject lands. While An Bord Pleanala has to adjudicate on this application, the Planning Authority’s reasons for refusal should be noted and are relevant in the consideration of the subject lands for development;. A summary of these refusal reasons are outlined below;

-          Suitably located and well serviced amenity lands at Caragh Road where an adequate quantum of zoned lands (existing and proposed) exists.

-          Proposed development on unzoned, unserviced lands

-          Issues with regard to urban sprawl, haphazard and piecemeal development.

-          Traffic and public safety concerns

 

Manger’s Recommendation – No change

Cllr. MacNamara proposed the motion, seconded by Cllr. McGinley.  Billy Joe Padden referred to the decision of ABP received that day, to refuse permission for the development of inter alia a multi-sports complex for three reasons viz.

  1. It involves the relocation of local sporting facilities from an existing, highly accessible suburban location to a peripheral unserviced site in the surrounding rural area
  2. it is a specific policy of the planning authority to proceed with the development of the third lane in each direction along the N7 and to prohibit development within 91 metres of motorways
  3. the proposed development would interfere with the free flow of traffic on the public road.

 

Michael Kenny pointed out that this issue also related to a proposal to rezone amenity land in Naas Development Plan to residential.  Cllr. Scully said this was a complex proposal but at this stage all that was sought was a rezoning of agricultural land to amenity to assist the developer who is seeking the residential zoning within Naas town in order to build houses to fund the sports development in Kerdiffstown.

 

John Lahart reminded the members of the decision of the courts in the McHugh vs. KCC case which found that the rezoning of land in return for a parcel of land was not lawful on the basis that such an offer could influence the members.  He said that the members of Naas TC were currently considering a request to rezone amenity land at Caragh Road but from a planning point of view it was preferable if the clubs remained at that location rather than split the campus.  He said the proposed new campus adjoined the M7 and would pose safety issues due to the number of people using the site.  When the M7 is increased to a 6 lane highway it would require part of the southside of the subject site.  In addition the north of the site adjoins the canal feeder system and is adjacent to a disused landfill site.  He said the NRA had expressed concern at the light overspill from the sports facility on to the motorway.  He said the bridge currently accessing the site is too narrow with no footpaths and would require significant money to widen.  He said the site was too remote with no residential development close to it.  The Manager added that this motion was connected to a proposal to change the zoning of land in Naas DP and was not legal.  He said the decision of ABP sets out serious impediments to progressing the development in the proposed location.  He said the entire plan could be undermined by this motion if passed and he would have to seek legal advice.

 

Cllr. Moore opposed the motion saying the proposal would take pitches from the south side of Naas to a location three miles away on the northside.  The beneficiaries were only the soccer club and the majority of signatories to the petition in support of the project were of people in the proposed new location.  He asked for a withdrawal of the motion.  Cllr. Murphy said it was a matter which could be dealt with by way of a material contravention if necessary.

 

Cllr Griffin proposed a short adjournment to study the ABP decision.

Cllr. Griffin, seconded by Cllr. Moore, opposed the motion and proposed accepting the Manager’s recommendation.

The original motion was put to the floor.  Cllr. Murphy called for a roll call vote the result of which was as follows:

F. Browne                  absent

K. Byrne                     for

W. Callaghan against

R. Daly                        against

L. Doyle                      against

S. Doyle                     against

S. Griffin                     against

M. Haydon                  against

P. Kelly                       against

P. Kennedy                against

S. Langan                  against

P. MacNamara          for

P. McEvoy                  against

J. McGInley                for

M. Miley                      against

S. Moore                    against

C. Murphy                   against

M. Nolan                     against

T. O’Donnell               against

F. O’Loughlin             against

C. Purcell                   for

D. Scully                     for

M. Wall                       for

B. Weld                      against.

 

The motion was defeated 18 votes to 6.

 

Motion 25 – Cllr. P. MacNamara, Cllr. A. Lawlor, Cllr. W. Callaghan

 

That KCC accept submission no. 196, Chapter 18 (Environs Plans) re zoning for cemetery use at Bodenstown, Sallins.

Manager’s Response: It is the policy of the Council to explore the possibility of regional type burial grounds. SCO11 of Chapter 11 Social, Community and Cultural Development caters for this and reads as follows: To explore the feasibility of the provision of a regional type burial ground, including crematoria at two locations as follows (i) North east of the county, (ii) Centre of the county. The identified lands would require a comprehensive assessment to determine their suitability for use as a regional burial ground and therefore it is premature to zone these lands for use as a burial ground

Manager’s Recommendation – No change

Cllr. MacNamara, seconded by Cllr. Callaghan, proposed the motion and the rejection of the Manager’s recommendation.  Michael Kenny pointed out that there was an objective in the Plan to explore a regional type burial ground but a feasibility study was required first to take account of archaeological issues etc.  John Lahart urged the members to be cautious in relation to zoning the land at Bodenstown for an extension to the cemetery as, without a study, there was no basis to determine if it’s the most suitable location.  Cllr. S. Doyle, seconded by Cllr. Callaghan, proposed deferring the motion until the executive reverted with appropriate wording for an objective to extend Bodenstown Cemetery.  Agreed.

Motion 26 – Cllrs. Nolan & Lawlor

That we reject the Managers recommendation and to zone the lands on this submission to Industrial/ Warehousing. The reasoning for this is to provide any future employment for the people of Co. Kildare. The above lands are located in an Industrial Park.

Request to zone the subject lands Industrial/Warehousing (c. 54ha)(133 acres) adjoining Tougher Business park 

Manager’s Response - The site adjoins the existing zoned lands off the R445 Naas-Newbridge road at Toughers Business Park, Lewistown/Clownings, Newbridge (Map 18.3).  The majority of the site is unzoned. 

The site is located approximately 5 km from the edge of both Naas and Newbridge urban centres. Access to the site is located circa 2.5km from the entrance to the existing Toughers Business Park and industrial and Warehousing zoned area.

The Draft Naas Town Development Plan 2011-2017 (section 3.5) provides for approximately 90 hectares of undeveloped lands zoned for employment use such as industrial, warehousing and commercial. This does not take into account lands zoned for town centre, retail, leisure and amenity uses or the “White Lands” at the Northwest Quadrant. Given the requirement for approximately 40 hectares of land to accommodate future employment needs in Naas, it is considered that there is currently sufficient land zoned for employment generation to meet job creation needs for the town up to 2017 and beyond.

Newbridge LAP 2003 provides for a significant quantum of lands zoned for Industrial and warehousing uses, with c. 80 ha of the lands at Great Connell/Little Connell zoned for this use being subject to a Masterplan that has been agreed with the Planning Authority.

Section 5.5.1 (availability of zoned lands) of the Draft CDP recognises the need to zone employment lands at appropriate locations stating ‘It is particularly important that new development should be located within existing settlements to encourage economic diversification and networking between related businesses, enhancing the degree of employment choice and providing economies of scale and at least some opportunities for travel to work by public transport.’

 The proposed zoning of additional industrial zoned lands at this location would compromise the delivery of suitably located industrial and employment activities within the towns of Naas and Newbridge, where sufficient lands are available, beyond the targeted needs for the plan period.

The zoning of the subject lands does not have regard to national, regional or local policy as to do so would join the Naas environs lands to the Newbridge LAP boundary.  This would be contrary to policy SO6 in the Draft CDP regarding the avoidance of coalescence of settlements. Which reads as follows:

‘It is an objective of the Council to identify and retain green belt separation areas between the development boundaries of the county’s towns and villages in the interest of avoiding coalescence of settlements and to retain their distinctive character and identity’

Furthermore, there is a large quantum of zoned land that remains undeveloped in the existing Tougher Business Park. The Draft CDP in sections 5.3.5 and 5.5.1 highlight the current oversupply of zoned land for employment purposes within the county.

Roads: The zoning of the subject lands would be premature having regard to the Leinster Orbital Route Corridor Protection Study. The proposed Leinster Outer Orbital Route (LOOR) project and connection will have important implications for strategic planning and economic opportunity in the Mid East Counties. Route selection and design should continue in order that planning authorities can evaluate implications and capitalise on the benefits and potential arising if this project is progressed from what is likely to be a significant national investment.

Manager’s Recommendation – No change

Cllr. Nolan moved the motion and proposed rejecting the Manager’s recommendation.  In reply to a question from Cllr. O’Donnell, BillyJoe Padden said that incineration is not permitted in the matrix for Industrial/Warehousing.  The following additional points were made:

  • need to promote Kildare as a place to do business; 2,000 people employed there already
  • site is located in a primary growth centre
  • concern at scale of WWTP that would be required
  • ad hoc additions could undermine other opportunities; overzoning could affect whole county
  • wrong type industry could be harmful in that location with stud farms adjacent
  • does the DOELG have to be notified if zoning exceeds the threshold; might funding be withheld if the RPGs are not complied with
  • it is income generating for KCC

Michael Kenny reiterated the points made in the Manager’s Response to the motion that  there was more than enough land zoned in the Naas/Newbridge area; there was a considerable amount of undeveloped land on the Tougher site itself; that no regional or county plan ever envisaged the joining together of Naas & Newbridge; that the proposal was  contrary to Council policy not to facilitate the coalescence of towns in the county.  There was no need for this zoning of 133 acres at this time in this place.  In addition it was premature in the context of the NRA proposals  for a Leinster Outer Orbital Route from Naas/Newbridge to Drogheda.

It was agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Langan, seconded by Cllr. Kelly to defer this motion until 17/11/10 at 10am.

Conclusion

This concluded the business of the meeting.


Appendix 1:             Rural Settlement Strategy for the Draft Kildare CDP 2011-2017

Kildare County Development Plan 2005-2017

A total of 37 ‘Policy Theme Boundaries’ (PTB) and 12 ‘Rural Nodes’ (RN) were adopted as part of the Rural Housing Strategy set out in Chapter 6 of the Kildare County Development Plan (CDP) 2005-2011.  Each PTB was accompanied by a map illustrating the lands within the designated boundary.  Section 6.8 of the CDP sets out the policy for PTB, stating;

The Council will seek to encourage small-scale housing development in rural settlements in order to cater for the categories of local need and local growth.

It is important to note that the village boundaries as shown in chapter 6 are policy boundaries and are designated as objectives under the provisions of section 10(2)(e)(h) and(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000-2004 and should not be construed as ‘zoned lands’ under the provisions of the Planning and Development Act 2000-2004, Section10(2)(a).

A substantial quantum of lands were added by the elected members from that originally proposed in the pre-draft County Development Plan 2005-2011 to that which was finally adopted (on average an additional 75% of greenfield lands were added to each designated PTB).

Review of Settlement Strategy for the Draft Kildare CDP 2011-2017

A comprehensive survey of all 37 PTB’s and 12 RN’s was carried out by the Planning Department as part of the review process for the publication of the Draft Kildare CDP 2011-2017.  This survey assessed the quantum of developed[1], undeveloped[2] and greenfield[3] lands within each of the 37 PTB’s. This survey revealed that, on average, each PTB has the capacity to grow its current population base by c.493%.  If this population potential was realised, this would result in increasing the population within PTB from its current (estimated) population base of 10,503 persons to 30,131 persons, or an increase of 300%.  It should be noted that these projections are based on a relatively low average density rate of 15 units per ha/6 units per acre.

Settlement Strategy for the Draft Kildare CDP 2011-2017

Chapter 3 of the Draft CDP 2011-2017 sets out the settlement strategy for the County for the plan period.  In accordance with section 10(1)(A) of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2010, the settlement strategy is in accordance with the Regional Planning Guidelines for the GDA 2010-2022.  Population targets and new unit targets are set for each of the 76 designated settlements within the county.  The following revisions have been made in relation to the 37 PTB’s identified in the Kildare CDP 2005:

  • 6 PTB’s are now designated as ‘Villages’ with zoned lands set out in individual Village Plans (Chapter 17) allowing for 25% population growth over the course of the plan
  • 20 PTB’s are designated as ‘Rural Settlements’ with individual Development Strategies (Chapter 17) allowing for 20% population growth over the course of the plan.  These lands are not zoned and the strategies are in place to provide guidance for the population growth target of 20%.
  • 11 PTB’s are designated as ‘Rural Nodes’ (along with the 12 RN from the CDP 2005), allowing for 10-15% population growth over the course of the plan.  No map/individual development strategies are set out for these nodes; Policy (section 4.12.6) allows for small cluster developments (not more than 5 units) and single dwellings in line the population growth target of 20%.

 

Recommendation to the Members

The survey findings and proposed draft settlement strategy were presented to the Technical Working Group through-out the review process (30.07.09, 14.09.09, 11.11.09 and 21.12.09) and to the full Council at pre-draft stage (02.12.09)

The results of this survey work revealed the potential development allowed for within PTB’s is vastly out of sync with RPG’s (2010-2022) settlement strategy for in the county.  The revised settlement strategy set out in the Draft Kildare CDP 2011-2017 seeks to address this issue by revising the rural settlement strategy to align with the RPGs. 

The Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2010 requires that each and every development plan must include a Core Strategy that demonstrates how the policies and objectives of the plan are consistent with national and regional planning policy.  Chapter 2 of the Draft CDP sets out the core strategy for the plan and forms the framework for all policies and objectives within the plan, being consistent with national and regional planning policy.

The DoEHLG’s “Development Plans - Guidelines for Planning Authorities”, (June 2007) make clear reference to the need for balanced development which does not over designate lands for future potential development:

Section 4.14: In the case of all zoning of land, the location of such lands, particularly in the case of residential, should also take account of the location policies in section 5.3 of the NSS[4].  The demands of individual landowners should not distort the preferred amount and location of lands to be zoned.  

Any proposed changes to the rural settlement strategy will be subject to an environmental assessment through the SEA process and the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) for the county.  Any significant changes to the extent of designated development boundaries of rural settlements may have environmental implications.

The DoEHLG submission to the Draft CDP 2011-2017 acknowledges that the revised rural settlement strategy is now in accordance RPGs, stating: ‘It is noted that the Draft County Plan is aligned with the draft RPGs[5]. In relation to the Core Strategy, the submission states that “some element of linking population to land requirements of different tiers of settlements will be required.”  The submission also states that “as this plan is progressing, care must be taken to incorporate or reflect any changes that occur to ensure they are in line with the now adopted RPGs.”

Section 12.11 of the Act states that in making the Development Plan, Members are restricted to considering:

  • The proper planning and sustainable development of the area to which the Development Plan relates,
  • The statutory obligations of any Local Authority in the area, and
  • Any relevant policies or objectives for the time being of the Government or any Minister of the Government.

 

The members are strongly advised that the proposal to reinstate the designated rural settlement boundaries from the 2005 CDP will have serious implications in terms of the new CDP’s adherence with:

  • The Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2010
  • The RPG’s for the GDA 2010-2022
  • The Development Plans - Guidelines for Planning Authorities, (DoEHLG, 2007)
  • The CDP’s SEA, and
  • The County’s SFRA 

 

Under section12 (5) (aa) of the act where the proposed plan does not comply with the recommendations of the Minister there is an onus on the Manager to bring this to the attention of the Minister in writing.



[1] Sites were planning permission had been granted (post 2005) and developments built 

[2] Sites were planning permission had been granted (post 2005) and developments not built 

[3] Undeveloped sites within PTB with no valid planning permissions

[4] Section 5.3 of the NSS refers to the following locational policies: economic, environmental transport, community development, social integration and built environment considerations

[5] Note: The DoEHLG does however state that the Rural Housing policy proposed in the Draft CDP does not fully accord with the departments Sustainable Rural Housing Guidelines

<