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 Wednesday, 24th 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, M Wall, P McEvoy, P Kelly, S. Moore, C Murphy, L Doyle, M Miley, W Callaghan, S Doyle, P Kennedy, R Daly, M Heydon, F O’Loughlin, D Scully.

Apologies: Councillors T. O’Donnell, F. Browne, P. MacNamara

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

The members observed a minute’s reflection.

1. Proposed Deletion from Kildare RPS of Fuller’s Court, Ballitore, Co. Kildare.  RPS No. B36-35.  NIAH No. 11822027

The Conservation Officer’s report had been circulated in advance (see Appendix A).  Peter Black said that as a result of his new research, the submission responses from the DOEHLG and An Taisce and the report by Mr. Dermot Nolan Historic Buildings Engineer, employed by the Council to survey the property, he now recommended that this part terrace structure be retained on the Kildare RPS for the reasons outlined in his report.

Cllr. Miley, seconded by Cllr. Heydon, proposed its deletion as it was on the outskirts of the village on a minor road, in a very bad state of repair and a danger to the public.  Following a discussion a vote was taken and the motion to delete was carried by nine votes to seven.

2. Proposal to review Table 3.3 Settlement Hierarchy

Lorcan Griffin circulated a revised table showing the 2006 Census (baseline) population figures, the RPG population and unit splits between metropolitan and hinterland, the RPG target for population growth and unit growth to 2017 and the Draft CDP population and unit targets to 2017 also.  He said the definitions in the table were based on survey work and the Census and growth rates were applied proportionally.  He said the projected unit figures had been approved by the DOE.

Cllr. S. Doyle said the document was flawed and had a blatant disregard for rural communities.  Councillors Miley and Wall agreed.

In reply to questions on the unit figures Lorcan Griffin said this was the figure to concentrate on.  It guides the LAPs and shows the percentage breakdown per town.  It provided for 25% growth for villages, 20% growth for settlements, 10% to 15% growth for nodes and c400 units p.a. for rural dwellers.  The growth rate is proportional and takes account of issues such as the availability of social and physical infrastructure.  John Lahart said the figures were correctly applied, there was no huge shift in population increase and growth was limited in towns and villages with no infrastructure.  He said the higher order settlement figures were locked in by the RPGs but there was room for some movement in the lower order villages, settlements and nodes to which the members had discretion to make some minor amendments.  He recommended the proposed framework to the members.

Cllr. S. Doyle, seconded by Cllr. Miley proposed the proportional distribution of the housing target figure of 27,982 as follows: 35% to the metropolitan area and the remaining 65% to be distributed evenly between the hinterland and remaining settlements with an occupancy rate of 1.82 applied consistently throughout.

Cllr. McEvoy asked for a table showing the detail of Cllr. Doyle’s proposal and it was agreed to defer the decision until after lunch.

When this issue was considered later in the day Cllr. S. Doyle circulated a table of figures showing the breakdown of units as follows:

  • 9,793 units to metropolitan area
  • 9,094 units to hinterland
  • 9,094 to remainder.

She said the determination of how to distribute the units among the rural settlements and rural nodes should be done following a period of consultation.  Lorcan Griffin pointed out that the RPGs were explicit in their recommendation on the hierarchy and split of units and the role of the CDP was to allocate the units accordingly.  He said Village Plans had been prepared for 11 villages which included zonings.  If the allocation changes in line with Cllr. Doyle’s proposal, these would have to be looked at and land dezoned.  He said Cllr. Doyle’s figures showed 936 units being moved down the hierarchy but there was no proposal for how to distribute them.  He also said that Cllr. Doyle’s  table of figures did not have regard to the hierarchy of settlements in the county designated by the RPGs with no differentiation between higher order settlements with the 35/65 split. Cllr. Doyle said her figures were not significantly different from those in the Draft Plan and her unit distribution was more in line with population distribution but she felt there was a need to consult further before making a decision.

John Lahart referred to the submission from the DOEHLG which noted that the Draft CDP is aligned with the draft RPGs and which goes on to say that as the Plan is progressing, care must be taken to incorporate or reflect any changes that occur to ensure that they are in line with the now adopted RPGs.  He said the towns at the top of the hierarchy were better equipped for an increase in population.  Each settlement had been looked at individually to arrive at these figures and it would be contrary to good planning to go with Cllr. Doyle’s proposal.  The entire settlement strategy could be in jeopardy if there is a deviation from the draft CDP.

Following further discussion Cllr. S. Doyle asked for a roll call vote, the outcome of which was 5 votes for Cllr. Doyle’s motion and 14 against as follows:

For:         W. Callaghan

               S. Doyle

               M. Miley

               F. O'Loughlin

               M. Wall

 

Against:  R. Daly

               L. Doyle

               S. Griffin

               M . Heydon

               P. Kelly

               S. Langan

               T. Lawlor

               P. McEvoy

               J. McGinley

               S. Moore

               C. Murphy

               M. Nolan

               B. Weld

               D. Scully

 

Abstained: P. Kennedy

 

Absent:      F. Browne

                  K .Byrne

                  P. MacNamara

                  T. O’Donnell

                  C. Purcell

 

 

3. Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

Michael Kenny introduced Morgan Kilgallen, Consulting Engineer, who had been engaged by the Council  to carry out a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for County Kildare and the towns of Naas & Athy in line with DOEHLG Guidelines issued in November 2009.

Mr. Kilgallen said the purpose of flood risk assessment was to ensure that development is avoided in flood risk areas.  It represented a strategic approach based on information currently available which examined flood risk indicators such as historical information on flooding, information from the OPW website and flood maps and the Barrow Drainage Board maps.  He said a flood risk indicator matrix had been prepared for each village, rural settlement and environs area which could be included in the amendments to the Draft Plan and would be a tool at planning application stage.

In reply to questions from the members, Michael Kenny said policies and objectives in the proposed amendments to the Draft CDP would be added to reflect the SFRA.  The Report would be posted on the kCC website.  Morgan Kilgallen said there was a prescribed methodology for doing flood risk assessment, the eventual outcome of which could be the production of policies/objectives/maps regarding the areas most at risk.  Zoning is then considered in relation to  water compatible landuses.  He added that all lands in the CDP area have been assessed for flood risk at a strategic level.

4. Motions 18 to 23 (Chapter 17 Settlements)

John Lahart reminded the members of their obligations under Section 12 (11) of the P&D Act 2000 which states that in making the Development Plan, the Members are restricted to considering:

    (a) the proper planning and sustainable development of the area to which the development plan relates

    (b) the statutory obligations of any local authority in the area

In addition, decisions must be made in accordance with the ‘Code of Conduct for Councillors’ prepared under the Local Government Act 2001.

Motion 23 was taken first.

Motion 23 - TWG

'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 appendix attached entitled: Rural Settlement Strategy for the Draft Kildare CDP 2011-2017

Manager’s Recommendation

No change

Cllr. S. Doyle moved her motion saying that in light of the discussion on flood risk assessment and strategic environmental assessment, there was a strong argument for a more detailed analysis of the approach to the settlements etc. and consultation with local people within six months of the adoption of the Plan.  Cllr. Griffin, seconded by Cllr. Nolan, proposed examining the settlements in light of the information in the FRA and removing those ones prone to flooding.  In response to questions from the members John Lahart said that they must make a decision on this issue.  Adequate opportunity had been given to the public to make submissions.  Retaining the existing boundaries would only prolong the existing problems and would do nothing to bring certainty to the market.  There was no issue of “losing zoning” as settlement land was not zoned.  The issues being discussed here affected only 2.5% of the population of the entire county.  He said what was required was a broad strategic framework for future development, not a detailed analysis of the settlements.  He said there was no need to go into over-complex detail.

Following further discussion it was agreed to defer the motions on the settlements until after lunch when Cllr. Doyle’s revised table of figures would be available.

The motion was taken later in the evening.

Lorcan Griffin circulated a table of targets/ratings for the 21 rural settlements based on population, physical infrastructure, social infrastructure and environmental constraints.

Cllr. S. Doyle said it was more important now, following the outcome of the earlier motion, to invest time to decide which settlements are viable and to do it in a consultative way.  Her motion was seconded by Cllr. Miley.

Following a lengthy discussion, a roll call vote was asked for by Cllrs. O’Loughlin, S. Doyle & M. Miley the result of which was a defeat for the motion by 23 votes to 7 as follows:

For:          W. Callaghan

                 S. Doyle

                 M. Heydon

                 P. Kennedy

                 M. Miley

                 F. O'Loughlin

                 M. Wall

 

Against:   R. Daly

                L. Doyle

                S. Griffin

                P. Kelly

                S. Langan

                T. Lawlor

                P. McEvoy

                J. McGinley

                S. Moore

                C. Murphy

                M .Nolan

                D. Scully

 

Absent:   F. Browne

               K. Byrne

               P. MacNamara

               T. O'Donnell

               C. Purcell

               B. Weld

 

Motions 18 to 22 and XA & XG were superseded by the result of the previous votes.

Motion XB – Cllr. Miley

Request that land be zoned ‘Educational’ as this site is now the proposed site for a new school

Manager’s Response

Agreed

Manager’s Recommendation

To amend Map 17.7 the Crookstown Village Plan to extend the boundary and zone the outlined land “E” Community and Educational (See attached in appendix 17.9)

The Manager’s recommendation was agreed.

Motion XC – Cllr. Miley

(a) Request for lands to be zoned ‘A’ (Village Centre) in Crookstown and to add reference to the commercial use of same i.e. public house and restaurant

(b) Request also that lands be zoned ‘Q’ (Enterprise and Employment)

Manager’s Response

(a) It is not considered necessary to extend the village plan boundary to zone the existing pub and restaurant as ‘A’ (Village Centre). These  uses are established at this location and do not require a land use zoning to facilitate the future development of these businesses subject to proper planning and sustainable development. The Castledermot Road (former N9) forms a natural boundary to the village on the eastern side.

Manager’s Recommendation

(a) No change

Manager’s Response

(b) It is not considered appropriate to zone lands outside the Village Plan boundary for this use. Lands are currently zoned ‘Q’ (Enterprise & Employment) in the centre of Crookstown village. There is also a substantial area of land zoned for Enterprise and Employment nearby in Ballitore. Other employment related proposals in areas of the county not covered by a Development Plan, Local Area Plan or Village Plan zoning will be considered on their merits having regard to the principles of proper planning and sustainable development.

Manager’s Recommendation

(b) No change

The motion was seconded by Cllr. Wall.  Cllr. Kelly asked whether zoning additional land when there is more than adequate land for industrial development, would undermine existing land not already in use and he suggested that for such proposals there should be an accompanying proposal to remove existing zoned land.  Michael Kenny recommended against the motion on the basis that the proposed development was not in the village centre, was on a very dangerous road and would require excavation of a hill to develop.  The existing Plan allows for some intensification of use based on proper planning and sustainable development reasons and a reasonable level of development could be considered without additional zoning.

Cllr. Miley withdrew his motion.

Adjournment

The meeting adjourned for lunch until 1.45pm

Proposed closure of M4

Cllr. McGinley referred to an advertisement in the Leinster Leader on 18th November giving notice the N4 would be closed for a period of a week before Christmas to a week after Christmas at night until 9am in the morning for works.  He said that this would require trucks to go through Kilcock, Maynooth and Leixlip which would mean that these towns will not be able to erect Christmas lights.  He said the members had not been consulted on this matter.  Cllr. Purcell added that the Leinster Leader does not have a high circulation rate in north Kildare and the Liffey Champion should have been used and/or the national papers.  Cllr. Murphy inquired as to whether the NRA would indemnify the towns against damage to lights from trucks.

Michael O’Leary, DOS, apologised for the way in which the announcement was handled.  He said it was an NRA design/build contract for gantries/signage.  The detail in the advertisement was for a worse case scenario and was a notice of intention with an opportunity to make submissions by today.  He said that the work would be carried out in one direction only between two interchanges, lasting from 3 to 6 hours at any one time and finishing by 5am, but he warned that it was weather dependent.  He said a meeting was scheduled for the following day between the NRA, KCC, Gardaí, ambulance service and the contractor to work out the finer details.  He said he would revert to the members after the meeting.  He said the reason the work was being done before Christmas was so as to spend the money before the end of the year.  He apologised again and said the members’ concerns had been taken on board.

Motions on settlements continued

Motion XD – Cllr. Miley

Request that the subject lands adjacent to the mill currently proposed to be zoned Agricultural be included within the village boundary for Ballitore and zoned for development.

Manager’s Response

It is considered that the Ballitore village plan provides sufficient zoned lands in the village to accommodate 25% growth as outlined in policy statement VRS 2 of section 17.4 (Village and Rural settlement policies) of Chapter 17. There has been a large amount of residential development in Ballitore in recent years and there is also a large amount of land with live grants of planning permission available for development in the village. There is also a significant amount of land zoned for Enterprise and Employment in the village and it is proposed in the CDP Manager’s Report to zone a site in nearby Crookstown for Community and Educational purposes to facilitate a new school.

Manager’s Recommendation

No change

The Manager’s recommendation was agreed.

Motion XE – Cllr. Miley

(a)   Request that land adjoining or in close proximity to the school is zoned for use such as residential or amenities rather than commercial related uses.

Manager’s Response

(a)   The existing school site is zoned for Community and Educational purposes, lands to the east and south of the school are zoned village centre reflecting the existing use of the lands. The lands to the north of the school are not zoned as they are outside the village boundary and existing residential lands are located directly west of the school. To the south west of the school additional lands have been zoned for amenity, community, residential and village centre uses. It is envisaged that these lands will facilitate appropriate community and residential development.

 

Manager’s Recommendation

(a) No change

(b) Request to upgrade footpaths in the village leading to the school.

Manager’s Response

(b) Objective T7 of the Ballymore Eustace village plan which reads as follows caters for this. T7 To improve the quality and width, where appropriate, of all footpaths in the village and improve access for people with disabilities.

Manager’s Recommendation

(b) No change

(c) Signage should be displayed clearly showing that a school entrance is close by.

Manager’s Response

(c) Not a matter for the CDP. The investigation and provision of warning signage can be investigated in conjunction with the Council’s transportation department.

Manager’s Recommendation

(c) No change

(d) Speed limits should be located in clearly visible locations.

Manager’s Response

(d) Not a matter for the CDP. The investigation and provision of speed limits can be investigated in conjunction with the Council’s transportation department.

Manager’s Recommendation

(d) No change

(e) Request for e.g. pelican crossing with lights to immediately improve the safety of pupils walking to the school.

Manager’s Response

(e) The following objective is included in the Ballymore Eustace Village Plan:  “T 6 It is an objective of the Council to carry out a Traffic Management Plan for Ballymore Eustace and implement its recommendations.” It is considered that the preparation of this Traffic Management Plan would be the appropriate means by which to consider the request as proposed.

Manager’s Recommendation

(e) No change

The Manager’s recommendations were agreed. It was also agreed to refer the motion to the Area Engineer for his information.

Motion XF – Cllr. Miley

Objects to the proposed walkway at Ballitore.

A walkway already exists along the River Greese. It is currently blocked at the Ballitore end but could easily be reopened. The construction of a new walkway would necessitate the felling of mature trees which would not be welcomed. With the construction of a walkway, disturbances to the property of Mrs O’Mahony would only be increased.

Manager’s Response

Agreed, it is considered appropriate to alter the route of objective AM 3 / T3 as per attached map. AM 3: To develop where possible a walking route along the River Greese to Crookstown Mill and back to the Market Square as illustrated on Map 17.3. T 3; To investigate the possibility of developing a walking route as illustrated on Map 17.3.

It is considered that the proposed new indicative route of objective AM 3 / T3 will minimise any issues in relation to the residential amenity of adjacent dwellings.

Manager’s Recommendation

To alter the route of objective AM 3 / T 3 illustrated on Map 17.3 (See attached in appendix 17.4)

The Manager’s recommendation was agreed.

Motion XG – Deferred

Requested that the proposed boundary of Calverstown include the subject lands (2.2 ha)

Motion XH – Cllr. Miley

Re lands at Kildangan

Request to include the subject lands (1.6 ha) within the settlement of Kildangan in order to facilitate residential use on the site

Manager’s Response

It is considered that the Kildangan village plan provides sufficient appropriately zoned lands in the village to accommodate 25% growth as outlined in policy statement VRS 2 of section 17.4 Village and Rural settlement policies of Chapter 17. Therefore the zoning of the additional lands is not required in this instance.  The proposed site was not included in the Kildangan Policy Theme Boundary in the 2005 CDP.

The proposed site is located on the R417 Monastervin to Athy road far removed from the village centre, the zoning of these lands would constitute the leapfrogging of existing unzoned lands closer to the village centre and would be contrary to the Departments Guidelines on Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas.

Manager’s Recommendation

No change

The Manager’s recommendation was agreed.

There were no further issues arising from Chapter 17.

Chapter 4 – Housing

Motion 74 – Cllr. M. Wall

Re Section 4.12.4

That the amount of landholding required be returned to 5 ha as previously agreed by Council

Manager’s Response

Agreed with modifications

Manager’s Recommendation

Amend policy to include ‘a minimum of 5 ha’

The Manager’s recommendation was agreed.

There were no further issues arising from Chapter 4.

 

Chapter 5 – Economic Development

Motion 75 – Cllr. S. Doyle

Just checking that we have agreed to amend map 5.4 to include a racecourse and riding facilities for Kildare town.

It has been agreed at the Special Council meeting on 5th November to add ‘racecourse’ and ‘equestrian centre’ to both the legend and map of Map 5.4

Motion 76 – Cllr. S. Doyle

5.5.3 Quality of Life, point 5 should refer to the up-grade of all commuting train stations to service commuters needs adequately and where feasible to investigate the re-location of same to enable delivery of a modern commuter friendly facility.

Manager’s Response:

Agreed

Manager’s Recommendation:

Add the following as the 6th bullet point in Section 5.5.3:

‘Seeking the upgrading of all commuting train stations to adequately service commuter needs and where feasible to investigate the re-location of same to provide for the delivery of a modern commuter friendly facility’.

Manager’s recommendation agreed.

Motion 77 – Cllr. S. Doyle

EO 13: Add policy to continue the roll out and up grade of broadband services throughout the County, prioritising on basis of hierarchy laid out in table 5.3.

Manager’s Response

Agreed with modifications

Manager’s Recommendation:

Add the following objective to Section 5.10 (Economic Development Objectives) to read as follows:

‘To continue to facilitate the upgrade of broadband services throughout the County’.  

Manager’s recommendation agreed.

The members agreed with the Manager’s recommendations on the following pages except where they referred to Donaghcomper: 91, 92, 93, 94(except 252(b)), 95 to 111.  There were no further issues arising from Chapter 5.

Chapter 9 – Retail

Motion 78 – Cllr. S. Doyle

9.4.3 In support of submission: Add R.4, To apply a specific zoning for Multiple Retailers that can be implemented appropriately through the LAP process. This policy will assist in locating new multiple developments on appropriate sites that will optimise their significant power to direct retail activity into locations that achieve town strengthening objectives.

Manager’s Response

Under the assessment criteria for large retail developments in the RPG and Draft County Retail Strategy, it is set out as a requirement for applicants to address the contribution that a proposal will make to the long term strategy of a town centre and its commercial synergy/linkage with the town centre as well as issues of trade diversion and retail impact. This reflects the priority given to town centres/Core Retail Areas under the Sequential Approach. It is the role of adopted LAPs and will be the role of emerging LAPs to identify appropriate locations for retail and commercial development. It is not appropriate to zone lands specifically for multiples.

Manager’s Recommendation

No change

Cllr. Miley seconded the motion.  Caroline Shinners pointed out that the retail impact of proposals is assessed as a planning application for a development is being considered.  If it jeopardises existing retail it will have a negative bearing.  The members discussed the definition of “multiples”.  John Lahart cautioned them about being prescriptive about store size and applying the same restrictions on big and small.  He said in modern shopping centres there was a mix of a multiple and ancillary units.  He said the motion was too simplistic and directed at specific retailers and was more appropriate at LAP level.  It was agreed to defer the motion to define the floor space intended.

Motion 79 – Cllr. S. Doyle

9.5.5 R 21: Amend. 'To confirm in the emerging Kildare Town LAP the priority of strengthening the retail core of the town through identifying appropriate and effective linkages with the edge of centre Kildare Village Retail Outlet.'

Manager’s Response

Agreed with modifications

Manager’s Recommendation

Amend R21 to read:

‘It is the policy of the Council to confirm in the emerging Kildare Town Local Area Plan the priority of strengthening the retail core of the town through identifying appropriate and effective linkages with the Kildare Village Outlet Centre. The LAP shall identify key town and edge of centre sites as the locations for the consolidation and expansion of the retail and town centre functions of Kildare Town Centre and the inappropriateness of out of centre locations for new main convenience and mainstream comparison floor space. 

Manager’s recommendation agreed.

Motion 80 – Cllr. S. Doyle

9.5.5 Add R 25. Having regard to the unique retail offer in Kildare Village Retail Outlet centre, that a specific retail strategy be developed for Kildare town, that will have prioritise objectives of developing complementary retail/ tourism activities that can assist the town centre in attracting the market generated by the Retail Village &  Irish National Stud and increase the spend generated in the County.'

Manager’s Response

Paragraph 36 of the ‘Retail Planning Guidelines for Planning Authorities’ (January 2005) requires local authorities to prepare Retail Strategies for their respective administrative areas. In this regard Kildare County Council prepared a Retail Strategy for County Kildare including Kildare Town in May 2010. This strategy provides the strategic context for the future provision of both comparison and convenience floor space throughout Kildare to 2017. It is therefore not considered appropriate to prepare a separate retail strategy for Kildare Town at this time.

Manager’s Recommendation

No change

Manager’s recommendation agreed.

Motions 81 & 82 were deferred.

That objective R14 ‘To promote and progress the delivery of the integrated expansion of Celbridge Town Centre on the Donaghcumper lands’ be deleted

Delete the current objective R14 and replace with:

“To secure the continued consolidation of Celbridge town centre subject to

the physical constraints imposed by the exceptional circumstances of the

proximity of Castletown House and Demesne and Donaghcumper House and

Demesne, the need to protect the architectural and historic heritage of the

Georgian streetscape and its protected structures, and the proximity of the

River Liffey and its associated pastoral landscapes.

 

Chapter 15 – Urban Design Guidelines

Motion 83 – Cllr. C. Murphy

The design of lanes connecting housing estates or within housing estates should not be so long that they are not visible from each end, they should be of sufficient width to allow complete visibility, they should be designed in such a way that motor bikes etc are restricted they should require a higher standard of lighting than is usual within housing estates. This should be in addition to passive security.

Manager’s Response

It is considered reasonable to include an objective taking those issues raised into account.

Manager’s Recommendation

Insert the following as an additional bullet point in Section 19.4.6

‘The design of lanes connecting housing estates or within housing estates should be of sufficient width to allow for the safe movement of pedestrians and cyclists. Laneways should be adequately overlooked and lit and not be excessive in length’.

Manager’s recommendation was agreed.

There were no issues remaining in Chapter 15.

 

Chapter 16 – Rural Design

Motion 84 – Cllr. S. Doyle

Acknowledging the very detailed analysis and recommendations that this chapter has outlined, it would be helpful in improving the stock of one off rural units in the County and directing applicants in making quality applications that will improve the rural built environment if the following policy objective is included. ' That the Council will develop a detailed handbook of design guidelines for Rural housing that will also offer a range of designs to prospective applicants.' This guide could be developed through competition, inviting high quality architecturally designed.

Manager’s Response

It was agreed at the Council meeting of 5th November that the following wording would be inserted into the Draft Plan in Section 16.2:

‘During the lifetime of this Plan, Kildare County Council shall prepare further guidance regarding how the principles of this chapter could be further implemented’.

It is considered that this adequately addresses this motion.

Manager’s Recommendation

No change

Manager’s recommendation was agreed.

There were no further issues from Chapter 16.

 

Chapter 17 – Settlements & Village Plans

Motion 85 – Cllr. S. Doyle.  Deferred

That the existing settlement boundaries outlined in the current CDP be 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 setting policies that prioritise the development of key settlements, 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.

 

Chapter 18 – Environs Plan

Motion 86 – Cllr. M. Wall.  Dealt with at meeting of 12th November

Motion 87 – Cllr. M. Miley. 

Supports this submission relating to Kilsaran landholding.

Manager’s Response

C. 26 ha located on the former N9 in a rural area 4 km south of Kilcullen.

The proposal to zone these lands for employment type uses in this rural location, significantly removed from the existing village of Kilcullen is contrary to the provisions of the RPGs and the settlement, economic and transportation strategies set out in the Draft CDP. The lands were used for sand and gravel extraction.

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 these lands for industrial/use at this rural location would compromise the delivery of industrial and employment activities at more appropriately zoned locations within the towns of Kilcullen, Athy, Naas and Newbridge, where sufficient serviced lands are available above and beyond the targeted needs for the Plan period. The Council seeks to ensure that worked out sand and gravel pits are regraded, soiled and seeded and returned to agricultural use.

Manager’s Recommendation

No change

The manager’s recommendation was agreed

Chapter 19 – Development Management Standards

Motion 88 – Cllr. S. Doyle

The response to submission does not place sufficient importance on the need for a consistent style of design therefore replaces 'selected with local distinctiveness in mind' with 'carefully selected to ensure a consistent pattern of design'.

Manager’s Response

Section 19.2.6 encourages the application of consistent style and design

….Materials must be appropriate, durable and of good quality. Careful consideration must be given to the design of hard surfaces such as streets, squares, open spaces, paved areas, footpaths and driveways.

Walls, fences, metal railings and gates used to define spaces and their usage have a major impact on the visual character of development. These should be carefully selected with local distinctiveness in mind and will need to be an integral part of the overall design concept.’

Future LAPs should adhere to and expand on this strategy.

It is not considered appropriate to insert the wording as proposed as to do so would not encourage original designs which may be in keeping with the landscape of Kildare but which may not be consistent with other designs in a particular area.

Manager’s Recommendation

No Change

Manager’s recommendation agreed.

Motion 89 – Cllr. S. Doyle

While the number of 120 may be too prescriptive, a policy acknowledging preference for residential estates of smaller numbers of dwellings should be included. This will not prevent the development of large sites or inhibit the application of appropriate densities, as sites can be sub-divided for development and delivered in phases. The benefits of residential developments in smaller unit numbers are beneficial in supporting integration and community consolidation.

Manager’s Response

It is not considered appropriate to insert a policy acknowledging preference for residential estates of smaller numbers of dwellings. The quality of a scheme is dependant on many criteria including original design, layout, building forms, height, density, finishes, arrangement of streets, spaces, etc. which shall be assessed at planning application stage in line with Government guidelines and the development management standards as set out in the Development Plan.

To seek to ensure that sections of larger developments are completed in an orderly manner the council imposes phasing conditions on planning applications which are then subject to monitoring by the Building Control Section.

Manager’s Recommendation

No Change.  John Lahart added that a Draft Manual for Street Design would be published in March 2011 by the DOEHLG and will have to be implemented by local authorities.

The manager’s recommendation was agreed.

Motion 90 – Cllr. S. Doyle

The response to this submission does not refer to recommendations that encourage innovative use of open amenity space. References are to children, but increasingly elderly people may find apartment living an attractive and convenient option, their open space needs may differ and to encourage an innovative and diverse approach will enhance the amenity and attractiveness of option for people choosing to downsize

Manager’s Response

Agreed with modifications

Manager’s Recommendation

To amend the second bullet point in Section 19.4.6 to read as follows:

‘Narrow tracts of land (less than 10m) or pieces of land ‘left over after planning’ are not acceptable. Public open space should be innovative in its design approach, centrally located within the overall development scheme (see bullet point below referring to ‘pocket parks’) and designed to be from a visual perspective as well as being functionally accessible to the maximum number of dwellings within the residential areas….  

….On large sites, areas should be identified for a hierarchy of uses e.g. – more casual ‘pocket parks’ for smaller children to play, informal kick about areas, passive amenity etc’.

Manager’s recommendation agreed.

Motion 91 – Cllr. S. Doyle

19.4.11 Naming of estates or residential developments. Consultation with area committee on naming of residential estates/ developments is advisable as examples of inappropriate and confusing titles exist. Local knowledge is valuable in avoiding such incidents. Guidelines for this policy may apply, that will prevent the use of inappropriate names.

Manager's Response

This matter has come before the Corporate Policy Group which has recommended that the naming of all future housing estates should be approved by the relevant Area Committee.

Manager's Recommendation

No change to Draft Plan however, in the assessment of all future housing estate planning applications, the Planning Authority shall have regard to the now agreed CPG policy that the Area Committees shall be consulted in the naming of estates.

The manager’s recommendation was agreed.

Motion 92 – Cllr. S. Doyle

Provision of sheep/cattle grids in developments adjacent to Curragh should be mandatory. In defence of this request, I would ask the manager to consider the level of expenditure that KCC have made in the provision of sheep/cattle grids on access roads to the Curragh. As yet these grids are only in priority locations and the comprehensive provision of same will be very costly.

Manager’s Response

Not Agreed.  The environs of the Curragh cover an area too large to insist on the provision of cattle grids. Each application will be assessed on a case by case basis.  Where such a requirement is deemed necessary it will be subject to a condition of the planning permission.

Manager’s Recommendation

No Change.

The motion was seconded by Cllr. Miley and following a brief discussion it was agreed to amend the final paragraph to read as follows:Provision of sheep/ cattle grids in new developments adjacent to the Curragh will be mandatory. 

Motion 93 – Cllr. S. Doyle

Support, these regs are usually applied in the maximum at great cost to development and ultimately to service user. An audit of use of existing spaces in such facilities should form part of the research for review. The intention to review parking requirements should be referred to in the plan and stated as a policy objective.

Reference: Table 19.9 & 19.10 (Car Parking and Cycle Standards)

Many of these standards seem excessive, particularly for nursing homes and establishments that are in the entertainment business where alcohol is served.

Manager’s Response

It should be noted that, apart from houses and apartments (1 bedroom) and houses and apartments (2 bedrooms or more), all other car parking standards in Table 19.9 are maximum parking standards. As stated in Section 19.6.6, ‘complementary or shared usage of car parks will be encouraged, especially where opening hours are at variance…..where, in the opinion of the Council, it would be impracticable for individual developers to provide for on-site parking, a contribution will be required in accordance with the Development Contribution Scheme’.

It is envisaged that an empirical study be carried out during the life of the Plan. It is hoped that this study will be undertaken jointly with Meath and Wicklow and preliminary discussions have taken place with the NTA with a view to securing funding for same.

Manager’s Recommendation

No Change

Manager’s recommendation agreed.

Motion 94 – Cllr. S. Doyle

Not satisfied that current procedures of providing a TMA are sufficient, particularly given recent developments that clearly do and will have significant impact on road networks. Ultimately, strategic road networks that have a primary purpose of access to town centres or act as significant link roads should have this primary purpose protected to ensure that the exchequer investment to provide same is not wasted by investing the capacity into providing access to a private commercial activity that will have a negative impact on it's primary purpose of providing convenient and efficient access to public.

Manager’s Response

It is considered that the issue raised is adequately addressed in other areas of the Draft CDP including the following:

‘It is the policy of the Council to require a Transportation and Mobility Assessment (TMA) for proposed major developments to assess the impacts of the development on the surrounding network (National Roads, Regional Roads etc.) and to provide mitigation measures for any adverse impacts’ (TP5, Section 6.4.1 refers)

and ‘….The council requires the submission of a Traffic and Mobility Assessment (TMA) as part of planning applications for larger developments in accordance with the Council’s draft Traffic and Mobility Assessment Guidelines document….’   (Section 19.6.3 refers)

Furthermore; ‘It is the policy of the Council to limit direct access onto distributor roads to a number of strategically located junctions’ (DR1, Section 6.4.4 refers)

And ‘It is an objective of the Council to ensure all new developments are accessible to sustainable modes of transportation’.  (GT8, Section 6.5.1 refers)

Manager’s Recommendation

No change

Manager’s recommendation agreed.

Motion 95 – Cllr. McEvoy - Deferred

That section 19.1.1 on enforcement is amended with the bold text as follows:

19.1.1 Enforcement

Planning enforcement deals with developments / uses where the development / use is in breach of planning laws and is, therefore unauthorised development. It will continue to be the policy of Kildare County Council to use all powers conferred by law to ensure that development only takes place with the benefit of a valid planning permission and that all conditions attached to planning permissions are complied with in the development. The Planning Authority has powers under the Planning & Development Acts 2000 – 2010, to take enforcement action where development (either works or uses) is in breach of the planning laws and therefore, considered to be unauthorised.

In cases where development has commenced or is being carried out without planning permission or in breach of permission, the Council will initiate enforcement action, having regard to the provisions of Part VIII of the Planning and Development Act as amended.

The enforcement provisions contained in the Planning & Development Act 2000 incorporate the ‘polluter pays’ principle. If a person has carried out unauthorised development, they will have to pay the Planning Authority’s costs in investigating and for enforcing the breach.

The Planning & Development Act 2000 provides a more stream lined enforcement regime with four enforcement mechanisms provided for:

• Criminal Prosecution;

• Enforcement Notice procedure followed by a prosecution, or;

• Enforcement Action in default of compliance with an Enforcement Notice, and;

• Planning Injunction.

A development is unauthorised when:

• Planning permission is required and has not been obtained.

• Planning permission was granted but the development is not being carried out in accordance with the plans lodged or conditions of the planning permission granted, and ;

• It does not comply with all the conditions and limitations to qualify a development as exempt.

Motion 96 – Cllr. C. Murphy - Deferred

I am unhappy with the managers responses and want the text as submitted to be included in the Development Plan.

The relevant sections of the Managers Report are outlined below:

(mm) Chapter 19 (Development Management Standards)

Section 19.12.2 to be retitled ‘Development within Curtilage, Attendant Grounds and Setting of Protected Structures’. 

(nn) Section 19.12.2

To amend the first sentence to read as follows:

‘…within the curtilage and/or attendant grounds of a protected structure….’

(oo) Section 19.12.2, Final para. last sentence to read as follows:

‘Development proposals should include appraisal of the wider context of the site and structure including its demesne landscape where applicable’.

(pp) Insert the following as a new subset of Section 19.12.3 to read as follows:

’19.12.3a Development within view of the Curtilage, Attendant Grounds and/or Demesne of Protected Structures

Developments within view of protected structure and their settings, including curtilage, attendant grounds and demesne as applicable shall have regard to the following:

Development shall not normally be permitted where it would interfere with the setting of protected structures

The impact of any development on the buildings and surrounding environment, in terms of design, scale, height, plot, width, roof treatment, materials, landscaping, mix and intensity of use proposed.’

Miscellaneous

Motion 97 – Cllr. P. McEvoy

That an index be included in the final published plan and that the files created for publication of the plan, on CD or the internet, provide for electronic text searches.

Manager’s Response

Noted. This will be considered prior to the publication of the plan.

Motion 98 – Cllr. P. McEvoy

That in the interest if clarity and to facilitate referencing of the plan by members of the public, that bullet point lists be converted to sub-numbered lists where possible.

Manager’s Response

Agreed

There were no further issues from Chapter 19.

 

6. Motions 24 to 52.  Chapter 12 – Architectural & Archaeological Heritage

Motion 29 – Cllr. C. Murphy

Disagree with Manager’s Recommendation Parochial House should remain listed.

B11-93 NIAH No.11805031 Celbridge Parochial House Main Street Celbridge
Description:

Detached four-bay two-storey over part-raised basement parochial house, c.1860, on an L-shaped plan retaining most original fenestration comprising two-bay two-storey split-level bay to left (north-east) with two-bay two-storey advanced end bay to right (south-west) having door opening to north-east elevation approached by flight of steps, and two-bay two-storey side elevation to south-west. Extended, c.1920, comprising single-bay two-storey over part-raised base flat-roofed recessed end bay to left (north-east). Part refenestrated, c.1990. Hipped roofs with slate.

Manager’s Response - Agree with motion

Manager’s Recommendation - Retain (NIAH 11805031) on the RPS

Retain on the RPS for the following reasons:

  1. Celbridge Parochial House is an imposing middle-size building of unusual character due to its asymmetrical plan and irregularly proportioned elevations
  2. The house is of social interest as the ecclesiastical residence for the Catholic clergy of the town.
  3. Well-maintained, the house retains most of its original features and materials to the exterior, including slate roofs with cast-iron rainwater goods, and timber sash fenestration.
  4. The house is attractively set in its own grounds, positioned back from the line of Main Street adding diversity to the regularity of the street line, and is an appealing feature in the locality.
  5. It should be retained on Record of Protected Structures for the County.

 

Agreed with Manager’s recommendation.

 

Motion 40 – Cllr. M. Nolan

Page 321 no 261 I disagree with the manager’s response and propose that these buildings are not placed on the r-p-s.  Reason these buildings do not have the same historical importance as that of Blackrath castle.

B32-08 Black Castle and farm complex

Description Remains of Castle, including complex of farm buildings and vernacular house

Manager’s Response - It is recommended to retain the dwelling house and its associated outbuildings on the RPS as they form part of the curtilage of the Protected Structure, Black Castle. The response to submission number 85 with regard to grants should also be noted.

Manager’s Recommendation – No change

Cllr. Heydon declared his interest in this property and left the Chamber.

Cllr. Lawlor seconded the motion.  A lengthy discussion took place on the definition of curtilage and the delisting of buildings of lesser significance such as outhouses.  Peter Black explained that the DOE Guidelines for protected structures stipulate that components within the curtilage of a protected structure are protected also.  This does not necessarily preclude development.  The owners can seek a declaration to define the curtilage of a protected structure which is ascertained by the planning authority by carrying out survey work, research and historical analysis.  Following further discussion a vote was taken and the motion was defeated by 8 votes to 5.

Motion 41 – Cllr. M. Heydon

RPS No. B28-15     NIAH No. 11819022 Sunnyside House Kilcullen

I disagree with the managers recommendation and propose that Sunnyside house not be included in the RPS

Manager’s Response

Description:

Detached three-bay two-storey house, c.1900, retaining early fenestration. Renovated, c.1950, with single-bay single-storey flat-roofed projecting porch added to centre. Gable-ended roof with slate. Clay ridge tiles. Rendered chimney stacks. Rendered coping to gables. Replacement uPVC rainwater goods, c.1990, on rendered eaves band. Flat-roof to porch behind blocking course.
It is recommended that this structure remain on the RPS for the following reasons:

1. Sunnyside House is a fine, middle-size house that retains much of its original form and appearance although now endangered.

2. The house is of social and historic interest as one of the largest private houses in the locality of Kilcullen.

3. Attractively set in its own grounds on an elevated site overlooking Kilcullen, the house is a picturesque feature in the locality.

Manager’s Recommendation – No change

In response to questions from the members Peter Black said that €135,000 had been available in 2010 for Conservation Grants for Protected Structures.  Applicants can apply annually.  Following a brief discussion a vote was taken and the motion was defeated by 11 votes to 5.

Motion 42 – Cllr. M. Heydon

I disagree with the manager’s recommendation and propose that Carnalway Lodge not be included in the RPS

RPS No. B29-16   Carnalway Lodge, Kilcullen 

Manager’s Response - Description

Detached four-bay two-storey house, built c.1820, with extensions to rear (west) elevation. Pitched slate roof with rendered chimneystacks, cut granite eaves course and uPVC rainwater goods. Roughcast rendered walls. Square-headed window openings with painted stone sills and two-over-two-pane timber sliding sash windows to first floor, Wyatt style windows to ground floor set in shallow segmental arched recess, having six-over-six central pane flanked by engaged timber colonnettes with fixed side panels with diamond tracery, surmounted by cornice with flanking consoles.  Square-headed door opening with Doric columns, flanking fixed pane side lights with diamond tracery in turn flanked by fluted pilasters with consoles. Ranges of two-storey outbuildings to rear arranges around courtyard with hipped slate roofs.

It is recommended that the structures remain on the RPS for the following reasons:

1. This group of farmhouse and outbuildings have been traditionally arranged around three sides of a courtyard to form an interesting complex.

2. The survival of many interesting features and materials, such as the pedimented breakfront, decorative fenestration and granite dressings, enhance the architectural significance of the group

3. This house and its associated buildings, although refurbished, have kept their historic form and should be retained on the Record of Protected Structures for the County.

4. The response to submission number 85 with regard to grants should also be noted.

Manager’s Recommendation – No change

Following a discussion a vote was taken and the motion was defeated by 11 votes to 4.

Motion 43 – Cllr. M. Heydon

I disagree with the managers recommendation and propose that the submission be adopted

RPS No. B32-16 Colbinstown house (former Victorian estate farm house to Ballintaggart House)

Manager’s Response

Description:

Originally an early Victorian estate farm house and part of Ballintaggart House. It now forms a separate complex together with the original south west gate lodge (1890s) to Ballintaggart House. Colbinstown house has been extended.

It is recommended that this structure remain on the RPS for the following reasons:

1. The structure has been on the CDP List since 1985.

2. It was originally a structure in the attendant grounds of Ballintaggart House (RPS Ref: B32-14).Together with the original south west gate lodge it therefore forms part of the historic demesne of Ballintaggart House.

3. The proposed defined area comprises an area of subsoil of archaeological significance and is not an upstanding architectural element attached to the proposed Protected Structure.

4. The response to submission number 85 with regard to grants should also be noted.

The owner/occupier may seek a declaration for clarification on the extent of the protected structure (Section 57 of the Planning and Development Act as amended). As part of the S. 57 process, the Conservation Officer is obliged to inspect the site for which a declaration is being requested and as part of this process determine the extent having regard to the heritage character of the structure.

Following a discussion a vote was taken and the motion was defeated by 9 votes to 4.

Cllr. Nolan left the Chamber in protest.

Motion 44 – Cllr. M. Heydon

I disagree with the manager’s recommendation and propose that Moate Lodge not be included in the RPS

RPS No. B35-14    NIAH No. 11903509 Moat Lodge Ardscull

Manager’s Response

Description:  Detached three-bay two-storey house, c.1740, originally on an L-shaped plan retaining early fenestration with two-bay two-storey return to rear to north-east. Extensive yard and stone outbuildings to rear. Extended c.1870, comprising two-bay two-storey return to rear to north-east. Renovated, c.1920, with single-bay single-storey gabled projecting porch added to centre. Extended, c.1980,

It is recommended that this structure remain on the RPS for the following reasons:

1. Moat Lodge is a fine and well-maintained middle-size farm house that is of social and historical interest, having been built with a donation from and on land of the Duke of Leinster of Kilkea Castle Demesne. The construction of the house in exposed stone work is typical of the buildings associated with that estate. The house can be considered one of a group with Ardmore House and Russellstown House nearby (11903505 - 6/KD-35-05 – 6). The house is a finely balanced, symmetrical composition of graceful proportions, although altered in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

2. This mid Georgian farmhouse and outbuildings contribute to the important rural setting of the Moate at Ardscull.

3. The response to submission number 85 with regard to grants should also be noted.

Manager’s Recommendation

No change

Michael Kenny cautioned the members that they must have a valid reason to explain why this structure had lost its special interest or the Minister could question the validity of their decision to delete it from the RPS.  He quoted from the DoEHLG Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities as follows: Deletions will take place where the planning authority considers that the protection of structure, or part of a structure, is no longer warranted.  This will generally take place only when the structure has entirely lost its special interest value through major accident or where new information has come to light which proves that the special interest value was mistakenly attributed

 

The motion was seconded by Cllr. Wall and following a vote, the motion was carried by 9 votes to 7

 

Motion 45 – Cllr. M. Heydon

I disagree with the manager’s recommendation and propose that the farmhouse not be included in the RPS

RPS No. B36-11  NIAH No. 11822052 Boakefield House Mullamast

Manager’s Response

Description:

Detached five-bay two-storey Classical-style house, c.1770, retaining early fenestration with square-headed door opening to centre ground floor, five-bay two-storey lower lateral wing to north-east and three-bay double-height lower lateral wing to south-west. It has rare triple sash windows. Refenestrated, c.1990, and subject to a restoration of character in c. 2009.  It is recommended that the structures referred to remain on the RPS for the following reasons:

1. This mid Georgian farmhouse and outbuildings have been on the CDP list since 1985.

2. Boakefield is a fine, Classically-balanced substantial Georgian country house of the mid to late eighteenth century that has been well-maintained to present an early aspect. The scale and fine detailing of the house suggest that it was originally built by a patron of high status in the locality, and it is therefore of social and historic interest.

3. The response to submission number 85 with regard to grants should also be noted.

Manager’s Recommendation
No change

Manager’s recommendation agreed.

Motion 46 – Cllr. M. Heydon

I disagree with the manager’s recommendation and propose that the structure not be included in the RPS

RPS No. B36-24    NIAH No. 11903603 Timolin corn and Saw Mills, Timolin

Manager’s Response

Description:

Detached four-bay three-storey rubble stone former corn and saw mill, c.1810, on a T-shaped plan with three-bay two-storey lean-to return with attic to rear to east. Renovated, c.1975, with some openings remodelled and single-bay single-storey projecting porch added to return to accommodate commercial use. Hipped roof with slate (lean-to return). Clay ridge tiles. Replacement iron rainwater goods, c.1975. Rubble stone walls. Cut-stone quoins. Roughcast, c.1975, to south and to west. Painted. Square-headed window openings. Stone sills. Replacement timber windows, c.1975.

It is recommended that this structure remain on the RPS for the following reasons;

1. It is considered to be of architectural & archaeological heritage significance

2. Timolin Corn and Saw Mills (former) is a fine and imposing rubble stone building of the early nineteenth century, which was built on the site of earlier mills that have their origins in medieval times when Saint Mullin established a monastery here.

3. The current building is of considerable social importance for continuing the industrial tradition on this site.

4. Complementing the mill are the numerous attendant outbuildings that are individually of importance.

5. The outbuilding to the south-east is also an important component of the complex and may actually be of an earlier date - it is possible that the building was, or incorporates the fabric of, a medieval chapel associated with Saint Mullin's monastery.

6. The mill is attractively set in mature grounds and forms an imposing landmark in the area.

7. The response to submission number 85 with regard to grants should also be noted.

Manager’s Recommendation

No change

The motion was defeated by 9 votes to 3.

Motion 47 – Cllr. M. Heydon

I disagree with the manager’s recommendation and propose that the house not be included in the RPS

RPS No. B36-47      NIAH No. 11822014 End-of-terrace five-bay two-storey house, Ballitore village

Manager’s Response

Description:

End-of-terrace five-bay two-storey house with half-dormer attic, c.1800. Renovated, c.1920, with single-bay single-storey gabled projecting porch added to centre and possibly with openings to right (east) blocked-up. Refenestrated, c.1980. Gable-ended roof with slate (gabled to porch). Clay ridge tiles. Rendered chimney stack. Rendered coping to gables.

It is recommended that this structure remain on the RPS for the following reasons:

1. This house, probably originally composed as a five-bay symmetrical structure, is an unusual feature on the streetscape of Ballitore, the openings to the right (east) of the composition now blocked-up, presenting a blank façade on to the road.

2. The house is of some social and historic interest, representing the development of a Quaker settlement in Ballitore in the late eighteenth/early nineteenth centuries.

3. Although without much of its original fabric, the house is of significance for its contribution to the streetscape.

4. The response to submission number 85 with regard to grants should also be noted.

Manager’s Recommendation

No change

The manager’s recommendation was agreed.

Motion 48 – Cllr. M. Heydon

I disagree with the manager’s recommendation and propose that Leinster Arms not be included in the RPS

RPS No. B40-19     NIAH No.  11823001 Leinster Arms (The) Market Square
Castledermot

Manager’s Response

Description

Terraced seven-bay two-storey house, c.1770, possibly originally two separate two-bay (south-west) and five-bay (north-east) two-storey houses. Refenestrated, c.1950. Reroofed and renovated, c.1970, with openings remodelled to centre ground floor to accommodate commercial use.

It is recommended that this structure remain on the RPS for the following reasons:

1. The house is of social and historic interest, representing a component of the development of the historic core of Castledermot in the mid to late eighteenth century.

2. The building was comprehensively renovated over the course of the twentieth century, with some replacement materials being installed in keeping with the original integrity of the design.

3. The building retains important features to the interior, including an attractive staircase, timber panelled wainscoting to the walls, and a simple timber counter to the commercial space.

4. The building is an attractive feature on the streetscape of Market Square, flanking the triangle to the north-west, continuing the established street line of the terrace, while contributing to the regular roofline of the street.

5. The response to submission number 85 with regard to grants should also be noted.

Manager’s Recommendation

No change

The manager’s recommendation was agreed.

Motion 49 – Cllr. S. Doyle

Mr. John Greene on behalf of Messrs. Purcell & Morrin

Support the submission to remove this building from the RPS list. Building reference B22 - 46/ NIAH 118117014.

RPS No. B22-46    NIAH No. 11817014 Fitzpatrick Auctioneers Market Square, Church Lane Kildare Town

Description

Fitzpatrick Auctioneers, Market Square, Church Lane, Kildare.  End-of-terrace five-bay two-storey building, circa 1925, on a corner site with rendered shop fronts to ground floor having offices over.

Manager’s Response

It is recommended that this structure remain on the RPS for the following reasons:

1. NIAH/Ministerial recommendation.

2. Conservation report submitted.

3. It still retains its original architectural character although it is in a state of endangerment

4. The structure is of historic significance, the Cockpit (fighting area) was in the rear curtilage of this property.

5. The historic urban form of this structure is important in relation to its context in the Cathedral precinct and square.

6. The response to submission number 85 with regard to grants should also be noted.

Manager’s Recommendation

No change

The motion was seconded by Cllr. Miley.  Cllr. S. Doyle contended that nothing had happened with this building for a very long time.  It would be of benefit to the town and the adjacent cathedral to de-list it.  Peter Black said it had historic significance, most notably the components behind the façade.  The motion was carried by 11 votes to 4.

Motion 50 – Cllr. M. Wall.  Repeat of Motion 44

Motion 51 – Cllr. M. Wall

That given the continued commitment of the owners to maintain their home in its present state that it be removed from the list of protected structures

RPS No. B37-18    NIAH No.  11903722 Kilkea National School (former) Kilkea
KILKEA LODGE FARM

Manager’s Response

Description:

Detached four-bay single-storey Tudor revival former national school with dormer attic, dated 1863, with single-bay single-storey gabled projecting porch to left, single-bay single-storey gabled advanced end bay to right, three-bay single-storey side elevation to south-east and single-bay single-storey gabled advanced bay to rear elevation to north-east. Renovated and extended, c.1970, comprising two-bay single-storey flat-roofed return to rear to north-east. Refenestrated, c.1995. Now in residential use.

It is recommended that the structure remain on the RPS for the following reasons:

1. Kilkea National School (former) is a fine small-scale building, built as part of an extensive building campaign by the Duke of Leinster of Kilkea Castle Demesne.

2. The stone masonry is of excellent quality, indicating the wealth and status of the estate.

3. The design and detailing of the school complement its intimate scale, notably the decorative bargeboards to the gables that afford the range an ornate quality.

4. The school has been well-maintained and, despite additions, retains most of its original character.

5. The school is of considerable social and historic interest having originally served as the educational facility in the locality.

6. The response to submission number 85 with regard to grants should also be noted.

Manager’s Recommendation

No change

Manager’s recommendation agreed.

Motion 52 – Cllr. M. Wall

That given the ongoing and previous efforts of the owners to maintain their property that it be removed from the list of protected structures.

RPS No. B39-06    NIAH No.  11903904 Maganey Railway Station (former) Maganey
MAGANEY LOWER

Manager’s Response

Description

Detached three-bay single-storey Tudor-style former railway station with half-dormer attic, opened 1846, originally on a T-shaped plan with single-bay single-storey gabled advanced entrance bay to centre (platform elevation) and single-bay single-storey return with half-dormer attic to rear to west (entrance elevation) with single-bay single-storey canted projecting open porch. Closed, 1963. Renovated and extended, c.1970.

It is recommended that this structure remain on the RPS for the following reasons:

1. Maganey Railway Station (former) is a fine and well-maintained, small scale Tudor-revival style building. The station is one of a group with further stations in Athy, Newbridge (11818064/KD-23-18-64), and Sallins (11811028/KD19-11-28), that were all built in a similar style. Maganey could be interpreted as a pared-down version of those larger urban centre stations.

2. The former station is of considerable historical and social significance as a reminder of the railway network development in Ireland (the station forming part of the Great Southern and Western Railway line (Cherryville Junction to Kilkenny branch)),

3. The response to submission number 85 with regard to grants should also be noted.

Manager’s Recommendation

No change

The motion was seconded by Cllr. Miley.  The motion was defeated by 8 votes to 3.

Motion from Cllr. Miley re Sub. 130

B38-16 (Crophill House) Request that the above structure be removed from the RPS

Manager’s Response

Description:

Detached five-bay single-storey house with dormer attic, c.1800. Reroofed and extended, c.1950, comprising two-bay single-storey flat-roofed return to rear (west). Now disused and part derelict. Gable-ended roof. Replacement corrugated-iron, c.1950.

It is recommended that this structure remain on the RPS for the following reasons:

1. Crophill House, which is now disused and in an advanced state of dereliction, is an attractive long, low range that retains most of its original form and character.

2. The house retains important early or original features and materials.

3. The house is complemented by a range of outbuildings that, combined, are of considerable social and historic interest representing a late eighteenth/ early nineteenth century small-scale farm holding in the locality of Castledermot.

4. The response to submission number 85 with regard to grants should also be noted.

Manager’s Recommendation

No change

The motion was seconded by Cllr. Wall.  Following a discussion a vote was taken and the motion was lost by 7 votes to 6.

Adjournment

The meeting adjourned for 15 minutes.

Suspension of Standing Orders

As it was 5pm it was agreed on the proposal of Cllr. Heydon, seconded by Cllr. S. Doyle to suspend Standing Orders to allow the meeting to continue to 6pm

As Cllr. Lawlor had an interest in the following two motions, he left the Chamber.

Motion 16 Cllr. 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.

NR 3:  To identify areas at interchanges which may be required for future upgrading and improvement in the medium to long term and when identified to restrict development within these areas and preserve them free of development for those future improvements and upgrades.

Managers Response

It is considered that there is sufficient Open Space and Amenity zoned land in the Village Centre to accommodate a community / amenity development.

All types of development at this location are premature pending the completion of the Johnstown Flood Alleviation scheme. The proposed access to the lands in question (i.e. the proposed by pass / distributor road) may adversely impact on the delivery of policy NR3 for the Maudlins interchange

Managers Recommendation

No change

Cllr. Moore proposed the motion and was seconded by Cllr. Nolan.  Billy Joe Padden said the submission related to 3 land use zonings – residential, community/recreation & white lands.  He said there was already enough land available to cater for the sustainable development of the village over the period of the Plan.  He said development was premature until the flood alleviation work was complete.    John Lahart pointed out that the wording of the motion related to amenity lands only and the members would need to see details of any other proposal for other types of zoning.  It was agreed to defer the motion to the next meeting.

Motion 17 Cllr. 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.

Managers Response

An ecological assessment of the trees to the rear of Johnstown House has been carried out by Golder Associates since the publication of the Manager’s Report on the Draft Plan. This concludes that the conifers can be removed and the ash trees can be retained to maintain the treeline and associated landscape connectivity. Having regard to the ecological assessment it is considered that the tree symbol on map 17.8 can be removed.

Managers Recommendation

To amend map 17.6 to remove the tree symbol to the rear of Johnstown House.

Manager’s recommendation agreed.

Suspension of Standing Orders

 

As it was 6pm in was agreed on the proposal of Cllr Nolan, seconded by Cllr. Heydon, to suspend Standing Order to allow the meeting continue to 7pm.

 

Macro Environmental Sensitivities Map

Managers Response

Amend wording as follows.

Managers Recommendation

As part of the Strategic Environmental Assessment of this Draft Plan a review of environmental sensitivities of the county has been undertaken. Map 2.4 outlines at a macro level the environmental sensitivities of the county.

Include Map

The Macro-Environmental Sensitivity Map illustrates environmental conditions at a very broad strategic level for the County as a whole. These considerations have informed the preferred development strategy for the county.  It has been compiled with regard to a number of environmental factors including:

  • Landscape character area boundaries
  • Ecological values
  • Land cover
  • Topography
  • Soils
  • Settlement patterns
  • Existing and planned waste water services
  • Infrastructure and capacity and
  • Existing and planned transport infrastructure and capacity.

 

The Macro-Environmental Sensitivity Map illustrates that at a broad strategic level there is a ‘corridor’ of more robust environmental conditions that follows the more fertile lowlands of the centre of the county. The north-east of the County has a concentration of high capacity public transport routes, a high density of serviced lands and a lower density of ecological and landscape designations. Environmental sensitivities increase to the south-east on account of uplands and increase towards the north-west on account of bogs and wetlands. There is a lower proximity and concentrations of quality transport and high capacity water services in these areas.

As the map illustrates a broad scale generalisation of sensitivities, all applications for development must be considered having regard to the individual environmental conditions of the subject site including the availability of waste water treatment infrastructure and services and the assimilative capacity of rivers  into which treated effluent will be discharged.

Anita Sweeney said this item arose from a proposal to amend the wording in Section 2.6 arising from the members concerns regarding the interpretation of the sensitivities map in the context of individual planning applications.

The amended wording was agreed on the proposal of Cllr. McEvoy, seconded by Cllr. Moore and for clarification purposes the first paragraph on page 2.9 in the Draft Plan will be deleted.

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

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

This related to cluster development. The policy as issued in the Draft Plan is as follows RH13: 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 and will be subject to normal planning, siting, design and local need considerations. Where there is a likelihood of more than one applicant seeking planning permission over a period of time, the Council will engage with the landowner to provide for an appropriate site layout capable of accommodation a recessed cluster development.

This is considered reasonable for immediate family members and any relaxation of this policy will undermine the Council’s Settlement Strategy directing residential schemes to designated settlements including the rural nodes.

299(c) Manager’s Response (CLUSTER 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

Lorcan Griffin said this issue had been deferred from a previous meeting.  The Manager’s recommendation was agreed.

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

Following a brief discussion it was agreed to amend the policy to include the statement “Apartments within designated villages, rural settlements and rural nodes will only be considered in exceptional circumstances”.

Agreed.

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

Manager’s Response

It is not considered appropriate to zone the lands for cemetery use as in order to ascertain whether the lands are suitable for such use a comprehensive study of the area would be required. However the proposes objective below is deemed appropriate to facilitate this.

Manager’s Recommendation

To include the following objective in Chapter 11 Social, Community and Cultural Development.

SCO 12: To investigate the feasibility of developing lands adjacent to Bodenstown cemetery to facilitate an extension to the existing graveyard.

Manager’s recommendation agreed.

(d) The issue of retrospection is also important. Should a location be approved under this plan and subsequent research prove that the distance is inappropriate, the plan should provide a means of recourse to correct the problem.

Managers Response

The following wording maybe included in chapter 8 Energy and Communications in relation to the treatment of antennae. 

Recommendation

It is considered appropriate to include the following text in section 8.9 Telecommunications and Supporting Infrastructure.

Free standing masts should be avoided in the immediate surrounds of small towns and villages, in the vicinity of larger towns communications providers should endeavour to locate infrastructure in industrial estates or on industrial zoned land.  Only as last resort when all other alternatives have been exhausted should free standing masts be located in residential area or close to schools and hospitals.

Manager’s recommendation agreed.

Conclusion

This concluded the business of the meeting.  It was agreed to adjourn the remainder of the business to 10am on Monday 29th November.


Appendix A

 

To:      Michael Kenny Senior Planner

From: Peter Black, Executive Architectural Conservation Officer

Date:    10/11/ 10

RE: B36-35 (NIAH ref: 11822027) Part Terrace, opposite Quaker Meeting House,  Ballitore & Athy Area Committee motion

NIAH Inventory Summary Description:
Detached six-bay two-storey rubble stone house, c.1850. Reroofed, c.1930. Now disused and derelict. Gable-ended roof. Replacement corrugated-iron, c.1930, on timber construction (part collapsed to south). Iron ridge tiles. Rendered chimney stacks. Rainwater goods now missing. Random rubble stone walls with yellow brick sections. Lime washed with traces of lime render to south. Square-headed window openings.

 

 

Introduction

This proposal has arisen as a result of a motion at the Athy Area Committee 17th   November 2008, that the building at Fuller's Court, Ballitore be removed from the list of protected structures.

The owner engaged John Greene Architect and Historic Building Consultant and Cormac Dooley Civil Engineer to submit Record of Protected Structures (RPS) Deletion reports.

A section 55 statutory deletion procedure was initiated on 22nd  July.  Two submissions were received during the period of public consultation under section 55 subsection (2) (b), copies are attached in Appendix 1. They are summarised below:

Submission 1: Mr.Ian Lumley,Heritage Officer, An Taisce, Tailor’s                         Hall,Dublin 8.

 

An Taisce objects to the deletion of this part terrace structure from Kildare County Councils Record of Protected Structures (RPS). It recommends review of the case if the applicant does not wish to refurbish this building and ‘…(1) to sell the building to someone who would take on its refurbishment to an appropriate conservation standard; or, (2) that Kildare County Councils uses its Compulsory Purchase powers under Section 71,Planning & Development act,2000. ….’ In the interim a Section 59 endangerment notice should be served on the applicant to safeguard the structure and fabric of this Protected Structure. Mr Lumley also makes reference to officials of the Council and to his view of the roll of the Elected Members of the Council, which is disputed.

Submission 2: Mr. Ronan Whelan DEHLG, Newtown Rd, Wexford

The DEHLG objects to the deletion of this part terrace structure from Kildare County Councils Record of Protected Structures (RPS). It recommends that it is retained on the Record of Protected Structures (RPS).It was recorded by the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (NIAH) in 2002/3 during its interim survey of County Kildare. The   NIAH noted at the time its disused and derelict condition.  Despite its condition the NIAH recommended its addition to the RPS as it is an intrinsic part of the historic social and architectural development of this former Quaker Village. The DEHLGs recommendations are similar to An Taisce, in that the planning authority should protect this part terrace from possible endangerment, by serving a Section 59 notice on the applicant. The owner of a Protected Structures has a duty of care towards it and is responsible for its maintenance and protection. It notes the recent restoration of the Market House in the centre of Ballitore village, which was in an advanced state of dereliction. This part terrace (Fuller's Court) likewise should be restored to a viable new use, as an essential part of the social, historic and architectural fabric of Ballitore.

 

 

 

The Market House before  its conservation and restoration to residential use

 

 

 

 

 

The Market House after its conservation and restoration to residential use

 

Research Update

My previous report in relation to the buildings at Fuller’s Court, has been updated as noted below with new and important research.

Photographic Research:

I visited the Quaker Archive at Bloomfield House in Dublin. The

Friends archivist   gave me access to their file on Ballitore. It contains historic

photographs of Ballitore. I include an Edwardian view of the terraces near the

Quaker Meeting House and most importantly an 1886 view taken by Jane Shackleton which shows the part terrace as an intact thatched two storey structure with a single storey thatch cabin on its north gable (see Appendix 2). The profile of this thatch terrace is very similar to the present day structure. This contributes to the architectural significance of the Protected Structure.

It indicates that this is the only original thatched structure remaining in the village (see Appendix 2)

 

1886 view of thatched part terrace opposite Friends’ Meeting House (Courtesy of Friends’ Historical Library Dublin).

 

Blue box above denotes the actual building which is the subject of the current report and proposal to be de-listed and demolished

 

Documentary Research:

I include an extract from an 1862 published account ’Ballitore & Its Inhabitants, Seventy Years Ago, by Betsy Shackleton’s (see Appendix 2). There is a description of the houses and inhabitants of Fuller’s Court ,Ballitore House and the terrace opposite The Friends Meeting House:

‘Nearly opposite Bayly’s (Ballitore House) was Hannah Haughton’s (the part terrace structure to be deleted and demolished) ..A row of poor cabins was separated from Hannah Haughton’s by a gate as at present. Mary Kelly… lived in one. Ned  Lennon,a farrier,lived in another…’

This historic text contributes to the increased social and historic significance of the Protected Structure.

Historic Buildings Engineers Report

Following my research set out above it was decided to engage an Historic Buildings Engineer Mr Dermot Nolan to inspect the site and prepare a report on the structural condition of the building. His comments state that the structure is in a very dilapidated condition but is largely intact. No evidence of significant subsidence was found. The walls are generally stable or could be made so with relatively minor works. His report is attached in Appendix 3.

Recommendations

I have reviewed the current request on file by the owner’s agent for deletion of this structure from the Kildare County Councils Record of Protected Structures. As a result of my new research, the submission responses from the DEHLG and An Taisce and the report by Mr Dermot Nolan Historic Buildings Engineer, I now recommend that this part terrace structure is retained on Kildare County Councils Record of Protected Structures (RPS).  It should be retained on the RPS for the following reasons:

1. My research has increased the heritage significance of the Protected Structure as an intrinsic part of the architectural, historic and social development of this former Quaker Village. It is the only remaining structure in the village that was originally thatched.

2 The submissions and observations from the DEHLG and An Taisce who object to the deletion of this part terrace structure from Kildare County Councils Record of Protected Structures. This not withstanding the misleading view by An Taisce of the role of   Officials and Elected Members of the Council in the planning process and the unfounded allegations made in this submission.

3. The findings of the Conservation Engineers initial structural report in the appendix 3. It concludes that the structure is in poor condition but can be consolidated, conserved and stabilised with remedial works.

4. That the applicant should be made aware of Kildare County Councils annual Conservation Grant Scheme for Protected Structures. This can be availed of, for the conservation of the Protected Structure.

5. The applicant made an application (Ref 08/961) for planning permission to demolish this part terrace Protected Structure and replace it with two residential units. I recommended that this part terrace Protected Structure should be conserved and reused in a revised proposal.

6. The applicant should engage at least an RIAI Grade 2 Conservation Architect for the conservation and reuse of the Protected Structure from the outset of a feasibility study .The applicant and his Conservation Architect can avail of Pre – Planning advice meetings with the local area planner, and the Architectural Conservation Officer .

      7. That a Section 59 endangerment notice is served on the owner. This is to ensure that the part terrace structure is not further endangered, as part of the south gable has been taken down to roof plate level. That the works in Section 4 of Mr Dermot Nolan’s report are carried out.The south gable wall and roof should be reinstated to prevent uplift and damage from the prevailing south westerly winds.

 

 

13/9/10 view of part terrace structure with south gable taken down to roof  plate level.

 

13/9/10 view of east facade

 

13/9/10 view of  west facade

 

 

Peter Black

Architectural Conservation Officer

10/11/10


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