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 Monday, 6th December 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, M Heydon, F O’Loughlin, D Scully.

Apologies: Councillors R. Daly, P. MacNamara

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

The meeting dealt with the remainder of the Agenda items adjourned from the meeting of 29th November.

Motions 30, 31 & 55 were taken together

Motion 30 Cllr. Murphy

Disagree with the Manager’s Recommendation

(328) (h) The area shown in Map 12.10 of the DDP which shows an area of Castletown- Donaghcumper to be protected should be extended to include the whole of the Donaghcumper Demesne as a priority.

(See Appendices 12.6a and 12.6b)

(i)                 Request to ‘de-zone’ the lands of Donaghcumper

(179)      (h)The lands that were rezoned for a Town Centre extension in Donaghcumper should be rezoned to Amenity.

(355) (b) request to downzone the town centre extension lands in Celbridge to amenity.

(351) (f) The Donaghcumper demesne,

Celbridge should revert to agriculture/amenity. 

Manager’s Response

(328 h)Arising from the recent An Bord Pleanala determination of planning file 08/439 as well as the provisions of the Planning and Development Amendment Act 2010 in relation to lands at Donaghcumper, Map 12.10 may be amended to include the lands subject of the appeal within the boundary of the area to be protected.

(328i) & (351f) are matters for the Celbridge LAP.

(179h) & (355b) Refer to motions 8.1 page 54.

Manager’s Recommendation

Amend map 12.10 to include lands subject to ABP decision.

Motion 31 – Cllr. Murphy (also taken at this time)

Disagree with the Manager’s Recommendation

Re Map 12.10 (Castletown- Donaghcumper)

Request that the boundary of the area to be protected is amended and extended to include the whole of the Donaghcumper Demesne.

(See Appendices 12.6a and 12.6b)

Manager’s Response

As per Motion no. 30 above.

Managers Recommendation

As per Motion no. 30 above.

Motion 37 – Cllrs. Murphy & McEvoy (also taken at this time)

That 12.9 HO 6 be amended as follows:

To safeguard the amenities of Castletown including the main avenue, the demesne landscape, the entire Donaghcumper and St. Wolstan’s demesnes and River Liffey environs as shown on Map 12.10 (revised).

Reason: The designed landscapes of Castletown, Donaghcumper and St. Wolstan’s require to be protected: all are on the RPS and the map should reflect that reality. Furthermore the recent An Bord Pleanala decision overrules a previous Kildare County Council decision on part of these lands and makes clear the need to maintain the integrity of these designed landscapes.

[Note:

HO 3: Amend to correspond with the proposed amendments of HO 4: HO 6

HO 6: Amend Map to correspond with proposed amendment]

(dd) Manager’s Response

It is not considered necessary to amend HO6 as suggested as it is considered that policies PS1, PS2 and PS3 adequately address the protection of the curtilage of all protected structures including Castletown.

Arising from the recent An Bord Pleanala determination of planning file 08/439 as well as the provisions of the Planning and Development Amendment Act 2010 in relation to lands at Donaghcumper, Map 12.10 may be amended to include the lands subject of the appeal within the boundary of the area to be protected.

Manager’s Recommendation

Map Change

Amend map 12.10 to include additional lands within the boundary of the area to be protected. These lands were recently the subject of an ABP appeal (planning ref 08/439)

 

Motion 55 – Cllrs Byrne, MacNamara, Purcell & McGinley (also taken at this time)

That the boundary of the area to be protected in Map Ref. 12.10, Castletown - Donaghcumper, be extended to include the whole of the Donaghcumper Demesne. (See Appendices 12.6a and 12.6b)

See Manager’s Response and Recommendation to motion 37 above, same response and recommendation applies in this instance.

Following a discussion on the precise nature of the boundary extension, the members asked for a map to be produced showing the proposed extension of the area to be protected sought in submissions and this motion.  When the map was produced later in the meeting it was agreed to extend the area of protection to the pink line at the extreme west side of the lands at Donaghcumper.

 

Motions 24 & 25 – Cllr. Murphy

That a new Local Area Plan for Castletown House and Demesne should be included as part of a revised Celbridge Local Area Plan it should include the linked demesnes of Donaghcumper and St Wolstans.   It should take account of the recent Bórd Pleanála Decision.  The wording as proposed by Jeanne Meldon and others should be included in the development plan as proposed. 

Manager’s Response

It is not considered necessary to vary the Local Area Plan for Celbridge. Objective HO3 (Section 12.9) of the Draft CDP states that it is an objective:

To prepare a Local Area Plan for Castletown Demesne and in conjunction with relevant bodies to protect the views as outlined in HO4 and Map 12.10’.

A number of other amendments are being proposed to the Draft Plan which would provide for a more strategic planning approach in the north of the county, taking into consideration the four north eastern towns, the demesne lands in north-east Kildare (including Castletown) and green belt areas between town boundaries.

Manager’s Recommendation

Add the following objective to section 3.9:

SO 10: To carry out a strategic Land Use and Transportation Study of north east Kildare including the Metropolitan area towns of Leixlip, Maynooth, Celbridge and Kilcock. The preparation of the study will involve the participation of all the strategic stakeholders, including adjoining local authorities, transportation providers, Waterways Ireland, Government Departments and Environmental Agencies

Add the following text to Section 3.6 (after the 4th para):

A strategic land use and transportation study of north east Kildare including the Metropolitan area towns of Leixlip, Maynooth, Celbridge and Kilcock involving all strategic stakeholders will be prepared, which will inform the future planning and development of this area.

Motion 25

Given the decision made by An Bord Pleanala on 08/439 I am not happy with the Managers Recommendation, I question if it will be feasible to do a separate LAP for Castletown and believe the Celbridge LAP needs to be revisited and Castletown included as part of that comprehensive plan.  

Manager’s Response

Same as 24 above

Manager’s Recommendation:

Same as 24 above

Cllr. Murphy said her proposal was for a variation of the Celbridge LAP to incorporate Castletown House as it had an absolute linkage with the Main St. and it was inappropriate to deal with it separately.  John Lahart said the reason for the Manager’s response was that there were numerous LAPs in north east Kildare and numerous externalities influencing that area and it would be preferable to take a strategic overview rather than taking a piecemeal approach.  He gave examples of various elements and the need to see how they fitted together in the long term – Carton House, Intel, railway/canal, Castletown, Collinstown, Weston Aerodrome, Donaghcumper, St. Wolstan’s , Leixlip.  These required an input from neighbouring local authorities Fingal, Meath and South Dublin and contact had already been made with them with a view to preparing an overall strategic framework.

Cllr. Murphy accepted the Manager’s response on the basis that a separate LAP for Castletown would not be undertaken at this time.  It was agreed to amend the Manager’s recommendation for Section 3.6 to read “A strategic land use and transportation study of north east Kildare including the Metropolitan area towns of Leixlip, Maynooth, Celbridge and Kilcock involving all strategic stakeholders including Meath, Fingal and South Dublin County Councils, will be prepared, which will inform the future planning and development of this area.

Manager’s recommendation, as amended, agreed.

 

Motion 96 – Cllr. Murphy

I am unhappy with the manager’s 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.’

Manager’s Response

Not Agreed

It is considered that developments within the designed landscapes which form the attendant grounds of a protected structure are adequately addressed in section 19.12.2 of the Draft CDP where it states

In considering applications for development within the curtilage of a protected structure, the Council shall have regard to the following:

  • The various elements of the structure which gives the protected structure its special character and how these would be impacted on by the proposed development.
  • Proximity of any new development to the main protected structure and any other buildings of heritage value.
  • The design of the new development that should relate to and complement the special character of the protected structure.

Policy PS 3 (Chapter 3) should however be noted and reads as follows:

‘It is the policy of the Council to prohibit inappropriate development within the curtilage and/ or attendant grounds of a Protected Structure. Any proposed development within the curtilage and/ or attendant grounds must demonstrate that it is part of an overall strategy for the future conservation of the entire complex including the structures, demesne and/ or attendant grounds’.

Manager’s Recommendation

No Change

Anita Sweeney pointed out that it was the intention of the Development Management Standards in Chapter 19 to reflect what is contained in the legislation for protected structures and section 19.12.2 adequately addressed the issue.  John Lahart said the extension of the blue line (area to be protected) does not change the zoning and development can occur within it if appropriate and if in line with the criteria in the Development Plan.

Cllr. Murphy reiterated that she wanted the protected area to be extended.  John Lahart reminded her that she must have good conservation reasons to do so.  Cllr. McEvoy pointed out that the extended area includes a forest along the river which is an integral part of the Donaghcumper lands and not physically removed from them.

The motion was carried by 6 votes to 3.

 

Motion 26 – Cllr. Murphy

Seeking PS17 should be included.

(k) Amend Section 12.8.1 PS 17 to read:

PS 17:To protect and retain important elements of the built heritage including historic gardens, stone walls, landscapes and demesnes, and curtilage features. Adverse impacts on important views to and from a protected structure but beyond its curtilage should be taken into account as indicated in ‘Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines’

Manager’s Response

It is considered that PS3 and PS4 adequately deal with this issue.

PS3: It is a policy of the Council to prohibit inappropriate development within the curtilage and/ or attendant grounds of a Protected Structure. Any proposed development within the curtilage and/ or attendant grounds must demonstrate that it is part of an overall strategy for the future conservation of the entire complex including the structures, demesne and/ or attendant grounds.

PS 4 It is a policy of the Council to require that new works will not obscure views of principal elevations of protected structures.

Manager’s Recommendation

No change

Manager’s recommendation agreed.

 

Motion 28 – Cllr. Murphy

Managers Response is too general want the specific included.  

Original submission

132 (tt) In Appendix IV: Landscape Character Areas in County Kildare, insert a new section covering the historic designed landscapes of Castletown, Donaghcumper and St. Wolstan’s, comprehensively described in the report prepared for Kildare County Council by Dr. John Olley and Dr. Fionnuala O’Kane

Manager’s Response

The Landscape Character Assessment prepared for KCC identified the Landscape Character Areas of County Kildare. The boundaries of Landscape Character Areas are derived from topography, soils and geology of the area and are further confirmed by landform and existing land use.

The sensitivity of each Landscape Area is determined by the vulnerability and landscape factors within the identified Landscape Character Areas. In other words the capacity of the landscapes to absorb new development. Robust landscapes are areas which have more capacity to absorb development, due to inherent physical landscape factors in the area or due to the already existing urban character of that area. Nevertheless proposed developments in these areas shall be subject to a site-by-site assessment. The sensitivity map ref. 14.2 gives an indication at a broad level of main landscape sensitivity of an area and is taken from the information contained in the Landscape Character Assessment.

Manager’s Recommendation

No change

Anita Sweeney pointed out that the DOEHLG study related to a wide range of demesnes in the county and it was inappropriate to pick one or two from it.  The entire methodology for landscape character assessment would have to change if this motion was adopted.

The Manager’s recommendation was agreed.

 

Motion 35 – Cllrs. Murphy & McEvoy

That the new proposed 12.8.4, bullet no.2 be amended as follows:

To protect the historic gardens and designed landscapes of structures on the Record of Protected Structures and of those included in the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage for Kildare

Reason: It is not sufficient to refer only the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage for Kildare in this policy; the NIAH for Kildare was completed at an early stage in the compilation of the national inventory and a different methodology from that currently employed, was used. It is not a comprehensive listing of the architectural heritage of Kildare, many important buildings, gardens and designed landscapes are omitted. (It is due to be updated at some time in the future when time and resources permit, to bring it up to the standard of the more recent county inventories).

Manager’s Response

The survey of Historic Gardens and Design Landscapes by the NIAH is ongoing. It is indicated that a field survey will be required to confirm site survival and evaluate its heritage significance. This is now Phase 3 of the foregoing study. It would be inappropriate to apply the motion as requested throughout the county in the absence of detailed research.

Manager’s Recommendation

No change

In response to a question from Cllr. Murphy, Anita Sweeney said it would be inappropriate to adopt the motion until the NIAH survey was complete.

The Manager’s recommendation was agreed.

 

Motion 59 – Cllr. Murphy

Requesting the wording as suggested by OPW to be included

Original submissions

(b) Insert after 4th bullet point in Section 14.4.1

‘The historic designed landscape of Castletown – Donaghcumper – St. Wolstan’s’

Managers Response

In the identification of the Landscape Character Areas, historical cultural values are taken into consideration.

This section lists the sensitive areas in the County in accordance with the Landscape Character Assessment.

Manager’s Recommendation

No change

The motion was carried.

 

Motion 33 – Cllrs. Murphy & McEvoy & Motion 36 - Cllrs Murphy & McEvoy & Motion 3 - Cllrs. Murphy & McEvoy & Motion 2 – Cllrs Murphy & McEvoy

That the existing text of 12.8.1 PS 6 is replaced with the following:

Because of the national and international importance of Castletown House and its designed landscape it is the policy of the Kildare County Council to protect and preserve the views and prospects from Castletown House and within the Demesne.  

Reason: It is not enough to rely on the proposed LAP to protect Castletown (p.255 in response to sub. 353)

Castletown House and Demesne is the most important component of the architectural heritage of the county and should be fully protected in the County Plan, whether or not an LAP is adopted.  Significant amounts of public funding are being spent on the conservation of Castletown House and Demesne. It has the potential to be the flagship tourism asset for the county.  To protect this asset it is necessary that the demesne and wider landscape, which form an intrinsic part of its character and setting, be conserved.

The views from the House, from the avenue and along the paths in the demesne are already listed in the current plan (2005-2011) therefore it is not necessary to carry out a review or further investigation to reinstate them in the new County Plan. (Chs. 19 & 20); Manager’s Response a) p.382 to subs.132, 213 (OPW), 280, (on behalf of OPW) refer.

[Note: Clongowes is referred to specifically in PS5 where it is stated policy to protect the entire complex including the demesne and/or attendant grounds;

it is equally appropriate to refer specifically to Castletown in this manner in PS6.]

Manager’s Response

It is not considered necessary to amend this policy as section 12.8.1 contains the following policy:

PS 6:  To maintain the views from Castletown House to the River Liffey and to maintain   views along paths within the curtilage of the House.

The following views are protected in the draft County Development Plan:

1. Views from the house to the River Liffey (section 12.8.3- PS6).

2. Views of the River Liffey from the main avenue of Castletown House (table 14.2)

3. Axial views between (the) sic Castletown House and Conolly’s Folly; (section 12.9 HO 4)

4. Between Castletown House and the Wonderful Barn; (section 12.9 HO 4)

5.The views from the House to the river and across the back parterre; (section 12.9 HO 4)

6. To maintain the views along paths within the curtilage of the House. (section 12.8.1 PS6).

The draft CDP contains all the views and prospects that relate to Castletown and which were contained in the County Development Plan 2005-2011.

It is not appropriate to list all views from within the Castletown Demesne towards the river, across the river and up and down the river to Celbridge and New Bridge with out full evaluation and consideration of the views.

It is proposed in the Managers Report to carry out a review of all scenic routes and protected views. This can also be considered in the context of any LAP to include Castletown

Manager’s recommendation

No Change

Motion 36

That 12.9 HO 4 To Protect the Views at Castletown House be amended as follows: [Proposed text underlined]

- Axial views between (the) sic Castletown House and Conolly’s Folly;

- Between Castletown House and the Wonderful Barn;

- The views from the House to the river and across the back parterre;

- The views from the main avenue to and across the river, and up and down the river to Celbridge and New Bridge.

- The views along paths within the demesne

- All views within Castletown Demesne towards the river Liffey

Reason: as the views underlined above are listed in the current plan no review or further investigation is needed to include them in the new County Plan.

The omission of these views has been raised in a number of submissions including those by and on behalf of, the OPW, who own and manage the house and demesne landscape on behalf of the state.  The OPW have requested in Sub.213, p385 , that the level of protection of views and prospects is maintained and strengthened in the new Plan.  See also sub.280 John Kehoe (BSM) on behalf of the OPW: (a) The OPW seeks that the existing level of protection of views and prospects with respect to Castletown Demesne is maintained and strengthened and not diluted in the County Plan.

 (see  also subs 305, 132, etc.)

Managers Response

See response to motion 33 above.

Recommendation

No change

Motion 2

To amend policy statement PS 6 in Section 12.8.1 as indicated in bold:

To maintain the views from Castletown House to the River Liffey and to maintain views along paths within the curtilage of the House. Any proposed development within the curtilage and/ or attendant grounds must demonstrate that it is part of an overall strategy for the future conservation of the entire complex including the structures, demesne and/ or attendant grounds.

Manager’s Response

It is not considered necessary to amend PS6 as requested as PS 3 reads as follows:

‘It is the policy of the Council to prohibit inappropriate development within the curtilage and/ or attendant grounds of a Protected Structure. Any proposed development within the curtilage and/ or attendant grounds must demonstrate that it is part of an overall strategy for the future conservation of the entire complex including the structures, demesne and/ or attendant grounds’.

PS3 thereby relates to all protected structures including Castletown House.

Manager’s Recommendation

No change

Motion 3

To amend 12.9 (Architectural and Archaeological Objectives) as shown in bold:

HO4: To protect the views at Castletown House

-          axial views between the Castletown House and Conolly’s Folly

-          between Castletown House and the Wonderful Barn

-          the views from the House to the river and across the back parterre

-          the views along paths within the demesne

-          all views within Castletown Demesne towards the river

-          the views from the main avenue to the river towards Castletown and up and down the river to Celbridge and New Bridges.

 

Manager’s Response

The Manager’s Report proposed to insert policy SR2 in Section 14.8.1 to read as follows:

‘To review and update all Scenic Routes and Views in the County during the lifetime of the Plan (Tables 14.2-14.7 refer’

Also, to amend objective LO6 (Section 14.9) to now read as follows:

‘To preserve and protect the character of those views and prospects obtainable from scenic routes identified in this Plan, listed in Table 14.2 and identified on Map 14.3’.

Manager’s Recommendation

No further changes proposed

Cllr. Murphy said the protection of views in the Draft Plan was totally inadequate and Cllr. McEvoy said the ABP Inspector had paid particular attention to this issue in the recent report on Reg. Ref. 08/439.  John Lahart said the proposal in the motion was not reasonable i.e. where does across the Liffey end?  He said the format in the draft Plan was more robust and reliable.  Cllr. Kelly agreed that the wording needed to be more specific and proposed amending the proposal to include the words “across the river and to the linked demesnes of Donaghcumper and St. Wolstans.

The motions, as amended, were agreed.

Motions 54, 58 & 71 were taken together.

Motion 54 – Cllrs Byrne, MacNamara, Purcell & McGinley

In accordance with Section 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 Kildare County Council hereby includes in its Development Plan a provision relating to the preservation of a specific right of way, namely from Castletown Gates at the entrance to Castletown Estate through Castletown Estate by the riverside and exiting from the Estate at Batty Langley Lodge to Leixlip.

Manager’s Response

Under Section 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, when a planning authority proposes to include a right of way in a Development Plan, they must serve notice on the owner and occupier of the land, allow them the opportunity to make submissions and submit any proposal to list the right of way to the elected members. Where the members decide that the right of way should be listed, the owner and/or occupier has a right to appeal to the Circuit Court within 21 days and if the court rules that there is no public right of way, then it will not be included in the Development Plan.

It should however be noted that the existence or validity of any public right of way is not affected by whether or not it is included in the Development Plan.

It is now a mandatory objective of The Planning and Development Act 2010 under Section 10 (2) (o) to include ‘the preservation of public rights of way which give access to seashore, mountain, lakeshore, riverbank or other place of natural beauty or recreational utility,

which public rights of way shall be identified both by marking them on at least one of the maps forming part of the development plan and by indicating their location on a list appended to the development plan”. 

Manager’s Recommendation

Additional objective be included in Section 14.12

It will be an objective of the Council during the period of this plan, to provide for

the preservation of public rights of way which give access to seashore, mountain, lakeshore, riverbank or other place of natural beauty or recreational utility, which public rights of way shall be identified both by marking them on at least one of the maps forming part of the development plan and by indicating their location on a list appended to the development plan

Motion 58 - Cllr. Murphy (taken with 54)

Disagree with Manager’s recommendation

Retain the rights of way in Castletown Demesne

Managers Response

See response to motion 54 above.

Recommendation

See recommendation to motion 54 above

Motion 71 – Cllr. McEvoy (taken with 54)

To propose 14.11.2 Rights of Way – RW 4:

That in line with provisions of the 2010 Planning and Development (Amendment) Act, that Kildare County Council commences a process to list the public rights of way in the county and to prepare for these to be included in a variation of the County Development Plan. The list will be accompanied by detailed maps showing the actual routes and the appropriate signage will be put in place

Manager’s Response

Agreed with modifications. See response to motion 54 above.

Manager’s Recommendation

See recommendation for motion 54 above.

Cllr. McGinley said the need for his motion arose from the failure of the OPW to recognise the right of way in Castletown which had been there for years.  He said Section 14 of the Planning & Development (Amendment) Act 2010 provided for the planning authority to include a right of way in the Development Plan.

Cllr. Kelly said he was familiar with the history of this issue and the fact that a substantial gate was constructed at the Batty Langley Lodge entrance indicated that a right of way would no longer exist from that time onwards.  He said there was nothing the Council could do to create a right of way that doesn’t exist.  He said the land was now owned by the OPW for the people of Ireland and the public interest is not served by saying there is an unrestricted right for people to access the area at all hours of day or night.  He said a right of way is a right to pass over a very specific designated route that must be defined and limited and he added that the Manager’s recommendation was adequate.

Cllr. Griffin said that nothing in the Development Plan will remove the Right of Way if it exists.

Following further discussion a vote was taken and the motions were defeated by 6 votes to 7.

 

Motion 38 – Cllrs. Murphy & McEvoy

Record of Protected Structures: That the entry for Castletown House be amended to state Castletown House and Demesne

Reason: The Demesne is listed in the current plan (in RPS) and is an intrinsic part of the listed Castletown House. Therefore the Manager’s Response (d) to subs. 125, 132, 335, etc would not seem to apply in this case.

Manager’s Response

Not agreed. Refer to Policy 12.4.0, Architectural Heritage Protection is afforded to the exterior and interior of the Protected Structure, its curtilage and specified features within the attendant grounds.

Recommendation

No change

Cllr. McEvoy disagreed with the Manager and said that adding the word “Demesne” is not an addition to the RPS as it is included in the current Development Plan.

Michael Kenny said the planning authority was precluded from doing this as notices had already issued to owners and it was too late to issue additional notices as the procedure was clearly laid down in law.  Anita Sweeney added that it was possible to “spot list” a protected structure under Section 55 of the Act.

Cllr. Murphy said she would accept the Manager’s recommendation if there was a guarantee that the Demesne would be spot listed within a specific time frame.  Michael Kenny said it would be done as soon as possible.

Manager’s recommendation agreed.

Motions 27 and 34 were taken together.

Motion 27 – Cllr. Murphy

Seeking the inclusion of the text as submitted by Jeanne Meldon etc. 

Re defining the boundaries of ACA’ for Celbridge, Castletown and Donaghcumper Demesnes

(x) Manager’s Response

Policy ACA 1, Section 12.8.3 of the Draft CDP reads as follows;

‘It is the policy of the Council to investigate the designation of further ACAs at appropriate locations throughout the county to include Celbridge…’

In accordance with both this policy and Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act (as amended) with regard to Architectural Conservation Areas, the Council will consider the inclusion of ‘an area, group of structures or townscape’ in the case of Celbridge, where, in the opinion of the authority it is considered that the inclusion of the above is necessary for the preservation of the character of an area. It is considered that this would adequately address the issues raised. 

Policy ACA 1 is not an exhaustive list and does not preclude the preparation of other ACA’s during the period of the Plan.

Manager’s Recommendation

No change

Motion 34 – Cllrs. Murphy & McEvoy (taken at this time too)

That 12.8.3 be amended as follows;

Insert new sentence at start of ACA 1

A boundary for Celbridge Architectural Conservation Area will be defined within the lifetime of this plan.

[Delete Celbridge from following sentence]

Reason: 12.8.3 currently refers only to the investigation of ACAs at a number of locations including Celbridge.

Defining a boundary for an ACA for Celbridge was an objective of the current plan but has not been carried through, so there is no need for investigations to determine the need for an ACA for Celbridge.  (Manager’s Report p.257, response to sub. 132; sub.125 (c), and others, p.331, and following; Manager’s Response, p.31 and following, refers).

(x) Manager’s Response

Policy ACA 1, Section 12.8.3 of the Draft CDP reads as follows;

‘It is the policy of the Council to investigate the designation of further ACAs at appropriate locations throughout the county to include Celbridge…’

In accordance with both this policy and Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act (as amended) with regard to Architectural Conservation Areas, the Council will consider the inclusion of ‘an area, group of structures or townscape’ in the case of Celbridge, where, in the opinion of the authority it is considered that the inclusion of the above is necessary for the preservation of the character of an area. It is considered that this would adequately address the issues raised. 

Manager’s Recommendation

No change

Cllr. Murphy pointed out that the policy for designating ACAs was in the current plan and not followed through.  Michael Kenny accepted her point and said that their designation would be progressed as resources permitted.

Manager’s recommendation agreed on 27 & 34.

 

Motion 39 – Cllr. McEvoy

That in 12.8.4 Archaeological Heritage– AH 8 is amended as per the bold text below:

To encourage, subject to reasonable conservational restrictions, the provision of public access to sites identified in the Record of Monuments and Places under the direct ownership or control of the Council or the State

Manager’s Response

Not agreed. It is unclear as to what “reasonable conservational restrictions” would entail. All RMP sites are protected under the National Monuments Acts 1934-2004.

Recommendation

No change

Manager’s recommendation agreed.

Motion 1 – Cllrs Murphy & McEvoy

That we include in the County Development Plan a specific zoning of High Amenity on these Demesne lands for the following reasons:

(a)   Precedence, as identified by An Bord Pleanala decision.

(b)   Zoning (with the 1999 Development Plan affording Donaghcumper House and its demesne lands greater protection)

(c)   Protected Views

(d)   Sensitivity of the Liffey Valley

(e)   Watercourses

 

Manager’s Response

The lands in question already have protection under the County development policies and map 12.10 which identifies the boundary of the area to be protected. In addition, the Development Plan Guidelines for Planning Authorities 2007 recommends that ‘Prior to the inclusion of those zones (areas of high amenity and high scenic quality) in a development plan, Planning Authorities should carry out an assessment of the landscape character of the area’. Accordingly it would be inappropriate to zone the subject lands in the absence of any such assessment.

Manager’s Recommendation

No change

Cllr. Murphy referred to the arguments she made at the meeting on 29th November in support of this motion.

John Lahart reminded the members of the legal advice outlined by the Manager also at the meeting on 29th November.  Adopting this motion could leave the Council open to claims for compensation from third parties for loss of legitimate expectation.  There is no provision in law to amend the zoning in an LAP through a triggering mechanism in the County Development Plan.  A review of the LAP at the natural end of its life is the appropriate mechanism.

Cllr. Murphy argued that there were legal grounds to change a zoning from one plan to another.  Cllr. McGinley agreed and said the Planning & Development (Amendment) Act 2010 removed any grounds for legitimate expectation.  Cllr. McEvoy also agreed and said at most there could be grounds for a judicial review of this decision but not compensation grounds.

Cllr. Kelly referred to the planning application before An Bord Pleanala.  He said if the Board grants the permission, what the Councillors decide today will have no effect.  If the Board refuses permission, then the developer cannot proceed with his proposals.  To do what the motion proposes in the face of the legal advice is a risk the members should not take.  He suggested that they accept the Manager’s recommendation and await the outcome of the Board’s decision.  Cllr. Murphy said that the developer could come back with a further application and it is likely that it will be a large scale one so as to pay for the infrastructure required.

The Manager reiterated that the members must have regard to the legal advice he received at their request.  If they wish to review the zoning they must do so at the end of the life of the Celbridge LAP.  The members must exercise reasonableness and have regard to the legitimate expectation of the landowner.  In reply to a question from the Mayor, the Manager said that there would be no personal liability on the members but a claim against the Council could be significant.

Following further discussion Councillors Nolan, Griffin & Weld called for a roll call vote the result of which was 10 votes for the motion and 11 votes against as follows:

For:     F. Browne                              Against:          S. Griffin

            K. Byrne                                                         M. Heydon

            S. Doyle                                                         P. Kelly

            P. Kennedy                                                    S. Langan

            P. McEvoy                                                      T. Lawlor

            J. McGinley                                                    M. Miley

            S. Moore                                                        M. Nolan

            C. Murphy                                                       T. O’Donnell

            C. Purcell                                                       F. O’Loughlin

            M. Wall                                                           D. Scully

                                                                                    B. Weld

 

Absent: W. Callaghan, R. Daly, L. Doyle, P. MacNamara.

 

Motion 32 – Cllrs. Murphy & McEvoy

That 12.8.1 is amended 12.8.1 PS1 as follows:

Insert designed landscapes after the word structures

Reason: It is appropriate to insert designed landscapes into this policy statement; designed landscapes are an intrinsic part of the setting of many protected structures. (See Manager’s Report, p.255, (u) in response to sub.132).

(x) Manager’s Response

The survey of Historic Gardens and Design Landscapes by the NIAH is ongoing. It is indicated that a field survey will be required to confirm site survival and evaluate its heritage significance. This is now Phase 3 of the foregoing study. It would be inappropriate to apply the motion as requested throughout the county in the absence of detailed research.

Manager’s Recommendation

No change

Manager’s recommendation agreed.

 

Conclusion of consideration of Chapter 12 – Architectural & Archaeological heritage

The members considered the remainder of Chapter 12.  Cllr. Miley referred to Submission No. 155 on page 329 and asked for it to be added to the RPS.  It was agreed that it could be “spot listed” in due course.  There were no other issues arising from Chapter 12.

 

Motion 95 – Cllr. McEvoy

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.

Manager’s Response

Amended text arising from decision of Members consideration of this motion.

 

Manager’s Recommendation

Amend Section 19.1.1 to read as follows:

To ensure that the integrity of the Planning System is maintained and that it operates for the benefit of the whole community, the Council will take enforcement action in cases of unauthorised development, where it is appropriate to do so, consistent with the provisions of Part VIII of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 as amended by the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2010.

Under planning legislation any development which is not specifically exempt development requires planning permission and development which does not have that permission is unauthorised development, as is development which has been or is being carried out in breach of conditions specified in a planning permission.

In carrying out its enforcement functions, the Council may issue Warning Letters and / or Enforcement Notices or take injunctive proceedings pursuant to Section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 as amended.

Proceedings for non-compliance with an Enforcement Notice will be taken in the District Court in most cases. However, where appropriate, injunctions will be sought in the Circuit Court or High Court. In all cases involving legal proceedings the Council will seek to recover its costs, in addition to any fines imposed by the courts.

The Manager’s recommendation was agreed.

 

Motion 3 – Cllr. Murphy

Page 124-128

(a)   The wording recommended by the Manager does not fully cover the point, the size and the capacity of an Airport/Aerodrome determines the size of planes that can land/take off there, therefore there are issues in relation to physical planning that are not covered and need to be in the development plan.

(b)   Does not preclude the relocation of the runway into Kildare, a planning application was refused for this on the basis that it was premature pending the review of the County Development Plan. 

(c)   In the case of Weston the Stop way is being used for take off’s the County Development Plan should state that a Stop way is not intended for this purpose as per the most recent Bord Pleanala decision.

(d)   Accept wording

(e)   The section in italics was taken from An Bord Pleanala decision it was a requirement of the permission that this information was supplied.  It is essential to set a baseline because any intensification of use requires planning permission.

 

Manager’s Response

It is considered that the Manager’s Response included in the Manager’s Report caters for items (a) to (b).

(a) Manager’s Response

The aerodrome as a whole is currently licensed by the IAA as Code 2B.  Notwithstanding South Dublin County Council’s policy as expressed in its recently adopted Development Plan that “it is also the policy of this Council to seek to revert the ICAO runway classification of Weston Aerodrome from its current Code 2B classification to Code 1A” it is not within the remit of the planning authority to change the code of the aerodrome or to change the declared distances for the aerodrome by the IAA and available to all pilots. 

(a)  Manager’s Recommendation

To amend Map 6.2 Aerodrome Context Map and to include the following maps in Chapter 6,

Map 6.3 Kilrush Aerodrome,

Map 6.4 Weston Aerodrome and

Map 6.5 Casement Aerodrome.

Maps are enclosed in Appendix 6.1 of Manager’s Report.

(b) Manager’s Response

The CDP sets out the policies of the Council in relation to aviation and other matters e.g. amenity.  The possible relocation of the runway into Kildare requires a planning permission and is a Development Management matter in the context of e.g. the Plan, Government guidelines and policies, proper planning and sustainable development etc. (applications to centre the runway to KCC and SDCC were refused on appeal by ABP in the last year).  The relocation of the runway is also a matter for the IAA who will be consulted on any applications in relation to same. 

In its previous ownership in the 1990s, Weston had a paved runway of 890m (plus a grass runway of 925m), and — taking ~874m of this, plus the additional ~50m “infill” paving gives a total runway of 924m.  The OS Aerodrome Chart (June, 2007) defines Weston as having a 924m runway paving. This is therefore the length of runway for Weston accepted by the IAA and for use by pilots.

The runway is clearly marked on the ground as are its 3.5 metre wide shoulders.  Both sets of markings are visible from the air.

(b) Manager’s Recommendation

Amend section 6.6.4 to read as follows:

“Location and Description

Weston Aerodrome is located to the south of Leixlip, on lands either side of the boundary between Kildare County Council and South Dublin County Council.  The majority of the Aerodrome, runway and associated infrastructure is located on lands within the South Dublin County Council area.”  

(c)  Manager’s Response

A Stop way is a physical paving which increases the “Accelerate-stop distance available” [ASDA];

A Clearway (which can be of different/greater length than a Stop way) is not a physical item but is a wide clear airspace which increases the “take-off distance available” [TODA].

The provision of a Stop way and a Clearway is the equivalent of lengthening one runway for the purpose of allowing a safer take-off run in that direction.

(c) Manager’s Recommendation

Include the following definitions in section 6.6.2 (Definitions & Terms):

Stop way

A Stop way is a physical paving which increases the “Accelerate-stop distance available” [ASDA];

Clearway

A Clearway (which can be of different/greater length than a Stop way) is not a physical item but is a wide clear airspace which increases the “take-off

distance available” [TODA].

(d) Manager’s Response

Noted – as per response to (a) above a map of Weston and the area around will be included in the amendments to the Draft Plan.

(d) Manager’s Recommendation

See recommendation to (a) above

(e) Manager’s Response

It is a policy of the Draft Plan - GA 5 – page 6-14-

To seek information (including aircraft movement logs) detailing (a) the number of aircraft movements and (b) the type and capacity of aircraft using an aerodrome, in order to allow a full assessment of any significant impact that may arise in relation to a new aerodrome or to an increase or change of use of an existing aerodrome in the interests of public safety.   

It is considered that this covers the issue satisfactorily

(e) Manager’s Recommendation

No Change

However it is deemed appropriate to amend the Manager’s Report in relation to point (j)

(j) Manager’s Response

GA7 Public Safety Zone definition from ‘Public Safety Zones Report for Kildare County Council’ O’Dwyer & Jones Consultants, January 2008 to be included.

(j) Manager’s Recommendation

Amend Policy GA7 on page 6-14 of the Draft Plan to include the following definition of PSZs:

Public Safety Zones in the vicinity of aerodromes are areas in which development, or certain types of development, may be restricted to provide added safety for persons on the ground. The adoption of Public Safety Zones (in which development is restricted) can have the collateral/added benefit of restricting development in those areas where higher levels of aircraft noise occur. Public Safety Zones (PSZs) are areas to take into account in the preparation of emergency and crash plans in the vicinity of aerodromes. It is important to note that PSZs are not in any way a substitute for the ‘Annex 14’ requirements.

The Manager’s recommendations were agreed.

 

Manager’s Response to Submission from Department of Environment, Heritage & Local Government (No. 295)

1.      RPG’s

Alignment with Draft Regional Planning Guidelines

It is noted that the draft County plan is aligned with the draft RPGs.  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.

Manager’s Response/ Recommendation

The Draft Plan has been prepared in accordance with the Regional Planning Guidelines 2010-2022.

2.      Local Villages and Rural Settlements

The policies and objectives are noted for the village and rural settlements where growth up to 20% generally for local growth is envisaged.  Consideration should be given to providing greater detail at the village and rural settlements level indicating how much land is zoned in each village and where necessary indicating if it requires to be phased, infrastructure availability etc. 

Manager’s Response/ Recommendation

Table 17.6 to be included to address this

3.      Alignment with the Retail Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2008

The draft plan is generally very closely aligned with the retail policy, but the draft plan does not indicate, as stated in the retail strategy, that the development of Collinstown should be associated with the opening of a new train station to link Maynooth and Kilcock centres to the Collinstown area, to ensure sustainable integrated planning. Objective R9 should either be expanded or a new objective inserted to reflect this more sustainable and integrated approach to the development of Collinstown.

Manager’s Response/ Recommendation

Add additional policy immediately after R9 of Chapter 9 (Retail) of the Draft Plan to read as follows:

‘A Masterplan shall be prepared for the lands at Collinstown prior to the development of these lands. The details for this Masterplan are outlined in the Collinstown Local Area Plan 2010. In the interests of sustainability and as part of this Masterplan, a new railway station shall be delivered as part of Phase 1 of the overall development of the lands at Collinstown and a Transport Hub shall be located adjacent to the train station’.

4.      Flood Risk

It is noted that regard has been given to the Department’s Guidelines on the Planning System and Flood Risk Management, and this is welcome.  It is understood that the draft plan has also been referred to the OPW, who will comment separately in relation to the  flood risk issues plan.

Manager’s Response/ Recommendation

A SFRA is being conducted as part of the Amendment Stage.

5.      Rural Housing

While the local criteria given on Table 4.3 is generally in accord with the Department’s Sustainable Rural Housing guidelines, it would appear that the criteria applies to the whole county.   Given the need to decrease the proportion of ‘one off’ rural housing as part of overall housing provision, over the period of the plan, consideration should be given to a more nuanced approach to the rural housing policy, which should set out a more focused criteria approach to areas under urban pressure (generally more strict), and a more general approach to those areas that are structurally weak (generally less strict).  This more nuanced approach could also be informed by the Landscape Sensitivity Areas (map 14.2) Scenic routes (Table 14.2) etc.

Manager’s Response/ Recommendation

It is proposed to revert to the pre-draft proposal regarding the implementation of the rural housing policy which accords with the foregoing comments.

6.      Transport

The draft county plan is generally in line with the draft RPGs.  The Council are requested to consider the inclusion of a policy, or expanding Policy TP2, to include a target relating to shifting the modal split to more sustainable travel modes within the county.

Manager’s Response/ Recommendation

It would be premature to specify a figure for modal split for the county having regard to the variance in residential density (i.e. North / South Kildare), public transport availability, employment within the county etc. It is considered appropriate to assess the potential modal shift that can be addressed within the context of developments on a case by case basis.

Manager’s Recommendation

No change

7.      Drainage/ Water infrastructure

Given the importance of water and drainage on Natura 2000 sites, the Department suggests the inclusion of an overarching policy to indicate the importance of implementing the Habitats Directive and the implications of this for future development.  In addition as indicated in the now adopted RPGs some discussion and resultant policies/objectives on climate change and its implications for water / drainage provision should be included in this section.

It is considered that the Draft CDP adequately addresses this issue in particular Policy DS4, Section 13.8.3 which reads as follows:

It is the policy of the Council “to ensure an Appropriate Assessment as per Article 6(3) and Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive and in accordance with DoEHLG guidance, is carried out in respect of any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects”.

The following policies in Section 13.8.3 also address this issue.

DS 1:  To maintain, protect and where possible enhance the conservation value of existing European and national designated sites (NHA, SAC and SPA) in the county and any additional sites that may be proposed for designation during the period of this Plan.

DS 4:  To ensure an Appropriate Assessment as per Article 6(3) and Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive and in accordance with DoEHLG guidance, is carried out in respect of any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects.

DS 5:  To ensure that projects which may give rise to significant cumulative, direct, indirect or secondary impacts on Natura 2000 sites will not be permitted (either individually or in combination with other plans or projects) unless for reasons of overriding public interest.

DS 7:  To consult with the National Parks and Wildlife Service when undertaking, approving and authorising development which is likely to affect plant, animal or bird species protected by law. In the event of a proposed development impacting on a site known to be a breeding or resting site of species listed in Habitats Regulations a derogation licence, issued by DoEHLG may be required.

Regarding climate change it is considered that the Draft CDP raises and adequately addresses the issues raised as follows Chapter 1 section 1.4.1 subsection (v) addresses the National Climate Change Strategy.

There are a number of objectives in chapter 8 which address renewable energy sources. Other issues are identified in other chapters.

Green infrastructure Chapter 14.11.6

Allotments Chapter 14.11.5

Renewal Energy Chapter 8.5

Trees Chapter 13.8.4

Farmers Markets noted

Waste to Energy Chapter 8.11.6

It should also be noted that further changes to the Draft CDP are proposed in this report, particularly in relation to Green Infrastructure.

Manager’s Recommendation

No change

8.      Core Strategy

The draft plan has made very good progress at producing a core strategy, however subject to what eventually emerges as the requirements under the act, it is thought that some element of linking population to land requirements to the different tiers of settlement will be required (i.e. the inclusion of the information in Tables 3.3 and 3.4)

Manager’s Response/ Recommendation

Table 3.3 sets out specific unit targets for all of the designated settlements (with grouped targets for the lower tiers; rural settlements and rural nodes). The zoned lands contained within the Draft CDP (being the 11 village plans and 8 environs areas) have been prepared to accord with the settlement strategy targets. The forthcoming review of Town plans and Local Area plans will implement the unit targets set out in table 3.3 by way of specific zonings and density standards.  

9.      Natural Heritage, Habitats Directive and SEA

The Department welcomes the strong protection given to the natural heritage in the county development plan, both to designated sites and to protected species.  However, in order to ensure that third parties are aware of the implications of the Habitats Directive it would be useful if an overarching policy/ objective was included in the plan, possibly in the Key Challenges section (Chapter 1.3), the Water Drainage and Environmental Services section (Chapter 7) and in the Core Strategy (Chapter 2); which indicates the implications of implementing the Habitats Directive and establishes that any plans or development which would be reasonably likely (either individually or in combination with other plans or projects) to give rise to significant adverse direct, indirect or secondary impacts on the integrity of any Natura 2000 sites, having regard to their conservation objectives, shall not be permitted on the basis of the plan unless imperative reasons of overriding public interest can be established and there are no feasible alternatives.

 

It is recommended that the Aim in section 13 is clarified.  It is not clear, as currently worded, if the aim is referring only to designated sites or also to protected species and to habitats outside of designated sites.  It is also recommended that the Strategy in this section is amended to include mention of protected species.

 

Article 10 of the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) refers to features of the landscape of major importance for wild fauna and flora as “those which by virtue of their linear and continuous structure (such as rivers with their banks or traditional systems for marking field boundaries) or their function as stepping stones (such as ponds or small woods), are essential for the migration, dispersal and genetic exchange of wild species”.  The first mentioned, i.e. linear features such as hedgerows and rivers, are commonly referred to as ecological or wildlife corridors.  The County Development Plan makes mention of ecological corridors in section 13.7 but has not included stepping stones.  In addition policy NH4 appears to have confused ecological corridors with stepping stones as it refers to linear landscape features as stepping stones. It is recommended that this is amended and clarified.

 

Manager’s Response/ Recommendation

 

Insert additional bullet point at section 1.3 in chapter 1 as follows: integrating the implementation of the Habitats Directive, which seeks to prevent any plans/projects which would be likely, either individually or in combination with other plans/projects to give rise to significant adverse direct, indirect or secondary impacts on the integrity of any Natura 2000 site and to recognise that such propjets will not be permitted unless for imperative reasons of overriding public interest.

Edit Section 2.2 bullet point (ix) as follows:

ix)        Protecting local assets by preserving the quality of the landscape, open space, natural, architectural, archaeological and cultural heritage and material assets of the county;

Insert in section 7.3 (Policy/ legislative Context) a new section 7.3.10 Habitats Directive (as follows):

Articles 6 (3) and 6 (4)  of the Habitats Directive require an Appropriate Assessment of any plan or project whether within or outside a designated Natura 2000 site, which does not directly relate to the management of the site but may impact upon its conservation objectives.

The assessment is based on best scientific knowledge, by a person with ecological expertise. It addresses the potential impacts of the plan or project on the conservation objectives of any Natura 2000 site. The impact assessed must include the indirect and cumulative impacts of approving the plan or project, together with any current or proposed activities, developments or policies impacting on the site. The potential impacts of policies outside Natura 2000 sites but potentially impacting upon them (known as ‘ex situ’ impacts) must also be included in the assessment. Guidelines issued by DoEHLG entitled Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland, Guidance for Planning Authorities (or any amendments to these guidelines) should be referenced in this regard.

A project or plan may only proceed if it can be concluded on the basis of Appropriate Assessment that there will be no adverse effects on the integrity of a Natura 2000 site. If adverse effects are likely, or in cases of doubt, then derogation under Article 6 (4) shall apply, but only in cases of imperative reasons of over-riding public interest.

Insert the following policy in section 7.6.1 It is the policy of the Council

To have regard in all proposed projects or plans to the requirements of the Habitats Directive.’

Amend the aim at the beginning of Chapter 13 (Natural Heritage/Biodiversity) as follows Aim of chapter 13 To protect, conserve and manage natural heritage designated at national and EU level including sites designated at national and EU level and protected species and habitats outside of designated sites and to secure conservation objectives in the interests of the proper planning and sustainable development of the county.

Add the following text to the end of Section 13.7.

Such features are those which, by virtue of their linear and continuous structure (such as rivers with their banks or the traditional systems for marking field boundaries) or their function as stepping stones (such as ponds or small woods), are essential for the migration, dispersal and genetic exchange of wild species.

Edit policy

NH4 Section 13.8.2 refers

To seek compliance with Article 10 of the Habitats Directive with regard to encouraging the management of features in the landscape which are of major importance for wild fauna and flora. Such features are those which, by virtue of their linear and continuous structure act as biodiversity (such as rivers with their banks or the traditional systems for marking field boundaries) or their function as stepping stones which are of major importance for wild fauna and flora and (such as ponds or small woods), are essential for the migration, dispersal and genetic exchange of wild species.

10. Of concern to the protection of ecological corridors is the recommendation in section 8.8. that the route of electricity transmission lines should follow natural features of the environment such as hedgerows.  Depending on how this is interpreted this could lead to a significant loss of hedgerows therefore it is recommended that this text should be amended.

 

Manager’s Response/ Recommendation:

 

Edit text of section 8.8 to read:

Planning applications involving the siting of overhead cables, should seek to minimise visual impact seeking to avoid areas of high landscape sensitivity, sites and areas of nature conservation and / or archaeological interest. The route of the lines should also follow natural features of the environment, such as hedgerows with preference given to undergrounding services where appropriate. All high voltage lines of 38kV and over, should comply with all internationally recognised standards with regard to proximity to dwellings and other inhabited structures. The removal of significant lengths of hedgerow shall be avoided where possible.

 

 

11. It is noted that policy NH5 states "To request the National Parks and Wildlife Service to prioritise the preparation of Management Plans for Natura 2000 sites which are located within the County. This is in order to examine how the conservation objectives of the sites can be achieved in the context of the proper planning and sustainable development of the county.”  While Management Plans of Natura 2000 sites are not mandatory under Article 6.1 of the Habitats Directive, some Conservation Plans have been prepared by the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) of this Department, and those that have gone through public consultation are available on www.npws.ie.  In addition some draft conservation plans for Natura 2000 sites may also be available on request.  Even where there is no draft Conservation Plan, Conservation objectives are available from NPWS and they can either be found on the NPWS web site www.npws.ie or can be requested via the data request facility on this website.  It is noted that the draft plan has used draft conservation objectives in the appropriate assessment screening which appear to have been supplied by NPWS.  While the NPWS conservation objectives are generic in nature, and may be updated in future, they should be used.  Policy NH5 appears to imply that no conservation objectives are available which is not the case.

 

Manager’s Response/ Recommendation

 

It was not intended to imply that no conservation objectives were in existence for the natura 2000 sites.

Manager’s recommendation  

 

Edit NH5"To request the National Parks and Wildlife Service to prioritise the preparation of Management Plans for Natura 2000 sites which are located within the County. This is in order to examine how the conservation objectives of the sites can be achieved in the context of the proper planning and sustainable development of the county.

 

12. With regard to policy IW3, to ensure expert advice is sought in developing lighting proposals along watercourses in order to mitigate impacts of lighting on bats and other species, it should be noted that in some cases it may not be possible to have lighting, particularly where bat species are concerned.

 

Manager’s Response/ Recommendation

 

Change policy

IW 3:   To ensure that expert advice is sought in developing lighting proposals along river, stream and canal corridors, where possible and not in conflict with bat species, in order to mitigate impacts of lighting on bats and other species.

(Policy IW3 Section 13.8.6 refers)

 

13. Policy EQ4 should be amended to include protecting the Curragh pNHA along with its amenity quality.

 

Manager’s Response/ Recommendation

 

The importance of the Curragh as a pNHA is listed in Section 13.4.4

 

14. As per comments above re Article 10 of the Habitats Directive there seems to be some confusion between corridors and stepping stones in section 3.2.3.  This needs to be amended. 

 

Manager’s Response/ Recommendation

 

To update the following sentence from Section 3.2.3:

Ecological networks are composed of linear features, such as tree lines, hedgerows, rivers and streams, which provide corridors or stepping stones for wildlife species moving within their normal range.

 

15. Sections 3.2.5.4 and 4.2.1.6 state that no Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs) have been designated which is not the case.  Section 3.2.3.4 also states that both NHAs and proposed Natural Heritage Areas (pNHAs) are shown on figure 3.10 so it is therefore clear that some NHAs have been designated.  This needs to be amended.

 

Manager’s Response/ Recommendation

 

To update the following sentence in Sections 3.2.5.4 and 4.2.1.6 as follows:

In addition to the NHAs, a number of Proposed NHAs were published on a non-statutory basis in 1995, but have not since been statutorily proposed or designated.

To update the following sentence from Section 3.2.3:

Ecological networks are composed of linear features, such as tree lines, hedgerows, rivers and streams, which provide corridors or stepping stones for wildlife species moving within their normal range.

 

 

16. With regard to the SEOs, Indicators and Targets, while welcoming the provisions they contain, it is the Department’s opinion that the SEOs do not cover protected species outside of designated sites and it is recommended that they are amended.  With regard to monitoring, protected species need to be monitored and section 10 also needs to be amended to include protected species.

 

Manager’s Response/ Recommendation

 

To include protected species in Section 10.

SEO B1 is to ensure compliance with the Habitats Directive with regard to the protection of Natura 2000 sites. Target B1, however, does not appear to relate well to this SEO as it includes also all habitats and species protected under national and international legislation.

 

 

17. SEO B2, its indicator and target, to ensure compliance with article 10 of the Habitats Directive, appears to have left out areas of habitat acting as stepping stones. 

 

SEO B3 is perhaps more appropriate to landscape and perhaps it could be substituted with an SEO relating to protected species outside of designated sites.

 

Manager’s Response/ Recommendation

To update SEO B1 and Target B1 as follows:

SEO B1: To ensure compliance with the Habitats Directive with regard to the protection of Natura 2000 Sites and habitats and species listed under Annexes I and II of the Directive

Target B1: Maintenance of favourable conservation status for all habitats and species protected under national and international legislation listed under Annexes I and II of the Directive.

Update SEO B2, Indicator B2 and Target B2 as follows:

SEO B2: To ensure compliance with Article 10 of the Habitats Directive with regard to the protection of macro-corridors, stepping stones and contiguous areas of habitat[1] which are important on a County level for wild fauna and flora and essential for the migration, dispersal and genetic exchange of wild species

Indicator B2: Percentage loss of functional connectivity to macro-corridors, stepping stones and contiguous areas of habitat which are important on a County level without remediation as a result of implementation of the Plan – as evidenced from a resurvey of CORINE mapping

Target B2: No significant macro-corridors, stepping stones and contiguous areas of habitat or parts thereof which are important on a County level and which provide functional connectivity to be lost without remediation as a result of implementation of the Plan

 

 

18. Section 8 contains the matrix of the assessment of the vision, aims, objectives and policies.  It is somewhat confusing to find that in many instances a policy has been deemed to be both likely to improve the status of SEOs and also to have a potential conflict with the status of SEOs.  In some instances this is perhaps because each policy has not been assessed separately but with a group of policies.  In this regard, each policy should be assessed separately.  Furthermore, it is not clear what other plans or projects have been used in the assessment when considering cumulative impacts.

 

Manager’s Response/ Recommendation

 

To add the following text to Section 8.1:

Strategic actions which have been used in the assessment when considering cumulative impacts include:

- The National Spatial Strategy 2002-2020;

- The National Development Plan 2007-2013;

- The Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area;

- River Basin Management Plans for the South Eastern and Eastern River Basin Districts;

- Higher level Environmental Protection Objectives and related Plans which have been identified in Sections 3 and 4 of this report;

- Strategic Actions and related Plans and Programmes which have been identified within Plan provisions; and,

- Lower tier land use plans within the County.

 

 

19. The AA screening has concluded that an AA is not necessary because of the policies it contains.  It is not clear from section 2.6 what projects or plans were included when looking at cumulative and ex-situ impacts.  Reference has been made to National Plans such as the National Spatial Strategy and the National Development Plan. It is stated that subsidiary plans and projects will be subject to separate assessment procedures in accordance with all applicable Regulations and Directives.  It should be noted that where County, Regional or National Plans or Strategies mentioned in the draft CDP have not been subject to AA, then the implications of implementing them in the CDP should be assessed in the AA.

 

Manager’s Response:                                                                         

In addition to the National Spatial Strategy 2002-2020 and the National Development Plan 2007-2013, other plans considered include the Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area and the River Basin Management Plans for the South Eastern and Eastern River Basin Districts.

Manager’s Recommendation

No change to CDP however recommended changes to the Environmental Report and Appropriate Assessment are set out below:

Update Section 2.6 of the AA Screening Report as follows:

The National Spatial Strategy 2002-2020 and the National Development Plan 2007-2013 set the planning framework within which the Draft Plan has been prepared with the objective of achieving an optimal balance of social, economic and physical development in the Plan area. The effects of higher level Strategies and Plans, including those listed in Section 2.5 above, are considered insofar as they inform the Draft Plan. Other plans considered include the Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area and the River Basin Management Plans for the South Eastern and Eastern River Basin Districts.  Subsidiary plans and projects will be subject to separate assessment procedures in accordance with all applicable Regulations and Directives.

 

 

20. The SEA had been used to identify policies that conflict with the SEOs and these policies have been screened for appropriate assessment (AA).  It is stated that this has resulted in amending polices and devising mitigatory policies as a result of the SEA and AA. Legislation and instruments such as the Habitats Directive and the National Biodiversity Plan are also quoted as being mitigation.  The Department does not accept that primary legislation can be used as mitigation unless there is a policy specifically mentioning compliance with them.  The Department is also concerned that in using the results from the SEA that each policy appears not to have been assessed individually but in groups.

 

Manager’s Response/ Recommendation

Measures have been integrated into the draft Plan which will mitigate all significant environmental effects likely to arise as a result of implementing the Plan.  While compliance with legislation is a given requirement, it is nonetheless considered useful in the context of the SEA and AA to re-iterate such requirements in order to reinforce compliance and thereby to help ensure effective mitigation of adverse effects.

Plan provisions are evaluated under various topics as presented in the Draft Plan. The number of provisions under each topic varies from one provision to multiple provisions. This is appropriate given the strategic level of the assessment and does not detract from the findings of the assessment.

It is noted that the evaluation presented in the Environmental Report is complex. Certain individual, and groups of, draft Plan provisions have been determined to be both likely to improve the status of SEOs and also to have a potential conflict with the status of SEOs – this is due to the complexity of the individual or groups of provisions.

21. Plan provisions are evaluated under various topics as presented in the Draft Plan. The number of provisions under each topic varies from one provision to multiple provisions. Measures have been integrated into the draft Plan which mitigate all significant environmental effects likely to arise as a result of implementing the Plan.

Where certain plans or projects are mentioned that are site specific and/or are known to have the potential to impact on a Natura 2000 site, the AA should give more detail about the proposed project or plan and the issues involved including any potential cumulative and ex-situ impacts.

In such cases, as a minimum, it is advised that where a policy or project is being addressed in the Plan that is likely to have a significant effect on a European site, this should be clearly noted and the proposal should:

 

  • include a statement of the problem that needs to be addressed (e.g. improved road link from town A to town B) without favouring a specified solution (if a specified solution is favoured, AA will be required of that solution in the draft Plan);
  • state that issues may  arise under Article 6.3 of the Habitats Directive that will require assessment and that alternative solutions may need to be considered to avoid such an impact; and
  • stress that in deciding on a solution, it will be necessary to comply fully with Article 6. 3 (and, if warranted, Article 6.4, including compensatory measures) of the Habitats Directive.

 

Examples of such plans or projects mentioned in the Plan include future water supply projects such as the development of a new Regional water supply source.  Although this project is not listed as an objective, it is mentioned on page 7-1.  It is known that the option of abstracting from the Shannon catchment, and in particular from Lough Derg, which is a Natura 2000 site, is being considered for the Region and has been subject to AA.  Therefore the potential for ex situ impacts from this project should be discussed in the AA for the draft Kildare CDP.  Similarly, the continued expansion of the Groundwater Abstraction Programme, including well fields at Robertstown  and Johnstown Bridge, have the potential to impact on wetland habitats and river flow some distance away.  This needs to be included in the AA.

Manager’s Response                                                                          

Policy DS4 (To ensure an Appropriate Assessment as per Article 6(3) and Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive and in accordance with DoEHLG guidance, is carried out in respect of any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects) which has already been integrated into the County Development Plan, provides for future compliance of lower tier plans and projects with the Habitats Directive.

Manager’s Recommendation

No change recommended to CDP, the Environmental Report or Appropriate Assessment.

Manager’s Response                                                                           

This point refers to specific projects that are governed by their own consent and licensing procedures including requirements for compliance with the Habitats Directive.

Manager’s Recommendation

No change recommended to CDP, the Environmental Report or Appropriate Assessment.

 

  1. Architectural Heritage:

The commitment of Kildare County Council to the protection of the architectural heritage of its administrative area as set out in the Draft Kildare County Development Plan 2011- 2017 is welcomed.

Various policies and objectives in respect of the protection of the built heritage are set out. A notable feature of the Draft Plan is that much of relevance to the overall protection of structures of architectural heritage merit in the county and their future use is contained across a variety of chapters rather than being exclusively contained in Chapter 12, Architectural and Archaeological Heritage. This is probably as it should be given the historical built form of the county.

Across the Draft Plan it is recognised that component heritage parts of the existing natural and built environment form the context for the future development of the county as a place to live, work and visit.

It is considered that some of the text in the Draft Plan relating to the protection of architectural heritage should be clarified and strengthened. The following is a detailed recommendation in that regard.

 1. It is recommended that the text in Section 9.6.2, Enhancement of Towns and Villages, of Chapter 9, Retail, is reviewed and amended, viz.  “R 39 To protect and enhance the amenities and character of town centres. The Council will seek to balance the competing needs of commercial, service, social and cultural functions which town centres perform with the need to protect recognised architectural quality of streetscapes. This will apply to skyline, shop fronts and advertising structures.”

Stating that the Council will “seek to balance the competing needs … ” implies that the planning authority considers that the existence of the built heritage in town centres is an impediment to the continued development of the county in a sustainable manner.

It is inherent in any development plan that all new development will integrate with and enhance the present built form of the locality in question. It will not therefore be necessary to “seek a balance” between the existing environment, including its built heritage, and new development necessary for its continued vitality.

This is already recognised in the Draft Plan where it is stated at page 9-18 in Objective RO 6 that it is the planning authority’s intention –

“To reinforce the heart of town and village centres as the priority location for new retail development, with quality of design and integration/linkage being fundamental prerequisites.”

It should also be noted that the conservation, protection and enhancement of the built heritage of County Kildare is a development in its own right. In that regard the objectives set out in the Draft Plan in relation to built heritage amount to ‘development objectives’.

The text might be revised to read, for instance,

“R 39 To protect and enhance the amenities and character of town centres. The Council will encourage the further improvement and development of commercial, service, social and cultural functions which town centres perform while ensuring the protection of architectural quality of streetscapes. This will apply to skyline, shop fronts and advertising structures.”

It should be noted that this revised wording accords with the generality of the policies set out across the Draft Plan relating to the built heritage and future development.

 

 

Manager’s Response/ Recommendation

Amend R39 (Section 9.6.2) as follows:

‘To protect and enhance the amenities and character of town centres. The Council will seek to balance the competing needs encourage the further improvement and development of commercial, service, social and cultural functions which town centres perform while ensuring the protection of architectural quality of streetscapes. with the need to protect recognised architectural quality of streetscapes. This will apply to skyline, shop fronts and advertising structures’.

 

  1. Chapter 12 is titled Architectural and Archaeological Heritage. It is not clear within the structure of the chapter why the matter of ‘architectural heritage’ is not considered as a single entity rather than being divided out into both ‘architectural heritage’ and ‘vernacular architecture’.

For instance, it is stated in Section 12.3.1, Architectural Heritage, that –

“The Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe (The Granada Convention was ratified by Ireland in 1997. Comprehensive and systematic legislative provisions for the protection of architectural heritage were introduced by the Planning and Development Act, 2000. It is a mandatory requirement for the Development Plan to include a Record of Protected Structures (RPS).”

Part IV of the 2000 Planning and Development Act is titled ‘Architectural Heritage’. The term "architectural heritage" is defined in the Architectural Heritage (National Inventory) & Historic Monuments Act, 1999, as meaning “all

(a) structures and buildings together with their settings and attendant grounds, fixtures and fittings,

(b) groups of such structures and buildings, and

(c) sites,

which are of architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, cultural, scientific, social or technical interest”.

This includes all structures, without distinction, deemed to be within the set categories of interest. Section 51 of the 2000 Act specifies that all those structures, forming part of the architectural heritage, which the planning authority deems to be of special interest are to be included in the Record of Protected Structures.

Dividing out structures of architectural heritage merit into separate strands of interest brings with it the danger of a perception arising that one warrants a greater level of consideration or degree of protection above another. In that regard, setting out the headings in Chapter 12 as Section 12.4, Protected Structures, and Section 12.5, Vernacular Architecture, effectively leads to setting out two sets of measures for effectively the same thing. This provides an opportunity for confusion and, in effect, duplication as shown by the content of Sections 12.8.1 and 12.8.2.

It is recommended that it is clearly stated in Chapter 12 that, as provided for in the 2000 Act, ‘architectural heritage’ is the matter to be given protection and that all other discrete strands of interest are taken in under that heading.

Manager’s Response/ Recommendation

It is considered that the layout of Chapter 12 is user-friendly in its current format. The inclusion of general overarching statements followed by the inclusion of more specific policy statements and objectives under the appropriate headings, serves to provide clear guidance to the public with regard to the protection and conservation of Kildare’s heritage.

Manager’s Recommendation

No change

 

  1. It is recommended that the text in Section 12.6, Architectural Conservation Areas, is reviewed and amended, viz. –

“ New development within these areas will normally only be granted planning permission if it can be demonstrated that it will not harm the character or appearance of the area. ACAs provide an opportunity to build upon an existing character by establishing a high standard of urban design. A distinctive sense of place can be created through street lighting, street furniture, paving, signage, and by encouraging best conservation practice in the repair and maintenance of historic buildings, and also by insisting on high design standards for new developments.”

Stating that “new development” within these areas “will normally only be granted planning permission” implies an unnecessary stricture in Architectural Conservation Areas (ACA). It implies that new development will adversely affect the character of the ACA and that it is up to proposer of any new development to demonstrate that this is not the case.

The status of being an ACA relates to the preservation of its character rather than the building stock itself. The regeneration, renewal, and reuse of the existing building stock is part of the purpose of a development plan. It is an inherent outcome of Draft Plan that new development will take place across the county at large, including within ACAs.

Stating, for instance, that “new development within these areas will be encouraged where the character or appearance of the area is enhanced” would underpin the remainder of the content of the paragraph.

Manager’s Response

Noted

Manager’s Recommendation

To amend the wording of Section 12.6 to read as follows:

‘New development within these areas [ACAs] will normally only be granted planning permission if it can be demonstrated that it will not harm the character or appearance of the area….’

 

  1. It is recommended that the content of Policies PS2 and PS3 in Section 12.8.1, Protected Structures, is reviewed. It appears that both policies deal with much the same issue. A greater clarification of the issue to be dealt with might be provided if the text is reviewed.

Manager’s Response

Agreed. Both policies refer to the protection of protected structures and their curtilage from inappropriate development. It is considered reasonable to combine both policy statements.

Manager’s Recommendation

Combine policies PS2 and PS3 (Section 12.8.1) of the Draft CDP to now read as follows:

‘It is the policy of the Council to protect the curtilage of protected structures or proposed protected structures and to prohibit inappropriate from any development within the curtilage or attendant grounds of a protected structure which would cause loss of or damage to the special character of the protected structure and loss of or damage to, any structures of heritage value within the curtilage of the protected structure. Any proposed development within the curtilage and/or attendant grounds must demonstrate that it is part of an overall strategy for the future conservation of the entire complex including the structures, demesne and/or attendant grounds’. 

 

  1. It is recommended that an explanation of the term “method statement” is provided in relation to Policy PS 8, viz.

“To promote best practice and the use of skilled specialist practitioners in the conservation of, and any works to, protected structures. Method statements should make reference to the DoEHLG’s Advice Series on how best to repair and maintain historic buildings.”

It is not clear from the content of the Draft Plan when a ‘method statement’ is to be provided and what it might relate to.

Manager’s Response/ Recommendation

Noted and agreed

Manager’s Recommendation

Add the following text at the end of policy PS 8 (Section 12.8.1)

‘As outlined in the DoEHLG’s Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines, a method statement is a useful tool to explain the rationale for the phasing of works. The statement could summarise the principal impacts on the character and special interest of the structure or site and describe how it is proposed to minimise these impacts. It may also describe how

the works have been designed or specified to have regard to the character of the architectural heritage’.

 

  1. It is recommended that the text in Policy PS 9, is reviewed, viz.

“To encourage high quality contemporary design in relation to planning applications that are made for the construction of extensions or new buildings affecting protected structures or older buildings of architectural merit not included in the RPS.”

By comparison, it is stated in Policy ATH 6 of the Draft Naas Town Development Plan 2011-2017 in Chapter 11, Architectural, Archaeological and Natural Heritage, that –

“ATH 6 To promote and encourage the sensitive alteration/extension to Protected Structures so that they are in keeping with the character of the building and adjoining buildings”.

Stating in Policy PS 9 that extensions to or new building in proximity to protected structures, or other buildings of architectural merit not included in the RPS, will be encouraged to be solely of ‘high quality contemporary design’ would seem to promote an unnecessary limitation on building owners.

Manager’s Response

Amend PS9 to read as follows:

“To encourage high quality design in relation to planning applications that are made for the construction of extensions or new buildings affecting protected structures or older buildings of architectural merit not included in the RPS.”

 

  1. It is recommended that the text in Policy PS 14 is reviewed and/or expanded in order to give a greater explanation as to what is intended, viz.

“To retain where practicable a protected structure which has been damaged by fire, the retention of those elements that make it of special interest and which have survived, either in whole or in part, shall be retained where this is practicable.”

It is not clear if Policy PS 14 is a specification by the planning authority to owners/occupiers in relation to either a structure of architectural heritage merit or a protected structure, or if it relates to the Council’s own property.

It should be noted that there is no provision in Part IV of the 2000 Planning and Development Act for the specification in Policy PS 14. While the intention of the policy may be well-meaning, it is not enforceable if it is directed at private owners/occupiers.

While an owner/occupier of a protected structure is obliged to prevent the endangerment of the structure, there is no obligation to reinstate the structure where a catastrophic event occurs. This remains the case even where the planning authority prescribes that particular elements “shall be retained where this is practicable”. 

This is likely to lead to confusion on the part of both owners/occupiers and insurance companies in relation to fire insurance. If there is confusion on the part of owners/occupiers as what elements of their property the planning authority might wish to have reinstated, albeit unenforceable, the outcome is likely to be a request to the planning authority for a Declaration seeking that information as part of the annual renewal of insurance policies. As Section 57 was not intended for this purpose, it would be an unforeseen and adverse outcome of Policy PS 14.

Manager’s Response

The wording of this policy takes into account the particular circumstances presented to the Council as witnessed by the use of the word ‘practicable’. This policy is directed at all persons and groups including government departments and public bodies.

Manager’s Recommendation

No change

 

  1. It is recommended that the text in Policy PS 15 relating to the demolition of a protected structure is reviewed, viz.

“PS 15: To prevent the demolition of any protected structure, unless the Council is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist. The demolition of a protected structure with the retention of its façade will likewise not generally be permitted.”

Within the context of Part IV of the 2000 Act it is inappropriate for a planning authority to suggest that it will ‘prevent’ the demolition of structures of architectural heritage merit. While it may be possible to oppose proposals for certain works as a matter of policy, stating that certain types of works will be prevented is not achievable.

For instance, in practical terms the demolition of a protection structure may only come to the attention of a planning authority after the event, in which case it becomes a matter of enforcement and reinstatement. In addition, there is an implication in the text that the issue is so frequent an occurrence as to require specific mention in the development plan. If this is the case in County Kildare, it calls into question the lack of timely action on the part of the planning authority in acting within the terms of Part IV of the 2000.

Section 57(10)(b) of the 2000 Act provides that permission may only be granted for the demolition of a protected structure or proposed protected structure in exceptional circumstances. This is a recognition that, within the context of the proper planning and sustainable development of a locality, there may well be a situation whereby exceptional circumstances do exist which would lead to the removal or demolition of a protected structure, or indeed any other structure of architectural heritage merit. In that regard the meaning of the term should be recognised for what it is, i.e. ‘exceptional circumstances’, and each instance must be judged on its own individual merits.

It would seem that the positive approach taken in the Draft Plan on the part of the planning authority to encourage works which give a new lease of life to structures of architectural heritage merit is more appropriate than attempting to ‘prevent’ demolition.

In the case of Policy R 52 in Chapter 9, it is states that it is the policy of the planning authority -

“To refuse planning applications for Amusement/Gaming Arcades as they are considered to be an undesirable use and potentially detrimental to the business and commercial environment of the County.”

In similar fashion, the text of Policy PS 15 might be amended to read, for instance, -

“PS 15: To refuse planning permission for the demolition of any protected structure unless the Council is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist. The demolition of a protected structure with the retention of its façade will likewise not be permitted.”

This recommendation is also relevant in Section 12.8.2, Vernacular Architecture, in Policy VA 2, viz.

“To resist the demolition of vernacular architecture, in particular thatched cottages and farmhouses and to encourage their sensitive reuse having regard to the intrinsic character of the structure.”

Manager’s Response

Not agreed. The purpose of a Development Plan is to set out in clear, unambiguous language the Council’s policy in terms of what may or may not be permitted with regard to development. It may not be assumed that all persons who may consult the Development Plan from time to time are clear on what may be permissible, in this instance, with regard to protected structures. It is considered reasonable to retain the wording of this policy statement as proposed in the Draft CDP.

Manager’s Recommendation

Amend Policy PS15 (Section 12.8.1) to read as follows:

‘‘To prevent the demolition of any protected structure refuse planning permission for the demolition of any protected structure unless the Council is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist. The demolition of a protected structure with the retention of its façade will likewise not generally be permitted’.

 

  1. It is recommended that the text in Section 19.12.1, Development in Relation to Protected Structures, is reviewed and revised, viz.

“In assessing proposals for development affecting a Protected Structure, it is the intention of the Council to require planning permission for works, both to the exterior and interior, which materially affects the character of a protected structure or any element of the structure which contributes to its special interest. What might be regarded normally as minor alterations to buildings may not necessarily be regarded as such in the case of protected structures.”

It is specified in the 2000 Act that works which materially affect the character of a protected structure require planning permission. It appears ambiguous to state that “it is the intention of the Council to require planning permission” for such works given the specification in the 2000 Act.

Manager’s Response

Agreed

Manager’s Recommendation

Amend section 19.12.1 to read:

In assessing proposals for development affecting a Protected Structure, the Council will require planning permission for works, both to the exterior and interior, ….’

 

  1. It is recommended that the text in the section is also reviewed and revised where it is stated that -

“Windows made from aluminium, uPVC or similar material will not be acceptable in protected structures. In twentieth century buildings, the original twentieth century metal windows shall be retained.”

It may well be that structures already included in the Record of Protected Structures (RPS) have windows made from aluminium or uPVC. It may also be that structures which might be included in the RPS have such windows as part of their original construction. This is illustrated in the paragraph itself where the specification that “the original twentieth century metal windows shall be retained” may well relate to windows with aluminium framing.

In addition, it is not clear if specifying that such windows “will not be acceptable in protected structures” relates only to structures already included in the RPS and what the owners/occupiers might do about the matter, or will relate to proposed protected structures.

It is also not clear what meaning is to be given to “In twentieth century buildings, the original twentieth century metal windows shall be retained.” In some instances the original windows may have already been replaced. In other instances, the original ferrous metal windows may have rusted to such an extent that they are no longer either serviceable or repairable.

Manager’s Response

Agreed

Manager’s Recommendation

Reword fifth paragraph of section 19.12.1 read as follows:

Replacement windows should be made from a similar material to the original windows of the building. Style and proportions of replacement windows shall also be similar to the original windows.

Manager’s Recommendation

See recommendation to ‘y’ above, same recommendation applies in this instance.

  1. Archaeological Heritage:

SEA - Report contains satisfactory objectives for protection of archaeological heritage.

Noted

The Manager’s recommendations in relation to the Department’s submission were agreed.

Recommendations on foot of the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA)

Athy Environs

The Council has zoned lands in the environs of Athy as indicated on Map 18.7 and 18.8 as follows:

AE 1: Warehousing

This zoning objective is to facilitate the expansion of an existing industrial and warehousing use at Gallows hill, Athy. This zone relates to the Gateway Business Campus and provides for any future expansion of this campus. Future development will be for low-density employment of the light industrial and industrial office type. This site is a key gateway to the town and therefore high quality design, finish and landscaping of development will be particularly important. (Map 18.7)

AE 2: New Low Density Residential

This zoning provides for low-density residential development. Low density residential development (15-20 dwellings per hectare / 6-8 per acre) is appropriate at urban-rural transition areas at the edge of towns. No development shall be permitted within this zoning in advance of the necessary physical infrastructure, including the provision of a section of the Southern Distributor Road. (Map 18.8).

AE 3: Open Space and Amenity

To protect and provide for open space, amenity and recreation provision. The aims of this land-use zoning objective is to provide for recreation and amenity areas. This element of the overall landholding may be considered as forming a proportion of the overall public open space requirement of the remainder of the lands zoned ‘AE2: New Low Density Residential’

 

Athy Environs Land Use Zoning Matrix

Land Use

AE 1

Industrial/ Warehousing

AE 2

Residential (Low Density)

AE 3

Open Space & Amenity

Broiler house

N

N

N

Car parks

Y

N

O

Cattle shed / Slatted unit

N

N

N

Cemetery

N

N

N

Cinema, dancehall, disco

N

N

N

Community hall / Sports hall

N

O

N

Crèche / Playschool

O

Y

N

Cultural uses / Library

N

O

N

Dwelling

N

Y

N

Funeral home

N

N

N

Garages, panel beating & car repairs

O

N

N

Guest house / Hotel / Hostel

N

O

N

Halting site

N

O

N

Health centre

O

N

N

Heavy commercial vehicle park

Y

N

N

Hot food take away

N

N

N

Industry

Y

N

N

Industry (light)

Y

N

N

Medical and related consultant

O

O

N

Motor sales

O

N

N

Nursing home

N

Y

N

Offices

O

N

N

Park / Playground

O

Y

Y

Petrol Station

O

N

N

Place of worship

N

N

N

Playing fields

N

Y

Y

Pub

N

N

N

Recreational Buildings

O

O

O

Store, depot

O

N

N

Restaurant

O

N

N

Residential

N

Y

N

Retail warehouse

N

N

N

School

N

O

N

Shop (comparison)

N

N

N

Shop (convenience)

O

N

N

Stable yard

N

O

N

Tourist camping site

N

O

N

Tourist caravan park

N

O

N

Utility structures

Y

Y

O

Warehouse (wholesale)

Y

N

N

Waste Incinerator

N

N

N

Workshops

Y

N

N

Table 18.4: Athy Environs Zoning Matrix

The members agreed with the Manager’s recommendations.

 

Manager’s Proposed Changes to Draft CDP arising from Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

Chapter 4: Housing 4.11.3 Rural Housing Strategy

Amend the last bullet point in this section as follows:

  • Ensure good practices regarding site location, landscape / environmental sensitivities, design, layout, access, drainage and impacts on soils, flood risk assessment and management, water table and water quality.

 

4.12 Rural Housing Policies

Amend policy RH5 as follows:

To ensure that, notwithstanding compliance with the local need criteria, applicants comply with all other normal siting and design considerations including the following:

  • The location and design of a new dwelling shall take account of and integrate appropriately with its physical surroundings and the natural and cultural heritage of the area. Development shall have regard to Chapter 16, Rural Design Guidelines.
  • The protection of features that contribute to local attractiveness including; landscape features, historic and archaeological landscapes, water bodies, ridges, skylines, topographical features, geological features and important views and prospects.
  • The capacity of the area to absorb further development. In particular, the following factors will be examined; the extent of existing ribbon development in the area, the degree of existing haphazard or piecemeal development in the area and the degree of development on a single original landholding.
  • The ability to provide safe vehicular access to the site.
  • The ability of a site in an unserviced area to accommodate an on-site waste water disposal system in accordance with the EPA Code of Practice for Wastewater Treatment Systems for single houses (2009), the County Kildare Groundwater Protection Scheme, and any other relevant documents / legislation as may be introduced during the Plan period;
  • The ability of a site in an unserviced area to accommodate an appropriate on-site surface water management system in accordance with the policies of the Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study (2005), in particular those of Sustainable urban Drainage Systems (SuDS);
  • The need to comply with the requirements of The Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities published by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in November 2009

 

Chapter 7: Water, Drainage and Environmental Services

Aim (page 7-1) 

Amend as follows:

Aim: To Develop, protect and extend water, waste water and flood management services throughout the county and to prioritise the provision of water services infrastructure to complement the overall strategy for economic and population growth and to achieve improved environmental protection.

7.2.4 Flooding

Amend as follows:

Whilst a number of flood alleviation measures have already been put in place in the county, the continued management, minimisation and mitigation of flood risk is essential for the future sustainable development of the county. This is dependant on securing investment to facilitate same. The council will strive to ensure that flood risk identification, assessment and management are integrated with the planning system.

7.3.4 Greater Dublin Area Strategic Drainage Study (2005)

Amend as follows:

7.3.4 Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study (2005)

The Greater Dublin Area Strategic Drainage Study completed in 2005 investigated sewerage, drainage and river systems in the GDA in three time frames to 2031. The study identified new practices, processes and techniques to take advantage to the latest developments in hydraulic monitoring, geographical information systems and database management. Regional and local policies should incorporate up to date and best practice in drainage design, operation and management. A co-ordinated regional approach will be required to deliver on the recommendations

7.3.5 Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems

Amend as follows:

7.3.5 Sustainable urban Drainage Systems (SuDS)

Sustainable urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) are advocated within the Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study with an objective to ensure that any future development does not increase flooding or pollution of rivers. The system aims to mimic the natural drainage of a site to minimise the effect of a development on flooding and pollution of waterways. 

7.3.6 The Planning System and Flood Risk Management - Guidelines for Planning Authorities   (November 2009)

Amend paragraphs (ii) and (iii) as follows

(ii) Adopt a sequential approach to flood risk management when assessing the location for new development based on the avoidance, substitution, justification and mitigation of flood risk; and

(ii)               Incorporate flood risk assessment into all stages of the planning process

7.3.6.1 Legislative Context - Flooding

Amend the paragraphs beginning ‘Arterial’ and ‘Directive’ as follows

  • Arterial Drainage Act, 1945 and in particular section 50 of said Act which sets out the requirements on all bodies to gain permission from the Office of Public Works for culverting water courses and bridges across watercourses, section 47 of the Act which states that any person planning to erect or alter a weir must first get consent from the Commissioners or all the affected landowners (ESB is exempt from this requirement) and section 9 of the Arterial Drainage (Amendment) Act 1995 which relates to modification or relocation of watercourse, embankment or other works.
  • Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of the 23rd of October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risk. This directive is aimed at reducing and managing risks that flooding poses to human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity. The directive requires Member States to carry out a preliminary assessment by 2011, which will determine the various river basins, flood risk maps by 2013 and flood risk management plans by 2015. The directive was transposed into law by Statutory Instrument SI No. 122 of 2010 " European Communities (Assessment and Management of Flood Risk) Regulations 2010".

 

7.6.4 Surface Water and Flood Alleviation

The control of surface water and appropriate measures for managing flood risk is part of the Council's sustainable water services policy.     The Office of Public Works (OPW) is the lead  agency for flood risk management in Ireland. The co-ordination of Government Policy in terms of flood risk identification, assessment and management is the responsibility of the OPW and as such it is primarily charged with ensuring Ireland's compliance with its legal obligations in relation to flood risk.    The Council is charged with implementing and complying with the Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines (2009). The Council is also responsible, in liaison with the OPW for the implementation of the Water Services Flood Alleviation Capital Programme 2009-2013.

7.6.4.1 Flood Alleviation

Amend Section 7.6.4.1 as follows:

Flooding presents a risk only when people, their property and/or environmental assets are present in the area which floods.

§         Overland flow, which occurs when the land upon which precipitation falls is saturated and not capable of further absorption. This excess flow crosses overland and deposits in low lying areas.

§         River flooding occurs when the capacity of a watercourse’s channel is exceeded, blocked or restricted.  The excess water spills out from the channel onto adjacent low lying areas;

§         Flooding from an artificial drainage system, such as a petrol interceptor or an urban storm water drainage system, occurs when waters entering such a system exceeds the outlet capacity and overtops;

§         Groundwater flooding, which occurs when the level of water in the ground rises, as a result of prolonged rainfall, to meet the ground surface and flows over it. This overland flow again deposits in the low lying areas.

 

In general terms, increases in flood risk, due to development, may be caused:

Upstream by restricting the capacity of a watercourse and its floodplain and dDownstream by decreasing the capacity of a floodplain system and the available storage. Altering routes and channel sizes which can increase the levels of flow discharged to downstream areas can also increase the flood risk to a particular area.

 

Kildare County Council has carried out a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) in accordance with the 'The Planning System and Flood Risk Management - Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009)'. The SFRA is a county-wide assessment of flood risk to inform strategic land-use decisions with the purpose of ensuring that flood risk management is fully integrated into the Development Plan.  The SFRA identifies area of flood risk by reference to data available from the following sources:

§         Locations of flood hazard / flood risk as identified on flood maps provided by the Office of Public Works through its website www.floodmaps.ie.  This web page displays the Flood Maps and provides tools and options on the page to search for and display information about selected flood events.  Additional mapped information, such as the Ordnance Survey of Ireland background maps, rivers, hydrometric gauge stations, drainage districts and land benefiting from drainage schemes are also integrated with these flood maps.

§         The Barrow Drainage Board which is tasked with the duty of maintaining the Barrow and its tributaries from its source in the Slieve Bloom mountains in Offaly to the Horse Bridge in Athy. The Barrow Drainage Board was established under the Barrow Drainage Acts 1927 and 1933.

§         Flood Study Reports and Flood Relief Schemes which have been or are being carried out for a number of areas within the County with a history of flooding.

§         6” Ordnance Survey maps include areas which are marked as being “Liable to Floods”. The exact areas are not delineated but give an indicative location of areas which have undergone flooding in the past. In addition, the maps indicate areas of wet or hummocky ground, bog, marsh, springs, rises and wells as well as surface water features including rivers, streams, bridges, weirs and dams.

§         Local Authority personnel in regard to historical flooding and flood relief works in the areas under consideration.

 

7.6.4.2 Sequential Approach

 

Flood Zone A

Flood Zone B

Flood Zone C

Highly vulnerable development (including essential infrastructure)

Justification Test

Justification Test

Appropriate

Less vulnerable development

Justification Test

Appropriate

Appropriate

Water compatible development

Appropriate

Appropriate

Appropriate

 

Amend the final paragraph in Section 7.6.4.2 as follows:

The Council is mindful of the potential for increased risk of flooding due to climate change and will incorporate this into strategic land-use decisions for the development plan and local area plans and into its assessment of planning applications.

7.7 Policy SW6

To ensure that all developments have regard to the surface water management policies in the Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study (GDSDS)

SW9 To ensure that the flood objectives stated for each village, rural settlement and environs plans are implemented.

SW10 To ensure that flood risk management is incorporated into the preparation of Local Area Plans in accordance with 'The Planning System and Flood Risk Management - Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009)'.

SW11 Amend SW11: To ensure that the Justification Test for Development Management is applied to proposals for development in areas at a high or moderate risk of flooding where the development being proposed is vulnerable to flooding and would generally be inappropriate as set out in Table 3.2 of the 'The Planning System and Flood Risk Management - Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009)'.

SW12 Amend SW12 as follows:

It is the policy of the Kildare County Council that development will not interfere with or interrupt existing surface water drainage systems.

SW15 Insert SW15: To ensure that the reasonable requirements of Inland Fisheries Ireland are adhered to in construction of flood alleviation measures in County Kildare. This includes, but is not limited to:

  • Allowance for dry weather flow conditions to be reflected in channel cross sections.
  • Appropriate programming of any "in stream works" to comply with the requirements of Inland Fisheries Ireland.

 

SW17 Insert new SW17:

To comply with the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945 and in particular section 50 of said Act which sets out the requirements on all bodies to gain permission from the Office of Public Works for culverting water courses and bridges across watercourses, section 47 of the Act which states that any person planning to erect or alter a weir must first get consent from the Commissioners or all the affected landowners (ESB is exempt from this requirement) and section 9 of the Arterial Drainage (Amendment) Act 1995 which relates to modification or relocation of watercourse, embankment or other works.

SW18 Insert new SW18:

Bogland and other wetland areas play an important role in flooding patterns. It will be the policy of Kildare County Council that development in these areas shall be the subject of a Flood Risk Assessment in accordance with the Planning System and Flood Risk Management Planning Guidelines (2009).

SW19 Insert new SW19:

Canals form an important part of the drainage infrastructure in County Kildare. It shall be the policy of Kildare County Council to require development proposals which are adjacent to or otherwise affecting the canals and their associated infrastructure shall be the subject of a Flood Risk Assessment in accordance with the Planning System and Flood Risk Management Planning Guidelines (2009) and in shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of Waterways Ireland.

SW20 Insert new SW20:

Applicants for development proposals in rural development (excluding one-off rural housing) must ensure compliance with the following:

  • The ability of a site in an unserviced area to accommodate an on-site waste water disposal system in accordance with the County Kildare Groundwater Protection Scheme, and any other relevant documents / legislation as may be introduced during the Plan period.
  • The ability of a site in an unserviced area to accommodate an appropriate on-site surface water management system in accordance with the policies of the Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study
  • (2005), in particular those of Sustainable urban Drainage Systems (SuDS)
  • The need to comply with the requirements of The Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities published by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in November 2009

 

7.8 Water and Drainage Objectives

Omit WD9

Chapter 10 Rural Development

10.5.6 Boglands

To seek a Hydrological Report which will also incorporate a Flood Risk Assessment in accordance with the Planning Guidelines "The Planning System and Flood Risk Management (2009)"  for significant developments within boglands so as to ensure that the quality of ground or surface water is not impaired.

10.6 Insert objective R05 after RO4:

RO5: To ensure that applicants comply with all other normal siting and design considerations including the following:

  • The ability of a site in an unserviced area to accommodate an on-site waste water disposal system in accordance with the County Kildare Groundwater Protection Scheme, and any other relevant documents / legislation as may be introduced during the Plan period.
  • The ability of a site in an unserviced area to accommodate an appropriate on-site surface water management system in accordance with the policies of the Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study (2005), in particular those of Sustainable urban Drainage Systems (SuDS)
  • The need to comply with the requirements of The Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities published by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in November 2009.

 

10.8.1 Extractive Industry Policy

Amend EI 4 as follows:

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

 

Chapter 17 Village Plans and Rural Settlements

17.4 Village and Rural Settlement Policies

VRS8: The drawings and statement should illustrate why a particular design solution was arrived at for that particular site and how the design responds to the ecology, topography and features (both natural and man-made) existing on site and immediately adjacent to the site.

Insert the following as a flood objective for all village plans:

All development proposals shall have regard to Chapters 7 and 19 of the County Development Plan.

17.5.1 Allenwood

Amend flood objectives as follows:

FL 1 To have regard to the requirements of Chapter 7 of the County Development Plan and Planning System and Flood Risk Management ~ Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009).

FL 2 Development proposals for the following lands shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed:

(i)             development incorporating lands located within 80m of the banks (or culverted sections) of the watercourse which flows in a northerly direction adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Village Plan;

(ii)           (ii) development incorporating lands located within 75m of a recorded flood event (as shown on OPW flood maps);

(iii)         lands zoned C, Q or E.

 

17.5.2 Ballitore

Amend flood objectives as follows:

The river Greese flows through the village to the west of the Glanbia creamery. The cleaning and maintenance of the river should minimise the risk of future flooding occurring.

It shall be an objective of the Council:

FL 1 To continue to maintain the River Greese. In this regard, only development within the development boundary of Ballitore that would not negatively impact upon the River Greese shall be encouraged.  Adequate drainage measures in accordance with the requirements of the GDSDS shall be provided for all development proposals in order to continue to prevent flooding in the area.

FL 2 To have regard to the requirements of Chapter 7 of the County Development Plan and Planning System and Flood Risk Management ~ Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009).

FL 3 Development proposals for the following lands shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed:

(i)  development incorporating lands located within 100m of the eastern bank and within 50m of the western bank (or culverted sections) of the River Greese;
(ii)  development incorporating lands located within 75m of a recorded flood event (as shown on OPW flood maps);
(iii) lands zoned Q.

17.5.3 Ballymore Eustace

Amend flood objectives as follows:

FL1 to have regard to the requreiments of chapter 7 of the County Development Plan and the planning system and flood risk management – Guidelines for Plannign Authorities (2009).

FL2 development proposals for the following lands shall be the subject of a siste specific flood risk assessment, appropriate to the type and scale fo the development eing proposed; (i) development incorporating lands within 75m of the banks of the river Liffey; (ii) lands zoned C1, C2 or A1.

17.5.4 Caragh

Amend flood objectives as follows:

Caragh has not experienced any recent flooding events. However, one flood event has been recorded immediately west of the village plan boundary.

It shall be an objective of the Council:

FL 1 To have regard to the requirements of Chapter 7 of the County Development Plan and Planning System and Flood Risk Management ~ Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009).

FL2 Development proposals for the following lands shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed:

(i)                            development incorporating lands located within 50m of the banks (or culverted sections) of the watercourse which flows between the lands zoned F and the lands zoned B at the south-western corner of the village;

(ii)                          development incorporating lands located within 25m of the banks (or culverted sections) of the watercourse which flows through the Old Chapel Grove, Old Chapel Wood and The Streams residential developments before converging with the Awillyinish Stream;

(iii)                        development incorporating lands located within 50m of a recorded flood event (as shown on OPW flood maps);

(iv)                        lands zoned C.

 

 

17.5.5 Coill Dubh / Coolearagh

Remove the objective PU2 from the Village Plan.

Insert a section entitled 'Flooding Objectives' and containing the following:

It shall be an objective of the Council:

F L1 To have regard to the requirements of Chapter 7 of the County Development Plan and Planning System and Flood Risk Management ~ Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009);

FL 2 Development proposals for the following lands shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed:

(i)                            lands zoned C in Coill Dubh;

(ii)                          lands zoned Q in Coolearagh.

 

17.5.6 Crookstown

Amend flood objectives as follows:

It is an objective of the Council:

FL 1 To continue to keep clean and maintain the River Greese. In this regard, only development within the development boundary of Crookstown that would not negatively impact upon the River Greese shall be encouraged. Adequate drainage measures for all development proposals must be addressed in order to continue to prevent flooding in the area.

FL 2 To have regard to the requirements of Chapter 7 of the County Development Plan and Planning System and Flood Risk Management ~ Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009).

FL 3 Development proposals for the following lands shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed:

(i)     development incorporating lands located within 100m of the banks (or culverted sections) of the River Greese.

17.5.7 Johnstown

Amend flood objectives as follows:

Flooding is a significant problem in Johnstown as the Morrell, Annagual and Hartwell Rivers have all flooded recently. The completion of the Johnstown Flood Alleviation Scheme is required urgently to remedy the problem.

It is an objective of the Council:

FL 1 To have regard to the requirements of Chapter 7 of the County Development Plan and Planning System and Flood Risk Management ~ Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009).

FL 2 To complete the Johnstown Flood Alleviation Scheme during the lifetime of this Plan.

FL 3 No further residential development will be permitted in Johnstown until the completion of the Johnstown Flood Alleviation Scheme.

FL 4 Special Development Contributions may be required in order to contribute to the funding needed to complete the Johnstown Flood Alleviation Scheme.

FL 5 Development proposals for the following lands shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed:

(i)                 development incorporating lands located within 75m of any watercourse;

(ii)               development incorporating lands located within 100m of a recorded flood event (as shown on OPW flood maps);

(iii)             lands zoned A and U;

(iv)              lands zoned Q located west of the Furness Road;

(v)                lands zoned E located at the southern boundary of the Village.

 

17.5.8 Johnstown Bridge

Amend flood objectives as follows

There have been no recent flooding events in the village.

It is an objective of the Council:

FL 1 To have regard to the requirements of Chapter 7 of the County Development Plan and Planning System and Flood Risk Management ~ Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009).

FL 2 Development proposals for the following lands shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed:

(i)                             development incorporating lands located within 100m of the banks (or culverted sections) of any watercourse;

(ii)                           lands zoned C1, C2 and E.

 

 17.5.9 Kildangan

Amend flood objectives as follows

Flooding is not a recurring problem for Kildangan village however, in the interests of best practice, the following objectives should apply to new developments:

FL 1 To have regard to the requirements of Chapter 7 of the County Development Plan and Planning System and Flood Risk Management ~ Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009).

FL 2 Development proposals for the following lands shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed:

(i)     development incorporating lands within 75m of the banks (or culverted sections) of all watercourses;

17.5.10 Kilmeague

Amend flood objectives as follows

Flooding is not a recurring problem for Kilmeague village however, in the interests of best practice, the following objectives should apply to new developments:

FL 1 To have regard to the requirements of Chapter 7 of the County Development Plan and Planning System and Flood Risk Management ~ Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009).

FL 2 Site specific Flood Risk Assessment not required.

17.5.11 Moone

Amend flood objectives as follows

It is an objective of the Council:

FL 1 To have regard to the requirements of Chapter 7 of the County Development Plan and Planning System and Flood Risk Management ~ Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009).

FL 2 Development proposals for the following lands shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed:

(i)     development incorporating lands located within 50m of the banks (or culverted sections) of any watercourse.

17.5.12 Straffan

Amend flood objectives as follows

It is an objective of the Council:

FL 1 To have regard to the requirements of Chapter 7 of the County Development Plan and Planning System and Flood Risk Management ~ Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009).

FL 2 To address the cause of flooding at the Straffan Inn during the lifetime of this Plan.

FL 3 Development proposals for the following lands shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed:

(i)                             development incorporating lands located within 250m of the junction of Barberstown Road and New Road

(ii)                           lands zoned C1, E and Q.

 

17.5.13 Suncroft

Amend flood objectives as follows

Having regard to the fact that flooding has occurred in Suncroft in the past, it shall be an objective of the Council:

FL 1 To undertake drain cleaning in Suncroft to avoid further flooding damage in the village.

FL 2 To have regard to the requirements of Chapter 7 of the County Development Plan and The Planning System and Flood Risk Management ~ Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009).

FL 3 Development proposals for the following lands shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed:

(i)                             development incorporating lands located within 50m of a recorded flood event (as shown on OPW flood maps);

(ii)                           development incorporating lands located within 100m of the banks (or culverted sections) of the watercourse which flows along Eascanrath Lane (L70721);

(iii)                         development incorporating lands located within 50m of the banks (or culverted sections) of the watercourse which passes through lands zoned B  at the south western boundary of the village plan.

(iv)                          lands zoned C or E.

 

17.5.14 Timolin

Amend flood objectives as follows

It is an objective of the Council:

FL 1 To have regard to the requirements of Chapter 7 of the County Development Plan and Planning System and Flood Risk Management ~ Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009).

FL 2 Development proposals for the following lands shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed:

(i)                 development incorporating lands located within 75m of the banks of the Bothoge River. This river is taken to include the Mill Race which flows through the south eastern corner of the village.

17.6 Rural Settlements Objectives

Insert the following as a flood objective for all rural settlements:

All development proposals shall have regard to Chapters 7 and 19 of the County Development Plan.

Include the following flood objectives for each rural settlement:

Allen

Development proposals for lands located within 50m of the stream which crosses the R415 at the southern boundary of the settlement shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed.

Ardclough

Development proposals for the following lands shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed:

(i) development incorporating lands east of the canal identified for Settlement Expansion;

(ii) development incorporating lands identified as Settlement Core and Existing Settlement.

Brannockstown

Development proposals for development incorporating lands located north and/or west of the Kilcullen Road junction shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed.

Broadford

Development proposals for development incorporating lands located north and/or within 50m of Broadford Bridge shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed.

Brownstown

Site-specific Flood Risk Assessment is not required for development proposals in Brownstown.

Calverstown

Development proposals for all lands within 100m of any watercourse (culverted or otherwise) shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed.

Cutbush

Development proposals for lands identified for Settlement Expansion at the eastern side of the settlement shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed.

Kilberry

Development proposals for the following lands shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed:

  • lands identified for Settlement Expansion;
  • lands located within 100m of a recorded flood event (as shown on OPW flood maps).

 

Kilmead

Site-specific Flood Risk Assessment is not required for development proposals in Kilmead.

Kilteel

Site-specific Flood Risk Assessment is not required for development proposals in Kilteel.

Maddenstown

Site-specific Flood Risk Assessment is not required for development proposals in Maddenstown.

Maganey / Levitstown

Development proposals for lands located within 150m of the banks of the River Barrow shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed.

The lands identified for “Settlement Expansion” at Levitstown are considered to be at significant risk of flooding. The development strategy proposal for these lands should be the subject of a Level 3 Site Specific FRA to inform the application of the Sequential Approach to this decision making process.

Milltown

Development proposals for lands located within 75m of the Grand Canal Feeder shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed.

Moyvalley

Development proposals for all lands within the boundary of the plan shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed.

Narraghmore

Development proposals for lands located west and south-west of the Settlement Core shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed.

 Nurney

Development proposals for lands located within 100m of the river flowing through Nurney shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed.

Rathcoffey

Development proposals for lands identified for Settlement Expansion and for lands identified as Existing Settlement located south thereof shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed.

Rathmore / Eadestown

Development proposals for the following lands shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed:

  • lands in Rathmore located within 50m of a watercourse;
  • lands in Eadestown identified for Settlement Expansion.

 

Robertstown

Development proposals for the following lands shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed:

  • lands zoned Settlement Core;
  • lands zoned for Settlement Expansion at the east of Robertstown;
  • lands north of the Canal.

 

Staplestown

Development proposals for the following lands shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed:

  • lands identified for Settlement Expansion;
  • development incorporating lands located within 75m of the banks of the River.

 

Twomilehouse

Development proposals for lands located within 50m of watercourses shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed.

Chapter 18: Environs Plans

Include the following as flood objectives in Chapter 18 – Environs Plans

Naas Environs (West)

Development proposals for the following lands shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed:

(i) development incorporating lands zoned NE3 or NE1.

Naas Environs (North)

Development proposals for the following lands shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed:

(i)     development incorporating lands within 100m of the banks (or culverted sections) of the Morell River.

Naas Environs (South)

Development proposals for the following lands shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed: lands zoned NE4 and NE5.

Blessington Environs

Development proposals for the following lands shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed

(i)     development incorporating lands located within 75m of the banks (or culverted sections) of the watercourse which flows in a southerly direction through the subject area.

Kilcock Environs

Development proposals for the following lands shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed:

(i)     development incorporating lands zoned KE1.

Kill Environs

Development proposals for the following lands shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed:

(i)     development incorporating lands zoned KIE1.

Athy Environs (Gallows Hill)

Development proposals for the lands zoned AE1 shall be the subject of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the type and scale of the development being proposed.

Athy Environs (Bennett’s Bridge)

A detailed Flood Risk Assessment has been carried out for the lands zoned AE2.  Details of this FRA, together with the 100year and 1000year flood plains which have been identified by it, are included in Appendix 2 of the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) undertaken for this County Development Plan.  Development within these lands shall be in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Flood Risk Assessment in Appendix 2 of the SFRA.

Arising from the foregoing, it is recommended that the followings lands within the flood zones A & B are not suitable for the current zoning and should be rezoned for less vulnerable uses:

  • Zone A & B: recommended to be rezoned from ‘AE2: New Low Density residential’ to a land use zoning allowing for amenity or recreational uses.

 

This element of the overall land holding may be considered as forming a proportion of the overall public open space requirement for the remainder of the lands zoned  ‘AE2: New Low Density Residential’

Chapter 19 Development Management Standards

19.2.6 Hard Landscaping

Amend the second paragraph of this section as follows:

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. Hard landscaping design shall have regard to the use of Sustainable urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) to minimise runoff and maximise efficient management of surface water within the space.

19.3 Design Statements

Amend the final paragraph of this section as follows:

The drawings and statements should illustrate why a particular design solution was arrived at for that particular site and how the design responds to the ecology, topography and features (both natural and man-made) existing on site and immediately adjacent to the site.

19.4 Residential Development

Insert the following at the end of this section:

  • The DoEHLG Planning Guidelines document entitled "The Planning System and Flood Risk Management" (2009);
  • Sustainable urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) described in the Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study.

 

19.5 Childcare Facilities

Insert the following at the end of this section:

Sustainable urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) should be incorporated into development proposals where appropriate.

19.7 Surface Water / Flooding

 Amend Section 19.7 as follows:

The management of surface water run-off and flood risk is a key consideration in the assessment of planning applications.

All applications for development shall include proposals for restricting the rate of surface water run-off in accordance with the recommendations of the Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study (GDSDS) and as follows:

  • surface water run-off from a development shall not exceed the 1% AEP storm event, including a 20% allowance for climate change;

Developments shall incorporate Sustainable urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) as appropriate in accordance with the recommendations of the Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study (GDSDS).

Proposals for development shall be subject to site specific flood risk assessment in accordance with Chapter 7 of the County Development Plan.

Applicants shall have regard to the strategies, objectives and policies contained within Chapter 7 of the County Development Plan at all stages of their development proposals as well as the requirements of "The Planning System and Flood Risk Management ~ Guidelines for planning Authorities (2009)".

Proposals to construct new and replacement culverts and bridges on watercourses shall be subject to the approval of the Office of Public Works in accordance with Section 50 of the Arterial Drainage Act 1945.  This approval shall be obtained prior to commencement of the works.  The minimum permissible diameter of any culvert shall be 900mm with access to be provided for maintenance as appropriate.

Peak flood flows used in the design of culvert sizes, channel sizes and flood alleviation works to be undertaken as part of a development shall be calculated in accordance with a method approved by the Office of Public Works.

19.8.5 Extractive Industry

Add the following to the list of items in regard to which information should be submitted as application stage:

  • Proposals for surface water management and flood risk minimisation.

 

19.9.1 Wind Energy Proposals

Amend the bullet point beginning ‘Impact on nature ….. ‘as follows:

  • Impact on nature conservation, ecology, soil, hydrology and groundwater, archaeology and historic structures, public rights of way and walking routes;

 

19.10.1 Criteria for Assessment

Insert the following sentence at the end of section 19.10.1

Sustainable urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) should be incorporated into development proposals where appropriate.

The members agreed with the proposed changes.

 

Proposed Changes to Draft Plan Arising from the Planning and Development Amendment Act (2010) (Attached)

Additional Mandatory Objective

Section 10(2)(c)

(ca) the encouragement, pursuant to Article 10 of the Habitats Directive, of the management of features of the landscape, such as traditional field boundaries, important for  the ecological coherence of the Natura 2000 network and essential for the migration, dispersal and genetic exchange of wild species;

Manager’s Response and Recommendation

Include reference to Mandatory Objective in section 1.2

Objective addressed as follows:

Section 13.8.2 refers

NH 4:  To seek compliance with Article 10 of the Habitats Directive with regard to the management of features in the landscape, which by virtue of their linear and continuous structure act as  biodiversity stepping stones, which are of major importance for wild fauna and flora and essential for the migration, dispersal and genetic exchange of wild species.

 Modified by submission 295 Minister for DoEHLG submission

To seek compliance with Article 10 of the Habitats Directive with regard to encouraging the management of features in the landscape which are of major importance for wild fauna and flora. Such features are those which, by virtue of their linear and continuous structure act as biodiversity (such as rivers with their banks or the traditional systems for marking field boundaries) or their function as stepping stones which are of major importance for wild fauna and flora and (such as ponds or small woods), are essential for the migration, dispersal and genetic exchange of wild species.

Additional Mandatory Objective

Section 10(2)(c)

 

(cb) the promotion of compliance with environmental standards and objectives established—

(i)                 for bodies of surface water, by the European Communities (Surface Waters) Regulations 2009; 

(ii)                for groundwater, by the European Communities (Groundwater) Regulations 2010; which standards and objectives are included in river basin management plans  (within the meaning of Regulation 13 of the European Communities (Water Policy) Regulations 2003);

Manager’s Recommendation

Include reference to Mandatory Objective in section 1.2

Objective addressed as follows:

The above listed regulations are catered for as part of the implementation of the River Basin Management Plans and the following policy included in the Draft plan provides for this.

WQ 2:             To ensure, through the implementation of the River Basin Management Plans and their associated Programmes of Measures and any other associated legislation, the protection and improvement of all drinking water, surface water and ground waters throughout the county.

Additional Mandatory Objective

Section 10(2)

(n) the promotion of sustainable settlement and transportation strategies in urban and rural areas including the promotion of measures to—

(i) reduce energy demand in response to the likelihood of increases in energy and other costs due to long-term decline in non-renewable resources,

(ii) reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, and

(iii) address the necessity of adaptation to climate change; in particular, having regard to location,  layout and design of new development;

Manager’s Response & Recommendation

Include reference to Mandatory Objective in section 1.2

Objective addressed as follows:

EN 7:  To provide energy conservation and efficiency measures and facilitate innovative building techniques that promote energy efficiency and use of renewable energy sources in accordance with national policy and guidelines.

EN 2:  To support regional, national and international initiatives for limiting emissions of greenhouse gases through energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy sources which make use of the natural resources in an environmentally acceptable manner.  

It is considered that the settlement strategy of the Draft plan guides the location of new development in a sustainable manner focussing the bulk of development into existing centre close to existing population, public services, employment areas and public transport. The Draft plan also includes chapters with guidance with in relation to building design and layout that require the sustainable layout and design of new development.

Additional Mandatory Objective

Section 10(2)

(o) the preservation of public rights of way which give access to seashore, mountain, lakeshore, riverbank or other place of natural beauty or recreational utility, which public rights of way shall be identified both by marking them on at least one of the maps forming part of the development plan and by indicating their location on a list appended to the development plan,

Manager’s Recommendation

Include reference to Mandatory Objective in section 1.2

Objective addressed as follows:

Additional objective be included in Section 14.12

It will be an objective of the Council during the period of this plan, to provide for

the preservation of public rights of way which give access to seashore, mountain, lakeshore, riverbank or other place of natural beauty or recreational utility, which public rights of way shall be identified both by marking them on at least one of the maps forming part of the development plan and by indicating their location on a list appended to the development plan

Additional Mandatory Objective

Section 10(2)

(p) landscape, in accordance with relevant policies or objectives for the time being of the Government or any Minister of the Government relating to providing a framework for identification, assessment, protection, management and planning of landscapes and developed having regard to the European Landscape Convention done at Florence on 20 October 2000.”

Manager’s Recommendation

Include reference to Mandatory Objective in section 1.2

Objective addressed as follows:

Section 14.9 contains objectives on the protection of landscape

Section 14.7.1 contains policies on the general protection of landscape.

Section 14.7.2-14.7.7 contains polices on the protection of particular landscape character areas.

In response to Sub 337- EPA

Insert additional objective in Section 14.9 (Landscape Objectives) to read as follows;

‘It is an objective of the Council to review and update the County Landscape Character Assessment in accordance with all relevant legislation and guidance documents’.

Section 10(2B)the information referred to in subparagraphs (vii) to (ix) of paragraph (f) and in paragraph (g) shall also be represented in the core strategy by a diagrammatic map or such other visual representation.

Manager’s Recommendation

Include Map illustrating core strategy to include;

(vi)              roads that have been classified as NP or NS under section 10 of the roads Act 1993 and relevant regional and local roads within the meaning of section 2 of that Act

(vii)            Relevant inter-urban and commuter rail routes and

(viii)          Where appropriate rural areas in respect of which planning guidelines relating to sustainable rural housing issued by the Minister apply

 

Section 7(a)(1D) The written statement referred to in subsection (1) shall also include a separate statement which shows that the development objectives in the development plan are consistent, as far as practicable, with the conservation and protection of the environment.”,

Manager’s Recommendation

Amend Section 1.5 and Include additional section 1.6 as set out hereunder.

1.5 Strategic Environmental Assessment

The Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive (2001/42/EC), was transposed into Irish Law through the European Communities (Environmental Assessment of certain Plans and Programmes) Regulations 2004 (SI No 435 of 2004) and the Planning and Development (Strategic Environmental Assessment) Regulations 2004 (SI No 436 of 2004) which requires the Kildare County Development Plan to undergo Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in order to improve planning and environmental management of future development in the County.

The Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), the term which has been given to the environmental assessment of plans, is a systematic process of predicting and evaluating the likely environmental effects of implementing a plan in order to insure that these effects are appropriately addressed at the earliest appropriate stage of decision-making on a par with economic and social considerations. The SEA was carried out in parallel to the preparation of this County Development Plan.  

The environmental issues which are considered by the SEA are as follows:
Biodiversity (flora, fauna),
Landscape/Geology;
Agriculture and Forestry;

Population;
Water Quality;
AirQuality;
Waste Management;
Cultural and Material Assets;
Climate


The Environmental Report of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the Kildare County Development Plan 2011-2017 provides a clear understanding of the likely environmental consequences of decisions regarding the future accommodation of development in County Kildare.  

The Environmental Report has guided the preparation of objectives, policies and development alternatives for the Development Plan with the aim of achieving sustainable development in the County without causing adverse harm to the environment.

1.6 Appropriate Assessment

All land use plans also require to be ‘screened’ for any potential impact on areas designated as Natura 2000 sites. In any case where, following screening, it is found that the draft plan may have an impact on the objectives of a Natura site, or such an impact cannot be ruled out, an Appropriate Assessment (AA) under the EU Habitats Directive must be undertaken.

This AA process comprises the assessment, based on scientific knowledge, of the potential impacts of the plan on the conservation objectives of any Natura site and the development, where necessary, of mitigation or avoidance measures to preclude negative effects. The impacts assessed must include the indirect and cumulative impacts of the plan, considered with any current or proposed activities, developments or policies impacting on the site. It informs plans of the environmental impacts of alternative actions and contributes to the integration of environmental considerations into plan making.

Section 10(2A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1A), a core strategy shall -

(e) Provide relevant information to show that in setting out objectives regarding retail development contained in DP that the PA has had regard to any guidelines that relate to retail development issued by the Minister

(vii) relevant roads that have been classified as NP or NS under section 10 of the roads Act 1993 and relevant regional and local roads within the meaning of section 2 of that Act

(viii) Relevant inter-urban and commuter rail routes and

(ix) Where appropriate rural areas in respect of which planning guidelines relating to sustainable rural housing issued by the Minister apply.

Manager’s Recommendation

Include additional references as outlined hereunder.

(vii, viii & e) Section 2.3 Kildare in Context:

Many of the main transportation corridors linking the Greater Dublin Area to the rest of the country pass through Kildare. These include three motorway corridors (M4, M7 and M9), the N7 and N81 National Primary Routes and the N78 National Secondary Route. Various regional and local routes also traverse the county together with four mainline railway passenger services, (the Sligo, Cork/Limerick, Galway and Waterford lines) and two important suburban services linking Kildare to Heuston and Maynooth to Connolly. Refer Map no. x).

Over the last five to ten years, the county has witnessed an unprecedented growth in the quality and quantum of its retail offer. This plan seeks to continue to sustain and improve the retail profile and competitiveness of the county within the retail economy of the Greater Dublin Area. In this regard, the preparation of Chapter 8 Retail has been informed by the 2008-2016 Retail Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area and the 2008-2016 Kildare County Retail Strategy.

(ix) Section 2.5.2 Rural Settlements / Countryside (Include text underlined and attach Map of rural planning policy zones)

The Sustainable Rural Housing - Guidelines for Planning Authorities, issued by the DoEHLG in 2005 identify that Kildare falls within the areas under strong urban influence and also within the stronger rural areas. The guidelines advise that only people who are part of the rural community are facilitated for one-off housing and that there is careful management of the rural environs of major urban areas to ensure their orderly development in the future. To facilitate the management of rural one off housing, Map x identifies rural policy zones which have been identified on the basis of key considerations which are outlined in detail in Chapter 4. (Include map outlining rural planning policy zones which will manage the provision of rural housing throughout the county).

The rural settlements and countryside representing a smaller proportion of the overall growth for the county (1.8% in rural settlements / nodes and 15% in rural countryside) which is detailed in Chapter 3, Settlement Strategy. Policies and objectives to govern their future development are contained in Chapter 4, Housing and Chapter 17, Villages and Settlements.

 

The members agreed the proposed changes to the Draft Plan.

Motion 35 – Cllr. Weld

A material contravention was granted to the landowners to expand their existing trailer repair business that is in operation pre 1963.

Request that the subject lands at Baltracey, Donadea be zoned ‘Industry’.

Manager’s Response

 

The circumstances relating to this motion are adequately covered in the following section of the Draft Plan.

19.1.3 Non-Conforming Uses

Throughout the county there are uses that do not conform to the zoning objectives for that area. These are uses which;

  1. Were in existence on 1st October 1964,
  2. Have valid permissions or,
  3. Have no permission and which may or may not be the subject of enforcement proceedings.

Extensions to and improvement of premises referred to in categories 1 and 2 above may be permitted. This would apply where proposed development would not be seriously injurious to the amenities of the area and would not prejudice the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

 

Manager’s Recommendation

No change

The Manager’s recommendation was agreed.

Deferred (b) Submission 249(b); page 492 – down zoning land at Newhall

Cllr. Moore said that following discussions by members on his proposal to downzone elements of lands at Newhall Naas, in Naas Environs, from Industry/Warehousing to Whitelands (Ref No. 166 (b)) p. 493), he now wished to clarify his request (a) that all land zoned Industry/Warehousing but not developed in this sector be downzoned, (b) because previous zoning had proven to be premature at this location with no development taken up during the lifetime of previous plans thus denying opportunities and options to other active development site areas that require further hectares for continued development.  Cllr. Lawlor seconded the motion and Cllrs. Nolan and Callaghan indicated their support for it also.

 

John Lahart said the members needed proper planning reasons to downzone this land and the fact that it had not been used for industrial development yet was not a valid reason.

 

The members called for a vote and the motion was carried by 18 votes to nil.

 

Suspension of Standing Orders

It was agreed to suspend Standing Orders to allow the meeting to continue to 7pm.

 

Rural Housing Policy Motion Agreed 12th November 2010 subject to wording in relation to Map 4.1

Motion: Remove map 4.1.

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

Motion: To implement a quota policy for the proportionate distribution of one off rural housing that will act in conjunction with the current policies on rural housing in the existing CDP.

Manager’s Response

In light of the submission received from the DOEHLG The Manager has recommended the inclusion of Map 4.1 in the CDP, which was originally recommended for inclusion in the proposed Draft CDP.  In light of the submission received from the DOEHLG stating that an area based rural housing policy should be implemented to reflect high pressure and sensitive rural areas, it is recommended that the rural housing policy originally proposed to the members be adopted (please refer to p.32 of the Managers report on submissions to the Draft CDP). An area specific rural housing policy is be in accordance with the DoEHLG guidelines for rural housing. A quota based approach to the management of rural housing in the county is not in accordance with these national guidelines.

Manager’s Recommendation

Include following text:

“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  and / or ability of the individual site to accommodate waste water treatment infrastructure and services together with the assimilative capacity of rivers  into which treated effluent may be discharged. “

 

Cllr. S. Doyle said this new policy was over complicated and couldn’t be applied.  Cllr. Miley said that John Lahart had given a commitment to identify criteria to soften the approach which this policy did not do.  It would undermine rural areas and was unacceptable.  Cllr. Lawlor said getting the correct wording to go with the map was extremely important and Cllr. O’Loughlin said that equality and equity were what was required so that rural people would have the same opportunity to build a house.

John Lahart said a restrictive policy was required to avoid over provision.  The rate of housing provision over the past number of years was not sustainable and neither was the expense of providing infrastructure.  He said any map was only a generalisation and it would be misleading to base selection criteria on a map with no colour coding.  Some areas are more sensitive than others i.e. east Kildare uplands and the map is a reasonable interpretation of sensitivties and indicates where people are likely to succeed in getting planning permission.  He accepted the need for rural housing in the County but there was a need to get away from a one size fits all policy and the map was a tool in that respect.  The Minister had asked for a more nuanced approach and more focussed criteria.

Cllr. Miley said the current policy was extremely tight and controlled the urban generated rural demand.  The waste water treatment policy was also tight.  Even in the eastern uplands some sites are capable of taking housing and people have a right to live there.  He proposed the retention of the current rural housing policy and his proposal was seconded by Cllr. S. Doyle and Cllr. Langan.

A lengthy discussion took place following which Cllr. Griffin proposed that the three sensitivity criteria be reduced to two and was seconded by Cllr. Lawlor.

Cllr. Weld proposed a counter motion that the current policy be retained in the new Development Plan and was seconded by Cllr. Miley.

John Lahart reiterated that the Minister was expecting a more nuanced approach and may object to this approach.  He said there was merit in Cllr. Griffin’s proposal but a form of words was required to give effect to the Minister’s guidelines.  Michael Kenny stated that a single rural housing policy across the entire county was not appropriate, that County Development Plans up to 2005 plan recognised differences within the County itself (e.g. areas of development pressure and areas outside areas of development pressure in the 1999 CDP) and having regard to the DoEHLG Guidelines on Sustainable Rural Housng (2005) that an amalgamation of the high and medium sensitivities as proposed by Cllr. Griffin could be a solution and could comply with the Minister’s requirement that the Council’s rural housing policy adhere to the Sustainable Rural Housing Guidelines (2005).

Following further discussion a vote was taken and Cllr. Griffin’s proposal was carried by 11 votes to 9.

(a) Policy R21 – Cllr. S. Doyle to revert with wording. - In relation to submission 350 on page 199 Cllr. S. Doyle asked that Policy R21 be strengthened to specify a sequential approach to development.  It was agreed that she would submit a motion with specific wording for the meeting on 17th November.

R 21:   To confirm in the emerging Kildare Town Local Area Plan the priority of 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.

Agreed with Manager’s recommendation.

 

(b) Sub. 350(8) Section 9.4.2 – Cllr. S. Doyle to revert with wording. Pg. 211 Managers Report.

Agreed with Manager’s recommendation.

 

(c) Section 19.4.6 Public Open Space for Residential Development – Cllr. Murphy to revert with wording

Withdrawn.

 

Conclusion

The Mayor called for a proposer and seconder to amend the Draft Development Plan.  The amendments were proposed by Cllr. Griffin, seconded by Cllr. O’Donnell.  A roll call vote was requested by Cllr. S. Doyle, Cllr. M. Miley & Cllr. F. O’Loughlin, the result of which, by 18 votes to 3, was that the Draft Kildare County Development Plan 2011-2017 be amended in accordance with the recommendations in the Manager’s Report as further amended by the decisions of Council at its Meetings on 5th, 12th, 17th, 24th & 29th November and 6th December 2010, pursuant to Section 12 (6) of the Planning and Developments Acts 2000 to 2010. The members were advised that the proposed amendments would be placed on public display for a period of not less than four weeks in accordance with Section 12(7) and submissions/observations on these amendments would be invited during this period.

 

Result of roll call vote on Amendments Report:

 

F. Browne               Absent

K. Byrne                     For

W. Callaghan             For

R. Daly                     Absent

L. Doyle                     For

S. Doyle                   Against

S. Griffin                    For

M. Heydon                 For

P. Kelly                      For

P. Kennedy                For

S. Langan                  For

A. Lawlor                   For

P. Mac Namara      Absent

P. McEvoy                 For

J. McGinley                 For

M .Miley                   Against

S. Moore                     For

C. Murphy                   For

M. Nolan                     For

T. O'Donnell                  For

F. O'Loughlin           Against

C. Purcell                      For

D. Scully                     Absent

M. Wall                          For

B. Weld                        For

 

The Manager thanked both the members and staff of the planning Department for their work on bringing the Plan to this stage.  His thanks to the staff were reiterated by Cllr. Griffin on behalf of the Fine Gael party, by Cllr. Kelly on behalf of Fianna Fail, by Cllr. McGinley on behalf of the Labour Party and by Cllr. Murphy on behalf of the independents.

This concluded the business of the meeting.



[1] Important macro-corridors, stepping stones and contiguous areas of habitat include the County’s rivers, lakes, uplands and peat lands. It is recommended that important macro-corridors and contiguous areas of habitat are identified as part of the monitoring programme and that time resources are spent in the monitoring of these rather than in the monitoring of corridors or areas of habitat which are not important at County level.