CHOMHAIRLE CHONTAE NA GAILLIMHE MINUTES …galway.ie/en/media/1. (a) Minutes of Monthly Meeting...

Minutes of Monthly Meeting held on 26th January 2015

1 | P a g e

CHOMHAIRLE CHONTAE NA GAILLIMHE

MINUTES OF MONTHLY MEETING OF GALWAY COUNTY COUNCIL HELD AT THE LOUGH

REA HOTEL, LOUGHREA, CO. GALWAY, ON MONDAY 26TH JANUARY, 2015 AT 11.00 AM

CATHAOIRLEACH: Cllr. M. Hoade

Cathaoirleach of the County of Galway

Cllr. N. Byrne

Leas-Chathaoirleach of the County of Galway

I LATHAIR FREISIN:

Baill: Cllrs. T. Broderick, D. Burke, J. Byrne, N. Byrne, S.

Canney, J. Charity, D. Connolly, M. Connolly, G.

Cronnelly, Comh. S. Ó Cualáín, Cllrs. J. Cuddy, S.

Cunniffe, Comh. T. Ó Curraoin, Cllrs. S. Donnellan,

A. Donohue, M. Fahy, P. Feeney, G. Finnerty, M.

Finnerty, T. Healy, P. Hynes, D. Joyce, F. Kearney, P.

Keaveney, D. Killilea, M. Kinane, M. Maher, E.

Mannion, J. McClearn, K. McHugh, T. McHugh, M.

Noone, A. Rabbitte, P. Roche, N. Thomas, Comh S.

Ó Tuairisg, Cllrs. S. Walsh, T. Welby

Oifigigh: Mr. K. Kelly, Chief Executive (Interim); Messrs. J.

Cullen, L. Gavin, P. Gavican, Directors of Services;

Ms. C. McConnell, Acting Director of Service; Mr.

M. Owens, County Secretary & Meetings

Administrator; Ms. S. Kennedy, Senior Executive

Planner; Ms. M. Donohue, Senior Staff Officer; Ms.

E. Ó Doherty, Executive Planner; Ms. M. Doddy,

Conservation Officer; Messrs. B. Dunne, J.

O’Donnell, G. Kennedy, Executive Planners; An

tUas. P. O’Neachtain Oifigeach Gaeilge; Ms. G.

Healy, Staff Officer.

Thosnaigh an cruinniú leis an paidir.


2 | P a g e

RESOLUTIONS OF SYMPATHY 1951

Ms. Josephine Wallace, Tiernakill North, Maam, Co. Galway

Mrs. Esther Costello & Family, Anbally, Cummer, Tuam, Co. Galway

Mrs. Nora Egan & Family, Rusheens, Tuam, Co. Galway

Mr. John Callanan, Knockdoe, Claregalway, Co. Galway

Mrs. Eileen Canavan, Westport Road, Clifden, Co. Galway

Mr. Declan Collins, Carnmore, Oranmore, Co. Galway

Mrs. Mamie Grealish, Claregalway, Co. Galway

Mr. Hector O hEochagain, Rooaunmore, Claregalway, Co. Galway

Mr. Chris Kilkenny, Caheroyan, Athenry, Co. Galway

The Holland Family, Park, Athenry, Co. Galway

Ms. Máire Ní Fhlaithearta, Oifig Eamon Ó Cuiv, Kirwan House, Flood Street, Galway

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS 1952

The Minutes of the Monthly Meeting of the Council held on 15th December, 2014 were

approved by the Council and signed by the Cathaoirleach, on the proposal of Cllr. Maher,

seconded by Cllr. T. McHugh.

CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS & RECOMMENDATIONS 1953

The Report of the Corporate Policy Group Meeting held on 6th November, 2014 was approved

by the Council on the proposal of Cllr. McClearn, seconded by Cllr. Killilea.

TO CONSIDER REPORT UNDER SECTION 183 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2001 ON THE DISPOSAL OF 0.85 HECTARES OF LAND AT PÁIRC NA HABHANN, ATHENRY, CO. GALWAY 1954 Statutory Notice and Report dated 7th January, 2015 were already circulated to each Member.

On the proposal of Cllr. Feeney, seconded by Cllr. Maher, the disposal of a house on lands

comprising 0.85 hectares at Páirc na hAbhann, Athenry, Co. Galway, as outlined in the Statutory

Notice, was agreed.

The Chief Executive, in reply to Cllr. Killilea, confirmed that the house was constructed under

the Affordable Housing Scheme and in reply to Cllr. D. Connolly confirmed that the income from

the sale of the property would be allocated against the outstanding debit balance relating to

the development costs of the housing unit.


3 | P a g e

TO CONSIDER REPORT UNDER PART 8 OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 2001 – VISITOR CENTRE PROPOSED AT TEACH AN PHIARSAIGH, ROS MUC, CO. GALWAY. 1955 Report dated 20th January, 2015 was already circulated to each Member.

Ms. McConnell summarised the Report for the Members.

On the proposal of Comh. Ó Tuairisg, seconded by Cllr. Mannion, the proposed development of

a Visitor Centre at Teach an Phiarsaigh, Rosmuc, Co. Galway, as outlined in the Report, was

agreed.

The Members, in particular the Members of the Conamara Municipal District, welcomed the

proposed development at Teach an Phiarsaigh, Rosmuc stating that it will invigorate the

Rosmuc area. They urged that the project be fast-tracked to ensure that it is completed on

time for the Commemoration of the 1916 Rising in 2016.

Ms. McConnell said that this is a venture between Galway County Council and Údarás na

Gaeltachta and the Údarás has assured the Council that the work schedule for the project is on

track and the Council is confident that when completed, the Visitor Centre will be an impressive

development. In reply to Cllr. J. Byrne, she said that she believes that the cost-plan for the

development is fully achievable. Ms. McConnell also confirmed that the CPO process to

facilitate the acquisition of the lands required for the development was ongoing.

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS 1956 It was proposed by Cllr. McClearn, seconded by Cllr. M. Connolly and agreed, that the Standing Orders be suspended in order that Notice of Motion No. 19 be taken next, followed by Item 11. Cllr. Maher made the following proposal: “(A) That in the context of both enhancing the lives

and well-being of our deaf and hard of hearing citizens and adhering to the spirit and ethos of

the United Nations Convention on persons with disabilities that Galway County Council call on

the Government to give official recognition status to the Irish sign Language (ISL) and that this

Motion be circulated to all Local authorities.

(B) That Galway County Council calls on the Minister for Education to ensure that the issue of

sign Language be put on the Primary/Secondary School curriculum thus ensuring that students

get to understand the basics of Sign Language”.

This proposal was seconded by Cllr. McClearn and agreed.


4 | P a g e

The Cathaoirleach welcomed the members from the Irish Deaf Society and the Sign Language

Interpreters who were present at the Meeting.

TO RECEIVE PRESENTATION FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS, ENERGY AND

NATURAL RESOURCES ON THE NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN (NBP) – CONNECTING

COMMUNITIES. 1957

The Cathaoirleach welcomed Mr. Sean Griffin, Assistant Principal, Communications Policy, at

the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources to the Meeting (DCENR).

Mr. Griffin addressed the Members stating that he was glad to be present at the Meeting in

order to give the Members an update on the Connecting Communities project and to engage

with them in this regard. He outlined the trends in the on-line market at present and also

outlined future demand for broadband. He said that the Connecting Communities project

under the National Broadband Plan has an ambitious target of ensuring that 100% of premises

in Ireland will have access to high-speed broadband, 53% covered commercially by 2016 and

with State-led intervention the DCENR’s aim is to ensure that the remaining 47% of premises

will be provided with a high-speed broadband, regardless of location, as expediently as

possible.

In relation to State-led Intervention he outlined the following:

State-led Intervention is only entered into when there is a market failure. In the case of

broadband, private commercial operators are not in the business of providing

broadband to every premises in the country and therefore state-led intervention is

necessary.

• In April 2014 the Government reaffirmed its commitment to make high speed

broadband available to all citizens regardless of location

• The focus is now on a long term, future-proofed infrastructure to deliver a network that

is capable of meeting future data demands in a rapidly evolving market

• An on-line map was published in November 2014, with all buildings in the State

identified as either having or not having access to high speed broadband by 2016

• A detailed intervention strategy will be published by mid 2015 outlining the detail of the

proposed intervention

• The overall objective is that a sustainable, reliable and future proofed network for all

areas is built to definitively address the broadband challenge in Ireland now and into the

future and that no further intervention should be necessary for decades to come

He said that a total of 100,000 km of road has to be covered in order to reach all of the houses

which are without a high-speed broadband service.


5 | P a g e

The mapping exercise which has been carried out by the Department includes existing and

future network data received from commercial operators which shows:

Where Next Generation broadband will be available in 2016

Where only basic broadband is available and unlikely to be upgraded by commercial

operators

Defines those areas in the State that require intervention “white areas”

He said that developing a network to provide a service to the premises not serviced by

commercial operators will take detailed planning and considerable time but the DCENR is

committed to the project.

He thanked the Members for their attention and he invited the Members to express their views

on the project and he said that he would be glad to answer any queries they had regarding the

initiative.

The Cathaoirleach thanked Mr. Griffin for his very interesting presentation and she welcomed

the intervention of the State in the provision of broadband to rural areas not serviced by

commercial providers. She said there is a serious divide between the broadband service being

provided to urban and rural areas and that those wishing to work from home are being

hampered because of the lack of broadband. She said that businesses in Headford are suffering

because of the lack of broadband. She invited the Members to speak on the item and said that

each speaker would be allowed 1 minute to speak on this subject.

The Members in turn spoke on the subject of broadband and a number said that they were

promised on many previous occasions that broadband would be rolled out to all communities

but this has not happen.

Cllr. Canney agreed with the Cathaoirleach stating that there is great frustration among

businesses in Tuam and Headford at the unavailability of broadband.

In reply to Cllrs. McClearn, M. Connolly, J. Byrne and Broderick, Mr. Griffin said that no major

infrastructure contract can be entered into by the DCENR without a Cost Benefit Analysis having

been completed. He said that he does not agree that the carrying out of a Cost Benefit

Analysis will result in the project not going ahead.

In reply to Cllr. G. Finnerty, Mr. Griffin said that a Government Department cannot legally

partner with a private service provider such as Eircom. Under Procurement legislation, a project

such as this must go through the tender process. He also said that in order for the project to


6 | P a g e

proceed, state aid clearance must be received and therefore the project must be structured

correctly in compliance with legislation.

Cllrs. Cunniffe, Hynes, Killilea, K. McHugh & Walsh said that a clear message must be brought

back to the DCENR that rural areas of County Galway do not have broadband, they need it and

they must get broadband.

Cllr. Thomas said that under the National Broadband Strategy it was promised that broadband

would be provided by 2016 and he said that the Government should understand that

broadband has become as important as electricity to many businesses.

Cllrs. Rabbitte and Noone asked Mr. Griffin to come back to the Members in 6 months time to

indicate to them what progress has been made on the project.

Mr. Griffin replied that the programme set out in the presentation has been determined to be

the most expedient means of ensuring that the objective of providing high-speed to all

premises as quickly as possible is met and this programme will not change.

In reply to Cllr. Roche, Mr. Griffin said that the DCENR has engaged with bodies representing

community groups and is also engaging in consultation with local authorities, and today’s

presentation is an example of this engagement. However he said it would not be possible to

meet with every community group in the country.

He said that he understands the frustrations of the Members and he said he will bring their

views back to the Department.

In reply to Cllrs. Walsh and Mannion regarding access to fibre optic broadband in remote areas,

he said that if they gave him the details of the problem areas in Conamara, he would endeavour

to get the information they require in this regard from the operator in question.

In reply to Cllr. D. Connolly, Mr. Griffin said that where infrastructure has been put in place by a

private operator, this belongs to the operator and the Department cannot intervene and any

problems in this regard should be addressed with the operator.

In reply to Cllr. Thomas, he said that COMREG should be contacted regarding any potential

misinformation put out in the public domain by private operators.


7 | P a g e

In reply to Cllr. Donnellan, Mr. Griffin said that it is not possible to give a definite timeframe for

the completion of the project, but 2020 is the best estimate at present.

In reply to Cllr. Kinane who suggested that the Department should use the infrastructure

created by Irish Water when putting the broadband service in place, and Cllr. Broderick who

asked why could the Department not have a policy in place of either an over or under ground

line, Mr. Griffin said that the Department cannot dictate who the bidders should engage with.

The Department will inform the bidders of their requirements by providing them with a

technical specification for the product, but they cannot dictate to them how to deliver the end

product. For example, the winning bidder may propose to use overhead cabling and therefore

they cannot be required to engage with any specific body.

In reply to Cllr. Kearney, Mr. Griffin said that he could not say how long it will take before

specific areas get broadband as the structure of the project has yet to be decided. The aim of

the Department is to roll out a high-speed broadband to every house in the state as quickly and

efficiently as possible.

Cllr. Charity said that the National Broadband Plan which was launched in 2012 included a

provision that half of the population would have broadband by 2015. He said that prior to the

local elections in 2014, the two Government parties announced that up to 86 rural locations

around County Galway, including locations such as Corrandulla, Headford, New Inn and the

Aran Islands, would be provided with broadband, however he said that the Government has

reneged on these promises.

Cllr. Healy said that eCommerce is critical for Conamara and he said that Eircom refused to roll

out DSL and maintained dial-up as long as they could.

Cllr. Fahy thanked Mr. Griffin for the excellent presentation but he said that the message must

go back to the Department that every house in County Galway needs broadband.

In reply to Cllr. Donnellan, Mr. Griffin said that the objective is that a minimum speed of 30mg

per second download and a suggested upload speed of 10mg per second will be provided.

However, he said that this minimum should increase as services expand in urban areas to

ensure that rural broadband speed keeps up.

In reply to Cllr. Broderick, Mr. Griffin said that he would make a copy of his report following

today’s Meeting available to the Members if they require same.


8 | P a g e

In reply to Cllr. Cronnolly, he said that the overall objective is that a sustainable, reliable and

future proofed network for all areas is built to definitively address the broadband challenge in

Ireland now and into the future and that no further intervention should be necessary for

decades to come.

He concluded by stating that the Department is committed to this project and intends to ensure

that it is successful.

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS 1958

On the proposal of Cllr. G. Finnerty, seconded by Cllr. McClearn, the Members agreed that

Items 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 be taken next.

TO CONSIDER AND IF DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO AUTHORISE THE ATTENDANCE AT CONFERENCES IN

ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 142(5) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2001 (AS AMENDED)

1959

Report dated 20th January, 2015 was already circulated to each Member.

It was proposed by Cllr. Welby, seconded by Cllr. McClearn, and agreed, that the attendance of

the Members named hereunder at the Conference entitled Government’s Construction 2020

Strategy – Local Government Housing Supply to be held at White’s Hotel, Wexford, on 6th – 8th

February 2015, be authorized:

Cllr. E. Mannion Cllr. P. Roche

It was proposed by Cllr. Welby, seconded by Cllr. McClearn, and agreed, that the attendance of

the Members named hereunder at the Conference entitled Co-operation Ireland – Regenerating

Local Spaces through Effective Community Planning, to be held at Dublin Castle, on 26th

February, 2015 be authorized:

Comh. S. Ó Tuairisg Cllr. M. Kinane

It was proposed by Cllr. Welby, seconded by Cllr. McClearn, and agreed, that on an exceptional

basis retrospective authorization be approved for the the attendance of the Member named

hereunder at the Conference entitled The Great War Roadshow – Loughrea Great War

Conference held at the Loughrea Hotel & Spa, Loughrea on 10th & 11th October, 2014.

Cllr. M. Hoade, Cathaoirleach


9 | P a g e

TO CONSIDER AND IF DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO AUTHORISE THE ATTENDANCE AT TRAINING

IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 142(5A) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2001 (AS

AMENDED)

1960

Report dated 20th January, 2015 was already circulated to each Member.

It was proposed by Cllr. Maher, seconded by Cllr. Donnellan and agreed, that attendance of the

Members named hereunder at the I.P.A. Training on Roles and Responsibilities of Strategic

Policy Committees, to be held at Áras an Chontae on 12th February 2015, be authorised:

Cllr. M. Hoade, Cathaoirleach Comh. S. Ó Tuairisg Cllr. D. Connolly Cllr. P. Roche Cllr. E. Mannion Cllr. M. Fahy

It was proposed by Cllr. Maher, seconded by Cllr. Donnellan, and agreed, that on an exceptional

basis retrospective authorization be approved for the the attendance of the Member named

hereunder at the Finance Training Course held at the Seven Oaks Hotel, Carlow on 16th

September, 2014.

Cllr. P. Feeney It was proposed by Cllr. Maher, seconded by Cllr. Donnell, and agreed, that on an exceptional

basis retrospective authorization be approved for the attendance of the Member named

hereunder at the Irish Water Regional Briefing for Elected Members held at the McWilliam Park

Hotel, Claremorris, Co. Mayo on 29th October, 2014.

Cllr. F. Kearney It was proposed by Cllr. Maher, seconded by Cllr. Donnellan, and agreed, that on an exceptional


hereunder at the A.I.L.G. Inaugural Annual Conference 2014 held at the Hotel Kilmore, Dublin

Road, Cavan on 29th - 30th October, 2014.

Cllr. F. Kearney It was proposed by Cllr. Maher, seconded by Cllr. Donnellan, and agreed, that on an exceptional


hereunder at the I.P.A. Audit Committee Training held at the Ardilaun Hotel, Galway on 11th

November, 2014.

Cllr. M. Hoade (Cathaoirleach)


10 | P a g e

TO NOTE THE SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS OF CONFERENCES ATTENDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 142 (5F) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2001 (AS AMENDED) 1961 Report dated 15th January, 2015 was already circulated to each Member. On the proposal of Cllr. McClearn, seconded by Cllr. G. Finnerty, the Members agreed to note the Summaries of Proceedings of the Conference entitled Budget 2015 Review as submitted by Cllr. Walsh. On the proposal of Cllr. McClearn, seconded by Cllr. G. Finnerty, the Members agreed to note the Summaries of Proceedings of the Conference entitled Maximising E.U. Funding Opportunities 2014 - 2020 as submitted by Cllrs. Cunniffe and N. Byrne. On the proposal of Cllr. McClearn, seconded by Cllr. G. Finnerty, the Members agreed to note the Summaries of Proceedings of the Conference entitled Alignment of Local Government & Local Development as submitted by Cllr. Donohue. On the proposal of Cllr. McClearn, seconded by Cllr. G. Finnerty, the Members agreed to note the Summaries of Proceedings of the Conference entitled Charities Regulation & Legislation as submitted by Cllr. Kearney. On the proposal of Cllr. McClearn, seconded by Cllr. G. Finnerty, the Members agreed to note the Summaries of Proceedings of the Conference entitled The Effects of Budget 2015 as submitted by Cllr. Roche. On the proposal of Cllr. McClearn, seconded by Cllr. G. Finnerty, the Members agreed to note the Summaries of Proceedings of the Conference entitled Housing & Local Government as submitted by Cllr. McClearn.

TO CONSIDER THE MANAGEMENT REPORT – JANUARY 2015 IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 136(2) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2001 (AS AMENDED) 1962 Report dated 20th January, 2015 was already circulated to each Member.

On the proposal of Cllr. McClearn, seconded by Cllr. Maher, it was agreed to note the

Management Report for January 2015.

TO CONSIDER AND IF DEEMED APPROPRIATE ADOPT THE TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME 2015 – 2019 1963 On the proposal of Comh. Ó Tuairisg, seconded by Cllr. G. Finnerty, it was agreed to adopt the

Training & Development Programme 2015 – 2019.


11 | P a g e

TO CONSIDER, UNDER SECTION 12 (8)(A) OF THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 (AS AMENDED), THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S REPORT ON THE SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED ON THE MATERIAL ALTERATIONS TO THE DRAFT GALWAY COUNTY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2015 – 2021, FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC DISPLAY PERIOD OF 23RD OCTOBER 2014 – 20TH NOVEMBER 2014 AND TO ADOPT THE DRAFT GALWAY COUNTY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2015 – 2021 1964 [Report already circulated and available on the extranet] The Cathaoirleach invited Ms. Kennedy to present the Chief Executive’s Report on the submissions received to the Material Alterations to the Draft County Development Plan for Galway 2015-2021.

Ms. Kennedy referred the Meeting to Section 3.0 of the Chief Executive Officer’s report (Guidance to the

Elected Member) and read to the Meeting that “Responsibility for making a Development Plan, including

the various policies and objectives contained within it, in accordance with the various provisions of the

Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended) rests with the Elected Members of the Planning

Authority, as a reserved function under Section 12 of the Act. In making and adopting the Development

Plan, the Elected Members, in accordance with Section 12 (11) of the Planning & Development Act, 2000

(as amended) are restricted to considering the proper planning and sustainable development of the area

to which the Development Plan relates, the statutory obligations of any local authority in the area and any

relevant policies and objectives of the Government or Minister of the Government. The Members must act

in the interests of the common good and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area

and in accordance with the “Code of Conduct for Councillors” prepared under the Local Government Act

2001. They must carry out their duties in this regard in a transparent manner, must follow due process

and must make their decisions based on relevant considerations, while ignoring that which is irrelevant

within the requirements of the statutory planning framework.”

Ms. Kennedy advised the Meeting that twenty seven (27) submissions were received within the public

consultation statutory timeframe on the Material Alterations to the Draft County Development Plan. She

said that nineteen (19) submissions were received in relation to the Draft Galway County Development

Plan and eight submissions (8) were received in relation to the Record of Protected Structures.

Submission CDP 1 – Department of Environment, Heritage & Local Government (DOELG)

Ms. Kennedy outlined the issues raised by the Department of Environment, Heritage & Local

Government in their Submission and the Chief Executive’s Recommendations, as outlined in the Chief

Executive’s Report.

Ms. Kennedy advised that in respect of Section 2.4.14 The Core Strategy and Retail Development, a

minor modification was made to the Material Alteration, on foot of this Submission, as follows:

Section 2.4.14 The Core Strategy and Retail Development

“However, appropriately scaled new retail development in centrally located sites within ‘Other Villages’

and ‘Other Settlements’ shall also be encouraged considered.”


12 | P a g e

Comh. O’Tuairisg said that the addition of the word ‘considered’ could restrict development. He said

that the overall trend of the Draft County Development Plan was to focus on the development of towns

and villages but not to the detriment of rural areas and said that rural revitalisation was needed.

On the proposal of Comh. O’Tuairisg, seconded by Cllr. Walsh, the following wording for the last line

of Section 2.4.14 The Core Strategy and Retail Development was agreed:

Section 2.4.14 The Core Strategy and Retail Development

“However, appropriately scaled new retail development in centrally located sites within ‘Other Villages’

and ‘Other Settlements’ shall also be encouraged”.

In respect of Objective UHO 10 – Sequential Development, Ms. Kennedy advised of new additional

wording to be added to this Objective, on foot of this Submission, as follows:

Objective UHO 10 – Sequential Development

“.......Regarding the phasing of undeveloped residential zoned land, normally development on

Residential – Phase 2 lands will only be considered where 50% of the lands in Residential Phase 1 are

committed to development.”

Comh. O’Tuairisg expressed his concern with this additional wording.

Cllr. Welby said that sequential development should be treated very carefully as it could have major

complications for unzoned or zoned land.

In response, Ms. McConnell advised that Phase 1 and Phase 2 land zonings were only applied to the

towns/villages where a Local Area Plan (LAP) was in place and where there were a substantial amount of

over-zoned land. She said that Phasing does not occur for the other towns and villages.

Ms. McConnell explained that the DOELG’s submission required Galway County Council to be very

specific regarding the level of development attributable to various zoned areas of land throughout the

County. She said that with regard to the suitability of land for development, that all Phase 1 lands have

been checked and walked over regarding serviceability and suitability for development whether

available or not. She said that 50% was an acceptable figure to commence consideration of Phase 2

lands so as no one landowner could hold the balance of power.

The Chief Executive advised the Meeting that the approach taken was similar to the approach used in

the Local Area Plans. He explained that in respect of Local Area Plans, rather than de-zoning land, lands

were zoned Phase 1 and Phase 2 and this is the accepted norm.

In reply to Cllr. McClearn, Ms. McConnell advised that there were Local Area Plans in place for the

following Towns : Tuam, Athenry, Oranmore, Loughrea, Clifden, Bearna, Gort, Maigh Cuillinn, and also

for the towns of An Cheathrú Rua and An Spidéal within the Gaeltacht Local Area Plan. She explained

that a review of Local Area Plans for Headford, Portumna and Ballinasloe were currently being

undertaken.


13 | P a g e

In reply to Comh. O’Tuairisg, Ms. McConnell explained that the ‘50% committed to development’ meant

approved for permission i.e. committed for development.

Cllr. Welby said that it was aspirational to achieve sequential development and a presumption to

sequential development would mean a lot of planning permissions would be refused. Ms. McConnell

explained that this Objective refers to multiple housing developments and not single house projects.

The Chief Executive advised that careful consideration needs to be given to proposals to make changes

where persons do not have the opportunity to make a submission. He said that this objective needs to

be examined in its overall context. He said while development is encouraged from the town/village core

outwards, it does not mean that if the land is not built on then no other development can be

considered. He explained that the current wording of this Objective in the Plan gives some steer to a

prospective applicant in a town/village with no zoning.

On the proposal of Cllr. Welby, seconded by Cllr. Walsh the following wording for Objective UHO 10 -

Sequential Development was agreed:

Objective UHO 10 – Sequential Development

Endeavour to promote the orderly and phased development of residential development in accordance

with the principles of the sequential approach and as set out in the Sustainable Residential Development

in Urban Areas (Cities, Towns & Villages) Guidelines 2009 (or as updated). This shall include a positive

presumption in favour of the sequential development of suitably serviced Residential (Phase 1) lands in

zoned towns and villages. In un-zoned towns and villages, the presumption shall be in favour of

sequential development emanating from the town/village core outwards, subject to compliance with

the principles of proper planning and sustainable development and the County Development Plan. This

objective shall not refer to single house build. Regarding the phasing of undeveloped residential zoned

land, normally development on Residential – Phase 2 lands will normally only be considered where 50%

of the lands in Residential Phase 1 are committed to development.

Ms. Kennedy said that in respect of Objective CS8 Core Strategy and Demand for Development, a

wording modification was made to the Material Alteration, on foot of this Submission, as follows:

Objective CS8 Core Strategy and Demand

Galway County Council is committed to ensuring that the overall population growth of the County

complies with the level of growth set by the Regional Planning Guidelines but recognises that the

pattern of demand for development may deviate from the scenario set out in the Core Strategy. and

settlement hierarchy as outlined within the Core Strategy.

This was agreed by the Members.


14 | P a g e

On the proposal of Comh. O’Tuairisg, seconded by Cllr. Feeney, the following motion was proposed in

respect of Objective CS8 Core Strategy and Demand:

“Galway County Council is committed to ensuring that the overall population growth of the County

complies with the level of growth set by the Regional Planning Guidelines but recognises that the

pattern of demand for development may deviate from the scenario set out in the Core Strategy.”

This proposal was not agreed and the Proposal was withdrawn.

The Chief Executive advised the Meeting that this issue came up in various consultation submissions

including the DOELG’s Submission. He said that this additional wording indicated a commitment by

Galway County Council to comply with the level of growth in the Regional Planning Guidelines. He

explained that the Core Strategy is a commitment with certainty on how the County will develop.

It was agreed to accept the Recommendations in the Chief Executive’s Report, as amended by the

Members, in respect of Submission CDP 1.

Submission CDP 2 – Department of Agriculture, Food & the Marine

Ms. Kennedy explained that the issues raised by the Department of Agriculture, Food & the Marine in

their Submission did not relate to the Material Alterations and advised that the Chief Executive’s

Recommendation was no change to the Draft Plan, on foot of this Submisson.

It was agreed to accept the Recommendation in the Chief Executive’s Report in respect of Submission CDP 2.

Submission CDP 3 – Department for the Arts, Heritage & the Gaeltacht

Ms. Kennedy advised that the Natura Impact Report (NIR) on the Draft Plan would be updated to

address any concerns raised by the Department for the Arts, Heritage & the Gaeltacht in their

Submission. She said that additional explanatory text shall be added to the NIR to explain that the

potential effects (a new Appendix will be included in the NIR) arising from the draft Plan and the

proposed Material Alterations to the draft Plan have been mitigated so that they will not have a

significant adverse effect on the integrity of the Natura 2000 network.

It was agreed to accept the Recommendations in the Chief Executive’s Report in respect of Submission CDP 3.

Submission CDP 4 – Environnental Protection Agency (EPA)

Ms. Kennedy advised that the following text changes were made, on foot of the Environnental

Protection Agency - EPA’s Submission:

Chapter4

(i) Objective EDT 25- Wild Atlantic Way


15 | P a g e

Support and facilitate the Wild Atlantic Way project in conjunction with the relevant stakeholders and

Galway County Council will actively encourage the creation of spurs to link in with the Wild Atlantic Way

as was intended, taking into account environmental sensitivities.

Chapter 7

(iv) Policy ER 2- Development of Renewable Energy

The Council shall support proposals for renewable energy developments at all scales at appropriate

scale (including........

Objective ER 4-Renewable Energy

1. Support and facilitate the sustainable development and use of appropriate renewable energy

resources and associated infrastructure within the County,.......

Chapter 10

Chapter 10 Strategic Aims

To promote and facilitate the sustainable development of the Gaeltacht and Island communities.............

Chapter 11

Objective AFF 16- Marine Tourism

The Council will support, subject to meeting the requirements of relevant Irish planning and European

environmental legislation including the Habitats Directive, the sustainable development of the

necessary infrastructure and amenities to support marine tourism such as deep sea angling, sailing,

canoeing, surfing, island exploration and crusie ship passengers.

In respect of Objective EDT 25- Wild Atlantic Way, Comh. O’Tuairisg said that this text change could be

restrictive. He said that the Wild Atlantic Way had been a success and the Council should do everything

they can to allow development. He said that while there could be environmental sensitivity as this is a

scenic route, a balanced view must be considered. Following discussion, it was agreed to accept the

suggested wording for Objective EDT 25 Wild Atlantic Way.

On the proposal of Cllr. Healy, seconded by Cllr. D. Connolly, the following motion was proposed; to

remove the word ‘appropriate’ from Policy ER 2 – Development of Renewable Energy:

Policy ER2 Development of Renewable Energy

The Council shall support proposals for renewable energy developments at all scales at appropriate

scale (including........


16 | P a g e


On the proposal of Comh. O’Tuairisg, seconded by Cllr. Walsh, the following motion was proposed; to

remove the word ‘sustainable’ from Objective AFF 16- Marine Tourism:

Objective AFF 16- Marine Tourism

The Council will support, subject to meeting the requirements of relevant Irish planning and European

environmental legislation including the Habitats Directive, the sustainable development of the

necessary infrastructure and amenities to support marine tourism such as deep sea angling, sailing,

canoeing, surfing, island exploration and cruise ship passengers.


The Chief Executive advised the Meeting that following consideration of a detailed Submission from the

EPA, a number of small word changes were made.

It was agreed to accept the Recommendations in the Chief Executive Officer’s Report in respect of Submission CDP 4.

Submission CDP 5– Irish Water

Ms. Kennedy advised that the minor text changes were made, on foot of Irish Water’s Submission, to

Policy WS2 Irish Water and Rural Towns & Villages, Section 6.5 Water Services, and Objective WS 12-

Adequate Provision & Supply of Drinking Water as follows:

Policy WS 2 - Irish Water and Rural Towns & Villages

Galway County Council will work with Irish Water to provide proper appropriate water and wastewater

facilities in rural towns and villages.

Section 6.5

Water Services

......In order to maintain continuity of service, Irish Water has entered into Service Level Agreements

(SLA) with Galway County Council for the operation of Irish Water’s assets for the next twelve years.

Objective WS 12- Adequate Provision & Supply of Drinking Water

Ensure that new developments are adequately serviced with a suitable quantity and quality of drinking

water supply and require that all new developments provide for water supply metering when making a

connection to the public water supply. intending to connect to a public water supply liaise with Irish

Water with regard to the water (and waste water) infrastructure required.


17 | P a g e

Ms. Kennedy also advised that Table 6.2 and Table 6.4 was updated based on information received from

Irish Water as follows:

Table 6.2

Ballinasloe Regional Water Supply Scheme

Network (Ahascragh, Ballinasloe, Kilconnell Advance Works) Under Review by Irish Water

Clifden Water Supply Scheme Water Treatment Plant

Clifden Regional Water Supply Scheme

Scheme at Planning Contract Name Under Review by Irish Water

Casla/ Costello Regional Water Supply

Network & Water Treatment Plant Upgrade Irish Water to appoint a consultant to to review this upgrade and an alternative option to supply this area from Terryland WTW in Galway City,

Water Conservation Stage 3 Works

Ballinasloe, Oranmore, An Cheathrú Rua, Corofin, Headford, Loughrea Mains & Gort RWSS Ph 1

Loughrea Water Treatment Plant

Scheme at Planning Emergency Works at Water Treatment Plant Under review by Irish Water with possibility of extending the Tuam RWSS to supply Loughrea.

Loughrea Water Treatment Plant

Contract Name TBC Under review by Irish Water with possibility of extending the Tuam RWSS to supply Loughrea.

Loughrea Regional Water Supply Scheme

Contract 1 – Network Under review by Irish Water with possibility of extending the Tuam RWSS to supply Loughrea.

Water Conservation Stage 3 Works

Scheme at Planning (Rehabilitation of water mains schemes throughout the County)

Table 6.4

Athenry Sewerage Scheme Network & Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade Under review by Irish Water

Baile Chláir & Milltown Sewerage Contract 3 WWTP & Pumping Stations Wastewater treatment Tender awarded-will proceed to construction.

Clifden Sewerage Scheme Phase 1 Network & Wastewater Treatment Plant Under construction

Kinvara Sewerage Scheme Network & Wastewater Treatment Upgrade Approved. To be tendered in 2015

Mountbellew Sewerage Scheme Wastewater Treatment Contract Name TBC Under review by Irish Water

Oughterard Sewerage Scheme Network & Wastewater Treatment Under review by Irish Water

Glenamaddy Sewerage Scheme Scheme at Planning Review Scope & Commence Construction Under review by Irish Water. Compliance issues. Priority Status

Ballinasloe Sewerage Scheme Scheme at Planning

Ballygar Sewerage Scheme Scheme at Planning Contract Name TBC / Review Scope & Commence Construction Early stages of design.

Galway Sewerage Scheme Phase 3–Vol E (Galway East Infrastructure)

Scheme at Planning Not currently on CIP but Irish Water aware of importance of Galway County Council attached to the scheme.


18 | P a g e

In respect of Table 6.2, Cllr. D. Connolly queried the implication of the removal of Water Conservation Stage 3 Works at Ballinasloe, Oranmore, An Cheathrú Rua, Corofin, Headford, Loughrea Mains and Gort RWSS Ph1 at the request of Irish Water. In response, Ms. McConnell said that the Table was updated to provide clarity as some Schemes have progessed. She explained that this Table would not make any difference to Irish Water in terms of progression of works by them but that it clarifies the up to date position of Irish Water’s Programme of Works at this time.

Mr. Cullen concurred with Ms. McConnell and advised that ultimately Irish Water will determine what Schemes progress and said that the Table in the County Development Plan 2015-2021 should be as accurate as possible and the changes made reflect the current position of the Schemes. In reply to Cllr. D. Connolly, Mr. Cullen said that the Water Conservation Stage 3 Works should not be confused with planned works in Ballinasloe and said that inclusion of these Tables 6.2 and 6.4 in the County Development Plan does not have implications for the Local Authority. Cllr. D. Connolly requested that the delay in relation to advancing the Ballinasloe Town Enhancement Project due to lack of engagement by Irish Water be noted.

The Chief Executive advised the Meeting that the two Tables in the Plan, Table 6.2 and Table 6.4, were to provide information and the updated information gave a more accurate picture at the current time.

Cllr. Donohue said that he had the opportunity to meet with Irish Water officials in the area last week and while he may be unhappy with some of their timeframes for projects, he said that any queries regarding guidelines and timeframes were answered. He expressed his concern with the number of local representatives from the area in attendance at this meeting. Cllr. Broderick advised that he was not notified of this meeting with Irish Water.

In reply to Cllr. Maher’s query regarding the Loughrea Regional Water Supply Scheme, (RWSS), Mr. Cullen advised that Irish Water had previously indicated that the proposal regarding the upgrade of the Loughrea Regional Water Supply Scheme was under review and a series of options would be considered, which included the possibility of extending the Tuam RWSS to supply Loughrea. He said that further consideration could be given to this issue at the next Irish Water Meeting.

Cllr. K. McHugh asked if the County Development Plan could be amended if Irish Water’s programme of works changed. In reply, Ms. McConnell advised that the Table included in the County Development Plan is not a list that Irish Water has to follow but is a snapshot at this point in time of Irish Water’s programme of works over the lifetime of the Plan. She advised that these Tables were included so these projects could be assessed from a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) aspect for environmental impact. She said that if a reason

An Spidéal Sewerage Scheme Scheme at Planning 1,000 PE WWTP (DBO) & Collection Network Upgrade (Phase 1) To be reviewed by Irish Water.

Mountbellew Sewerage Scheme Scheme at Planning


19 | P a g e

occurred to review the County Development Plan, then these Tables could be further updated at that time. She explained that Irish Water’s Programme of Works were mentioned as likely Infrastructural projects for SEA consideration, but it should be noted that their insertion in the County Development Plan will not place an obligation on Irish Water to undertake these projects because they are mentioned in the Plan.


Submission CDP 6 – National Roads Authority

Ms. Kennedy outlined the issues raised by the National Roads Authority in their Submission and the

Chief Executive’s Recommendations, as outlined in the Chief Executive’s Report.

Ms. Kennedy referred to the amendment of the definition of Housing Need Eligibility to delete reference

to farm families in relation to access onto National Primary Roads as follows:

Housing Need Eligibility

Residential development along National Roads and other Restricted Roads will be restricted outside the

defined settlement centres or the town plan boundary will be restricted outside the 50-60kph speed

zones, except in exceptional circumstances in accordance with the DoECLG Spatial Planning and

National Road Guidelines (2012). Consideration shall be given to the need of farm families to live on

the family holding. on a limited basis and a functional need to live at this location must be

demonstrated. Where there is an existing access, the combined use of same must be considered and

shown to be technically unsuitable before any new access can be considered. Access via local roads

shall always be the preferred access. Where access to suitable sites on non-national/non restricted

roads is not available the use of a combined access with the existing family home must be considered.

Where a new access is required only one access shall be permitted on the landholding. Eligibility shall

only extend to the provision of a house for family members, on the farm of their parents. Proposed

access onto any restricted regional road must be accompanied by a justification for the proposed access

including an assessment of the scope for sharing an access and achieving access to an alternative minor

road.

Cllrs. Canney, Healy, Byrne, Kearney and Comh. O’Tuairisg expressed their concern with this

amendment.

Cllr. McClearn said that he would support the proposal to retain the original wording as it was likely that

if Galway County Council granted planning permission on a National Route, the NRA would appeal this

decision to An Bord Plenala.

Cllr. Cuddy said that this amendment was not practical as how could ‘exceptional circumstances’ be

defined.


20 | P a g e

Cllr. Kearney expressed his concern regarding the text omitted regarding family members.

The Chief Executive said that the reasoning was to provide certainty for individuals. He explained that

the NRA had appealed planning permissions in the past as they believed that the permitted

development was in contrast to the NRA’s policy.

On the proposal of Cllr. Kearney, seconded by Cllr. Mannion, the following wording for Housing Need

Eligibility, as read by Ms. McConnell to include reference to the Guidelines was agreed:

Housing Need Eligibility

Residential development along National Roads will be restricted outside the 50-60kph speed zones in

accordance with the DoECLG Spatial Planning and National Road Guidelines (2012). Consideration shall

be given to the need of farm families to live on the family holding on a limited basis and a functional

need to live at this location must be demonstrated. Where there is an existing access, the combined use

of same must be considered and shown to be technically unsuitable before any new access can be

considered. Access via local roads shall always be the preferred access.

Ms. Kennedy referred to a minor text amendment in Objective TI7 – Service/Rest Areas & Scenic

Viewpoints to include reference to the ‘NRA Service Policy (August 2014).

It was agreed to accept the Recommendations in the Chief Executive’s Report, as amended by the Members, in respect of Submission CDP 6.

Submission CDP 7– An Taisce (Tomás Bradley)

Ms. Kennedy outlined the issues raised by the An Taisce (Tomás Bradley) in their Submission and

outlined the Chief Executive’s Recommendations.

Ms. Kennedy advised that in respect of Objective RHO1 – Rural Housing Zone 1 (Rural Area Under Strong

Urban Pressure –GTPS), the Chief Executive’s recommendation remains unchanged and it was proposed

to delete objective RHO1 (1)(d) and re-insert text as per the draft plan as follows:

Material Alteration to be deleted

1.(d). Consideration shall be given to special circumstances where a landowner has no immediate family

and wishes to accommodate a niece or nephew on family lands. Documentary evidence shall be

submitted to the Planning Authority to justify the proposed application and will be assessed on a case by

case basis.

Re-insert text in objective RHO1(b) as per the Draft Plan:

“1.(b) Those applicants who have no family lands but who wish to build their first home within the

community in which they have long standing Rural links* and where they have spent a substantial,

continuous part of their lives (i.e. have grown up in the area, schooled in the area and have immediate

family connections in the area e.g. son or daughter of longstanding residents of the area. Consideration


21 | P a g e

shall be given to special circumstances where a landowner has no immediate family and wishes to

accommodate a niece or nephew on family lands. Having established......will be assessed on a case by

case basis.”

Cllr. Byrne expressed his concern to the Meeting that there was an issue regarding the definition of rural

links and said that some persons who were living 10-15 years in an area in Landscape categories 3/4/5

had difficulty in obtaining planning permission in the area.

Ms. McConnell said that no change was made to the definition of rural links. She said that rural links

couldn’t be defined to a period of time as it could exclude more than it could include.

Cllr. Kearney expressed concern regarding the wording niece or nephew. In reply, the Chief Executive

said that this was dealt with at the last Meeting and the Council is hereby responding to An Taisce’s

submission to remove special circumstances and reference to niece and nephew. He explained that the

Council haven’t agreed to this but have relocated the text from 1 (d) to 1 (b).

In respect of Objective RHO9 – Design Guidelines, Ms. Kennedy advised that the Chief Executive’s

recommendation remains unchanged and it was proposed to reinsert reference to ribbon development

and it is also recommended to delete new text referencing public consultation on the design guidelines

as follows:

Objective RHO9-Design Guidelines

It is an objective of the Council to have regard to Galway County Councils’ Design Guidelines for the

Single Rural House and to seek Public Consultation with specific reference to the following:

(a) It is an objective to encourage new dwelling house design that respects the character, pattern and

tradition of existing places, materials and built forms and that fit appropriately into the landscape.

(b) It is an objective to promote sustainable approaches to dwelling house design and encouraging

proposals to be energy efficient in their design and layout.

(c) It is an objective to require the appropriate landscaping and screen planting of proposed

developments by using predominately indigenous/local species and groupings.

(d) It is an objective to discourage linear development (defined as five or more houses alongside 250

metres of road frontage). The Council will assess on a case by case basis whether a given proposal will

exacerbate such linear development.

On the proposal of Cllr. Welby, seconded by Cllr. McClearn, it was agreed, to remove section (d) from

Objective RHO9 – Design Guidelines:

Objective RHO9-Design Guidelines

(d) It is an objective to discourage linear development (defined as five or more houses alongside 250

metres of road frontage). The Council will assess on a case by case basis whether a given proposal will

exacerbate such linear development.


22 | P a g e

On the proposal of Cllr. Healy, seconded by Comh. O’Tuairisg, the following motion was proposed, to

re-instate the text ‘and to seek Public Consultation’ at the introduction of Objective RHO9 – Design

Guidelines:

Objective RHO9 – Design Guidelines

It is an objective of the Council to have regard to Galway County Councils’ Design Guidelines for the

Single Rural House and to seek Public Consultation with specific reference to the following:


The Chief Executive explained that while there is no immediate plan to review the Design Guidelines, it

would be the intention to have full public consultation when a review was to be undertaken. In reply to

Cllr. Thomas, he explained that discussion to review the Design Guidelines would first take place with

the Planning SPC and then with the full Council.

In respect of Policy EDT9 Bearna Golf Club, Ms. Kennedy advised that the Planning Authority considers

that Section 4.12 Tourism contains sufficient reference to the tourist potential of the county and the

policies and objectives in Section 4.14 would facilitate a tourism enterprise (similar to Bearna Golf Club)

subject to the proper planning and development of the area.

On the proposal of Comh. O’Curraoin, seconded by Cllr. Walsh, it was agreed to include Policy EDT 9

Bearna Golf Club as follows:

Policy EDT9-Barna Golf Club

Facilitate the development of an integrated tourism and recreational complex at Bearna Golf and

Country Club, including the development of a hotel, leisure centre, conference centre, golf

apartments, aparthotel and associated residential units.

It was agreed to note a concern expressed by Cllr. Healy to include one specific enterprise in the County

Development Plan.

In respect of Section 4.9 Rural Enterprise, Ms. Kennedy advised of the re-insertion of text (previously removed by the Elected Members at the Material Alteration stage) to Section 4.9 Rural Enterprise, as An Taisce have advised in their Submission that the dispersed pattern of development could result if this text was omitted which would be socially, economically and environmentally unsustainable.

4.9 Rural Enterprise

There are over one hundred rural villages and settlements dispersed throughout the County, many of

which are devoid of enterprise and suffering from economic and population decline. It is therefore

desirable that small scale enterprises and community services are channelled into these locations where

possible. Notwithstanding this, rural enterprises can be defined as business or small scale industrial

projects or services which are related to normal rural activities and cater for the needs of a


23 | P a g e

predominantly rural client base. It therefore may be practical to facilitate certain developments relating

to agriculture, forestry, tourism, recreation and food production at rural locations outside of established

towns and villages. However, the type of development permitted in rural areas cannot be such as to

further threaten the viability of our settlements and town centres. However, the type of development

permitted in rural areas cannot be such as to further threaten the viability of our settlements and

town centres

In reply to Comh. O’Tuairisg, Ms. McConnell explained that a lot of businesses set up in rural areas and their location would be more appropriate in towns/villages. She said that business in towns/villages resent these ‘rural’ enterprises are they are often not subject to the same requirements as them, such as Rates.

Cllr. McClearn said that all development is subject to planning and said that rural areas are in decline and the Council should encourage any business to set up in an area. He said that he was supportive of the text already included and said that the Planners are well capable to make judgment at the developments planning application stage.

Cllr. Feeney said that the threat to rural Ireland is coming from Cities and Regional development and there is no threat to the rural areas from towns.

On the proposal of Cllr. McClearn, seconded by Cllr. Feeney, it was agreed to delete the new text

added and revert to the text as agreed at Material Alteration Stage as follows:

4.9 Rural Enterprise

There are over one hundred rural villages and settlements dispersed throughout the County, many of

which are devoid of enterprise and suffering from economic and population decline. It is therefore

desirable that small scale enterprises and community services are channelled into these locations where

possible. Notwithstanding this, rural enterprises can be defined as business or small scale industrial

projects or services which are related to normal rural activities and cater for the needs of a

predominantly rural client base. It therefore may be practical to facilitate certain developments relating

to agriculture, forestry, tourism, recreation and food production at rural locations outside of established

towns and villages. However, the type of development permitted in rural areas cannot be such as to

further threaten the viability of our settlements and town centres.


Submission CDP 8 – An Taisce (Derek Hambleton)

Ms. Kennedy advised that the contents of this Submission raised by An Taisce (Derek Hambleton) would

be examined in Part 2 of the Chief Executive’s Report which dealt specifically with the Submission

received on the Record of Protected Structures.


24 | P a g e

Submission CDP 9– Mayo County Council

Ms. Kennedy said the issues raised by Mayo County Council in their Submission were noted. She said

that the wording of Policy TI 9 Road Network Improvements & Western Rail Corridor/Greenway and

subsequent Material Alterations to same came directly from the NRA submission at draft stage which

included reference to the greenway and the western rail corridor as the NRA wish to ensure that

road/bridge improvement works along the WRC can progress. She said that the Chief Executive’s

Recommendation was no change recommended to the Material Alteration Policy TI 9.


Submission CDP 10– Irish Wind Energy Association

Ms. Kennedy said that the Irish Wind Energy Association’s Submission was noted and said that the Chief

Executive’s Recommendation was no change.


Submission CDP 11 – Connemara Granite

Ms. Kennedy said that Connemara Granite’s Submission was noted but the issue of development

contributions is outside of the remit of the Development Plan process and said that the Chief Executive’s

Recommendation was no change.


Submission CDP 12 – Michael Sheridan

Ms. Kennedy said that Michael Sheridan’s Submission was noted.

She advised that the Chief Executive’s recommendation is not to include this Material Alteration in the

Galway County Development Plan and omit Objective RHO1(e).

On the proposal of Cllr. Cuddy, seconded by Cllr. Feeney, it was agreed that Objective RHO1 (e) should

be included follows:

Objective RHO1 (e)

“1(e) Where applicants can supply land registry or folio details that demonstrate that the lands on

which they are seeking to build their first home, as their permanent residence, in the area have been

in family ownership for a period of 20 years or more, their eligibility will be considered. Where this


25 | P a g e

has been established to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, additional intrinsic links will not

have to be demonstrated.”


Submission CDP 13 – Domain Property Management

Ms. Kennedy said that Domain Property Management’s Submission was noted but it did not relate to

any of the Material Alterations placed on public display and said the Chief Executive’s Recommendation

was no change.


Submission CDP 14 – Keep Ireland Open

Ms. Kennedy outlined the issues raised by Keep Ireland Open in their Submission and said that the Chief

Executive’s Recommendation was to amend wording in relation to Objective LCM 4-Review of the

Landscape Character Assessment as follows:

“Objective LCM4–Review of the Landscape Character Assessment

On adoption of the National Landscape Strategy for Ireland 2015-2025, the Planning Authority shall

facilitate the development of the National Landscape Character Assessment prior to reviewing the

county Landscape Character Assessment.”


Submission CDP 15 – Cumann Forbatha Chois Fharraige (Donncha OhEallaithe)

Ms. Kennedy said that the Submission from Cumann Forbatha Chois Fharraige was noted and said that

the Chief Executive’s Recommendation was that An Cnoc revert back to its position in the Settlement

Hierarchy as per the Draft Plan.


Submission CDP 16 – An Fóram do Phobal Iorras Aithneach (Noirin Mhic an Iomaire)

Ms. Kennedy outlined the issues raised by An Fóram do Phobal Iorras Aithneach in their Submission and

said that the text changes relation to Objecive RHO1 2(a) were noted and considered as they related to

the Material Alterations to the Draft Plan. She explained that suggested text to RHO2 is not subject to

the Material Alterations and cannot be considered at this time. She said that the Chief Executive’s

Recommendation is that that the Material Alterations as proposed is noted and deemed acceptable as

follows:


26 | P a g e

Objective RHO1 2(a)

Those applicants who lived for substantial periods of their lives in the rural area, then moved away and

who now wish to return and build their first house as their permanent residence, in this local area, to

reside near other family members, to work locally, to care for elderly family members, or to retire.

Special consideration will be given to one member of the immediate family of emigrants returning to

this local area to live near their immediate family. Documentary evidence shall be submitted to the

Planning Authority to illustrate their links to the area in order to justify the proposed development and it

will be assessed on a case by case basis.

It was agreed to accept the Recommendations in the Chief Executive’s Report in respect of Submission CDP16.

Submissions CDP 17 Bernadine McElroy

Ms. Kennedy said that the issues raised by Bernadine McElroy in her Submission were noted and that

the Chief Executive’s Recommendation was no change to the Material Alterations proposed to the Draft

Plan.

Cllr. Cunniffe said that there was a problem in Tuam with regard to co-digesters and members of the

public were spending money to obtain information on them. He explained that this submission was

proposing that an exclusion zone is applied from residential areas of 5km and 2km from all rivers in

respect of the location of co-digesters.

On the proposal of Cllr. Canney, seconded by Cllr. K. McHugh, the following motion was proposed to

be included in the Plan:

“That an exclusion zone from residential areas of 5km should be applied to all co-digesters along with an

exclusion zone of 2km from all rivers”

This proposal was not agreed and the Proposal was withdrawn, based on advised received from

Council Officials.

The Chief Executive said that a number of planning applications had been dealt with in the past on their

merits. He said that while he does not disagree with parameters, it is the intention of the County

Development Plan to put in place a Renewable Energy Strategy, following on from the Wind Energy

Strategy and which would take account of the other energy forms and parameters could be included.

He explained that a detailed examination and analysis of the issue would be required but in the current

absence of this information, it would not be fair to ask the Elected Members, at this Meeting, to agree a

distance /parameter without consultation. He said that he could not advise as to what would be an

appropriate parameter as there could be valid development proposals and more information and

analysis is required.


27 | P a g e

In reply to Cllr. Canney, Ms. McConnell said that an objective to develop a Renewable Energy Strategy is

in the County Development Plan and it would be undertaken within the lifetime of the Plan.

In reply to Cllr. Cunniffe, Ms. McConnell said that the inclusion of a parameter would be a Material

Alteration which would not be possible at this time of the Development Plan process as there is no

further public consultation period. She explained that anyone affected by the 5k parameter would not

have an opportunity to make a submission at this stage of the process and there is also no sound basis

to establish a 2km/5km parameter.

In reply to Cllr. Cunniffe, Ms. McConnell said that there were currently no Guidelines available but it

would be the EPA that would development guidance in this area.

On the proposal of Cllr. Canney, seconded by Cllr. T. McHugh, it was agreed that ‘Anaerobic Digestion’

be removed from Objective ER4 Renewable Energy as follows:

Objective ER 4 – Renewable Energy

1. Support and facilitate the development and use of renewable energy sources and associated

infrastructure within the County, including

• Wind Energy;

• Wave/Tidal Energy;

• Hydro-Power;

• Solar Energy;

• Bio-Energy,

• Geo-Thermal

• Combined Heat Power (CHP):

• Heat Energy Distribution (such as District Heating/Cooling Systems);

• Anaerobic Digestion and

• Other renewable energy sources, as appropriate and in line with national guidelines for sustainable

development.

2. The Council shall commence a County Renewable Energy Strategy within the

lifetime of the plan as resources permit. This document will also take micro generation options in to

account and will recognise that Renewable Energy projects are not just limited to large scale

infrastructural projects.


28 | P a g e

It was agreed to accept the Recommendations in the Chief Executive’s Report, as amended by the Members, in respect of Submissions CDP17.

Submission CDP 18 – Coiste Culturtha & Oidhreachta na Ceathrú Rua (Domhnall O ‘Broin)

Ms. Kennedy advised that the contents of the Submission raised by Coiste Culturtha & Oidhreachta na

Ceathrú Rua would be examined in Part 2 of the Chief Executive’s Report which dealt specifically with

the Submission received on the Record of Protected Structures.


Submission CDP 19 – Coiste Pobail na Tulaigh

Ms. Kennedy outlined the issues raised by Coiste Pobail na Tulaigh in their Submission and said that the

Chief Executive’s Recommendation was that An Tulach/Baile na hAbhann remain in the ‘Other Village’

status in the settlement hierarchy as per the Draft Plan.


The Cathaoirleach advised that due to a requirement for her attendance at an official function

in her capacity as Cathaoirleach it was necessary for her to withdraw from the meeting. The

Leas-Chathaoirleach, Cllr. Niamh Byrne assumed the Chair the remainder of the meeting.

Cllr. Joyce declared a potential interest in an item due for consideration relating to the Record

of Protected Structure and having declared the interest withdrew from the meeting for the

duration of the consideration of the item.

Proposed Additions to the Record of Protected Structures (RPS)

In respect of the Proposed Additions to the Record of Protected Structures (RPS), Ms. Doddy advised

that eight (8) written submissions were received during the public consultation period.

Ms. Doddy advised the Meeting that the Connemara Municipal District Members met on 12 December

2014 to discuss the Pier/Bridges/Quays in the Connemara area and it was proposed at that Meeting that

due consideration would be given for the re-inclusion of many of the proposed additions to the Record

of Protected Structures onto the Record of Protected Structures.

Submission RPS 1 – An Taisce

Ms. Doddy outlined the issues raised by An Taisce in their Submission. She explained that An Taisce

Galway queried why there was no justifying statement to support the removal from the RPS of the

significant and varied amount of Protected Structures. She said they stated their profound objection to

the proposal to remove so many structures from the RPS. She advised that they recommended that

additional reports and statements are commissioned to tell the public why this amount of bridges and


29 | P a g e

piers are proposed for blanket removal. She said that they queried the councillors’ recognition of these

structures in the tourism product of County Galway or even for “our own appreciation”. She said they

quoted a news paper article by David McWilliams which cited the failure to recognize the “ value and

economic power of heritage and why we mess with it at our peril”

Ms. Doddy said that the Chief Executive’s Recommendation is to retain or remove structures on the RPS

as per the Chief Executive’s Report (July 2014) and this remains in place. She said that for clarity, it is

recommended that the structures proposed for removal from the RPS as part of the Material Alterations

to the Draft Plan are retained as protected structures.

Comh. O’Tuairisg advised the Meeting that following the Connemara MD Councillors Meeting of the 12th

December, it was proposed that a number of the bridges/quays/piers in the Connemara area be re-

instated on the Record of Protected Structures.

On the proposal of Comh O’Tuairisg, seconded by Comh. O’Culaín, it was agreed that the following

RPS, which were removed as Material Alterations to the Draft Plan, be re-included on the Record of

Protected Structures:

Prop. RPS

Number NIAH No Description

3053 30411107 Caladh Chill Ronain

3068 30411901 Cuan Chill Éinne Harbour

3302 30403505 Quay at Drimmeen

3303 30403514 Quay at Clifden

3305 30403601 Bridge at Gowla West

3307 30403517 Pier at Derrygimlagh

3309 30402209 Bridge at Cleggan

3313 30402317 Bridge at Attirowerty

3322 30401004 Bridge at Tooreena

3328 30402305 Tullywee Bridge

3330 30401103 Tullyconnor Bridge

3331 30401104 Owenduff Bridge


30 | P a g e

3332 30403610 Cloonbeg Bridge



3340 30403701 Bridge Owenmore/ballynahinch

3342 30402405 Bridge at Finnisglin

3343 30402404 Bridge at Letterbreckun

3344 30402403 Bridge at Gleninagh

3345 30401201 Pier at Glennagevlagh

3346 30402501 Bridge at Griggins

3347 30401202 Bridge at Munterown Middle

3348 30403707 Bridge at Garroman Recess

3349 30403703 Bridge at Lissoughter

3351 30405107 Bridge at Lettershinna

3353 30405105 Pier at inlet at Cashel Bay

3357 30403802 Teernakill Bridge

Prop. RPS


3359 30403903 Bridge at Lurgan/Shindilla

3368 30407604 Ard West Quay

3369 30407706 Carna Quay

3371 30407708 Ardmore quay

3373 30406401 Gowlabeg Bridge

3375 30405108 Bunnahown/Gowlamore Bridge

3378 30407803 U Plan Quay - Cahernaheeny

3382 30407805 T Shaped Quay – Annaghvaan


31 | P a g e

3386 30409002 Quay - Maumeen

3388 30409004 Quay – Teernea (Ross by)

3393 30407810 Bridge at Clynagh

3412 30402601 Corrnamona Bridge

3426 30402712 Bridge at Creggaree

3437 30408103 Laughil Bridge

3792 30327005 Bridge at Boohoona East

3795 30327014 Quay at Boohoona East

3956 30405001 Bridge at Cluidrevagh

3959 30406504 Bridge at Glencoh

3961 30407801 Quay at Rosmuck

3299 30404904 Aillebrack Quay

3304 30403516 Ballinaboy Bridge

3314 30402318 Quay at Keelkyle

3366 30407601 Mace quay

3367 30407602 Mace Pier

3372 30407705 Cé Chill Chiarian

3385 30409001 Maumeen Quay

3394 30409012 Dog legged slipway - Ballintleva (Moycullen)

3407 30405401 Bridge at barrusheen

3381 30407806 Curvilinear Causeway – Annaghvaan

3383 30407804 Bealadangan Bridge – Annaghvaan

3384 30407809 Curvilinear Causeway


32 | P a g e

On the proposal of Cllr. Mannion, seconded by Comh. O’Tuairisg, it was agreed that the following

structures remain removed from the RPS as per the Material Alterations to the Draft Plan.

It was agreed to accept the Recommendation in the Chief Executive’s Report, as amended by the Members, in respect of Submissions RPS 1.

Submission RPS 2 – Adrian Blyth

Ms. Doddy outlined the issue raised by Adrian Blythe in his Submission and advised that submissions

can now only be received in respect of Material Alterations to the Draft Plan and its Appendices,

following amendments made by the Elected Members at the County Council meetings of 29th September

and 4th October 2014. She said that this building cannot be removed at this stage of the Development

Plan process. She said that the Chief Executive’s Recommendation is that this structure identified and

recommended for inclusion on the RPS therein is retained.

It was agreed to accept the Recommendation in the Chief Executive’s Report in respect of Submissions RPS 2.

Submission RPS 3 – Old Tuam Society

Ms. Doddy outlined the issues raised by the Old Tuam Society in their Submission.

She said that the Old Tuam Society has requested Galway County Council to reverse its recent decision

to remove protection from the old Tuam Courthouse and to follow the advice of the Council’s

Conservation Officer. She said that the Submission points out the Courthouse is of architectural interest,

with a long history and is one of most recognizable buildings in the town. Ms. Doddy said that the

Submission points out that a building can be refurbished to meet the modern requirement of the Court

Service and cites examples from its website to support its argument. She said the Submission compares

the treatment of historic buildings in the UK and the rest of Europe and cites examples where heritage

protection is balanced with development. She said that the Old Tuam Society calls on Galway County

Council to back the preservation and regeneration of Tuam Courthouse and it should not be demolished

or sold and redevelopment is essential. She said that the Submission states that Heritage can be a force

for good economically and culturally, creating jobs and making a more confidant town.

Prop. RPS


3292 30325017 Quay Wall at Clifden

3787 30328005 Quay, High St., Roundstone


33 | P a g e

Ms. Doddy said that the Chief Executive’s Recommendation is that the Tuam Courthouse is

recommended for inclusion on the RPS and should be retained.

On the proposal of Cllr. T. McHugh, seconded by Cllr. Canney, it was agreed that RPS 3819 / NIAH

30331048 (Tuam Courthouse) be re-included onto the RPS.

Submission RPS 4 – Kevin O’Dwyer

Ms. Doddy outlined the issues raised by Kevin O’Dwyer in his Submission.

She said that the Submission refers to the decision to remove Tuam Court house and Congress House

from the RPS and the Submission’s writer believes that the Elected Members have erred and the court

house should be placed on the RPS. She said that the Submission outlined that the courthouse is part of

the history of the town and played a role in the first election in 1918 when both IRA and RIC guarded the

ballot boxes overnight. She said that the Submission outlined that Tuam does not have a huge amount

of such historic buildings and there is a great need to preserve those that remain.

Ms. Doddy said that the Submission also objected to the removal of Congress House (NIAH 30331010)

from the RPS and said that the Submission stated that Shop Street is a very old trading street in Tuam

and every effort should be made to protect the old buildings that give the street a unique appearance.


recommended for inclusion on the RPS and should be retained and that Congress House is also

recommended to be retained for inclusion on the RPS.

Cllr. Canney advised that consensus had been reached that people wanted the courthouse included on

the RPS. In respect of Congress House (NIAH 30331010),

On the proposal of Cllr. K. McHugh, seconded by Cllr. Canney, it was agreed that Congress House

(NIAH 30331010) remain removed from the RPS as per the Material Alterations to the Draft Plan.

As per Submission RPS 3, it was agreed that RPS 3819 / NIAH 30331048 (Tuam Courthouse) be re-

included onto the RPS.

It was agreed to accept the Recommendation in the Chief Executive’s Report, as amended by the Members, in respect of Submissions RPS 4.

Submission RPS 5 – Elizabeth H. Davenport

Ms. Doddy outlined the issues raised by Elizabeth H Davenport in her Submission. She said that the

Submission implores Galway County Council to restore Tuam Court house to the RPS and said that the

Submission stated that it was vital that “you representing the people of Tuam allow the town to retain

land marks such as this. Please allow the citizens to keep their heritage intact and to be proud of the

history of such an ancient township “.


34 | P a g e


recommended for inclusion on the RPS. As per Submission RPS 3, it was agreed that RPS 3819 / NIAH

30331048 (Tuam Courthouse) be re-included onto the RPS.

It was agreed to accept the Recommendation in the Chief Executive’s Report in respect of Submissions RPS 5.

Submission RPS 6 – Gia Griffiths Howard

Ms. Doddy outlined the issues raised by Gia Griffiths Howard in her Submission.

Ms. Doddy said that the Submission referred to the proposed deletions for the RPS and the writer

wished to plead that all the heritage structures be afforded the greatest protection. She said that the

Submission outlined that once something is demolished it cannot be brought back - its history is wiped

away. She said the Submission stated that if heritage is allowed to be piecemeal destroyed, the integrity

of the whole is lost forever.

Ms. Doddy said that the Chief Executive’s Recommendation is as per the Chief Executive’s Report (July

2014) that the structures identified and recommended for inclusion on the RPS therein are proposed to

be retained.

It was agreed to note the Recommendation in the Chief Executive’s Report in respect of Submissions RPS 6.

Submission RPS 7 – Coiste Foirbe Fhearann an Choirce

Ms. Doddy outlined the issues raised by Coiste Foirbe Fhearann an Choirce in their Submission.

She said that the Submission referred to the proposal to remove the school from the RPS and stated that

it was important to them both historically and looking to the future that their building remained on the

RPS.

Ms. Doddy said that the Chief Executive’s Response was that a submission for the Galway Roscommon

Educational training Board to the Draft Plan stated that they had decided to remove the school form the

RPS (RPS Submission No. 39 - The school is required to be accessible to all students and needs to

accommodate changes regarding educational establishments). She said that in the course of the Council

meeting a discussion was held where the members were fully informed of the consequences of the

decision in relation to each structure. Ms. Doddy explained that as additions and deletions to the RPS

were a Reserved function of the Elected Members, they ultimately decided to delete this structure, for

which a written reason for its removal was submitted. Coiste Forbatha Fearann an Choirce objects to

this proposed removal.

Ms. Doddy said that Conservation is the management of change. She explained that there were

guidelines issued on how to maximise accessibility in historic places offered protection published in

collaboration with the National Disability Authority. She explained that Inclusion on the RPS does not


35 | P a g e

mean that change and development cannot take place, but that the existing character of the place is

considered as part of the process.

She said that the Chief Executive’s Recommendation was that of the Chief Executive’s Report (July 2014)

and the structure identified (RPS 3043/NIAH 30411011) and recommended for inclusion on the RPS

therein is retained.

Comh. O’Tuairsig explained that this Group owns the building and they have it rented to the ETB . He

said that they hope to receive Conservation Grant funding if it is included on the RPS and have asked

that it be re-included on the RPS.

On the proposal of Comh O’Tuairisg, seconded by Comh. O’Curraoin, it was agreed that RPS

3043/NIAH 30411011 Scoil an Cheatrar Álainn (Killmurvy) which was removed as a Material Alteration

to the Draft Plan, be re-included on the Record of Protected Structures.

Submission RPS 8 – Coiste Culturtha agus Oidhreachta na Ceathru Rua

Ms. Doddy outlined the issues raised by Coiste Culturtha agus Oidhreachta na Ceathru Rua in their

Submission.

She said that the Submission refers to this historic bridge which they are afraid the beauty and heritage

of the bridge will be completely destroyed in the future unless it has “preservation” status. She said that

the Group are not opposed to works being carried out if necessary and they are not protesting the

removal of the bridge from the Record per se but do not want a carte blanche to be given for a newer

type construction and ask that the points raised are taken into consideration.

She said that the Chief Executive’s Recommendation was that of the Chief Executive’s Report (July 2014)

and the structure identified (RPS 3393/NIAH30407810 – Bridge at Clynagh) and recommended for

inclusion on the RPS therein is retained.

Comh. O’Tuairisg advised the Meeting that this bridge is the Gateway to An Cheathrú Rua. He said that

that one section of the bridge is blocked while the other side is made from stone and that it looks awful.

He said it is an eyesore as it is and it is in urgent need of repair as it is very narrow and dangerous. He

said that it has already been added back as previously agreed in Submission RPS 1.

It was agreed to note the Recommendation in the Chief Executive’s Report in respect of Submissions RPS 8.

In reply to Cllr. Canney, Ms. McConnell advised that individuals can apply to have their structures removed from the RPS by invoking the Section 55 Notice procedure. In reply to Comh. O’Tuairisg regarding the Quiet Man Cottage, Ms. McConnell said that following finalisation of the County Development Plan process, any owner of a property can apply for inclusion/omission from the Record of Protected Structures, under Section 55 of the Planning & Development Act 2000, as amended.


36 | P a g e

On the proposal of Comh O’Tuairisg, seconded by Cllr. Maher, it was agreed to accept the Chief Executive’s Report on the Material Alterations to the Draft Galway County Development Plan 2015-2021, as amended by the Members, and to adopt the Draft Galway County Development Plan 2015-2021 having corrected any typographical errors and minor amendments such as number changes and changes consequent made to the Draft Plan, as a result of these changes.

Comh. O’Tuairisg thanked the Officials for their work on the County Development Plan 2015-2021. The Chief Executive thanked the Elected Members and the Planning Team for their work leading to the adoption of the County Development Plan 2015-2021.

CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S BUSINESS & CORRESPONDENCE. 1965 Mr. Gavin informed the Members that public consultation meetings regarding the N6 Galway

City Transport Project would take place at the Westwood & Menlo Park Hotels on Wednesday

and Thursday of the following weeks to provide an opportunity for public consultation and

input on the current stage of the route selection process.

Mr. Gavin in reply to Cllr. D. Connolly, confirmed that the boundaries of the Municipal Districts

are clearly defined and the area structures for roads operate based on the defined boundaries.

In reply to Cllr. McClearn, Mr. Gavin undertook to circulate maps detailing the road network

within each District.

Mr. Gavin in reply to Cllr. Kinane confirmed that the review of the basis for the allocation of

roads funding was a matter to be considered by the Roads, Transportation, Marine Strategic

Policy Committee following formation of the Strategic Policy Committees.

In reply to Cllr. Cuddy, Mr. Gavin advised that the 50 km speed limit on the N17 adjacent to

Roadstone was in the administrative area of Galway City Council and accordingly was a matter

for consideration by the City Council in consultation with the National Roads Authority.

Mr. Gavin in reply to Cllr. Canney advised the provision of a bus corridor on the N17 was being

project managed by the City Council, that the design was being advanced and would be

delivered subject to the availability of funding from the National Transport Authority.

Cllr. Roche referred to the advance works being undertaken for the Gort to Tuam Motorway

and requested that stone from walls that are removed during the construction of the Gort to

Tuam Motorway be made available to community groups. Mr. Gavin advised that the project


37 | P a g e

was being advanced as a Public Private Partnership and that while the issue would be raised

with the consortium, it was ultimately at the discretion of the consortium.

Mr. Gavin in reply to concerns expressed by Comh. Ó Cualáin & Comh Ó Tuairisg in relation to

the finish to the emergency repair works undertaken on the Old Pier at An Spidéal, advised that

the works were undertaken following consultation in order to make the pier safe and that the

available funding allowed for reinforced concrete. He confirmed that in the event that

additional funding became available consideration would be given to providing stone facing.

In reply to Cllr. Roche, Ms. McConnell advised that it was intended to advance the nominees for

the Strategic Policy Committees and Joint Policing Committee to allow same be presented to

the February meeting of Plenary Council.

Ms. McConnell in reply to Cllr. Kinane acknowledged the demand for pre-planning meetings

indicating that measures were been taken with the limits of the existing staff resources to

address the waiting period for pre-planning meetings in the Municipal District of Athenry-

Oranmore and that staff were also available to discuss and address planning matters over the

phone.

Mr. Cullen in reply to concerns expressed by Cllr. K. McHugh and Cllr. T. McHugh relating to the

disposal of a significant volume of confidential documentation on a stretch of the Athenry

Road, Tuam on Sunday evening, confirmed that a full investigation of the incident was being

undertaken by staff of the Environment Unit. Cllr. Donohue stated that the problem of

dumping was a huge issue and suggested that the Council initiate an advertising campaign to

highlight the potential penalties arising from a prosecution. Comh. Ó Curraoin referenced the

prevalence of illegal dumping in Conamara, citing in particular bog roads and the seashore. He

referenced the reduction in the number of Community Warden available in the area,

highlighting the necessity to retain the current number as the minimum required to address the

issue.

Mr. Cullen replied that it is very disappointing that illegal dumping continues to be a problem

around the County but he said that this is not exclusive to County Galway. He said that the

Council has a strategy in place largely around the use of covert CCTV but this is expensive to

purchase and to deploy. He said that the Council prosecutes offenders and will continue to do

so.

Mr. Cullen in reply to Cllr. Killilea confirmed that hazardous waste is collected at various

locations around the County on specific dates and he said the Members will be notified of these


38 | P a g e

arrangements. He also advised that the appropriate disposal of waste is the responsibility of

the person who generates the waste.

Cllr. Canney referring to Minister Alan Kelly’s announcement that a review of the County & City

boundaries is to take place, questioned if it was prudent to continue with the extension to the

Council Chambers which is underway. The Chief Executive advised that the contract for the

extension was signed, construction was progressing and the local authority had entered

contractual obligations.

In reply to issues raised by Cllr. G. Finnerty in relation to the shortage of frontline staff, the

Chief Executive advised that the budget reductions in recent years, resulted in pressure on

resources and he said that the embargo on replacement of staff is still in place. He said that

the Council proposes to form a panel of general operatives in the coming months from which

temporary posts will be filled seasonally depending on work-progammes and available

resources and that a small number of permanent posts may also be filled from the panel.

However, he advised that due to limited resources and the embargo the local authority was not

in a position to recruit a significant number of additional staff in 2015.

The following items of correspondence which were circulated at the meeting were noted:

Correspondence dated 17th December 2014 from Kerry County Council adopting a resolution “That we the members of Killarney Municipal District support the Carers Association in their call to the Minister for Social Protection to amend the Social Welfare Bill to make provision for the restoration of the Respite Care Grant.”

Correspondence dated 19th December 2014 from Tipperary County Council adopting a Notice of Motion “That Tipperary County Council support the upcoming Referendum on marriage equality to be held in the Spring of 2015.”

Correspondence dated 5th January 2015 from Carlow County Council adopting a resolution “That Carlow County Council calls on the Minister for Justice and Equality to bring forward much needed legislation in order to regulate shops that give Cash for Gold.”

Correspondence dated 11th December 2014 from the office of the Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government acknowledging Galway County Council’s resolution in relation to rates system.

Correspondence dated 18th December 2014 from the office of the Minister for Social Protection acknowledging Galway County Council’s correspondence regarding eligibility for the Community Employment (CE) Scheme.

Correspondence dated 18th December 2014 from Mr. Michael Healy-Rae TD acknowledging Galway County Council’s correspondence regarding the recent bereavement of his father Mr. Jackie Healy-Rae RIP.


39 | P a g e

Correspondence dated 19th December 2014 from the Department of Social Protection in response to Galway County Council’s correspondence regarding eligibility for the Community Employment (CE) Scheme.

Correspondence dated 19th December 2014 from the office of the Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government acknowledging Galway County Council’s resolution in relation to Irish Water.

Correspondence dated 5th January 2015 from the office of the Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government in response to Galway County Council’s correspondence regarding Irish Water.

Correspondence dated 12th January 2015 from the office of the Minister for Diaspora Affairs in response to Galway County Council’s resolution regarding Immigration reform measures in the United States.

Statement dated 21st January 2015 made by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government in relation to a Review of Local Government Arrangements of the Galway City Border.

CATHAOIRLEACH’S BUSINESS 1966

Comh. Ó Curraoin made the following proposal “In view of the enormous amount of funding

given to the Banks by the Irish Tax payers, this County Council calls on the Banks to take this

into consideration when dealing with members of the public who are in arrears and suffering

financial hardship. To date the Banks have disregarded that they have been bailed out by the

taxpayers and that they owe a huge debt to the people of this Country”. This proposal was

seconded by Cllr. McClearn, and agreed.

Cllr. Cuddy referred to the proposed Greenway from Athlone to Galway and he made the

following proposal “I propose that this Council totally rejects any attempt by the Department of

Transport, Tourism & Sport (DTTAS) and the NRA to use their CPO powers to acquire lands for

the proposed Greenway from Athlone to Galway. This project does not come within the

definition of Critical Infrastructure and the threat of the use of CPO for this project is totally

rejected by the landowners involved along the proposed route. The Motion when passed

should immediately be forwarded to both the Minister for Transport Tourism & Sport and the

NRA”. This proposal was seconded by Cllr. Kinane.

Cllr. Charity made the following proposal “I propose that Galway County Council pass a

resolution recognising that while the proposed Dublin – Galway Greenway represents

potentially desirable local infrastructure, same does not constitute “critical” infrastructure in

the context of CPO orders”. This proposal was seconded by Cllr. Noone.

Cllr. Charity also made the following proposal “I propose that in acquiring lands for the

proposed Dublin – Galway Greenway, Galway County Council commits to acquisition only by


40 | P a g e

consultation and agreement with landowners along preferred routes and does not use the CPO

process for such acquisition”. This proposal was seconded by Cllr. Noone.

Cllrs. McClearn and Maher referred to the proposals made by Cllr. Cuddy and Cllr. Charity and

he said that the Department of Transport, Tourism & Sport have been made aware of the

concerns and fears of local people regarding the possibility of C.P.O and these concerns have

been taken on board by the Department.

Mr. Gavin said that the Irish Farmers Association (IFA) made representations at a recent

Meeting of the Municipal District Councils of Athenry/Oranmore; Loughrea; and Ballinasloe

expressing their major concerns regarding the proposed Greenway. He said that the proposed

Greenway would bring major benefits to the towns and villages it passes through and he

expressed the view that in order for the project to be achieved, it is extremely important that

discussions take place with landowners and stakeholders. He said he has had discussions with

the NRA and they have committed to stall progress on the proposed Greenway until they revert

to the Department of Transport, Tourism & Sport to establish a procedure for taking the project

forward while recognising the importance of communication with landowners and

stakeholders. He said that it is recognised that the project must not adversely affect

landowners and stakeholders but the benefits of the proposed Greenway to communities must

be kept in mind. He said that progress on the project will depend on discussions at national

and local level and he said he would not recommend that the Members pass any Motions until

funding issues are clarified and meetings are held with the IFA and the ICMSA, keeping in mind

the major benefits of the project.

Cllr. Kinane said that while the project is a very good initiative for the Oranmore, Athenry and

Clarinbridge areas, landowners have serious concerns regarding the fact that C.P.O. powers

give the local authority a statutory right to acquire land without agreement and she said she did

not favour the use of CPO powers to progress the project and was in agreement with Cllr.

Cuddy’s proposal. She also said that the current funding profile for the project does not

include for land acquisition and she felt that through a lack of information and appropriate

consultation with landowners and stakeholders, there is understandably a negative vibe

towards the project locally.

Mr. Gavin said that information about the proposal was put out in the public domain. He

referred to Cllr. Cuddy’s proposal that the NRA and the Department should not proceed with a

C.P.O. regarding the project and he said that it is the local authority and not any other body

who would deal with C.P.O. if it were required.


41 | P a g e

Cllr. McClearn said that the majority of people agree that the proposed Greenway will be of

great benefit to the local area and it is understandable that some people have concerns but

these fears are premature as the route has not been selected yet and a lot of consultation

needs to take place before the project progresses any further.

In reply to Cllr. M. Connolly, Mr. Gavin said that the Section 85 Agreement which Galway

County Council entered into in October, 2014 in order to agree that Westmeath County Council

would be the lead Authority regarding the project does not mean that Galway County Council

have no further input into the proposal. He said that Galway County Council will be involved in

all decisions made regarding its progress and extensive consultation will take place.

Cllr. Charity said that this project represents a tourism venture which should be encouraged,

especially in areas which are not located along the Wild Atlantic Way. However, he said that

he does not agree that it is an essential infrastructure and he said that the genuine concerns of

farmers and stakeholders and there stated opposition to the use of CPO for land acquisition

must be taken on board, especially at a time when it is difficult to maintain a viable income

from farming.

Cllr. Noone stated that the emphasis should be on the benefits of the project to County Galway

with a focus on delivering a Greenway for Galway in consultation and partnership with land

owners and stakeholders. He stated that he was confident that through consultation and

dialogue an appropriate route could be established by agreement with landowners and

thereafter consideration could be given to connecting the greenway with greenway in adjoining

counties to provide a network from Galway to Dublin.

Cllr. Welby referenced the progress made progressing the Conamara Greenway through the

planning stage, noting that progress was hindered by the lack of agreement with a small

number of landowners. He highlighted the importance of consultation and engagement with

stakeholders, noting the positive benefits for local communities and the health benefits by

encouraging a more active lifestyle. He referenced the success of the development of

greenways in Mayo and the potential for tourism and related economic benefits.

Based on discussion and the contributions from Members, Cllr. Cuddy with the agreement of

the Members withdrew his proposal in favour of an amended proposal as follows “I propose

that Galway County Council and all the state agencies actively get involved in discussions with

all the landowners along the proposed greenway and that any threat of C.P.O be totally

removed in discussions”. This amended proposal was seconded by Cllr. Kinane.


42 | P a g e

In reply to Cllr. Donohue, who asked if an analysis of the cost of the project has been

completed, Mr. Gavin said that an economic report has been completed, but this does not take

into account the land cost.

Cllr. Rabbitte referenced the potential benefits of the project while noting that she was not in

favour of the acquisition of lands by means of CPO, outlining the requirement for consultation

while expressing concern that the prior approval of the Section 85 Agreement for the project by

the Council may reduce their influence on the approach to the project.

Mr. Gavin said that no route has been selected yet and any progress regarding the route

selection will be done through consultation and he agreed that meaningful discussions should

take place between landowners, the IFA, businesses, home owners, Galway County Council,

Westmeath County Council, the NRA and the Department of Transport, Tourism in this regard.

However, he said that the issue of C.P.O. should not be discussed at this early stage.

Comh. Ó Curraoin expressed the view that walkways and cycleways should be accommodated

alongside the motorways availing of land already in public ownership.

Cllr. K. McHugh said that representatives from the IFA suggested that a greenway should be

accommodated alongside the old N6 route and she felt that this would be a good proposal as

this route would not be as busy as the motorway.

Cllr. Canney agreed with the views expressed by Comh. Ó Curraoin and Cllr. K. McHugh and

suggested that the proposal be raised with the NRA for consideration.

Mr. Gavin replied that he is aware that the NRA does not recommend greenways alongside

major road networks. However, he agreed that the suggestion to use the old N6 route is a

good proposal but he said that there would be huge opposition to this for reasons of safety and

comfort.

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS 1967

On the proposal of Comh. Ó Curraoin, seconded by Cllr. Cuddy, it was agreed to suspend the

Standing Orders in order to allow the Meeting continue after 6 pm.

The Leas Chathaoirleach read out Cllr. Cuddy’s amended proposal which had been seconded by

Cllr. Kinane. This proposal was agreed by the Members.


43 | P a g e

The Leas Chathaoirleach put the motion as proposed by Cllr. Charity, seconded by Cllr. Noone “I

propose that Galway County Council pass a resolution recognising that while the proposed

Dublin – Galway Greenway represents potentially desirable local infrastructure, same does not

constitute “critical” infrastructure in the context of CPO orders”.

Cllr. McClearn did not agree with the proposal stating that it was unwise to define critical

infrastructure.

The Leas Chathaoirleach called for a vote on the Motion and the following was the result of the vote: For: Cllrs. Burke, Charity, M. Connolly, Ó Cualáin, Cunniffe, Ó Curraoin,

Donnellan, Kinane, Noone (9) Against: Cllrs. N. Byrne, Canney, Cuddy, Donohue, G. Finnerty, Joyce,

Kearney, Maher, McClearn, Roche (10) Abstained: Cllr. Rabbitte (1) As a result of the vote, the Leas-Chathaoirleach declared the motion defeated.

The Leas Chathaoirleach put the motion as proposed by Cllr. Charity, seconded by Cllr. Noone,

as follows “I propose that in acquiring lands for the proposed Dublin – Galway Greenway,

Galway County Council commits to acquisition only by consultation and agreement with

landowners along preferred routes and does not use the CPO process for such acquisition”.

Mr. Gavin said that it is important that Department approval is received to the proposed

Greenway and he said that a commitment has been given that no further progress will be made

on the project until discussions have taken place with the interested parties.

The Chief Executive stated that he agreed with Mr. Gavin and that the proposed Greenway

represents significant potential locally. He suggested that the Members should not cut off

avenues which may be required in the future at this early stage and he said that the Members

will have ample opportunity to discuss any further progress on the project.

Cllr. Kinane said that she understands that forward planning is essential but she said she

believes that while there is a possibility of land acquisition by C.P.O, the project will not go

ahead.


44 | P a g e

Cllr. McClearn said that discussions can take place regarding the corridor for the Greenway

without any threat of C.P.O.

The Leas Chathaoirleach called for a vote on the Motion and the following was the result of the vote: For: Cllrs. Charity, M. Connolly, Ó Cualáin, Cunniffe, Ó Curraoin, G.

Finnerty, Noone, Rabbitte (8) Against: Cllrs. Burke, N. Byrne, Canney, Cuddy, Donnellan, Donohue,

Joyce, Kearney, Kinane, Maher, McClearn, Roche (12) Abstained: Cllr. Healy (1) As a result of the vote, the Leas Chathaoirleach declared the motion defeated.

Cllr. Joyce made the following proposal “We request that Galway County Council ensure that

there is no reduction in the number of outdoor staff. In doing this the Council employ staff to

replace staff who are retired or who may be retiring into the future”. This proposal was

seconded by Cllr. Canney, and agreed.

Cllr. Charity made the following proposal “I propose that as part of the on-going feasibility

study being conducted by Future Analytics Ltd. on Galway Airport on behalf of Galway City and

County Councils respectively a public consultation submission period will be provided allowing

members of the public and public representatives to contribute to the study and that such

submissions would be taken account of in the considerations therein and ultimate findings of

the report”. This proposal was seconded by Cllr. Cunniffe, and agreed.

Cllr. Charity made the following proposal “I propose that Galway County Council stipulate in all

grants of planning permission for new developments requiring an applicant to enter an

agreement with Irish Water a provision that construction on the development will not be

stalled by reason of the applicant not discharging a “Water Infrastructure” fee to Irish Water,

which Irish Water base on the Councils Development Contribution Scheme, until such time as

the imposition of such a charge is approved and /or rejected by the Commission for Energy

Regulation” . This proposal was seconded by Cllr. Cunniffe.

Cllr. Charity said that this proposal arises in the context of a constituent who was required, as

part of their grant of planning permission, to enter into an agreement with Irish Water to pay

€3,800 based on the previous fee which was charged under the Council’s Development

Contribution Scheme. He said that Irish Water has imposed the previous level of water


45 | P a g e

contribution and they will accumulate the fees rather than the local authority. He said that

there would be no oversight on this level of charge and the imposition of the fee has not been

approved by the Commission for Energy Regulation. He also said that under the Planning Acts,

the only authority having the power to impose development contribution fees is the local

authority.

The Chief Executive said that in the context of setting up Irish Water, the local authority no

longer imposes development charges for water services. He said that the inclusion of

conditions in planning permissions is an Executive Function and is not a matter for the

Members to approve. He said that his understanding is that Irish Water would impose the fee

for water services when the local authority stopped charging the fee.

Cllr. Charity asked if it is the case that development cannot commence if the fee for water

services is not paid and the Chief Executive replied that this depends on how the condition of

planning permission is framed.

Cllr. Healy said that the issue of development contributions causes great concern to young

people who are trying to buy or build a house at an affordable price in Conamara. He

expressed the view that Irish Water is adding to the concerns of people by imposing the fee of

€3,800 for water services.

Cllr. Burke asked what would be the outcome if the Members passed the Motion proposed by

Cllr. Charity and the Chief Executive said it is his belief that the Members cannot make a

decision on how charges will be imposed by Irish Water.

In reply to Cllr. M. Connolly, the Chief Executive said that it is his understanding that the fee

towards the cost of water services is only payable once.

Cllr. Charity said that because the development charge is being imposed by Irish Water and not

the local authority, there is no avenue open to appeal the fee to An Bord Pleanala.

The Leas Chathaoirleach said that one of her constituents told her that they received planning

permission this year and they were very concerned as they said that they were mislead into

believing that they would have to pay an additional charge to Irish Water in respect of water

services, when the fact was that they would pay the charge once.

Cllr. Roche said that representatives from Irish Water met with Members from each of the

Municipal District recently and he wished to put on record that Irish Water are exemplary in


46 | P a g e

their engagement with communities at present and he is most encouraged by his dealings with

them.

The Leas Chathaoirleach read out Cllr. Charity’s proposal as seconded by Cllr. Cunniffe and

called for a vote on the Motion and the following was the result of the vote:

For: Cllrs. Canney, Charity, Cunniffe, Ó Curraoin, Healy (5) Against: Cllrs. Burke, N. Byrne, M. Connolly, Ó Cualáin, Cuddy, Donnellan,

Donohue, G. Finnerty, Maher, McClearn, Noone, Roche (12) Abstained: Cllr. Kearney (1) As a result of the vote, the Cathaoirleach declared the motion defeated.

Cllr. Cuddy referred to his Motion No. 17 as follows: “That Galway County Council records its

opposition to the current policy of water fluoridation in Ireland, based on documented research

that shows a decrease dental caries in all western countries irrespective of whether the water is

fluoridated or not, as well as research which shows the effect of fluoride to be topical not

systemic (i.e. works at the location not through the body); call on the Government to organise a

national referendum on water fluoridation in the next 18 months, (possibly in tandem with

another referendum), which educate the public thoroughly on both sides of the debate and

allow their voice to be heard on this important public health issue; and that a letter recording

this resolution shall be forwarded directly to the Taoiseach and the Minister for the

Environment with cc’d to all cabinet Ministers, requesting the matter to be discussed at cabinet

level.”

He said that a Dáil Committee sat to discuss the issue of fluoridation of water some years ago

but no decision has been made in this regard to date. He said that there is an opinion that

fluoride is dangerous, especially for babies, as it does not leave the body once it is present in

water.

Mr. Cullen said that this matter came up for discussion in 2013 and has been considered by the

Environment S.P.C. and the full Council. He advised that the local authority was obliged to

continue with fluoridation of water based on a statutory requirement. This proposal was

seconded by Cllr. Canney and agreed.


47 | P a g e

Cllr. Healy made the following proposal “End Fluoridation of Water! A Sinn Féin Councillor,

speaking after last week’s meeting of Letrim Co. Council where his motion calling on the

Government to amend the Health (Fluoridation of water) Act 1960 and subsequent Statutory

Instrument (42/ 2007) Fluoridation of Water Supplies Regulations (2007) to ban the addition of

fluoride of water supplies was passed, the Cllr. said that this policy of adding fluoride to water

needed to stop. The European Court of justice has defined fluoridation as a medication and

therefore the public water fluoridation equated to involuntary and indiscriminate medication of

the Irish people. The EU has issued directives that babies and toddlers should not be exposed

to fluoridated water”. This proposal was seconded by Cllr. Charity, and agreed.

Cllr. Donnellan referred to letters which had issued recently from the Finance Unit of the

Council to certain rate payers regarding arrears. He said that these were formal demands,

giving six days to pay outstanding rates to the Council. He asked that the Council would liaise

with these rate payers in order to allow them to enter into a payment plan.

Cllr. Donnellan proposed that a briefing from the Local Enterprise Office (LEO) be included on

the clár for a future meeting of Plenary Council. This was seconded by Cllr. McClearn and

agreed.

Cllr. Donnellan proposed a vote of congratulations of Ms. Olive Loughnane who had recently

been informed that she is being awarded the Gold Medal from the 2009 World Athletics

Championship following the disqualification of the athlete who finished first in the race. It was

proposed by Cllr. Donnellan, seconded by Cllr. M. Connolly and agreed to afford Ms. Loughnane

a Civic Reception in recognition of her achievement.

Ms. McConnell informed the Members that the closing date for applications for the Community

Grants Schemes is 26th February, 2015 and that public meetings will be held in early February to

inform Communities regarding the Grants. She invited the Members to attend the relevant

Meetings in their areas as follows:

Tuesday February 3rd at 7.30 pm in Gullanes Hotel, Ballinasloe

Wednesday February 4th at 7.30 pm in the Meadow Court Hotel, Loughrea

Thursday February 5th at 7.30 pm at the Ard Rí Hotel, Tuam

Monday February 9th at 7.30 pm at Peacocks Hotel, Maam Cross

Tuesday February 10th at 7.30 pm at Tír na nÓg, Indreabhán

Wednesday February 11th at 7.30pm Oranmore Lodge Hotel, Oranmore


48 | P a g e

NOTICES OF MOTION

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 14 – CLLR. G. FINNERTY 1968

The following reply was given:-

“Galway County Council has had significant staff and budgetary reductions since 2008 and this

has impacted on staff numbers across the organisation and on both our office and outdoor

workforce. A moratorium on the recruitment of staff was imposed on Galway County Council by

Department Circular LG(P) 1497 on 27th March, 2009 ad continues to remain in place.

Where there is an identified staffing need a Business Case must be made for the filling of such a

post to the Department of the Environment, Community & Local Government (DOEC&LG). All

Business Cases considered by the DOEC&LG are subject to sufficient budgetary resources being

available by Galway County Council to meet the relevant salary costs. The general approach of

the Department is to only allow the filling of positions on an exceptional basis.

On an ongoing basis discussions are held with line departments regarding vacancies that arise

and the requirement to fill these positions and the available budgetary provisions. Some

positions such as General Services Supervisors have been filled on a permanent basis and other

arrangements such as the employment of Temporary/ Seasonal Outdoor staff are also used.

Galway County Council’s ability to pay for additional staff resources remains constrained and no

additional provision was made in the Council’s 2015 Budget for same. However, the Council

continues to adapt and develop new ways of working to deliver services.”



“The only pre approved haulage routes are via the National Routes and the old N6, any

additional routes and access points require advance assessment and implementation of

appropriate strengthening measures if required, ongoing maintenance of the routes and final

remedial works again if required. A detailed process is outlined in regards to this matter within

the M17/18 Motorway contract with input from the NRA project liaison officer and Galway

County Council area engineering staff. No applications for additional routes have as yet been

submitted other than for access for staff, plant and bringing on site of fencing material in

advance of road construction. Galway County Council will be kept informed of any

developments in this matter. In regards to drainage issues the resident engineering staff will be


49 | P a g e

made aware of the specific requirements which are actually covered within the project EIS. Any

further queries may be addressed to the Project Liaison Officer Mr. Tony Collins.”



“Galway County Council allocate road maintenance funding based on road classification and

length of road and this includes repair of footpaths along those roads. Funding has been

sourced for limited repair on damaged footpaths on the N66 which includes a number of these

streets.”

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 17 – CLLR. J. CUDDY 1980


“With regard to the Notice of Motion, I wish to advise that the issue of fluoridation of public

water supplies was considered by the Environment and Water Services Strategic Policy

Committee and by the full Council at its meeting on 24th June 2013. At that time it was resolved

by the Council to request the Minister for Health to indicate “what scientific information is

available as to beneficial effects and possible detrimental effects of adding fluoride to our

water systems, and also what research has the Department carried out.”

The Council wrote to the Minister on 25th June 2013 and received a reply dated 22nd July 2013

setting out the Department’s position on the matter. Specifically that “the Expert Body advises

that the balance of scientific evidence worldwide confirms that water fluoridation at optimal

level does not cause any ill effects and is the safest and most cost-effective method of

protecting the oral health of the population.” A copy of the letter is attached for your

information. The letter goes on to confirm “that the effects of fluoridation on health and

related matters is kept under constant review.”


50 | P a g e

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 18 – CLLR. M. FAHY 1981


“Noted.”

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 19 – CLLR. M. MAHER 1982


“Noted.”

CRIOCHNAIGH AN CRUINNIÚ ANSIN.

Date post:	28-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

CHOMHAIRLE CHONTAE NA GAILLIMHE MINUTES …galway.ie/en/media/1. (a) Minutes of Monthly Meeting...

Documents