TABLE OF CONTENTS - County Kildarekildare.ie › CountyCouncil › Planning › DevelopmentPlans ›...

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART ONE Page Number

1.0 Introduction 2

2.0 Process to date 2

3.0 Legislative Requirements 3

4.0 Consultation Process 4

5.0 Role of the Elected Members 5

6.0 List of Persons /Organisations who made 5

submissions

7.0 List of Prescribed Bodies consulted 9

PART TWO

8.0 Summary of Submissions to Proposed Amendments and Managers Response 10

9.0 Summary of Managers Recommendations 117

APENDICES

Addendum III To the SEA Environmental Report and Appropriate Assessment – Response to relevant submissions on proposed amendments and updates.

Addendum IV To the SEA Environmental Report and Appropriate Assessment – Potential updates to the SEA Environmental Report and Draft Appropriate Assessment arising from Manager’s recommendations.

.

PART ONE

1.0 Introduction

This Manager’s Report has been prepared having regard to all those submissions received in relation to the proposed amendments to the Draft Plan during the statutory period 6 th January – 2nd February 2011 inclusive.

This Manager’s Report constitutes a further stage in the making of the new Development Plan for the County as set out in the Planning and Development Acts 2000-2010.

PART 1 of the report comprises an introduction, an outline of the process to date, legislative requirements, the consultation process and the role of the elected members, the list of bodies/ organisations who made submissions and the list of prescribed bodies consulted.

PART 2 of the report comprises a summary of each submission received during the statutory period in relation to a proposed amendment together with the Manager’s response and recommendation for each submission.

2.0 Process to date

Key Stages to Date in Preparation of Draft Kildare County Development Plan

Date/Timeframe Stage

11th July – 2nd September 2009

Manager’s Report prepared on Pre-Draft submissions received. The report summarised the views expressed by

individuals and bodies both in written submissions and at

the public consultation meetings.

12th October and 2nd November 2009

Manager’s Report adopted by Council and directions given to staff to prepare a Proposed Draft Development Plan.

4th February – 31st March 2010

Proposed Draft Plan considered by Members

20th April 2010-28th June 2010

Draft Development Plan on public display for 10 weeks.

29th June 2010 – 15th September 2010

Manager prepared Report on submissions/observations received during the Draft Plan consultation period and submitted this report to the Members for their consideration.

16th September 2010 – 8th December 2010

The Members considered the Draft Plan, the Manager’s Report and all accompanying documents including the Environmental Report, the Appropriate Assessment Screening Report and all accompanying maps.

6th January 2011-2nd February 2011

Amendments on display for a period of four weeks from 6th January 2011 -2nd February 2011.

2

3rd February 2011 – 2nd March 2011

Preparation of Manager’s Report on submissions received in relation to the Amendments Report

3rd March 2011 – 13th April 2011

Consideration by the members of the Manager’s Report

A development plan shall have effect 4 weeks from the date that it is made.

3.0 Legislative Requirements

3.1 Planning and Development Act 2000-2010 (as amended)

Section 12 (7) (a) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, requires the planning authority to publish notice of the proposed amendment in at least one newspaper circulating in its area.

Not later than 8 weeks after giving notice the manager of a planning authority shall prepare a report on any submissions or observations received under that subsection and submit the report to the members of the authority for their consideration.

‘A report under paragraph (a) shall –

(i) list the persons or bodies who made submissions or observations under this section

(ii) summarise the issues raised by the persons or bodies in the submissions

(iii) give the response of the manager to the issues raised, taking account of the directions of the members of the authority or the committee under section 11 (4), the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, the statutory obligations of any local authority in the area and any relevant policies or objectives for the time being of the Government or of any Minister of the Government.’

3.2 Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is the formal, systematic evaluation of the likely significant environmental effects of implementing a plan or programme before a decision is made to adopt the plan or programme.

A Draft Environmental Report (SEA) accompanied the Draft County Development Plan 2011-2017 in accordance with the SEA Directive (2000/42/EC) and the Planning & Development (SEA) Regulations 2004. In addition an Environmental Report accompanied the recently published Amendments Report and a further Environmental Report accompanies this Manager’s Report.

Addendum III and IV to the Strategic Environmental Assessment accompanies this report, Addendum III contains the response to relevant submissions on the proposed amendments and updates arising. Addendum IV details the potential environmental consequences arising from the Manager’s recommendations. The contents of the above reports should be carefully considered before the determination of any decision relating to the Development Plan.

The elected members must take account of the findings of the SEA and have regard to same in their decision whether to make the plan with or without the proposed amendments. In all cases, it will be necessary for a full record to be made of any decision made and how the environmental considerations were taken account of in the decision making process.

3

3.3 Appropriate Assessment (AA)

Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive 1992 requires that any plan or project that is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a Natura 2000 site concerned but is likely to have a significant effect on one, on its own or in combination with other plans and projects, is to be authorised only if it will not adversely affect the integrity of that site.

Addendum III and IV to the Appropriate Assessment accompanies this report, Addendum III contains the response to relevant submissions on the proposed amendments and updates arising. Addendum IV details the potential environmental consequences arising from the Manager’s recommendations. The contents of the above reports should be carefully considered before the determination of any decision relating to the Development Plan.

It is a basic responsibility of all state agencies, including planning authorities, to act diligently to ensure that their decisions in the exercise of their functions, as well as their actions, comply fully with the obligations of the Habitats Directive.

4.0 Consultation Process

The public consultation stage ran from 6th January to 2nd February 2011 and comprised (a) newspaper advertisements in the Irish Times, the Leinster Leader and the Nationalist on 6th January inviting written submissions on Proposed Amendments and (b) letters to prescribed bodies, service providers and others inviting their submissions on the proposed amendments.

The proposed amendments to the written statement and maps of the Draft County Development Plan 2011-2017, the accompanying Environmental Report and Appropriate Assessment on the likely significant effects on the environment of implementing the proposed amendments were on display at the following locations;

Kildare County Council Offices

Áras Chill Dara, Naas

Northern Area Office, Leinster St., Maynooth

Southern Area Office, Rathstewart, Athy

Clane Area Office, The Woods, Clane

The following public libraries: Athy, Ballitore, Castledermot, Celbridge, Clane, Clocha Rince, Kilcock, Kilcullen, Kildare, Leixlip, Maynooth, Monasterevin, Naas, Newbridge & Rathangan

These documents were also made available for viewing on the Council’s website at www.kildarecountycouncil.ie.

4.1 Submissions

135 written submissions were received during the statutory period (i.e. 6th January to 2nd February 2011). A CD containing a copy of these submissions accompanies this report. A list of those who made submissions is contained in Section 6.0 of this report. The content of the written submissions largely related to the proposed amendments to the Draft Plan. There were a number of submissions or parts of submissions that did not however relate to the proposed amendments and therefore could not be considered as part of the plan making process. Furthermore, a total of 16 submissions were received outside of the statutory period and as such may not be considered at this time. The Council wishes to express its appreciation to those who made submissions.

An analysis of the submissions was carried out which involved summarising each submission. The submissions were also passed to the appropriate Council Department for comment.

4

Responses to the issues were then drafted and recommendations were made as to whether or not changes should be made to the Draft Plan.

5.0 Role of the elected members

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.

Members shall consider duly the amendments, the Manager’s Report and the accompanying Strategic Environmental Assessment and Appropriate Assessment not later than 6 weeks after the submission of the manager’s report to the members of the authority.

The members of the authority shall then, by resolution, having considered the amendment and the manager’s report, make the plan with or without the proposed amendment, except that where they decide to accept the amendment they may do so subject to a minor alteration.

In making and adopting the development plan, the elected representatives, acting in the interests of the common good and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, must, in accordance with the ‘Code of Conduct for Councillors’ prepared under the Local Government Act 2001, carry out their duties 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.

6.0 List of bodies/ organisations who made submissions

Submission No.

Name Company

1 Dr. Eric Firth2 Carmel Conaty Department of Communications, Energy &

Natural Resources3 James Fagan & Associates The Dunne Family4 Maura Tutty-Deay5 Kathleen Smullen6 John Hubbard Kildare South Labour Party, c/o. Jack Wall T.D.7 Cian O’Mahony Scientific Officer, SEA Section, Office of

Environmental Assessment, Environmental Protection Agency

8 Lorraine Brennan Forward Planning Section, Department of Education and Skills

9 Brian Doyle, Chairperson Allenwood Community Development Assoc. Ltd.10 Michael McCormack, Policy

Advisor (Planning)National Roads Authority (NRA)

11 Edmond Fogarty12 Aine Deay13 Patricia Potter, Director Dublin Regional Authority14 Sean O’Flaherty15 Thomas Maguire Maguire & Associates16 Roger Garland Keep Ireland Open17 David Egar Kildare-West/Wicklow IFA 18 Donrina Shorunke (Manager) Bright Sparks Childcare Centre, 19 Carole Fenton (Principal) Allenwood BNS

5

20 Annette Coyne (Honorary Secretary)

Allenwood GFC

21 Michael Fitzpatrick TD22 Padraig McEvoy23 Arthur Cox Tony Doyle24 Fearghal Regan25 Ken Regan26 Emmanuel Hughes27 Annie Hughes28 David Zebedee29 RPS Devondale Ltd.30 Sean Cleary31 Grace O’Neill32 Spatial Planning Solutions Bartley O’Regan33 Brady Shipman Martin O’Flynn Construction34 Keara Dunne35 John O’Callaghan36 Margaret Harney37 Ger Coyne38 Des & Colette Henry39 Manus Curran40 Tom Phillips Bord na Mona41 Cllr Martin Heydon42 Liam & Anna Morrin43 Patrick Hooper Mr. A. Manning44 Cllr Suzanne Doyle45 Vincent Kenny46 Meath County Council47 John Spain & Assocs Castlekeel Ltd. & Treasury Holdings48 John Spain & Assocs Origin Enterprises Plc.49 Dublin Airport Authority Head Office, Dublin Airport50 Hampton Properties 51 Hampton Properties52 Patrick Hennessy53 Anthony Quinn54 OPW55 James Fagan & Assocs Paddy White & Joe Flanagan (Ballyshannon)56 James Fagan & Assocs Paddy White & Joe Flanagan (Calverstown)57 John Spain Aldi58 Petronella Curran59 Bernadette Judge60 GVA Planning Tesco61 DOEHLG62 CIF63 Irish Wind Energy Assoc.64 Seamas Kennedy65 Theresa Harney66 Larry Dawson67 Clare Dawson68 Terence Martin69 Elianna Martin70 Ruairi Dawson71 Aisling Dunney

6

72 Pj wyer73 Michael Joyce74 Lucie dawson75 National Transport Authority

(NTA)76 An Taisce77 Liz O’Donohoe Byrne78 Kevin O’Shea79 Robert Groman80 Mary Aungier81 Noel Aungier82 Emma Cross83 Deborah Gorman84 Michael Cross (Snr)85 Michael Cross (Jnr)86 Margaret Cross87 Lorraine Cross88 Pat Gorey (Snr)89 Sandra Heavey90 Danny Heavey91 James Fagan92 Christopher Ward93 Linda Ward94 David McCabe95 William Tuite (Jnr)96 Henry O’Neill97 Joe Doyle98 Brian Doyle99 Mary Doyle100 Patricia Ivers101 Ciaran Fields102 William Tuite103 Christopher Ward104 Dean Ward105 Clare O’Reilly106 Keith Ward107 Ann Ward108 Nuala Heavey109 Bella Aungier110 Mary Donnelly111 Dawn Fitzgerald112 John Fitzgerald113 Brendan Fitzgerald114 Patrick Dunney115 Bridie Dunney116 Anthony Stynes, 117 Breda Stynes118 Yvonne Stynes119 Nina Stynes120 Brendan Stynes121 David Stynes122 Sara Dunny123 Patrick Dunny

7

124 Caroline Dunny125 Emily Dunny126 Michael Roycroft127 B Roycroft128 Pauline Roycroft129 E P Roycroft130 Julia Montague131 Eilish Kehoe132 Trevor Montague133 Mary Montague134 Alfie Montague135 Peadar O’Ceallaigh Erinannach Co-operative Society &

Independent Archaeological Surveys

8

7.0 List of Prescribed Bodies consulted

The Minister, Department of the Environment Heritage & Local GovernmentThe Secretary, An Bord PleanalaThe Minister, Department of Agriculture, Food & Rural DevelopmentThe Minister, Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht & The IslandsThe Minister, Department of DefenceThe Minister, Department of Education & ScienceThe Minister, Department of the Marine & Natural ResourcesThe Minister, Department of Public EnterpriseThe Chief Executive, Aer RiantaThe Chief Executive, Fáilte IrelandThe Chief Executive, Central Fisheries BoardThe Chief Executive, An Comhairle EalaoinThe Chief Executive, Office of Public WorksThe Chief Executive, Dublin Transportation OfficeThe Chief Executive, Electricity Supply BoardThe Chief Executive, ForfasThe Chief Executive, Health Service ExecutiveMs. Martina Queally, Area Chief Executive, Kildare West WicklowThe Chief Executive, National Heritage CouncilThe Chief Executive, National Authority for OccupationalThe Chief Executive, National Roads AuthorityThe Chief Executive, Eastern Regional Fisheries BoardThe Chief Executive, The Southern Regional Fisheries BoardThe Chief Executive, An TaisceDirector of Planning, South Dublin County CouncilDirector of Planning, Fingal County CouncilDirector of Planning, Wicklow County CouncilDirector of Planning, Carlow County CouncilDirector of Planning, Meath County CouncilThe Chief Executive, Southern & Regional AssemblyDirector of Planning, Laois County CouncilDirector of Planning, Offaly County CouncilThe Town Clerk, Naas Town CouncilThe Town Clerk, Athy Town CouncilNewbridge Town CouncilLeixlip Town CouncilThe Chief Executive, Mid-East Regional AuthorityThe Chief Executive, Dublin Regional AuthorityThe Chief Executive, Midlands Regional AuthorityThe Chief Executive, South East Regional AuthorityKildare County Development BoardThe Secretary, EPANational Transport Authority

9

PART TWO

8.0 Summary of Submissions on Proposed Amendments and Managers Response

In the following section, a detailed analysis of the submissions is given. This includes summaries of issues raised as they relate to the proposed amendments together with the responses and recommendations of the Manager on whether or not any changes to the proposed amendments should be made.

The responses of the Manager have been prepared having regard to statutory obligations, relevant Government guidelines and policies and the proper planning and sustainable development of the county.

The issues are analysed and summarised under the chapter headings of the Draft County Development Plan as follows:

Chapter 1 – Introduction & Strategic Context

Chapter 2 – Core Strategy

Chapter 3 – Settlement Strategy

Chapter 4 – Housing

Chapter 5 – Economic Development

Chapter 6 – Movement and Transport

Chapter 7 – Water, Drainage and Environmental Services

Chapter 8 – Energy and Communications

Chapter 9 – Retail

Chapter 10 – Rural Development

Chapter 12 – Architectural and Archaeological Heritage

Chapter 13 – Natural Heritage/ Biodiversity

Chapter 14 – Landscape, Recreation and Amenities

Chapter 15 – Urban Design Guidance

Chapter 17 – Village and Settlement Plans

Chapter 18 – Environs Plans

Chapter 19 – Development Management Standards

Note: No submissions were received in relation to Chapters 11 and 16.

10

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND STRATEGIC CONTEXT

Sub No Name Summary of Issues Raised Response & Recommendation

7 EPA Amendment 1.2

Refers to Section 1.3 of the Draft Plan “Key Challenges of the Plan Period”. Requests that consideration be given to including the following into Section 1.3 "Key Challenges of the Plan Period": Ensuring the integration of the recommendations of any Appropriate Assessment carried out (at all levels of the planning hierarchy) as relevant and appropriate.

Manager’s Response

Agreed with modification

Manager’s Recommendation

To add the following text to Section 1.3 (Key Challenges for the Plan Period):

(x) Seeking to ensure the integration of the recommendations of Appropriate Assessments carried out (at all levels of the planning hierarchy) as relevant and appropriate.

11

CHAPTER 2 CORE STRATEGY


63 Irish Wind Energy Association

Amendment 2.5

The submission welcomes the proposed amendment which includes reference to renewable energy production.


Noted


No change

61 DoEHLG Amendment 2.8

Recommends that the word “built” is removed from the amending text in the last line of Policy CS 9.


Agreed


Revise amendment 2.8 as follows;

CS 9: To promote and facilitate the development of sustainable communities through land use planning, by providing for land uses capable of accommodating employment, community, leisure, recreational and cultural facilities having regard to the quality of the environment including the natural environment, landscape character and archaeological and architectural built heritage.

12

CHAPTER 3 SETTLEMENT STRATEGY


29 RPS Planning & Environment on behalf of Devondale Ltd

Amendment 3.1

(Sequential Approach) Request that this proposed amendment is included in the adopted Development Plan for Kildare.


Noted


Agreed

75 NTA Amendment 3.1

Welcomes the addition of the need for the sequential development of lands within towns, villages, settlements and rural nodes. Recommends that the development plan also emphasises the role of sequential planning in the prioritisation of, and access to, services in the county with prioritisation to higher order settlements.

The submission notes that no criteria have been set out in relation to the phasing of development land and reiterates the importance of linking the location and sequencing of new development to public transport accessibility at a strategic level and walking and cycling accessibility at a local level, to employment education and services (at the appropriate level of locality).


Section 3.7 (Infrastructural Deficiencies and Environmental Constraints) of the Draft Plan states that ‘the development targets set out for each designated settlement are subject to the capacity of necessary physical infrastructure and the ability of receiving environments to accommodate any proposed growth. All potential developments will be subject to adequate physical services being available in terms of transportation infrastructure, potable water, wastewater and surface water drainage.’ Furthermore, the prioritisation of infrastructure for larger settlements is set out in Chapters 6 (Movement & Transport) and Chapter 7 (Water, Drainage & Environmental Services).

Amendment 3.1 makes reference to the sequential approach being linked to public transport accessibility:

3.4.6 Sequential Approach

All towns, villages, settlements, rural nodes (as appropriate) shall be

13

developed in a sequential manner, with suitable undeveloped lands closest to the core and public transport routes being given preference for development in the first instance.

Section 4.19 of Development Plan Guidelines (DoEHLG, 2007) states that the sequential approach is where ‘zoning extend outwards from the centre of an urban area with undeveloped lands closest to the core and public transport being given preference. Strong emphasis shall be placed on encouraging infill opportunities. Areas to be zoned should be contiguous to existing zoned development lands.’ (p.45). It is considered appropriate to amend this section to further clarify the sequential approach as defined in these guidelines


Revise amendment 3.1as follows:


All towns, villages, settlements, rural nodes (as appropriate) shall be developed in a sequential manner, with suitable undeveloped lands closest to the core and public transport routes being given preference for development in the first instance. Zoning shall extend outwards from the centre of an urban area with strong emphasis placed on encouraging infill opportunities. Areas to be zoned should generally be contiguous to existing zoned development lands.

61 DoEHLG Amendment 3.2 & 3.4

Tables 3.3 and 3.4 provide information regarding population targets and the housing potential on zoned residential lands, however, it is not always clear which time periods are being referred to and also there is no


The title of Table 3.3 states the time period for the population and housing unit allocations is 2006-2017. To further clarify this, the title of the 4th column will be amended to read as follows: ‘2006-2017 Housing Units Target’

It is proposed to add a new table to section 3.6 (Development Capacity)

14

column indicating in the surplus or deficit of zoned lands for each settlement.

It is suggested that the Planning Authority review and clarify the tables to indicate the level of surplus/deficit of each settlement.

showing the surplus/deficit of units for the larger towns and villages when compared to the target figure out in the table 3.3. It should be noted that this figure does not include the overprovision (of up to 50%) to be provided for under the Development Plan Guidelines.


Include table 3.5 (as outlined at end of section) in section 3.6

Amend the title of the 4th column in Table 3.4 to read as follows: ‘2006-2017 Housing Units Target’

8 Department of Education and Science

Amendment 3.2

Notes that the only proposed change to Table 3.3 population targets refer to rural dwellers with an increase of 565 persons leading to 68 primary school places (3 classrooms) and 48 post primary school places. As the remainder of the proposed amendments have no implications for education provision, the Department has no further comment to make at this stage.


Noted. The Draft CDP already identifies the need to co-operate with the Department of Education and Science in the future provision of school facilities:

Refer Section 11.14.7 School Facilities and Policy ED 1 which states that:

It is the policy of the Council; To co-operate with the Department of Education and Science, the Vocational Educational Committee for County Kildare and School Management Boards in the identification of appropriate sites for school facilities.


No change

32 Bartley O’ Regan Amendment 3.2

Population and Housing Unit Allocations- From an analyses of the Draft CDP housing allocations for rural dwellers and smaller settlements (Table 3.3), it


As noted in the Manager’s Report on submissions received on the Draft CDP (refer to p.54), the changes to Table 3.3 (Settlement Hierarchy – Population and Unit Allocation 2006-2017) were made to correct minor mathematical

15

appears there is an inadequate allocation made to Villages, Rural Settlements and Rural Nodes. Suggest the following changes:

Include in section 3.5 (housing and Population Allocation), text which will indicate that in certain parts of the county (e.g. in Rural Housing Policy Zone 1) that housing allocations to the Rural dwellers may in certain cases be used to facilitate sustainable growth of rural settlements and nodes.

In the following text in section 3.5: “residential proposals in rural settlements where it can be established that development on lands adjacent to the settlement core would be in general conformance to the settlement strategy and core strategy of the plan and where adequate services and infrastructure can be provided will be considered for the development on a case by case basis. “

(ii) The Development Strategy for Milltown (Map 17.28) identifies landholdings of c. 1.2 Ha and 0.2 Ha are for settlement expansion areas. The provisions of table 4.2 of the draft Plan (~15 units per Ha) (amendment 4.2) suggest a certain scale of development. However, this provision overlooks certain key features of the town, in particular the absence of adequate waste water treatment but also the nature of the grain of housing plots in the village and Milltown’s location in relation to the larger

discrepancies in the published draft plan. No changes were proposed in the amendments that impact on the overall implementation of the strategy in relation to the following:

35% of the projected growth set out in the RPGs being allocated to the four metropolitan towns

65% of the projected growth set out in the RPGs being allocated to the remainder of the county

The principle of proportionate growth for the remaining designated settlements in the county as follows: 25% growth in villages, 20% growth in rural settlements and 10-15% growth in rural nodes.

The corrected population figure resulted in c.1% of the population target (565 persons) not being accounted for within these figures. This was allocated to the rural area for the following reasons:

The targeted levels for the 78 designated settlements, as outlined above, accord with the RPGs

The targeted figure set out in Table 3.3 still aims to achieve a 20% reduction in the number of one-off dwellings granted over the period of this Plan (refer to section 4.11.1 of the Draft CDP). However, this target can only be achieved through the application of a stricter rural housing policy as proposed in amendment 4.12.

The unit allocation figures for rural dwellers or any other element of the settlement hierarchy have not been changed.

It is considered that amendment 3.2 does not represent a material change to the overall settlement strategy / hierarchy for the County agreed at the Special Council Meeting of 06/12/2010 .

(ii) The only amendment relating to lands in Milltown relate to the

16

adjacent towns of Kildare and Newbridge. We consider that achieving development of the scale suggested in the development plan for Milltown may not be possible as there are insufficient lands catered for in the development strategy.

identification of lands which will be subject to site specific flood risk assessment, accordingly no change can be introduced for potential development areas for Milltown at this stage of the Development Plan process.


No change

55 James Fagan & Associates

C/O Paddy White & Joe Flanagan (Ballyshannon)

Amendment 3.2

Population and Housing Unit Allocations-

States that there appear to be discrepancies with regard to the housing allocations for rural dwellings and smaller settlements in the county. State that inadequate allocations have been made to the Villages, Rural Settlement and Rural Nodes of the county and suggests that the large targeted figures for rural dwellings would be incompatible with amended rural policies. State that the suggested amendments would not require large scale alteration of the draft Development Plan.


As per response to 32 above.


As per recommendation to 32 above

56 James Fagan & Associates

C/O Paddy White & Joe Flanagan (Calverstown)

Amendment 3.2


States that there appear to be discrepancies with regard to the housing allocations for rural dwellings and smaller settlements in the county. State that




As per recommendation to 32 above

17

inadequate allocations have been made to the Villages, Rural Settlement and Rural Nodes of the county and suggests that the large targeted figures for rural dwellings would be incompatible with amended rural policies. State that the suggested amendments would not require large scale alteration of the draft Development Plan.

62 (ii) CIF Amendment 3.2


In relation to the allocation of the RPG population and growth targets for the plan period, it is stated that the Council should acknowledge that construction activity has practically ceased and the existing supply of housing (identified in the DoEHLG’s survey of housing stock, published in October 2010) will quickly decrease once economic recovery restarts. States that the Council would be unwise to take a too short-term a view of existing housing supply.


The overall housing provision has been informed by the Regional Planning Guidelines. In accordance with planning legislation the development plan must be consistent with the RPGs. A short term view has not been adopted regarding housing supply / provision.


No change

46 Meath County Council

Amendments 3.3 & 3.6

Proposed Strategic Land Use and Transportation Study of North East Kildare- Meath Co Co are interested in obtaining further information regarding the intended nature of the North East Study, its status considering the delivery of other statutory land use plans for this area and how implementation of the


Preliminary work on the Strategic Land Use and Transportation Study has now commenced. The study Kildare County Council will involve the participation of all the strategic stakeholders including Meath County Council. Regard shall also be had to any plans prepared for the area outside of but adjacent to Kildare including those plans prepared by Meath County Council for Kilcock and Maynooth. The proximity of the north east of Kildare

18

RPGs will impact on the study. Reference is made to the LAPs that have been prepared within Meath, which are located adjacent to Kildare i.e. Kilcock and Maynooth and the proximity of the north east of Kildare to Dunboyne, a designated growth centre in the RPGs.

to Dunboyne is also noted. The north east strategic study will be conducted within the strategic framework of the RPGs.


No change

75 NTA Amendments 3.3 & 3.6

Proposed Strategic Land Use and Transportation Study of North East Kildare- It is submitted that the National Transport Authority be directly referred to in the wording of objective SO10.


Agreed



‘To carry out a strategic Land Use and Transportation Study of North East Kildare including the metropolitan area towns of Leixlip, Maynooth, Celbridge and Kilcock. The preparation of the study will involve the participation of all the strategic stakeholders including the National Transport Authority, adjoining local authorities i.e. Meath, Fingal and South Dublin County Councils, transportation providers, Waterways Ireland, Government Departments and environmental agencies.

7 EPA Amendment 3.6

The inclusion of Policy SO10 Strategic Land Use and Transportation Study is noted. Consideration should be given to clarifying whether the requirements of the SEA, Habitats and EIA Directives will be incorporated into the Land Use and Transportation Study as relevant and appropriate.


Any statutory requirements governing the strategic study which may include the undertaking of SEA and AA will be carried out as appropriate.

Manager’s RecommendationNo change

19

33 John Kehoe c/o Brady, Shipman, Martin on behalf of O’Flynn Construction Co. Ltd

Amendment 3.6

SO10: Strategic Land Use and Transportation Study. The preparation of this study in advance of the review of the LAPs for the area would lead to a further delay in delivering the necessary additional zoned lands. In order to comply with the RPG’s there is a requirement for the immediate delivery of the required level of additional zoned lands in the north east towns.

Requests change to amendment 3.6 to read as follows:

‘To carry out a strategic Land Use and Transportation Study of north east Kildare including the Metropolitan area towns of Leixlip, Maynooth, Celbridge and Kilcock. The preparation of the study will involve the participation of all the strategic stakeholders, including adjoining local authorities (i.e. Meath, Fingal and South Dublin County Councils), transportation providers, Waterways Ireland, Government Departments and Environmental Agencies. This study shall commence on the adoption of the Kildare County Development Plan 2011-2017 and shall be completed as a matter of priority to ensure the early compliance of the Local Area Plans with the population targets set in this plan’.

The preparation of the above study could be combined with the initial stages of the review of the LAP’s for this area.


Preliminary work on the north east strategic study has now commenced. It is a priority of Kildare County Council to ensure the speedy delivery of this study in order to inform the review of the north Kildare LAPs.

SO10 states that it is an objective of the Council “To zone additional lands in the Metropolitan towns to meet the requirements of the population allocations set out in this plan. Such zoning shall be in line with the settlement hierarchy set out in table 3.3”.

The Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2010 requires an amendment of an LAP not later than one year following the making of the development plan where any objective of an LAP is no longer consistent with the objectives of the development plan for the area. The 2010 legislative framework therefore provides the relevant timeframe for amendments to the relevant LAPs. If necessary the preparation of the North East study can be combined with the initial stages of the review of the LAP’s for this area.


No change

20

3 James Fagan & Associates for the Dunne Family

Request that, having regard to Ballyshannon’s designation as a rural settlement in the County Development Plan 2005-2011, that this designation be carried through to the development plan for the period 2011-2017.


This submission does not relate to any proposed amendment and cannot be considered at this stage of the plan making process.


No change

44 Cllr. Suzanne Doyle

(i) Requests that the figures in the settlement strategy hierarchy as outlined in figure 3.3 be consistent with the projected distribution of growth for the County as outlined in the Core Strategy. Concerned that not enough regard has been taken to the social consequences of concentrating such high volumes of growth to population centres that have already been the recipients of significant growth over the period of the current plan.

(ii) Restricting the growth of smaller communities can too have serious social consequences, where the critical mass required to sustain valuable social and commercial supports for these rich communities is not sustained. Calls for a consultative process that engages directly with the communities affected by the changes, through this process designations of strategic sustainable settlements would be made that are in line with the overall growth strategy for the County. In the interim the settlements could be considered on a sequential approach from settlement centre.

(i) Manager’s Response


The figures in the settlement strategy are consistent with the Core Strategy and have been informed by the Regional Planning Guidelines. The overall settlement strategy has been agreed at the Special Council Meeting on 6/12/2010.

(ii) Manager’s Recommendation

No change

(ii) Manager’s Response

As noted in the Managers Report on submission received on the Draft CDP (refer to p.54), the changes to Table 3.3 (Settlement Hierarchy – Population and Unit Allocation 2006-2017) were made to correct minor mathematical discrepancies from the published draft. As such there is no material change to the overall settlement strategy / hierarchy. The overall settlement strategy for the County was agreed at the special council meeting of 06/12/2010 and is not subject to an amendment.

As there is no material change to the settlement strategy it is deemed that

21

the submission does not relate to any proposed amendment and cannot be considered at this stage of the plan making process.


No change

64 (ii) Seamus Kennedy Request a consultation process for settlements.

States that the current settlement strategy are disproportionately biased against growth in the rural area and are predicated on increasing population of urban areas without due regard to the social consequences of this action. Requests a more nuanced approach that includes a consultative process which engages directly with the communities affected by the changes. States that through this process designations of strategic sustainable settlements would be made that are in line with the overall growth strategy for the County and in the interim the settlements could be considered on a sequential approach from settlement centre.


As per response to 44 (ii) above


As per recommendation to 44 (ii) above

22

4

9

12

24

25

26

27

28

31

34

37

45

52

53

68

69

71

77

Maura Tutty-Deay

Brian Doyle1

Aine Deay

Fearghal Regan

Ken Regan

Emmanuel Hughes

Annie Hughes

David Zebedee

Grace O’ Neill

Keara Dunne

Ger Coyne

Vincent Kenny

Patrick Hennesy

Anthony Quinn

Terence Martin

Elianna Martin

Aisling Dunney

Liz O’Donnell- Byrne

Request a consultation process for settlements.

That a consultation process should occur from which a list of settlements will be designated for priority. This process should encompass public meetings in each of the settlements, where Council officials would attend to inform communities of the opportunities and constraints within each settlement. The prescribed growth for the rural areas would remain the same and as such would comply with the Regional Planning Guidelines but the details and decisions with regard to selecting particular areas for growth or otherwise would be determined through a consultative process.


As per response to 44 (ii) above


As per recommendation to 44 (ii) above

1 Chairperson, Allenwood Community Development Assoc. Ltd.

23

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

Kevin O’Shea

Robert Groman

Mary Aungier

Noel Aungier

Emma Cross

Deborah Gorman

Michael Cross (Snr)

Michael Cross (Jnr)

Margaret Cross

Lorraine Cross

Pat Gorey (Snr)

Sandra Heavey

Danny Heavey

James Fagan

Christopher Ward

Linda Ward

David McCabe

William Tuite (Jnr)

24

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

Henry O’Neill

Joe Doyle

Brian Doyle

Mary Doyle

Patricia Ivers

Ciaran Fileds

William Tuite

Christopher Ward

Dean Ward

Clare O’Reilly

Keith Ward

Ann Ward

Nuala Heavey

Bella Aungier

Mary Donnelly

Dawn Fitzgerald

John Fitzgerald

Brendan Fitzgerald

Patrick Dunney

25

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

Bridie Dunney

Anthony Stynes,

Breda Stynes

Yvonne Stynes

Nina Stynes

Brendan Stynes

David Stynes

Sara Dunny

Patrick Dunny

Caroline Dunny

Emily Dunny

Michael Roycroft

B Roycroft

Pauline Roycroft

E P Roycroft

Julia Montague

Eilish Kehoe

Trevor Montague

Mary Montague

26

Alfie Montague

44 Cllr Suzanne Doyle The concentration of growth is overwhelmingly focused on the Metropolitan areas and large towns on the M7 spine, all of which North of Kildare town have a dependence on the Liffey, which is a shared resource with Dublin. This leaves Kildare in a very vulnerable position with regard to water supply, clearly demonstrated in the recent bad weather, without an agreed solution to this problem. A more cautious approach to the development of the County is required where we do not create an over dependency to a resource that is clearly limited without any foreseeable means of resolving this important issue.


The issues raised in the submission do not relate materially to a proposed amendment and therefore cannot be considered.

It should be noted however that the County is not solely reliant on the River Liffey with supply provided through a number of groundwater abstraction programmes, the River Barrow and potential for further provision through the River Shannon scheme.


No change

64 Seamus Kennedy The concentration of growth is overwhelmingly focused on the Metropolitan areas and large towns on the M7 spine, all of which North of Kildare town have a dependence on the Liffey, which is a shared resource with Dublin. This leaves Kildare in a very vulnerable position with regard to water supply, clearly demonstrated in the recent bad weather, without an agreed solution to this problem. A more cautious approach to the development of the County is required where we do not create an over dependency to a resource that is clearly limited without any foreseeable means of resolving this important issue


The issues raised in the submission do not relate materially to a proposed amendment and therefore cannot be considered.


No change

27

Development Plans and LAPs for

Designated Towns

New Units Target

2006-2017

Potential Units

Deliverable2

Units Target Surplus/Deficit

Naas Dev Plan & Environs (2005) 3,610 5,099 1,489

Maynooth Dev Plan (2002) 2,364 1,606 -758

Newbridge LAP (2003) 2,839 3,129 290

Leixlip LAP (2010) & Collinstown LAP (2010) 3,042 3,728 686

Celbridge LAP (2010 3,579 1,871 -1,708

Kilcock LAP*** (2009) 850 2,042 1,192

Kildare (2002) & Magee Barracks (2005) 1,187 4,274 3,087

Monasterevin (2008) 475 1,716 1,241

Kilcullen (2008) 470 1,439 969

Athy Town (2006) & Environs (2005) 1,252 4,997 3,745

Clane (2009) 683 1,167 484

Prosperous (2007) 274 467 193

Rathangan (2002) 244 915 671

Sallins (2009) 527 1,099 572

Athgarvan (2008) 188 478 290

Castledermot (2009) 131 636 505

Derrinturn (2008) 165 255 90

Kill (2002) 351 828 477

TABLE 3.5: AN ASEESMENT OF THE CURRENT SURPLUS/DEFICIT FOR TARGETED UNIT GROWTH IN DESIGNATED TOWNS 2006-20173

2 On lands currently zoned which are undeveloped 3 Target figures do not include the overprovision of zoned land (of up to 50%) to be provided for under the DoEHLG Development Plan Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2007).

28

CHAPTER 4 HOUSING


4 Maura Tutty-Deay Amendment 4.12

That the map ref. 4.1 identifying areas of medium or lower sensitivity should be removed as it is an inequitable and crude approach to planning.

Manager’s Response & Recommendation

See response and recommendation at end of section 4.

5 Kathleen Smullen Amendment 4.12

Requests that the rural housing guidelines and policies outlined in the current CDP 2005-2011 should remain and that Map 4.1 in the Draft CDP is removed.



6 John Hubbard

Kildare South Labour Party, c/o. Jack Wall T.D.

Amendment 4.12

(i) Request that where applicants for a rural dwelling that are located in Rural Housing Policy Zone 1 can demonstrate the development will not adversely affect the high sensitivity landscape of the area (as outlined in Ch 14), then the application should be evaluated under the local need criteria of Policy Zone 2.

(i) Manager’s Response

Section 4.11.4 (Local Need Criteria) of the CDP, set out under proposed amendment 4.12, clearly states the rural policy zones shown on Map 4.1 have been identified on the basis of a number of key considerations and that these comprise not only landscape sensitivities but also environmental sensitivities and the concentrations of one-off dwellings in the county which indicate rural areas under significant development pressure. Furthermore, the lack of definition that such a policy would allow for would also lead to uncertainty in the decision making process for applicants, agents, the planning authority and An Bord Pleanala.

(i) Manager’s Recommendation

29

(ii) Requests that the schedule for Rural Housing Policy Zone 1 (Table 4.3) include the following criteria:

Persons who can satisfy the Planning Authority of their commitment to operate a small scale, full time business from their proposed home in the rural area and that the business will contribute to and enhance the rural community and that the nature of such business/employment is more appropriate to a rural location.

(iii) Explain the criteria (for Map 4.1) where one village is included under Rural Housing Policy Zone 1 and another, less than 1 mile away, is in Rural Housing Policy Zone 2 (e.g. Moone and Timolin).

No change

(ii) Manager’s Response

Having regard to DoEHLG Circular Letter SP5/08, in relation to local need and occupancy conditions, it is considered appropriate that the proposed policy (which already set out for rural housing policy zone 2) be included for both schedules of local need set out in table 4.3


Add the following to Amendment 4.12 schedule for Rural Housing Policy Zone 1 (Table 4.3):


(iii) Manager’s Response

Both settlements have been defined as villages with land use plans and associated policies and objectives are set out for each in Chapter 17. The rural housing policy only relates to lands outside these development boundaries. The distinction between Zone 1 and Zone 2 has been discussed in point 6(i) above.

(iii) Manager’s Recommendation

30

No change

9 (i) Brian Doyle, Chairperson

Allenwood Community Development Assoc. Ltd.

Amendment 4.12

Requests that the rural housing guidelines and policies outlined in the current CDP 2005-2011 should remain and that Map 4.1 and Table 4.3 in the Draft CDP be removed. States that the current rural housing policy set out in the CDP 2005-2011 is sufficiently constraining and a more accurate and effective approach is to have each individual site assessed on its merits through the planning process.


See response and recommendation at end of section 4

11 Edmond Fogarty Amendment 4.12

Objects to the Rural Housing Zoning Proposal and the conditions pertaining there to. It is submitted that this policy looks like a less than subtle attempt to trigger population movement from Zone 1 to Zone 2. As the policy currently stands it means that persons forced abroad to seek employment in the short to medium term through no fault of their own, will not be able to return to the part of the county in which they have lived .


Both schedules of rural housing policy (zone 1/zone 2) allows consideration for persons who have grown up and spent substantial periods of their lives in rural areas in Kildare (18 years/12 years), who wish to return to live beside other immediate family members.


No change

12 (i) Aine Deay Amendment 4.12

That the map ref. 4.1 that identifies areas of medium or lower sensitivity should be removed as it is an inequitable and crude approach to planning.



31

17 David Edgar,

Kildare – West Wicklow IFA

Amendment 4.12

Objects to the proposed RHP which would sterilise areas for planning for parts of the county. States that each planning application for all parts of the county should be judged on its individual merits, local need and the usual accessible criteria.



19 Carole Fenton (Principal)

Allenwood Boys National School

Amendment 4.12

States that the school is an integral part of a close knit community and provides much needed employment in the area. States that should the current policy criteria of eligibility for rural housing be abolished this would have a very detrimental effect on the school and could cause a drop in school numbers with the knock on effect of the loss of teachers and a ripple effect for many local businesses that the school currently patronises. States that it is important to have in place measures to help sustain this community and having provision for building on a monitored basis is vital to sustain and promote this community and keep schools open.



In addition to children going to Allenwood school from its rural hinterland the Allenwood Village Plan also provides for 18.4ha of land for residential development with potential to deliver in excess of 400 units over the period of the plan.

The CDP also recognises the importance of sustaining a viable and active rural community reflected in the range of objectives and policies set out in Chapter 10 (Rural Development).


No change

20 Annette Coyne (Honorary Secretary)

Allenwood GFC

Amendment 4.12

Request not to change the existing criteria of eligibility for rural housing. State that the proposed policy changes are discriminatory and will ultimately result in de-population of this area that will see a further



32

decline in numbers in schools and playing members.

21 Michael Fitzpatrick TD

Amendment 4.12

States that the proposed changes to the existing RHP are a sleight of hand on the Council's behalf, to stop one off houses in Co. Kildare for people who are indigenous to the area.

It is indicated that the restrictions in the Old Development Plan are suitable to be incorporated in the new plan and would urge the Council to incorporate the current criteria rather than the new one. It is further stated that the new Minister for the Environment would have similar views.



35 John O’ Callaghan Amendment 4.12

Requests that the rural housing guidelines and policies outlined in the current CDP 2005-2011 should remain. States that if the Plan with this proposed amendment is adopted, it will represent a sleight on community of Allenwood and is an attempt by Kildare County Council to urbanise rural people.



36 Margaret Harney Amendment 4.12

States that the proposed RHP is unfair. The line drawn dividing the county into zone 1 and zone 2 is inequitable way to decide planning for housing in the county, each planning application should be granted on its merits and refused on its inadequacies.


Both schedules of rural housing policy (zone 1/zone 2) allow for persons who have grown up and spent substantial periods of their lives in rural areas in Kildare (18 years/12 years), who wish to return to live beside other immediate family members.

33

Secondly, Ireland is currently in a recession and many young people are forced to emigrate to find work, many of these may return to Ireland in the future to work and rear their families, however, if they cannot build a house in their local area this will deter them from returning.


No change

37 Ger Coyne Amendment 4.12

Requests that the map ref 4.1 identifying areas of medium or lower sensitivity should be removed as it is an inequitable and crude approach to planning.



38 Des & Colette Henry

Amendment 4.12

Regarding the draft rural housing policy, indicates that there are many inequalities and potential problems for families into the future. Requests that this proposal is dropped and the current policy to remain in place for the new Development plan.



58 Petronella Curran Amendment 4.12

Requests that the proposed plan be scrapped as it is extremely discriminatory and damaging to rural communities. The existing plan is already restrictive and provides planners with sufficient tools to control planning in the county. States that the introduction of this new plan is nothing more than an ill conceived plan to move people from rural areas to empty housing developments in towns throughout the county



34

rather than a genuine plan for the welfare of the county.

39 Manus Curran Amendment 4.12

Requests that the proposed plan be scrapped as it is extremely discriminatory and damaging to rural communities. The existing plan is already restrictive and provides planners with sufficient tools to control planning in the county. States that the introduction of this new plan is nothing more than an ill conceived plan to move people from rural areas to empty housing developments in towns throughout the county rather than a genuine plan for the welfare of the county.



41 Cllr. Martin Heydon Amendment 4.12

1. In light of the very close linkages between the villages of Moone and Timolin that map 4.1 would be changed to extend the area of rural housing policy Zone 2 to include the greater Timolin area, to avoid the present situation where both villages are in separate zones.


1. Both settlements have been defined as villages with land use plans and associated policies and objectives set out for each in chapter 17. The rural housing policy therefore only relates to lands outside these development boundaries. Section 4.11.4 (Local Need Criteria) of the CDP, set out under proposed amendment 4.12, clearly states the rural policy zones shown on Map 4.1 have been identified on the basis of a number of key considerations and that these comprise not only landscape sensitivities but also environmental sensitivities and the concentrations of one-off dwellings in the county which indicate rural areas under significant development pressure.


35

2. In relation to rural housing policy zone 1 and 2 (map reference 4.1) that the period of time that a person spends in college would be accepted as living at home.

3. That the rural housing policy zone 1 (map reference 4.1) would be amended to reduce the 'substantial period of their lives' from 18 years to 12 years.

4. That the rural housing policy zone 1 and 2 (map reference 4.1) would take account of a farmers child who wishes to build on an out farm that is part of the family holding.

No change

2. Both relevant schedules for policy zones 1 and 2 caters for ‘persons who have grown up or spent substantial periods of their lives (18/12 years) living in the area, who have left the area and now wish to return to reside near or care for immediate family members.’ As such a person born in a rural area who has subsequently lived away while attending college will generally qualify. It is not considered acceptable to include a period of time where a person has not been living in the rural area, whether or not they are attending college.


No change

3. Such a change would not accord with the DoEHLG Planning Guidelines on Sustainable Rural Housing (2005) which require classification of differing rural areas based on the structural characteristics (i.e strong/weak rural areas) and the level of urban influence. Map 4.1 has been identified on the basis of a number of key considerations and that these comprise not only landscape sensitivities but also environmental sensitivities and the concentrations of one-off dwellings in the county which indicate rural areas under significant development pressure. The return to a RHP which does not reflect the differing characteristics of the county’s rural areas would be contrary to DoEHLG Planning Guidelines on Sustainable Rural Housing (2005).


No change

4. The rural housing need of persons who have resided in zone 1 for 18 years or zone 2 for 12 years is catered for within the existing policy. Furthermore, it is proposed that both policy zones allow for “persons who

36

can satisfy the Planning Authority of their commitment to operate a small scale, full time business from their proposed home in the rural area and that business will contribute to and enhance the rural community “ (refer to sub 6 above). It is therefore considered that the policies set out in Table 4.3 caters for the local need of a farmers children who wishes to build on an out farm on the family holding.


No change

44 Cllr. Suzanne Doyle

Amendment 4.12

That the policy in the current County Dev Plan that determines eligibility for Rural Housing be adopted as the policy for the proposed CDP. The detail of this policy is sufficiently strict to prevent the incidence of urban generated rural development and as such addresses the concerns raised. The approach of segregating the County into two different sections is discriminatory and also limits the opportunities for reasonable and relevant rural development which would represent a loss to the County.



59 Bernadette Judge Amendment 4.12

(i) Objects to the changes to the RHP in terms of an increase from 12 to 18 years for applicants in Rural Housing Policy Zone 1.


(i) See response and recommendation at end of section 4.

(ii) Regarding the local need policy as set out in Table 4.3 this does not relate to developments of housing schemes in towns, villages or rural settlements. A separate ‘local demand’ policy applies to residential

37

(ii) Requests that this local need policy should be removed where it relates to any development or housing scheme and reduced where it relates to one-off houses.

development in designated villages and rural settlements (please ref to amendment 17.2):

Section 17.4 Villages and Rural Settlement Policies

It is the policy of the Council:

VRS 3: To facilitate the sustainable population growth of the identified Rural Settlements with growth levels of up to 20% over the Plan period to cater primarily for local demands. ‘Local demand’ for rural settlements is defined as persons residing for a period of 5 years within a 10km radius of the site. Primarily for ‘local demand’ shall be defined as being in excess of 50% of the overall development.

The RPGs state that villages with a population of up to 1,000 population ‘need levels of growth to be managed so that they cater for local need and do not expand rapidly, putting pressure on services and the environment and creating the potential for higher levels of commuting.’ (p.94). Policy VRS3 is therefore included to reflect the need to manage the type of growth in the county’s villages and rural settlements in this manner.


No change

62 (i) CIF Amendment 4.12

These increased requirements for applicant in Rural Housing Policy Zone 1 (e.g. persons who have grown up or spent substantial periods of their lives (18 years) as opposed to 12 years which appeared in the original draft) place even more restrictions on future



38

applicants and developers.

64 (i) Seamus Kennedy Amendment 4.12

That the policy in the current County Development Plan that determines eligibility for Rural Housing be adopted as the policy for the proposed CDP. The detail of this policy is sufficiently strict to prevent the incidence of urban generated rural development and as such addresses the concerns raised. The approach of segregating the county into two different sections is discriminatory and also limits the opportunities for reasonable and relevant rural development which would represent a loss to the County.



65 Theresa Harney Amendment 4.12

Observations in relation to the proposed plan include:

(i) Children who may have to emigrate due to the economic situation will not be able to obtain planning permission on their return.

(ii) What will the situation be regarding planning for small business for family members.


(i) The proposed RHP allows ‘persons who have grown up or spent substantial periods of their lives (18/12 years) living in the area, who have left the area and now wish to return to reside near or care for immediate family members.’ As such an emigrant who fits this category will be considered under the proposed schedule of local need, subject to all other planning considerations.


No change

(ii) The nature the small business is unclear. Section 10.4.10 of the Draft CDP acknowledges that the development of rural enterprise and employment opportunities will be vital to sustaining the rural economy where agriculture, horticulture, forestry

39

(iii) What will the situation be regarding planning for

animal housing sheds, larger silage pit and new/modernise our milking parlour if the Development Plan is agreed as is proposed.

tourism, energy production and rural resource based enterprise are supported. Table 10.2 sets out the criteria for the assessment of Enterprise in Rural Areas.


No change

(iii) Section 10.5.2 (Agriculture) of the Draft CDP sets out the Councils policies in relation to agriculture, with one of the primary objectives being:

AG 1: To support agricultural development and encourage the continuation of agriculture as a contributory means of maintaining population in the rural area.


No change

73 Michael Joyce Amendment 4.12

Requests that the rural housing guidelines and policies outlined in the current CDP 2005-2011 should remain and is sufficiently strict to control the levels of rural housing.



77 Liz O’ Donohoe-Byrne

Amendment 4.12

The proposed plan will have a serious effect on maintaining the family farm and the tradition of passing the business onto a family member for further development on retiring. It is indicated that it is vital that the farming community remains strong and that it



40

is supported and developed. The proposed plan will seriously affect family members who wish to build on the family farm.

Requests that Map 4.1 be removed on the grounds that it is an inadequate and crude approach to planning, with areas in the same parish being placed in two different policy zones (e.g. Timolin and Moone, Calverstown and Colbinstown).

18

24

25

26

27

28

31

34

45

52

53

68

69

Donrina Shorunke

Fearghal Regan

Ken Regan

Emmanuel Hughes

Annie Hughes

David Zebedee

Grace O’ Neill

Keara Dunne

Vincent Kenny

Patrick Hennesy

Anthony Quinn

Terence Martin

Elianna Martin

Amendment 4.12

Requests that the rural housing guidelines and policies outlined in the current CDP 2005-2011 should remain and that Map 4.1 and Table 4.3 in the Draft CDP be removed. States that the current rural housing policy set out in the CDP 2005-2011 is sufficiently constraining and a more accurate and effective approach to have each individual site assessed on its merits through the planning process.



41

71

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

Aisling Dunney

Kevin O’Shea

Robert Groman

Mary Aungier

Noel Aungier

Emma Cross

Deborah Gorman

Michael Cross (Snr)

Michael Cross (Jnr)

Margaret Cross

Lorraine Cross

Pat Gorey (Snr)

Sandra Heavey

Danny Heavey

James Fagan

Christopher Ward

Linda Ward

David McCabe

42

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

William Tuite (Jnr)

Henry O’Neill

Joe Doyle

Brian Doyle

Mary Doyle

Patricia Ivers

Ciaran Fileds

William Tuite

Christopher Ward

Dean Ward

Clare O’Reilly

Keith Ward

Ann Ward

Nuala Heavey

Bella Aungier

Mary Donnelly

Dawn Fitzgerald

John Fitzgerald

Brendan Fitzgerald

43

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

Patrick Dunney

Bridie Dunney

Anthony Stynes,

Breda Stynes

Yvonne Stynes

Nina Stynes

Brendan Stynes

David Stynes

Sara Dunny

Patrick Dunny

Caroline Dunny

Emily Dunny

Michael Roycroft

B Roycroft

Pauline Roycroft

E P Roycroft

Julia Montague

Eilish Kehoe

Trevor Montague

44

134 Mary Montague

Alfie Montague

61 DoEHLG (a) The Authority identifies two types of rural housing zones. Zone 1 may be regarded as areas under greater urban pressure and Zone 2 are areas which are under lesser pressure. The Core Strategy map indicates that Zone 2 is in the south west of the county. Based on GeoDirectory about 20% of the new residential address points between 2006 and 2010 in the whole county occurred in the Zone 2 area. This represents a substantial proportion of new residential growth. It would appear most unlikely that a significant proportion of the new residential development would be locally based and that it would instead represent urban generated rural housing.

It is suggested that the Planning Authority review the extent of the Zone 2 area and at the same time give consideration to regarding the whole of the county as being under pressure from urban generated housing.

(b) Table 4.3 provides a set of criteria in relation to meeting local need in each of the two Zones. In a number of cases there is a lack of clarity regarding terms. For example ‘living in the area’, ‘near to’, ‘in the vicinity of’, ‘essential to the local community’ and other terms and phrases are not defined.

(a) Manager’s Response & Recommendation


(b) Manager’s Response

It is considered that the terms used in Table 4.3 (Schedule of needs) are largely explained within the relevant schedule. “Near to” is already defined in the schedule as being either a 5km (for RHP Zone 1) or an 8km (for RHP 2) distance from the applicants family home. “Living in the area“

45

It is suggested that the Planning Authority review the Table and where appropriate provide further clarification on the various terms and phrases which, as currently set out, are subject to wide interpretation.

refers to the applicants permanent place of residency in the rural area.

(b) Manager’s Recommendation

No change

46

The following submissions have objected to the changes proposed under Amendment 4.12 (Rural Housing Policy and Map 4.1) in the Proposed Amendments to the Draft Kildare CDP 2011-2017 (June 2011):

4, 5, 12(i), 9(i), 11, 17, 19, 20, 21, 35, 36, 37, 38, 58, 39, 44, 59, 62(i), 64(i), 73, 77, 18, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 34, 45, 52, 53, 68, 69, 71, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133 & 134.

The objections raised in these submissions can be summarised as follows:

Map 4.1 and Table 4.3 should be removed on the grounds that it is an inadequate and crude approach to planning for rural housing. The approach of segregating the County into two different sections is discriminatory and also limits the opportunities for reasonable and relevant rural development. The rural housing guidelines and policies outlined in the current CDP 2005-2011 should be retained as they are sufficiently constraining and a more accurate and effective approach to having each individual site assessed on its merits through the planning process. These submissions should also be read in conjunction with the DoEHLG submission (no.61), which takes a different view of the proposed amendment to the rural housing policy (i.e. that the proposed amendments do not adequately respond to the unsustainable levels of one-off housing being built in the Kildare countryside).

Manager’s Response to submissions objecting to the changes proposed under Amendment 4.12

The rural housing policy set out in the Kildare CDP 1985 classified areas under influence from the Dublin Metropolitan area and pressure zones around larger towns as ‘Areas of Special Planning Control’. This area based rural housing policy approach also had protective policies in place for designated areas of high amenity within the county.

The rural housing policy set out in Kildare CDP 1999 was also area based, identifying three types of rural areas in the county: (i) Areas of Development Pressure (ii) Outside the Areas of Development Pressure (iii) Areas of High Amenity. Separate local need policies reflected the need to protect against sporadic one-off housing in the rural countryside, particularly in areas of high amenity and development pressure.

The Kildare CDP 2005 departed from the area based rural housing policy approach adopted in the previous two CDP’s, with a single local need policy being implemented across the whole county on a case by case basis. An analysis of the number of one off houses permitted since the adoption of this Plan indicates their increasing proportion relative to the overall number of housing units granted per annum.

Table 1 Number of one off houses permitted mid May 2005 to end November 2009

Period No. of grants one off houses

One off houses as % of total units grants in relevant period

15/05/05 to 31/12/05 428 grants 37%

01/01/06 to 31/12/06 530 grants 30%

47

01/01/07 to 31/12/07 656 grants 31%

01/01/08 to 31/12/08 555 grants 34%

01/01/09 to 30/11/09 250 grants 36%

Average Per Annum 580 units (ave 2006-2008) 33% (ave 2006-2008)

Source: Kildare County Council I-PLAN system

The Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area 2010-2022, indicate that one off houses in rural areas accounts for over 21% of overall housing in County Kildare. Table 1 shows that on average 33% of all grants of permission per annum (between May 2005 to end November 2009) were one off houses. These figures illustrate an increasing demand for rural housing on unzoned un-serviced lands outside the urban areas and outside the boundaries of the Rural Settlements. This increasing pressure for one-off housing which is being accommodated under the current CDP is not sustainable (as noted in the submission from the DoEHLG).

The Sustainable Rural Housing Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2005) recognise the need to manage the demand for rural housing in a more sustainable manner. The Guidelines state the need to establish appropriate policies which guide one-off dwellings to appropriate locations in rural areas in the interest of protecting Ireland’s natural and manmade assets. Planning Authorities are advised to illustrate broad categories of rural generated housing need, to facilitate the legitimate needs of applicants, subject to compliance with normal development management planning criteria. Key assets in rural areas such as water quality, natural/cultural heritage and the quality of landscape must be protected, with the following factors to be taken into account:

The level and concentration of existing development in rural areas

Landscape character areas and landscape sensitivity

Environmental designations (NHA, SAC, SPA, etc)

Natural and Manmade resources

Transport (particularly the protection of the national road network)

Siting and Design

The Guidelines clearly state that these factors should be used to define differing rural area types within the county with different policies being tailored to ensure the management of rural housing within these areas take place in a sustainable manner . Map 1: Indicative Outline of NSS Rural Area Types (based on the National Spatial Strategy) indicatively shows that County Kildare’s rural area types fall into two categories (a) areas under strong urban influence and (b) stronger rural areas. These two areas are broadly reflected by way of Policy Zone 1 and policy Zone 2 in Map 4.1 of the proposed Rural Housing Policy.

Following the member’s consideration of the Draft CDP, two rural housing policy zones were decided upon on the basis of the following:

(i) Consideration of environmental sensitivities as informed by the SEA

(ii) Consideration of landscape character areas and landscaper sensitivities as set out in Chapter 14 of the Draft CDP

48

(iii) Consideration of the areas of development pressure for one-off housing in the rural area.

The stricter local need schedule set out for policy Zone 1 reflects the need for a greater level of control of rural one-off development due to higher levels of development pressure, greater demand for urban generated rural housing and the higher levels of environmental sensitivities in this area. The two policy zones therefore reflect the differing physical and social characteristics that define these rural areas. It is considered that the policy reflects the need to identify differing rural area types as set out in the DoEHLG Sustainable Rural Housing Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2005). The approach is also reflective of Map 1 in the guidelines “Indicative Outline of NSS Rural Area Types”, which indicates a difference between ‘areas under strong urban influence’ in the north of the county and ‘stronger rural areas’ in the south of the county.


No change

49

CHAPTER 5 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

7 EPA Amendment 5.9

Consideration should be given to amending the new policy in Section 5.9.1 to refer to the ‘sustainable development’ of tourism.


Agreed.


Revise amendment 5.9 to read as follows;

‘5.9.1 General Economic Development Policies

It is the policy of the Council to promote the sustainable development of the tourism sector in appropriate locations throughout the county, acknowledging that Ireland’s largest tourist market i.e. Dublin is highly accessible through the existing commuter transport system.’


It is noted that policy ED has been amended to specifically mention the river Barrow. The river Barrow is a designated candidate Special Area of Conservation.


Noted. Section 13.4.2 references Candidate Special Areas of Conservation.


No change

16 Roger Garland Amendment 5.11

Inland Waterways Tourism Policy – Supports these new policies. However it is suggested that the 1st and 3rd are combined.

(i) To encourage walking and recreational facilities, where development opportunities arise along


Agreed


Revise amendment 5.11 as follows:

50

riverbanks and lakes. In this regard land adjacent to river banks and lakes will be reserved for public access and where linear parks are designed and developed provision shall be made for walking and cycling routes.

(iii) It is the policy of the Council:

To reserve where feasible, land adjacent to river banks and lakes for public access and to facilitate the creation of linear parks to accommodate walking/cycling routes.


To encourage walking and recreational facilities, where feasible and where development opportunities arise along riverbanks and lakes. In this regard land adjacent to river banks and lakes will be reserved, where possible, for linear parks for public access and where linear parks are designed and developed provision shall be made for walking and cycling routes.

13 Regional Planning Authority

Pressure for new employment zoned lands adjacent to the edges of settlements has the potential to undermine the important regional role of the designated economic growth areas in servicing large urban and rural catchments in terms of employment and the provision of services. It is recommended that such pressures are managed, and where appropriate discouraged to ensure these designated centres realise their potential and to increase accessibility between people and workplaces and ensuring optimal use of infrastructural investment, as advocated by the RPGs.


Noted. This submission does not relate to any amendment.


No change

51

CHAPTER 6 MOVEMENT AND TRANSPORT


10 NRA Amendment 6.2

The NRA welcomes the inclusion of the reference to the Spatial Planning and National Roads (Draft) Guidelines for Planning Authorities.


Noted


No change


6.4.1 General Transport Policy – TP 7 -regarding street lighting is supported.


Noted


No change

7 EPA Amendment 6.4

Consideration should also be given to amending Policy NR10 to refer to "...enabling sustainable economic development..."


Agreed



NR10: To ensure that the county’s national roads system is planned for and managed in an integrated manner enabling sustainable economic development of the county and wider area while encouraging a shift towards more sustainable travel and transport in accordance with the Draft Spatial Planning & National Road Guidelines (DoEHLG, 2010) and as subsequently

52

amended

60 GVA for Tesco Amendment 6.6

As many different uses rely on car parking, it is important that stakeholders in such uses are provided the opportunity to comment on any possible changes to the standards. It is for this reason that the following modification to policy PK 4 is proposed.

PK 4 To review all parking standards, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, during the lifetime of this plan.


A public consultation process may be undertaken to facilitate input from relevant stakeholders and the general public.



PK 4 To review all parking standards, in consultation with relevant stakeholders and the general public, during the lifetime of this plan.


The authority welcomes the proposed amendment, however it is recommended to include a specific objective to incorporate the maximum regional parking standards and related measures which will be specified when available in the forthcoming NTA Transport Strategy for the GDA.


PK 4 provides for a review of the car parking standards during the lifetime of the plan. This review will be informed by the NTA Transport Strategy.



PK 4 To review all parking standards, in consultation with relevant stakeholders and the general public, during the lifetime of this plan

75 National Transport Authority

Amendment 6.7

The authority welcomes the proposed amendment relating to a freight strategy and bus parking in towns.


Noted


No change

53


6.5.2 Sustainable Travel Policies – ST 2 walking and cycling & ST 8 walking routes. policies are supported.


Noted


No change


6.5.2 Sustainable Travel

Recommends that this section be crossed referenced with Section 14 – Landscape, Recreation and Amenities where many sections deal with recreational aspects of walking and cycling.


Both chapters incorporate policies which support walking and cycling.


No change


ST 17 We would point out that DTO has now ceased to exist and has been replaced by the NTA.


The reference in this policy relates to a document published by the former DTO office and as such the reference is correct.


No change.

7 EPA Amendment 6.10

It is noted that in Policy RP9, a commitment is given to building a Southern Distributor Road. It should be ensured that the requirements of the EIA / Habitats Directives are integrated as appropriate into any such development.


All relevant environmental legislation to include EIA /AA will be recognised and the requirements of same taken into account and addressed in the planning and development of the Southern Distributor Road around Athy.


54

No change


It is requested that amendment 6.10 objective RP 15 is slightly altered as follows to acknowledge the LOR Corridor Protection Study ;

RP 15: To cooperate with the NRA and other local authorities to provide the Leinster Orbital Route (linking Drogheda, Navan, Trim and Naas) proposed in the ‘Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area and to protect zones along the key radial routes from Dublin where junctions with the proposed Leinster Orbital Route may be constructed in accordance with the NRA Corridor Protection Study and once a route corridor has been identified to preserve this corridor free from development.


Agreed


To alter policy RP 15 of proposed amendment 6.10 as follows.

RP 15: To cooperate with the NRA and other local authorities in providing the Leinster Orbital Route (linking Drogheda, Navan, Trim and Naas) proposed in the ‘Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area and to protect zones along the key radial routes from Dublin where junctions with the proposed Leinster Orbital Route may be constructed in accordance with the NRA Corridor Protection Study and once a route corridor has been identified to preserve this corridor free from development.

23 Arthur Cox for Tony Doyle

Amendment 6.15

GA 7 : Public Safety Zones - The submissions suggests that the imposition of a public safety zone around Weston airport will impinge upon the property rights and value of adjoining lands, including a stud farm owned and operated by the person who made the submission

The following changes to policy GA7 are requested:

(i) To reject the addition of the draft note in reference to defining Public Safety Zones to be added to policy


The removal of policies regarding the possible introduction of Public Safety Zones for any aerodromes in or affecting Kildare would be unwise from the points of view of good aviation planning, and public safety. Public Safety Zones provide a logical and safe means of guiding development in the vicinity of aerodromes.

It is not considered necessary to reject the proposed draft note associated with policy GA 7 as this note provides an explanation of what Public Safety Zones are and the benefits they may have for the areas around airports/ aerodromes where they are deemed necessary.

55

GA 7

(ii) To amend policy GA 7 to read as follows (requested changes are underlined):

“GA7: To consider, in conjunction with relevant agencies and bodies, the introduction of Public Safety Zones in the vicinity of aerodromes within or affecting Kildare by way of variation to this development plan.

It is however considered appropriate to alter proposed policy GA7 as follows to give a clearer indication of the Council’s decision making procedures.


GA7: To consider, in conjunction with relevant agencies and bodies, the introduction of Public Safety Zones4 in the vicinity of aerodromes within or affecting Kildare by way of variation to this development plan.

16 Roger Garland 6.4.6 Parking(Motion 4) – There is an ambiguity in the Minutes in that on one hand it is stated: It is considered acceptable to include the proposed policy PK 5, on the other hand the Manager’s Recommendation is: No change.

We would ask you to look at this and to bear in mind the provisions of GT4 do not adequately address our concerns about the lack of car parking in rural areas which would give access to natural amenities and walkways.


Include additional policy in amendment 14.8 Countryside Recreation Policy


Include policy in section 14.11.1 “To seek to provide car parks for walkers at appropriate access points to amenities, where feasible and subject to compliance with the requirements arising from the Habitats Directive”.

49 Dublin Airport Amendment 6.16 Manager’s Response

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

56

Auhtority It does not appear that there is additional government policy to support the development of an additional airport in the Greater Dublin Area. The provision of a new airport should be consistent with national and regional planning policy and should be plan led. The DAA believes that existing national and regional planning policy does not supports the development of a new airport within the GDA. The DAA seeks clarity on the Government Policy that has been referred to in Amendment 6.16 and in the absence of such policy this objective must be reviewed.

It is considered appropriate to alter proposed objective AO 1 of Amendment 6.16 to have regard to evolving national and regional policy in relation to additional airports in the region.


To amend objective AO 1 as follows:

AO 1: To investigate the feasibility of providing an airport in the County, having regard to evolving Government policy relating to the development of an additional airport in the Region.

A number of issues shall be considered, including:

adequacy of public transport services,

adequacy road infrastructure,

the Aerodrome Reference Code to which such a facility will operate,

extent of flight movements,

noise pollution,

protection of residential amenity

protection of natural and built heritage

protection of the bloodstock industry

75 NTA The authority recommend the following objective be included:

To review and set out an implementation plan, for proposed road schemes as part of a local traffic plan


This does not relate directly to an amendment however it is noted that it is a statutory requirement under separate legislation.

57

to be prepared following the publication of the NTA Transport Strategy for the GDA and the completion of the NTA integrated Implementation Plan.


No change

58

CHAPTER 7 WATER, DRAINAGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES



Amendment 7.11

Supports the inclusion of the proposed additional policy WS9 (co-operation with adjoining authorities regarding servicing) in the CDP.


Noted


No change

40 Tom Philips on behalf of Bord na Mona

Amendments 7.2, 7.10

In relation to the proposed amendments that relate to water infrastructure BnM recommend the inclusion of an additional reference to the Dublin & Midlands Region Water Supply Project. The proposed project is intended to provide a reservoir to store River Shannon winter Flood Waters which can be treated and piped to Greater Dublin and Midland communities. In this regard the following text is suggested at the end of section 7.2.1 of the Draft Plan

“For example there is a current proposal for a Dublin & Midland Region water Project (WSP) which would provide a secure and sustainable water supply to county Kildare amongst others within the Dublin Region and it will be a plan objective to support and facilitate such essential infrastructure provision.”

An additional waters supply policy is also suggested


It is not considered appropriate to include reference to the Dublin and Midlands Region Water Supply Scheme in the Water Services Investment Programme – Assessment of Needs 2010 – 2012 as this scheme is a regional matter. The Dublin and Midlands Region Water Supply Project is at preliminary report stage and if progressed further in the future it may be appropriate to include reference to it in future plans or as a variation to the Plan as deemed appropriate.


No change

59

WS 8 To promote and facilitate the Dublin Region Water Supply Project to achieve secure and sustainable water supply for the County

22 Cllr Padraig McEvoy

Amendment 7.10

Section 7.5 refers to the nominal design capacities of Osberstown and outlines plans for staged upgrades. This should be further amended to;

1. Reference the new EPA licence which regulates the current and future assimilative levels and;

2. Revise the projected timescales for the planned investments


The Upper Liffey Valley Sewerage Scheme is licensed by the EPA , license number D0002-01 and the Council will comply with same.

The dates of 2011 and 2012 for completion of phase 1 and 2 of the Osberstown WWTP are not now achievable and therefore it is considered appropriate to replace these dates with 2013 and 2014.



7.5. Water Services Investment Programme – Assessment of Needs 2010-2012

The Osberstown wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) has an existing design capacity of 80,000 population equivalent (P.E.) The Council is seeking to address the current capacity constraints at Osberstown Wastewater Treatment Plant as a priority to address current serious pollution issues and to facilitate stalled development particularly within the Naas and Newbridge growth towns and other areas served by the plant. The Council is seeking to address the capacity constraints at Osberstown WWTP as a priority to facilitate development particularly in the Naas area. It is envisaged that the earliest date for completion of Phase 1 (increase in capacity to cater to 100,000PE) would be 20112013 with Phase 2 (increase in capacity to 130,000 PE) by 2012 2014. There are a number of other projects on the

60

council’s priority list including the Kildare Town Sewerage Scheme.


Policy WS 8 To have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive, in all proposed projects or plans is welcomed.


Noted


No change

32 Bartley O’ Regan Amendment 7.14

The inclusion of WW10 acknowledges the willingness of the Planning Authority to facilitate the expansion and upgrading of the waste water infrastructure in settlements in the county. As no waste water treatment plant facilities are provided for in Milltown, states that the Council can meet this development objective through co-operation with their client, who is prepared to develop a pumping station and pipe network to Osberstown WWTP in circumstances where his lands can be developed.


The 2.42 ha site in question is outside the rural settlement boundary set out in Map 17.28 of the Draft Plan. Section 17.6 states Development Strategies have been prepared to guide the population growth designated for each rural settlement with potential sites for settlement expansion identified in a sequential manner. Map 17.28 has identified the preferred sites for settlement expansion in Milltown. As stated in section 3.7 development of these sites will also be ‘subject to the capacity of necessary physical infrastructure and the ability of receiving environments to accommodate any proposed growth.’


No change


Amendment 7.14

Supports the inclusion of the proposed additional policy WW7 (co-operation with adjoining authorities regarding servicing) in the CDP.


Noted


No change

16 Roger Garland Amendment 7.19 Manager’s Response

61

Opposed to reduction in the set back distance from 20 meters to at least 10 metres in policy SW 13: To ensure that development adjacent to watercourses is set back from the edge of the watercourse to allow access for channel clearing/ maintenance. A set back of at least 10 metres is generally required depending on the width of the watercourse unless otherwise specified.

It is submitted that this reduction is inconsistent with GDA/RPG – 7.7 Box 11 – pt 3.

This policy relates to set backs to facilitate channel clearing and maintenance which is considered reasonable. The reference to distances in the RPGs (GDA section 7.7 Box 11) is in the context of actions for the provision of Green Infrastructure which is a separate matter.

It is considered that WV 4 provides a strategic policy for consideration in the context of appropriate set backs in LAPs.

WV 4: To prevent inappropriate development along canal and river banks and to preserve these areas in the interests of biodiversity, built and natural heritage and amenity by creating or maintaining buffer zones, where development should be avoided.


No change.

54 OPW Amendments 7.15, 7.16, 7.17, 7.18,7.19

The OPW welcome the inclusion of a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) in the Draft Plan, and the identification of lands requiring Site Specific Flood Risk Assessments.

Statement that the SFRA is a live document is welcomed which will require updating in the future, once further information becomes available on flood risk throughout the County.


Noted


No change

62

54 OPW Amendments 7.15, 7.16, 7.17, 7.18,7.19

We would recommend that in the near future the SFRA should be updated, to show Flood Zones A and B (as defined in the Flood Risk Management (FRM) Guidelines) throughout the County. These Flood Zones should be shown overlaid on the zoning in the Plan.

Once the flood zones have been identified for the County, we would then recommend that the Justification Test (as set out in the FRM Guidelines) be carried out on any zoned lands in the flood zones, in order to show that the zoning is in line with the FRM Guidelines. The Development Management Justification Test should also be satisfied for any proposed new development in areas at a high or moderate risk of flooding, where such development would be vulnerable to flooding (as detailed in the FRM Guidelines).


Noted revise amendment 7.16 with the inclusion of additional text at the end of the section.


To include the following text at the end of section 7.6.4.1.

The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment is a live document and any updates to it including the identification of flood zones will inform future planning decisions throughout the county.

63


The submission welcomes policy SW 10 (requirement for SFRA) as per amendment 7.19. Also the Council is encouraged to ensure that comprehensive flood risk assessments are carried out for settlements where required as part of the Local Area Plan framework and the findings of these assessments should directly inform the zoning of lands within these settlements.


Noted. The Planning Authority will comply with the statutory planning guidelines “The Planning System and Flood Risk Management - Guidelines for Planning Authorities” in the performance of its forward planning functions.


No change.


Tesco is the country’s largest provider of Bring Centre Recycling banks however the amendment to policy WM 5 will severely restrict Tesco’s ability to provide such facilities in future in particular the inclusion that such facilities shall not be located within 50 metres of any residential unit. Therefore the following amendment to policy WM5 is proposed.

WM 5: To encourage recycling facilities (i.e. bottle banks, bring centres etc) in close proximity to large scale residential developments to facilitate domestic recycling.

Any bring bank facility shall include receptacles for glass, cans and textiles. All applications for Any bring bank facility shall not be located within 50 metres of any residential unit(s) and shall provide for the following: facilities will be assessed on a case by case basis having regard to the following:


Agreed. This modification provides for each application to be considered on a case by case basis.





(i) Proximity to residential areas

(ii) An area of at least 10m by 4m in size

(iii) Truck access and clearance heights

64


(i) An area of at least 10m by 4m in size

(ii) Truck access and clearance heights

(iii) A hard standing area

(iv) A vehicle set down area only with no permanent parking provision.

(v) Suitable screening and/or landscaping as considered necessary by the council

(iv) A hard standing area

(v) A vehicle set down area only with no permanent parking provision.

(vi) Suitable lighting, screening and/or landscaping as considered necessary by the council

2 Carmel Conaty Department of Communications, Energy & Natural Resources

Amendments 7.18 -7.19

The Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and Inland Fisheries Ireland have no comments / observations to make.


Noted


No change

65

CHAPTER 8 ENERGY AND COMMUNICATIONS


22 Padraig McEvoy Amendment 8.3

Section 8.8 should refer to the preferred ecological replacement requirements where hedgerows are removed to facilitate transmission lines.


Agreed



Section 8.8 Planning applications involving the siting of overhead cables, should seek to minimise visual impact by seeking to avoid areas of high landscape sensitivity, sites and areas of nature conservation and / or archaeological interest. The route of the lines should also follow natural features of the environment, with preference given to undergrounding services where appropriate. All high voltage lines of 38kV and over, should comply with all internationally recognised standards with regard to proximity to dwellings and other inhabited structures. The removal of significant lengths of hedgerow should be avoided where possible. However, if hedgerows /trees are removed during construction they shall be replaced with native species that reflect the species occurring in the surrounding area.


Amendment 8.5:

Section 8.11.1 – is the term renewable energy “auto production” sufficiently clear to describe whatever it is trying to describe?


It is considered that the text included in brackets as part of policy EN 8 which reads as follows: (the production of energy primarily for on site usage) adequately describes the function of on site renewable energy auto production units.

66


No change

7 EPA Amendment 8.5

Consideration should be given to amending the new policy EN8 as follows "...to support and encourage the sustainable development..."


Agreed



EN 8: To support and encourage the sustainable development of renewable energy auto production units (the production of energy primarily for on site usage) for existing and proposed developments in line with relevant design criteria, amenity and heritage considerations and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.


Amendment 8.5

The submission welcomes the proposed amendment.

EN 8: To support and encourage the development of renewable energy auto production units (the production of energy primarily for on site usage) for existing and proposed developments in line with relevant design criteria, amenity and heritage considerations and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.


Noted


No change

63 Irish Wind Energy Amendment 8.6 Manager’s Response

67

Association The submission welcomes the proposed amendment.

TN 3: To recognise the development of secure and reliable electricity transmission infrastructure as a key factor for supporting economic development and attracting investment to the area and to support the infrastructural renewal and development of electricity networks in the county.

Noted


No change


Amendment 8.8

The submission welcomes the proposed amendment.

TP 12 To require all telecommunications services to be placed underground and that any works carried out on footpaths make provision for future services.


Noted


No change

68

CHAPTER 9 RETAIL


57 John Spain Associates on behalf of Aldi Stores (Ireland) Limited

Amendment 9.1

Re proposed inclusion of the following policy;

‘It is the policy of the Council to consider including a specific zoning for Multiple Retailers, for individual retail stores in excess of 1,100 sqm net retail floorspace. Where appropriate, application of this policy will be considered as part of the LAP process. This policy will assist in locating new multiple developments on appropriate sites that will optimise their significant power to direct retail activity into locations that achieve town strengthening objectives’.

It is submitted that the policies set out in the retail section of the CDP and the RPG’s are more than adequate to address this issue. It is noted however that the RPGs do not include any definition of multiple retailers.

It is submitted that the Council in the preparation of LAPs may identify particular sites that may be considered opportunity sites for retail development


Agreed. It is the role of LAPs to identify appropriate locations for particular land uses. It is not considered appropriate to zone lands specifically for ‘multiples’ as to do so would not facilitate proper retail planning and development and would eliminate ‘multiples’ from other sites that are deemed suitable for retail development in principle. In such instances, ‘multiples’, even on a smaller scale, may also be considered inappropriate on town centre sites, which would not be in compliance with the principles of the ‘Sequential Approach’ as identified in the Retail Planning Guidelines. Furthermore the prohibition of ‘multiples’ on sites zoned for town centre / commercial use would result in an anti-competitive environment and this may ultimately detract from the overall retail attractiveness of towns throughout County Kildare.

There is also an onus on the Planning Authority to ensure that sufficient land is zoned for particular land uses, and this is best achieved through the zoning of lands for town centre / commercial uses. The consideration of planning applications under the assessment criteria for retail developments in the Retail Planning Guidelines and Draft County Retail Strategy requires applicants to address the contribution that a proposal will make to the long term strategy of a town centre and its commercial synergies/linkages with the town centre as well as issues of trade diversion and retail impact. This reflects the priority given to town centres/Core Retail Areas under the Sequential Approach.

69

including sites that are particularly suitable to larger retail formats thus the option to provide suitable sites for larger retail formats is available to the Council regardless of the proposed amendment.


Omit the proposed amendment (Amendment 9.1 refers) in the County Development Plan.

7 EPA Amendment 9.2

Clarification should be given whether the proposed Masterplan for Collinstown will be subject to screening of SEA and AA.

The Agency notes also that a Local Area Plan for Collinstown is currently undergoing SEA. In this context, the relationship of the Masterplan to the LAP should be clarified regarding the role and nature of the Masterplan.


A Local Area Plan was adopted for Collinstown in January 2010 for which both screening for SEA and AA was carried out. In the interests of clarity this LAP is not currently undergoing SEA.

The LAP for Collinstown requires that a Masterplan be prepared for the entirety of the lands at Collinstown prior to the development of these lands. As part of the preparation of this Masterplan any statutory requirements which may include the undertaking of SEA and AA shall be carried out as appropriate.


No change

47 John Spain Associates on behalf of Castlekeel Ltd & Treasury Holdings

Amendment 9.2

Collinstown - Request the omission of proposed new policy after R9 which states

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


In response to a submission received from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in relation to the Draft CDP, it was considered appropriate to insert a new policy after R9 as proposed. The Department considered that while the draft plan was generally very closely aligned with the retail policy, the draft plan did not indicate, as stated in the retail strategy, that the development of Collinstown should be associated with the opening of a new train station to link Maynooth and Kilcock centres to the Collinstown area, to ensure sustainable integrated

70

development of the lands at Collinstown and a Transport Hub shall be located adjacent to the train station’.

Opposed to the inclusion of further policies relating to Collinstown in the CDP as these would only serve to conflict with the stated objectives of the Collinstown LAP 2010.

It is submitted that it is inappropriate for the CDP to pre-empt the phasing plan for the delivery of development and infrastructure in Collinstown. This is a role of the Masterplan and the proposed amendment will restrict the phasing arrangements in advance of the preparation of the Masterplan for the lands.

The timing and delivery of the train station will be determined by supply and passenger demand which will be determined by CIE thus the timing of the station will be determined by the uses that are provided particularly in advance and in tandem with the station.

It is submitted that in advance of the train station being delivered a limited range of commercial uses

planning. In this regard objective R9 should either be expanded or a new objective inserted to reflect this more sustainable and integrated approach to the development of Collinstown.

The detail of what the required Masterplan must comprise is outlined in the Collinstown Local Area Plan 2010. The proposed objective in the CDP does not introduce any new criteria for the preparation of this Masterplan but serves as a reminder that a Masterplan shall be prepared for the entirety of the lands prior to the development of any part of these lands and that a railway station shall be delivered as part of Phase 1 of the overall development of the lands. It is considered appropriate and in line with the principles of proper planning and sustainable development that the delivery of the train station be provided, as part of Phase 1 of the overall development of the lands at Collinstown.


No change

71

may be delivered on the lands. Such development would assist in funding the train station.

Requests inclusion of the following objective in the CDP:

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

61 Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government

Amendment 9.2

Collinstown- In its current format this does not fully reflect the approach taken in the Retail Strategy for the GDA as set out in the footnote to Table 6.1 of the Strategy.

It is suggested that the Planning Authority insert the relevant text from the footnote into the policy in Section 9.5.3.


The footnote to Table 6.1 of the Retail Strategy refers to the development of Leixlip and Collinstown over a 20 year time period. While it is not intended that the County Development Plan sets out details of the Masterplan as these are set out in the Collinstown Local Area Plan 2010 it is considered reasonable to amend the proposed policy..


To further revise Amendment 9.2 as follows;

‘To prepare a Masterplan for the lands at Collinstown in accordance with the details outlined in the Collinstown LAP 2010. The development of these lands shall be phased over a 20-year period. The Masterplan shall be prepared prior to the commencement of any development and shall have regard to the strategic retail policies for the towns within the Metropolitan

72

area as outlined in this Plan and the specific objectives relating to retail development within the Local Area Plans for Leixlip, Maynooth, Kilcock and Celbridge. In the interests of sustainability and as part of this Masterplan, a new railway station to link Maynooth and Kilcock centres to the area shall be delivered as part of Phase 1 of the overall development of the lands at Collinstown and a Transport Hub shall be located adjacent to the train station to ensure sustainable integrated planning.’

13 Regional Planning Authority

Amendment 9.2

It is recommended that amendment 9.2 is amended to take account of the impact on adjoining settlements and sustainable transport, as follows;

‘To prepare a Masterplan for the lands at Collinstown in accordance with the details outlined in the Collinstown LAP 2010. The Masterplan shall be prepared prior to the development of these lands. The details for this Masterplan are outlined in the Collinstown Local Area Plan 2010. commencement of any development and shall have regard to the strategic retail policies for the towns within the Metropolitan area as outlined in this Plan and the specific objectives relating to retail development within the Local Area Plans for Leixlip, Maynooth, Kilcock and Celbridge. In the interests of sustainability and as part of this Masterplan, a new railway station to link Maynooth and Kilcock centres to the area shall be delivered as part of Phase 1 of the overall development of the lands at


Agreed



‘To prepare a Masterplan for the lands at Collinstown in accordance with the details outlined in the Collinstown LAP 2010. The development of these lands shall be phased over a 20-year period. The Masterplan shall be prepared prior to the commencement of any development and shall have regard to the strategic retail policies for the towns within the Metropolitan area as outlined in this Plan and the specific objectives relating to retail development within the Local Area Plans for Leixlip, Maynooth, Kilcock and Celbridge. In the interests of sustainability and as part of this Masterplan, a new railway station to link Maynooth and Kilcock centres to the area shall be delivered as part of Phase 1 of the overall development of the lands at Collinstown and a Transport Hub shall be located adjacent to the train station to ensure sustainable integrated planning.’

73

Collinstown and a Transport Hub shall be located adjacent to the train station to ensure sustainable integrated planning.’


Amendment 9.3

The amendment to Policy R14 reads as follows:

‘It is the policy of the Council to promote and progress the delivery of the integrated expansion of Celbridge Town Centre on the Donaghcumper lands and to facilitate town centre consolidation through the re-use and regeneration of backlands and other key lands and buildings around the town centre’.

It is indicated that to amend Policy R14 in the manner proposed would be contrary to the role of Celbridge as identified in the Retail Planning Guidelines for the GDA, the Draft Kildare Retail Strategy and the Celbridge LAP 2010.

Request that policy R14 as it appears in the Draft CDP remains.

The following assessment criteria in the RPG’s are of particular note, where, in submitting evidence in relation to retail impact the applicant shall address the following criteria and demonstrate whether or not the proposal would;

(i) support a long term strategy for town centres as established in the development plan and not materially


Agreed. The Donaghcumper Town Centre Extension Area has been an objective of the Council since 2002. It responds to the recognition that, for a centre of its size and potential, Celbridge was underperforming in terms of retail floorspace with proximity and accessibility to the higher order centres of Dublin City Centre, Liffey Valley and Blanchardstown being the key reasons for its underperformance. The recently adopted Celbridge LAP 2010 also attempts to redress this. At the County Development Plan, Town Development Plan/ LAP and AAP levels there has always been a strong recognition and commitment to ensuring that the development of the Town Centre Extension Area will pay the highest attention and respect to the unique natural, built and archaeological heritage of the area, and that of the town as a whole.

The Donaghcumper Town Centre Expansion would be an integrated part of Celbridge Town Centre. Policy R14 as stated in the Draft CDP recognises the need for there to be parallel progress on the heart of the town centre and its backlands. This reflects the more comprehensive objectives and policies in the Celbridge LAP which seek to achieve the overall functional and environmental improvement of the town centre.


To reinstate policy R14 as it appears in the Draft CDP which reads as follows;

‘It is the policy of the Council to promote and progress the delivery of the integrated expansion of Celbridge Town Centre on the Donaghcumper lands

74

diminish the prospect of attracting private sector investment into one or more town centres,

(ii) cause an adverse impact on one or more town centres, either singly or cumulatively with recent developments or other outstanding planning permissions, sufficient to undermine the quality of the centre or its role in the economic and social life of the community,

(iii) diminish the range of activities and services that a town centre can support

(iv) cause an increase in the number of vacant properties in the primary retail area that is likely to persist in the long term

(v) ensure a high standard of access both by public transport, foot and private car so that the proposal is easily accessible by all sectors of society

(vi) will it link effectively with an existing town centre so that there is likely to be commercial synergy

and town centre consolidation through the re-use and regeneration of backlands and other key lands and buildings around the town centre’.

7 EPA Amendment 9.5 Manager’s Response

75

Consideration should be given to amending R39 to refer to ‘sustainable development’.

Agreed.



R39: ‘To protect and enhance the amenities and character of town centres in accordance with the principles of proper planning and sustainable development. The Council will encourage the further improvement and development of commercial, service, social and cultural functions which town centres perform while ensuring the protection of architectural quality of streetscapes. This will apply to skyline, shop fronts and advertising structures’.

60 GVA Planning on behalf of Tesco Ireland Ltd

Amendment 9.6

It is submitted that policy R56 be amended to read as follows:

‘Applicants for retail planning consents will be required to indicate their proposed hours of opening which will be assessed on a case by case basis, having regard to the residential amenity of neighbouring areas’.


The proposed amendment for policy R56 currently reads as follows;

‘Applicants for retail planning consents will be required to confirm their proposed hours of opening and 24 hour opening of shops will only be permitted where it can be clearly demonstrated that there will be no negative impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring areas. Proposed hours of opening for various uses may also be prescribed in LAPs.

Planning applications are assessed on a case by case basis having regard to the stated objectives and policies of the Plan(s) in effect at the time while also having regard to the residential amenity of neighbouring areas as currently stated in policy R56. It is therefore not considered necessary to amend Policy R56 (identified under Amendment 9.6) as proposed.


No change

76

CHAPTER 10 RURAL DEVELOPMENT


40 Bord na Mona Amendment 10.1

To add the following text to section 10.4.6 Boglands “ There still remains potential for various other uses including large scale alternative and renewable energy production in the form of wind farms due to the lands wind regime and their relative isolation”


Chapter 8 of the Draft County Development Plan addresses Energy and Communications. This chapter supports the development of indigenous renewable energy resources and the maximisation of electricity production in a manner that is in accordance with the principles of proper planning and sustainable development.

BG3 also states that it is the policy of the Council To take a balanced approach to the re-development of cutaway bogs. Large portions of cutaway bog should be developed as areas for wildlife, biodiversity, conservation and their amenity value, whilst other portions can be utilised for economic uses such as grassland, forestry and wind energy, subject to all planning and environmental considerations being met.

Furthermore, Objective EO1 states as follows “To examine the possibility of designating appropriate areas of the county as being suitable for the production of wind energy”.

A further reference to wind farms in bogland areas is not considered necessary.


No change

7 EPA Amendment 10.4 Manager’s Response

77

Amendment 10.4, In relation to Policy BG5 consideration should also be given to protection of bog land habitat and related biodiversity and issues such as slope stability.

BG 5: To seek a Hydrological Report which will also incorporate a Flood Risk Assessment in accordance with the Planning Guidelines "The Planning System and Flood Risk Management (2009)" for significant developments within boglands so as to ensure that the quality of ground or surface water is not impaired.

BG1 and RO4 cover biodiversity issues and bog land habitat protection. It is proposed to amend policy BG 5 and reference slope stability.



BG 5: To seek a Hydrological Report which will also incorporate a Flood Risk Assessment in accordance with the Planning Guidelines "The Planning System and Flood Risk Management (2009)" for significant developments within boglands so as to ensure that the impact of developments on ground water and surface water is assessed and mitigation measures identified. This assessment should address the issue of ground and slope stability.

78

CHAPTER 12 ARCHITECTURE AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE



Recommends changes to Policy PS 2:

“PS 2: To protect the curtilage of protected structures or proposed protected structures and to prohibit inappropriate development within the curtilage or attendant grounds of a protected structure which would cause loss of or damage to the special character of the protected structure and loss of or damage to, any structures of heritage value within the curtilage of the protected structure. Any proposed development within the curtilage and/or attendant grounds must demonstrate that it is part of an overall strategy for the future conservation of the entire complex”

In order to improve the clarity and meaning of the amended policy, it is recommended that the text is revised to read, for instance -

“PS 2: To protect the curtilage of protected structures or proposed protected structures, and to refuse planning permission for inappropriate development within the curtilage or attendant grounds of a protected structure which would adversely impact on the special character of the


Agreed



“PS 2: To protect the curtilage of protected structures or proposed protected structures and to prohibit to refuse planning permission for inappropriate development within the curtilage or attendant grounds of a protected structure which would adversely impact on the special character of the protected structure including cause loss of or damage to the special character of the protected structure and loss of or damage to, any structures of architectural heritage value merit within the curtilage of the protected structure. Any proposed development within the curtilage and/or attendant grounds must demonstrate that it is part of an overall strategy for the future conservation of the entire complex built heritage complex and contributes positively to that aim”.

79

protected structure, including loss of or damage to any structures of architectural heritage merit within the curtilage of the protected structure. Any proposed development within the curtilage and/or attendant grounds must demonstrate that it is part of an overall strategy for the conservation of the entire built heritage complex and contributes positively to that aim.”


12.8.4 Archaeological Heritage – AH8 – It is pointed out that this wording is identical to that in the Draft. It is submitted that the intention may be to substitute or for and. This would remove the possibility of it being argued that this policy would only apply to sites under the joint ownership of the Council and the State.


Agreed



AH 8: To encourage, where practicable, the provision of public access to sites identified in the Record of Monuments and Places under the direct ownership or control of the Council and and/or the State.

22 Clr. Pádraig McEvoy

Amendment 12.6

Consider amending Section 12.8.4 from;

AH 8: To encourage, where practicable, the provision of public access to sites identified in the Record of Monuments and Places under the direct ownership, guardianship or control of the Council and the State.

To:


See response to submission 16 above.


See recommendation for submission 16 above.

80

Section 12.8.4 AH 8: To encourage, where practicable, the provision of public access to sites identified in the Record of Monuments and Places under the direct ownership or control of the Council and the State.


Policy AH 9 supported.

AH 9: It is the policy of the Council to encourage the provision of signage to publicly accessible recorded monuments.


Noted


No change


Amend text in Section 12.8.5, County Houses and Demesnes which states –

“3. To discourage development that would lead to loss of, or cause damage to, the character or the setting of parks, gardens, demesnes or special historic interest”.

And replace with:

“3. To encourage conservation, renewal, and improvement which enhances the character and the setting of parks, gardens, and demesnes of historic interest within the county”.

In consequence of amending the text of Item 3, the text of Item 4 might be amended to read –


Agreed



“3. To discourage development that would lead to loss of, or cause damage to, the character or the setting of parks, gardens, demesnes or special historic interest”. To encourage conservation, renewal, and improvement which enhances the character and the setting of parks, gardens, and demesnes of historic interest within the county”.

“4. To cooperate with owners in the protection, promotion and enhancement of heritage gardens and parks in the County, to support public awareness, enjoyment of and access to these sites and to seek the cooperation and assistance of other interested parties, including DoEHLG and state agencies, in this regard.

81

“4. To cooperate with owners in the protection, promotion and enhancement of ….”


Amendment 12.10

Opposed to and seeking the removal of proposed amendment 12.10

Amendment 12.10 (addition of following text to Objective HO4)

‘To protect the views at Castletown House

…..

- views across the river and to the linked demesnes of Donaghcumper and St. Wolstans’.


Amendment 14.4 recommends that policy SR2 be inserted in the County Development Plan. SR2 reads as follows;

It is the policy of the Council ‘to review and update all Scenic Routes and Views in the county during the lifetime of the Plan (Tables 14.2 – 14.7 refer)’.

Also, amendment 14.6 should be noted whereby it is recommended to amend objective LO6 of the Draft CDP as follows;

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

Having regard to the foregoing it is not considered appropriate to include the wording as proposed in Amendment 12.10 but instead to undertake a full review of all scenic routes and views in the county during the lifetime of the Plan in order to properly and accurately identify those views that are worthy of preservation.


Omit the wording as proposed by Amendment 12.10 in the County Development Plan.


Amendment 12.13

In principle, the walkway objective on the subject lands is welcomed however it is inconceivable how such an objective may be delivered with the


This development plan does not affect the zoning of the subject lands which are zoned as part of the Celbridge LAP. It is considered reasonable to include a

82

effective sterilization of the remainder of the subject lands.

walkway along the River Liffey.


No change to walkway objective on Map 12.10


Amendment 12.14

Opposed to and seeking the removal of proposed amendment 12.14 extension of ‘boundary of the area to be protected’ as identified on (amended) Map 12.10.

The Development Plan Guidelines state ‘a development plan should ensure that enough land will be available to meet anticipated development requirements and will be developed in a sequential and co-ordinated manner’.

In deciding on the contents of development plans, the members must consider the proper planning and sustainable development of the area concerned.

No valid planning rationale for inclusion of the subject lands within the ‘area to be protected’

The strategic location of the subject lands represent a significant development opportunity for Celbridge and will support the role of Celbridge as both a Moderate Growth Town and as a Level 3 Town Centre.

The proposed amendment is contrary to the CDP’s


At a Special Council Meeting on the 6th December the Manager recommended that the lands which were subject to an appeal to An Bord Pleanala under reference 08/439 (i.e relating to a residential development) be included within the area to be protected

With regard to lands within Donaghcumper that are zoned ‘Retail/Commercial’ it is not considered appropriate to include these lands within the ‘boundary of area to be protected’ for the following reasons;

These lands are located in the vicinity of the existing bridge over the Liffey and are directly across from the rear of Main Street. The ‘Development Plan Guidelines for Planning Authorities’ (June 2007) state the following with regard to zoning;

‘In order to maximise the utility of existing and future infrastructure provision and promote the achievement of sustainability, a logical sequential approach should be taken to the zoning of land for development:

(i) Zoning should extend outwards from the centre of an urban area, with undeveloped lands closest to the core and public transport routes being given preference (i.e. ‘leapfrogging’ to more remote areas should be avoided);

(ii) A strong emphasis should be placed on encouraging infill opportunities and better use of under-utilised lands; and

83

Core Strategy as it would impinge on the future development of these lands which, if developed would provide a more compact urban form. As such the proposals are directly contravening the following objectives of the CDP:

CS 2 – To direct appropriate levels of growth into the designated growth centres and moderate sustainable growth towns.

CS 4 – To deliver sustainable compact urban areas through a plan-led approach

CS 9 – To promote and facilitate the development of sustainable communities through land use planning, by providing for land uses capable of accommodating employment, community, leisure, recreational and cultural facilities having regard to the quality of the environment including the natural environment, landscape character and the archaeological and architectural built heritage’.

The proposed amendments would be contrary to the zoning provisions of the Celbridge LAP 2010.

(i) Areas to be zoned should be contiguous to existing zoned development lands.

Only in exceptional circumstances should the above principles be contravened, for example, where a barrier to development is involved such as a lake close to a town.’

The Draft Kildare Retail Strategy recognises the limitations of providing for retail development in Celbridge and notes, that in order to enhance its retail offer and importance then a number of issues need to be addressed, including the delivery of the Donaghcumper Town Centre Expansion Area.

Having regard to the above, it is considered that the lands to the west of Donaghcumper, which were zoned ‘Retail/Commercial’ in the Celbridge LAP 2010 appropriately located to provide for development and should remain so zoned as they form a logical extension/ expansion area for the town centre and, if not promoted for development, would undermine Council policy to facilitate the delivery of town centre development/ uses.


Revise Map 12.10 of the Draft CDP to only include lands that were zoned ‘New Residential’ in the Celbridge LAP 2010 within the ‘boundary of area to be protected’.


12.9 Architectural and Archaeological Objectives – Amendment to Map 12.10 supported


See response to submission 29


See recommendation for submission 29

84


RPS deletions - It is recommended that structures are not removed from the Record of Protected Structures unless they have lost the category or categories of special interest which caused them to be included in the first instance.


10 no. structures were proposed for removal from the RPS in the Amendments Report. These comprised 8 structures proposed by the Manager and the reason for their removal is as follows;

1. B06-02 Donaghmore Early Field System - reason: sub soil archaeology considered more appropriate that this be included on the RMP.

2. B11-78 Main St. Leixlip - reason: this is a duplicate entry of B11-25.

3. B13-11 Robertstown Garda Station - reason: this structure has been substantially modified. B13-28 relates to the terrace which was the Former RIC Barracks.

4. B14-19 Catholic Church - reason: this is a duplicate entry of B-14-52.

5. B22-22 11817086, Kildare - reason: having regard to permission granted it was considered reasonable to omit this structure from RPS.

6. B22-25 11817071 French Furze Road - reason: building was extensively refurbished in 2003 with exterior changes including an extension. The structure is not part od the Edwardian military estate.

7. B26-35 11816026 Monasterevin Railway Bridge –Irish Rail Divisional Engineer report indicated that:

a. It would obstruct its use for utility service runs.

b. It would hinder prompt maintenance and repair of the bridge.

c. It would render unviable potential development of the railway including electrification.

Following further review it was agreed that this structure is not of sufficient

85

special interest to merit inclusion on the RPS.

8. B32-28 Lisptown Upper (p. 343 of MR) ) - reason: structure has been demolished and replaced by two houses.

As a result of the Member’s consideration of the Draft Plan and submissions received two structures were proposed for delisting:

1. Fitzpatrick Auctioneers, Market Square, Church Lane, Kildare. B 22-46. NIAH No. 11817014. It was recommended previously that the structure remain on the RPS for the following reasons:

(i) NIAH/Ministerial recommendation.

(ii) Conservation report submitted.

(iii) It still retains its original architectural character although it is in a state of endangerment

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

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

(vi) Availability of Conservation Grant Scheme for Protected Structures.

(2) Moat Lodge Ardscull B35-14 NIAH No. 11903509.

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

(i) Moat Lodge is a fine and well-maintained middle-size

86

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

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

(iii) Availability of Conservation Grant Scheme for Protected Structures

The decision to remove the above two properties from the RPS must make reference to the structures having lost the category or categories of interest which caused them to be included in the first instance. Accordingly, it is recommended that both the foregoing structures remain on the RPS as per the Draft County Development Plan.


Reinstate B22-46 (Fitzpatricks Auctioneers) and B35-14 (Moat Lodge) on the Record of Protected Structures.

76 An Taisce Amendment 12.15 Manager’s Response

87

The proposed removal Protected Structure B35-14 Moat Lodge - Ardscull should be reversed.

As per 61 above.


As per 61 above

30 Sean Cleary Objection to the addition of RPS No. B36-24 Timolin Corn and Saw Mill to the County RPS as it is based on incorrect NIAH survey information


This submission does not relate to an amendment and therefore cannot be considered.


No change

135 Peadar OCeallaigh (i) Rejection of “Conservation Plan”- submission to draft County Development Plan.

(ii) What do we mean by conservation, preservation and restoration and what legislation do you cite to undertake these tasks

(iii) Advise how structures are protected as recorded Monuments, protected structures, Architectural Conservation areas and how therefore sites can be designated. What is an area and how is it arrived upon or defined

(iv) What is redress where submission is accepted in part or rejected.


This submission relates to a document submitted at the draft stage at which point it was considered. This submission does not relate to any proposed amendment.


No change

88

CHAPTER 13 NATURAL HERITAGE AND BIODIVERSITY



13.8.2 Natural Heritage

Consideration should be given to amending Policy NH4 to "require" compliance with Article 10 of the Habitats Directive.


Agreed



NH 4: To seek require compliance with Article 10 of the Habitats Directive with regard to encouraging the management of features in the landscape which are of major importance for wild fauna and flora. Such features are those which, by virtue of their linear and continuous structure (such as rivers with their banks or the traditional systems for marking field boundaries) or their function as stepping stones (such as ponds or small woods), are essential for the migration, dispersal and genetic exchange of wild species.


13.8.2 Natural Heritage - NH6 - While we support this we feel that perhaps you could delete where it is practicable. We accept and indeed support the caveat in the second part of the sentence. However as it stands, the policy is very weak. Alternatively, would you consider substituting provide for encourage and promote?

NH 6: To encourage and promote access to our


Not agreed. It is not always possible, or desirable from a conservation point of view to provide access to all natural heritage. The policy allows for access to be provided where appropriate.


No change

89

natural heritage where it is practicable and does not affect the integrity of protected sites or conflict with their conservation objectives.


Section : 13.8.9 Policy NH010 should be amended to remove the reference to "Regional Fisheries Board" to "Inland Fisheries Ireland".


Agreed



NHO10: To carry out habitat mapping on a phased basis (including wetlands) within the plan area. This habitat mapping will identify Local Important Biodiversity areas in co-operation with NPWS, DoEHLG and Regional Fisheries Board. Inland Fisheries Ireland.

2 Carmel Conaty Department of Communications, Energy & Natural Resources

Amendments 13.1-13.10

The Department of Communications, Energy & Natural Resources and Inland Fisheries Ireland have no objections to amendments.


Noted


No change

90

CHAPTER 14 LANDSCAPE, RECREATION AND AMENITIES


Amendment 14.1

Seeking removal of reference to – the historic designed landscape of Castletown- Donaghcumper- St. Wolstans in Landscape Character Areas.

It is submitted that this proposed amendment would be contrary to the findings of the SEA which states that Celbridge including the subject lands at Donaghcumper are located within ‘the most robust, most populated’ area of the county.

Furthermore it is stated that the Lindsay Conservation analysis highlights a number of inconsistencies contained in the Olley & O’Kane 2006 study including the following:

(i) Evidence of historical linkage between the demesnes of Donaghcumper, St. Wolstans and Castletown is weak and there is no physical linkage in the form of bridges.

(ii) The historical mapping evidence does not indicate any physical link across the River Liffey between the Demesnes.

(iii) The boundary between St. Wolstans and Donaghcumper was unaltered from 1756.


Agreed

It is not appropriate to include the area of Castletown- Donaghcumper- St. Wolstans as a Landscape Character Area. The purpose of the Landscape Character Assessment and the Landscape Character Areas identified through the assessment process is to identify broad landscape character types within the county.

In the identification/classification of landscape characters areas landscape factors were assessed. These factors comprise physical, human and aesthetic environmental aspects that combine, among others, geology, landform, landcover and landscape history including cultural factors (archaeology and settlement patterns). These factors assisted in the identification of the boundaries of the Landscape Character areas and provided distinctiveness to such areas.

Landscape Character Areas are distinguished throughout the landscape where there is a visual distinctiveness and identity through continuation of similar characteristics (such as slope, landuse and vegetation) i.e the landscape appearance with each character area is similar and distinctive.

Historic designed landscapes form a component of a broader landscape character area and not a landscape character area in their own right and their inclusion in this section of text is inappropriate.


Omit reference to the historic designed landscape of Castletown-

91

Development on the subject lands would not have a negative impact on the views from Castletown House. Similarly visual analysis has confirmed that there will not be a negative impact on the views from Castletown House by the proposed development even when tree cover is sparse during the winter months.

Donaghcumper- St. Wolstans as a landscape character area


Policy WV4 supported.

WV 4: To prevent inappropriate development along canal and river banks and to preserve these areas in the interests of biodiversity, built and natural heritage and amenity by creating or maintaining buffer zones, where development should be avoided.


Noted


No change


CR10 – While we support this we wonder could you make more definite by substituting provide for investigate the possibility of providing?

CR 10: To investigate the possibility of providing appropriately designed quality signage for walking and cycling routes throughout the county.


It is appropriate that the issue be investigated as it may not always be appropriate to erect signage for walking/cycling routes in the county. This policy will be addressed as part of the implementation of the plan having regard to budgetary / staff constraints and proper planning considerations.


No change

92


Policies CR 11 (public access to uplands, rivers etc) and CR 12 (facilitate walking route between Ballymore Eustace ….Barrettstown) supported.


Noted


No change


Rights of Way – We suggest that the title be amended to Public Rights of Way.


Agreed



Change title of section 14.11.2 Public Rights of Way


Policy RW3 (identification of rights of way) supported

.


Noted


No change


Amendment 14.13

The purpose of the Liffey Valley Strategy is to create a management framework for the whole Liffey Valley and is not to create a public park along the entire extent of the River Liffey. It is argued that the town centre expansion of the subject lands is fully in accordance with the objectives of the Liffey Valley Strategy and in this


The proposed policy seeks to pursue the creation of developing a Liffey Valley Regional Park together with Fingal and South Dublin County Councils. This would include implementation of any recommendations contained within “Towards a Liffey Valley Park’ (2008) including a management framework if appropriate.

93

regard the wording of Policy LV2 should be amended to reflect this.

LV2 of the Draft CDP currently reads as follows;

‘It is the policy of the Council to pursue the creation of a Liffey Valley Regional Park together with Fingal and South Dublin County Council’s.

The public have never had access to Donaghcumper Demesne and lands bounding the River Liffey in Celbridge. The proposed development of the clients lands and the ceding of land (c. 12.5ha) by the applicant to KCC effectively ensure that the Strategy objectives are met in Celbridge.

It is requested that LV2 is amended to the following in the final CDP;

‘It is the policy of the Council to create a management framework for the whole Liffey Valley in line with the policies and objectives of the OPW document ‘Towards a Liffey Valley Park’ (2008), during the lifetime of the development plan.


No change


14.11.7 Liffey Valley Park – While we support this we wonder would you consider adopting a two year time limit?


It is considered that reference to within the lifetime of the plan is appropriate . The Council will seek to implement the objective having regard to budgetary and staff constraints.

94


No change


14.12 Recreation and Amenity Objectives

Indicates that RAO9 –should be included in 14.11.2 – Rights of Way?

It is an objective of the Council:

RAO 9: To provide for the preservation of public rights of way which give access to mountains, lakeshores, riverbanks or other places of natural beauty or recreational utility, which public rights of way shall be identified both by marking them on at least one of the maps forming part of the development plan and by indicating their location on a list appended to the development plan.


Section 14.11 Recreation and Amenity contains the policies for different aspects of recreation and amenity including policies for Rights of Way ( section 14.11.2)

Section 14.12 Recreation and Amenity Objectives contains the objectives for the entire recreation and amenity section of the plan. As RAO9 is an objective it is contained in Section 14.12.


No change

95

CHAPTER 15 URBAN DESIGN GUIDANCE

Sub No

Name Summary of Issues Raised Response & Recommendation

22 Cllr Padraig McEvoy Amendment 15.4

(SuDS): Section 15.8.9 should be further amended to indicate that suitable maintenance standards and responsibilities should be agreed with the planning authorities.


It is considered that this is a matter for Development Management inthe consideration of a planning application.


No change


Amendment 15.2

‘External wall finishes may include timber cladding, render, dry dash and brick. Timber cladding may be used in exceptional cases where demonstrated to be a preferable exterior treatment’.

It is indicated that the restriction on the use of timber cladding would inhibit the provision of environmentally sustainable stores and energy saving initiatives in Kildare.

It is requested that the following wording be included:

‘External wall finishes may include render, dry dash, brick and timber cladding where it is in


Agreed with modifications


Amend 7th bullet point of Section 15.7.12 (Building Language and Finishes) to read as follows;

‘External wall finishes may include render, dry dash and brick. Timber cladding will be considered in exceptional circumstances where it is proven to be in the interest of environmental sustainability and as part of a design concept’.

96

the interest of environmental sustainability and as part of a design concept’.

97

CHAPTER 17 SETTLEMENTS AND VILLAGE PLANS


62 (iii) CIF Amendment 17.2

Request that policy VRS 3, which sets out a local demand requirement for villages and rural settlements should be removed where it relates to any development or scheme of housing. Local Demand is defined as a requirement for in excess of 50% of the overall development to cater for persons who have resided for a period of 5 years within a 10km radius of the site. States that such a policy is unnecessary in the current housing market and will only act as a deterrent to the future investment in and vitality of the rural settlements throughout Kildare.

States that a realistic level of flexibility must be incorporated into the Kildare County Development Plan to promote, on a local basis, the renewal of appropriate viable construction activity to ensure that developments can be undertaken and completed to satisfactory standards. It is suggested that the Manager’s wording be amended as follows: Deletion of: ‘Primarily for “local demand” shall be defined as being in excess of 50% of the overall development’, and its replacement with the following wording: ‘Primarily for “local demand”


Section 4.6 of the RPG’s defines the key elements of the settlement strategy for the GDA by defining the role of each of the settlement types. The RPG’s state that villages with a population of up to 1,000 ‘need levels of growth to be managed so that they cater for local need and do not expand rapidly, putting pressure on services and the environment and creating the potential for higher levels of commuting.’ (p.94). Policy VRS3 is therefore included to reflect the need to manage the type of growth in the county’s villages and rural settlements reflects the policies of the RPGs. It is considered that the policy is clearly set out and avoids any ambiguity.


No change

98

may generally be interpreted as up to 50% of the overall development’.

7 EPA Amendment no. 17.7, 17.32, 17.34 and 17.18

Notes that a number of the settlement plans / village plans, as described, appear to have sufficient existing zoned and largely undeveloped land available. In the context of ensuring sustainable development and the ability to provide adequate and appropriate critical service infrastructure, justification should be given for the further zoning of residential lands.

Proposed development should be undertaken in a phased basis and subject to the ability to provide adequate and appropriate critical service infrastructure in advance of permission being granted.

Manager's Response

Amendments 17.7 (Allenwood) , 17.32 (Kilmeague) and 17.34 (Moone) were proposed as a result of grants of permission on these sites for residential developments. Amendment 17.18 (Ballymore Eustace) proposes the rezoning of lands identified for Community and Educational uses in the Draft Village Plan to ‘New Residential’. This alteration will allow for a more innovative layout incorporating residential and community uses as the new residential land use zoning stipulates that 0.9ha of the site should be for community facilities.

In relation to the other lands in villages and settlements it is considered that the amount of available development land provided for in the Villages and Settlements is in line with the Kildare County Settlement Strategy outlined in Chapter 3. The Settlement Strategy provides for 25% growth in the villages and 20% growth in the Settlements to cater primarily for local demands, in addition growth in a village / settlement will be restricted where necessary physical and social infrastructure cannot be delivered as outlined in policy VRS 10 of chapter 17. Each Village Plan already includes phasing objectives where they are deemed necessary and each Settlement Plan identifies limited settlement expansion sites as per the Settlement Strategy.

Manager's Recommendation

No change


Amendments 17.5, 17.8. 17.13, 17.20, 17.22, 17.23, 17.26, 17.26, 17.28, 17.29, 17.31, 17.33, 17.35, 17.37, 17.38,


Agreed with modifications

99

That in the Development Objectives for the Village Plans, where there is a

requirement for planning proposals to “have regard to” Chapter 7 of the CDP

and the Planning System and Flood Risk Management – Guidelines for Planning

Authorities; that the verb be substituted with a legally enforceable phrase

that requires any proposal to take necessary steps to abide by the spirit of the guidelines. For example, the recently amended planning act requires subordinate plans to be “consistent with” the Regional Planning Guidelines.


It is considered appropriate to amend the wording of the objectives as follows:

FL 1 To ensure that all proposed developments are carried out in accordance with have regard to the requirements of Chapter 7 of the County Development Plan and Planning System and Flood Risk Management - Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009).

14 Sean O’ Flaherty Amendment 17.8

Crookstown Mill has never flooded and floodmaps.ie show no record of flooding at this location. It is submitted that Crooksttown Mill should be excluded from the pink boundary shown in Map Ref 17.3


The SFRA informs strategic land-use decisions being made as part of the County Development Plan. The assessment carried out as part of the SFRA for Ballitore concluded that the area in question may be at risk of flooding but that the extent of this flooding would not be significant relative to the overall area and therefore would not affect the land-use strategy.

The purpose of the site specific FRA, which would be in greater detail than the assessment carried out as part of the SFRA, is to determine if the designated area

100

is at risk of flooding and if so, the precise extent of the flood risk zone. If, the area in question is not at risk of flood then this should be confirmed by the site specific FRA and flood risk would no longer be a factor in development of the area.


No change.

15 Thomas MaGuire on behalf of Brendan Tallon

Amendment 17.10

Supports zoning of land from agricultural to enterprise and employment in Ballitore.


Noted


No change

1 Dr. Eric Firth, Mathew & Bernadette Edgeworth and Kathleen Edgeworth

Amendment 17.13 (Section 17.5.3.11 Development Objectives/Flooding Objectives/paragraph FL2);

It is indicated that it is a matter of record that Bishophill Road, Truce Road, and Scoil Mhuire are prone to flooding – particularly due to water run-off from Bishophill. Please extend the lands identified by the dashed pink lines in Map 17.4A to include lands within all the northern-most limits of the 2009 Village Plan Boundary.


The flooding referred to in the submission is the result of surface water run-off from higher ground to the north of Ballymore Eustace, combined with inadequacies in drainage channels and culverts, and leads to localised surcharging and flooding at the locations referred to in the submission. The nature of this flooding does not affect the strategic land-use proposed for these areas. Being outside the floodplain of the River Liffey, it does not allow for the establishment of the flood zones which would be the objective of a site specific FRA.

However, development of lands in this area will be required to comply with the Objectives and Policies in the County Development Plan and those contained in Chapter 7 of the draft Development Plan (Water, Drainage and Environmental Services) apply chiefly in this regard. Under the draft CDP, it will be the policy of Kildare County Council (Ch.7, SW6) to ensure that all developments have regard to the surface water management policies in the Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study (GDSDS). This document sets out principles for the design of sustainable

101

drainage systems in developments which will: have the objective of ensuring that future development does not increase flooding or pollution and; seek to mimic the natural drainage of a site to minimise the effect of a development on flooding and pollution of waterways.

In addition, under the draft CDP, it will be the policy of Kildare County Council (Ch.7, SW12) to ensure that development will not interfere with or interrupt existing surface water drainage systems.

Notwithstanding the above, it is recommended that the following objective be added to Chapter 17, Section 5.3 of the draft County Development Plan:

Flood Objective FL3 To carry out an assessment of surface water drainage infrastructure in Ballymore Eustace for the purpose of identifying areas where the hydraulic capacity is inadequate and to carry out improvement works accordingly.


Include additional objective to Chapter 17, Section 5.3 of the draft County Development Plan as follows:

To carry out an assessment of surface water drainage infrastructure in Ballymore Eustace for the purpose of identifying areas where the hydraulic capacity is inadequate and to carry out improvement works accordingly.

43 Patrick Hooper for Mr. A. Manning

Amendment 17.13

That the lands identified in submission no 259 on the Draft Plan is retained zoned as low density residential. The downzoning of these lands is contrary to best practice and guidance and is contrary to the stated provisions of the Draft CDP.


The lands identified in the submission do not relate to a specific amendment and therefore cannot be considered at this stage in the plan making process.

102

The Manager’s Report is contrary to the Planning and Development Act 2000 as amended as it fails to address all the issues raised in the submission most notably that the sequential approach to the zoning of land has not been followed in planning terms or flood risk management. That new development shall contribute to compact villages and that undeveloped lands closest to the core should be given preference and that leapfrogging will be strongly resisted.

The lands proposed in this submission are outside the lands identified in the village as requiring a site specific flood risk assessment and therefore not at risk of flooding.

The flood risk indicator matrix included in the Flood Risk Assessment for the county (not an amendment) finds that there is no entry for BME on floodmaps.ie and that the local authority has identified no flooding issues in the village. The following items regard flooding in BME, Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association entry recorded photographic evidence of floding along the river walk and at Scoil Mhuire on the 28th, 29th November 2009, A video of flooding at BME, river walk washed away on the 13th January 2010, Kildare Flood warning 29th November 2009 and ESB flood warnings.

The SFRA informs strategic land-use decisions being made as part of the County Development Plan. The assessment carried out as part of the SFRA for the lands zoned C1, A1 and E1 concluded that part of the overall area comprising these lands may be at risk of flooding but that the extent of this flooding would not be significant relative to the overall area and therefore would not affect the land-use strategy.

The designation to which the submission refers does not deem the area to be at flood risk but instead requires that development within these lands be subject to a site-specific FRA appropriate to the nature and scale of the development being proposed. The purpose of the site specific FRA, which would be in greater detail than the assessment carried out as part of the SFRA, is to determine the precise

103

extent of the flood risk zone within the overall area and thus allow development of these lands to be designed accordingly.


No change

32 Bartley O’ ReganThe submission refers to a 2.42 ha site in Milltown outside the rural settlement boundary set out in Map 17.28 of the Draft Plan. The population of the village has been in decline since the mid-1980’s but despite this the services in the village (primary school;, pubs, shop, church, etc) have been broadly maintained. The population of rural hinterland of the village has seen a significant increase. States that the site is suitable to provide c.15 serviced sites as an alternative to one-off rural development in the area.

Requests that the following text from table 17.7 (Rural Settlements – Development Objectives) be removed; “ New development proposals should accord with the 20% population growth level designated for each settlement” and replaced with; “In line with Ministerial Guidelines, new development proposals should aim to be in accordance with the 20% population growth level designated for each settlement. Where lands in addition to the preferred Settlement


As this submission does not relate to any proposed amendment it cannot be considered as part of the plan making process.


No change

104

Expansion site are proposed for residential development, developers will be required to demonstrate how proposals will conform with settlement policies on a case by case basis.”

105

CHAPTER 18 ENVIRONS PLANS



Amendment 18.2

The need to ensure the co-ordinated development of the lands at the District Centre at Monread Road was highlighted at draft stage.

There is a need to permit in principle the following uses:

- shop convenience

- shop comparison

- petrol station


There has been No change to the matrix for the uses referenced in this submission accordingly there is no amendment relating to same.

Manager’s RecommendationNo change


The authority recommends that when considering the zoning of any additional lands at or beyond the edge of settlements, the development plan presents a clear supporting rationale in conjunction with the proposed zoning objective setting out the specific economic rationale for such zoning and relating it to the status of the town in the RPG Economic Development Strategy and the Development Plan’s settlement hierarchy.


The site adjoins the existing zoned lands of the R445 Naas-Newbridge road at Toughers Business Park, Lewistown/Clownings, Newbridge (Map 18.3).

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

The Draft Naas Town Development Plan 2011-2017 (section 3.5) provides for approximately 90 hectares of undeveloped lands zoned for employment use such as industrial, warehousing and commercial. This does not take into account lands zoned for town centre, retail, leisure and amenity uses or the “White Lands” at the

106

In this context the Authority highlights its concerns in respect of the zoning of industry and warehousing land to the west of Naas in particular the additional zoning of lands as presented in Amendment 18.4. The rationale for additional zoned lands at this location does not appear to be aligned with the RPG settlement or economic policy or the requirements for the provision of sustainable transport as set out in the NTA Transport Strategy.

Therefore it is recommended that this zoning is omitted from the Development Plan.

Northwest Quadrant. Given the requirement for approximately 40 hectares of land to accommodate future employment needs in Naas, it is considered that there is currently sufficient land zoned for employment generation to meet job creation needs for the town up to 2017 and beyond. Furthermore significant lands are zoned for employment purposes within Naas environs which remain undeveloped.

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, there is a large quantum of zoned land that remains undeveloped in the existing Tougher Business Park.

Roads: The proposed Leinster Orbital Route (LOR) project and connection will have important implications for strategic planning and economic opportunity in the

107

Mid East Counties. Route selection and design should continue in order that planning authorities can evaluate implications and capitalise on the benefits and potential arising if this project is progressed from what is likely to be a significant national investment.

The zoning of the subject lands would also be premature having regard to the Leinster Orbital Route Corridor Protection Study.

If a significant proposal arises during the lifetime of the Plan the material contravention procedures can be initiated. Manager’s Recommendation

To revert the lands to zoned agricultural lands as per the draft development plan.

76 An Taisce Amendment 18.4

This amendment should not proceed as the zoning of additional employment land at this location remote from both Naas and Newbridge will serve to undermine the consolidation strategy set out in the plan and exacerbate unsustainable car borne development.


The response to Submission No 75 above applies in this instance



42 Liam and Anna Morrin

Amendment 18.4

The submission supports the amendment relating to the zoning of lands at Lewistown / Clownings.


The response to Submission No 75 above applies in this instance



48 Origin Enterprises Plc & John Spain

Amendment 18.5 Manager’s Response

108

Associates on behalf of Origin Enterprises Plc

Re: Lands at Newhall, Naas (22ha)

Request not to downzone lands (from Industry & Warehousing to Agricultural as per Map 18.3) at this location as proposed.

The client has not been in a position to develop these lands but remains committed to their development.

It is submitted that the subject lands occupy a suitable location for the promotion and delivery of agri-business related development.

It is queried why the subject lands are proposed to be dezoned while other sites in Naas and Environs which are sequentially less preferable retain their NE1 land use zoning objective. The subject lands are located immediately adjacent to existing zoned lands and as such should be considered for zoning.

The zoning of the subject lands would be in compliance with the Core Strategy of the CDP i.e. promoting economic development within defined economic clusters. There is no reasoned justification for the downzoning of the subject lands.

The retention of the NE1 zoning objective on the subject lands is consistent with the following recommended sectoral strengths of Naas as outlined in the Core Strategy;

It is an underlying theme of the Development Plan to continue to encourage existing and create new employment opportunities throughout Kildare. The availability of zoned land for employment purposes is necessary so that businesses and industrial parks can accommodate employment in a planned and strategic way.

Naas is identified as a Primary Economic Growth Town in the RPGGDA. The RPG’s state that both access and a strong agri-food sector presence contributes significantly to the locational advantages of the Naas Core Economic Area.

The NSS 2010-2022 supports the continued growth of Naas having regard to its location within the GDA on public transport and road corridors and its capacity for growth.

The subject lands are located contiguous to existing zoned development lands to the west and north. These lands were zoned for ‘Industrial & Warehousing’ use in the 2005 CDP.

Section (11) of the Planning and Development Act 2000-2010 states that ‘the members shall be restricted to considering the proper planning and sustainable development of the area to which the development plan relates’. No planning reasons for the downzoning of these lands has been given and as such there is no planning rationale for the downzoning these lands at this stage.


To revert the subject lands back to land use zoning ‘Industrial & Warehousing’ as per the draft development plan.

109

‘Sectoral opportunities within Naas are to focus on high tech manufacturing, ICT, food production, public administration, office based industry, tourism and bloodstock’.

The development of the subject lands as ‘Industry and Warehousing’ would be consistent with the objectives of the NSS and the RPG’s as it will facilitate employment growth within this primary economic growth town.

This submission is accompanied by Senior Counsel which indicates among other things that the elected members do not appear to have furnished any reasons for the downzoning of the subject lands. There would appear to be an onus on the Council to provide reasons for the downzoning of the lands having regard to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.


Thee NRA notes amendment 18.5 to dezone lands at Newhall. The NRA does not consider that the proposed amendments on display address the concerns expressed by the NRA in the initial submission on the Draft Plan and therefore, the position of the Authority remains as that set out in the earlier submission.

Initial concerns in summary:


The lands zoned in Naas Environs at the Maudlins and Newhall Interchanges reflect the employment and retail warehousing uses at these locations. There is also a quantum of Industrial lands available for development in line with the Council’s Economic Development Strategy (Section 5.4). Any proposed development will be required to comply with all the relevant transportation and planning criteria

In relation to Strategic Transport Assessments the following applies: The Transportation Department requires that all planning applications for significant

110

Proposed zonings adjacent to the Maudlins and Newhall Interchanges do not appear consistent with policy NR 3 to identify areas at interchanges which may be required for future upgrade and improvement in the medium to long term and when identified to restrict development within these areas. A Strategic Transport Assessment is recommended to be undertaken for the area.

developments are accompanied by Traffic Impact Assessments (TIA) that should be prepared by competent persons and in line with national guidance prepared by the NRA. On receipt of a TIA the Transportation Department reviews same to determine the veracity of the information contained within.

The council can examine the undertaking of Strategic Transport Assessments subject to funding for future Development Plans.


No change

75 National Transport Authority

Amendment 18.10

The Authority would also question the zoning of additional lands for Industry / Warehousing to the east of Athy (AE 1). The rationale for which has not been clearly demonstrated particularly in the context of the current quantum of land zoned for industrial / warehousing within the Athy Council area. Therefore it is recommended that these lands be excluded from the Development Plan.


The AE 1 Warehousing zoning located at Gallowshill Athy is not a proposed amendment. These lands were previously zoned in the Kildare County Development Plan 2005 and were proposed to remain zoned in the Draft Kildare County Development Plan 2011-2017. Amendment 18.10 relates to text changes to the Athy Environs section of the plan and zoning changes to the AE 2 New Low Density Residential and AE 3 Open Space and Amenity zonings at Bennetsbridge. Therefore the dezoning of the Gallowshill Warehousing lands cannot be considered at this stage.


No change

42 Liam and Anna Morrin

This submission relates to land at Ladytown which was subject to a previous submission no 268 made on the Draft Plan requesting zoning for employment uses.


The lands identified in the submission do not relate to a specific amendment and therefore cannot be considered at this stage in the plan making process.

111

The Manager’s Report does not comply with the requirements of the Planning and Development Act 2000, does not give due weight to the Regional Planning guidelines and no reference has been given to the National Spatial Strategy. The Manager’s Report refers erroneously that the lands outlined in the submission may impede the future development of the Leinster Orbital Route, and this may render the actions of the Council open to challenge by way of judicial review.


No change

112

CHAPTER 19 DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT STANDARDS



Amendment 19.20 (Opening Hours)

An ‘across the board’ approach to opening hours is inappropriate in certain circumstances where, by reason of the nature of the retail use in question, variation in the opening hours would be required.

It is also submitted that amendment 19.20 be amended to read as follows:

‘The hours of operation of shops and the use of wall/window/door hatches for shop sales shall be assessed on a case by case basis, having regard to the following…’


Planning applications are assessed on a case by case basis having regard to the stated objectives and policies of the Plan(s) in effect at the time. It is not considered necessary to amend Section 19.10.7 (identified under Amendment 19.20) as proposed.

The proposed amendment for policy R56 which currently reads as follows should also be noted;

‘Applicants for retail planning consents will be required to confirm their proposed hours of opening and 24 hour opening of shops will only be permitted where it can be clearly demonstrated that there will be no negative impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring areas. Proposed hours of opening for various uses may also be prescribed in LAPs.


No change


Amend text in Section 19.12.3 (a) which relates to “Development within view of the Curtilage, Attendant Grounds and/or Demesne of Protected Structures” which states that –

“Developments within view of protected


Agreed


Amend text:

“Developments within view of protected structures and their settings, including

113

structures and their settings, including curtilage, attendant grounds and demesne as applicable shall have regard to the following:

Development shall not normally be permitted where it would interfere with the setting of protected structures. The impact of any development on the buildings and surrounding environment, in terms of design, scale, height, plot, width, roof treatment, materials, landscaping, mix and intensity of use proposed.”

And replace with:

“Proposed development which might have an adverse impact on the setting of a protected structure, including its cartilage and attendant grounds, will not be encouraged.

Proposed development within view of protected structures, including their curtilage, demesne lands and attendant grounds shall have regard to the following:

Development shall not be permitted where it adversely affects or would adversely interfere with the setting of protected structures;

Outward and inward views from the protected structure are to be protected;

Where relevant, outward and inward

curtilage, attendant grounds and demesne as applicable shall have regard to the following:


And replace with:

“Proposed development which might have an adverse impact on the setting of a protected structure, including its curtilage and attendant grounds, will not be encouraged.


Development shall not be permitted where it adversely affects or would adversely interfere with the setting of protected structures;


Where relevant, outward and inward views from key points within the curtilage, demesne lands and attendant grounds are to be protected;

Development proposals must demonstrate that they are part of an overall strategy for the conservation of the entire built heritage complex and contribute positively to that aim; and

The likely impact of any proposed development on the protected structure and its setting, including its curtilage and attendant grounds, in terms of design, scale, massing, height, plot, width, roof treatment, materials, landscaping, mix and intensity of use proposed should be indicated in any planning proposal.”

114

views from key points within the curtilage, demesne lands and attendant grounds are to be protected;


The likely impact of any proposed development on the protected structure and its setting, including its cartilage and attendant grounds, in terms of design, scale, massing, height, plot, width, roof treatment, materials, landscaping, mix and intensity of use proposed is to be indicated in any planning proposal.”


Section on enforcement supported.


Noted


No change

115

MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS NOT RELATING TO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS IN ANY CHAPTER


50 Graham Kennedy,

Hampton Properties

Re lands at Woodstock South, Athy

Request to add a H3 Zoning Objective for these lands as follows;

‘H3: This zone relates to the Athy Business Campus in Woodstock South. In order to consolidate the employment base in the town other uses ancillary or similar to industry and warehousing including offices, offices based industry, professional and medical services will normally be acceptable in this zone subject to the provision of appropriate service infrastructure and car parking to support such uses’.


This submission relates to land within the functional area of Athy Town Council and cannot be considered as part of the County Development Plan review process. The Athy Draft Plan will be on display in April 2011.


No change

51 Graham Kennedy,

Hampton Properties

Re lands at Boheranouca Cross, Athy

Request that objective AE4 be applied to these lands as follows;

‘AE4 (Low to Medium Residential Density). This zoning provides for low density residential development. Low density (15-20 dwellings per hectare) is appropriate at urban-rural transitions


This submission relates to land within the functional area of Athy Town Council and cannot be considered as part of the County Development Plan review process. The Athy Draft Plan will be on display in April 2011.


No change

116

areas at the edge of towns, including the provision of an Access Road from ‘A’ to ‘B’, which may form, or may be potentially upgraded to form, part of the Athy Northern Distributor Road’.

66 Larry Dawson Objects to the proposed amendments however it is unclear which proposed amendment(s) this submission relates to. As such this submission cannot be considered at this time.


As it is unclear which proposed amendment(s) this submission relates to, it cannot be considered as part of the plan making process.


No change

67 Claire Dawson Objects to the proposed amendments however it is unclear which proposed amendment(s) this submission relates to. As such this submission cannot be considered at this time.




No change

70 Ruairi Dawson Objects to the proposed amendments however it is unclear which proposed amendment(s) this submission relates to. As such this submission cannot be considered at this time.




No change

72 P.J. Wyer Objects to the proposed amendments however Manager’s Response

117

it is unclear which proposed amendment(s) this submission relates to. As such this submission cannot be considered at this time. As it is unclear which proposed amendment(s) this submission relates to, it cannot

be considered as part of the plan making process.


No change

74 Lucie Dawson Objects to the proposed amendments however it is unclear which proposed amendment(s) this submission relates to. As such this submission cannot be considered at this time.




No change

118

9.0 Summary of Manager’s Recommendations

Topic Proposed Amendment


Introduction and Strategic Context 1.2 To add the following text to Section 1.3 (Key Challenges for the Plan Period):

(x) Seeking to ensure the integration of the recommendations of Appropriate Assessments carried out (at all levels of the planning hierarchy) as relevant and appropriate.

Core Strategy 2.8 Revise amendment 2.8 as follows:

CS 9: To promote and facilitate the development of sustainable communities through land use planning, by providing for land uses capable of accommodating employment, community, leisure, recreational and cultural facilities having regard to the quality of the environment including the natural environment, landscape character and archaeological and architectural built heritage.

Settlement Strategy 3.1 Revise amendment 3.1

Amend Section 3.4.6 (Sequential Approach) to read as follows:


All towns, villages, settlements, rural nodes (as appropriate) shall be developed in a sequential manner, with suitable undeveloped lands closest to the core and public transport routes being given preference for development in the first instance. Zoning shall extend outwards from the centre of an urban area with strong emphasis placed on encouraging infill opportunities. Areas to be zoned should generally be contiguous to existing zoned development lands.

119

3.2 & 3.4 Include table 3.5 (as outlined at end of section) in section 3.6

Amend the title of the 4th column in Table 3.4 to read as follows: ‘2006-2017 Housing Units Target’

3.3 & 3.6 Revise amendment 3.6 to read as follows;

SO10: ‘To carry out a strategic Land Use and Transportation Study of north east Kildare including the metropolitan area towns of Leixlip, Maynooth, Celbridge and Kilcock. The preparation of the study will involve the participation of all the strategic stakeholders including the National Transport Authority, adjoining local authorities i.e. Meath, Fingal and South Dublin County Councils. transportation providers, Waterways Ireland, Government Departments and environmental agencies.

Housing 4.12 Maintain Rural Housing Policy as contained in the Amendments Report.

4.12 Add the following to amendment 4.12, Schedule for Rural Housing Policy Zone 1 (Table 4.3):


Economic Development 5.9 Revise amendment 5.9 to read as follows;

‘5.9.1 General Economic Development Policies

It is the policy of the Council to promote the sustainable development of the tourism sector in appropriate locations throughout the county, acknowledging that Ireland’s largest tourist market i.e. Dublin is highly accessible through the existing commuter transport system.’

120

5.11 Revise amendment 5.11 as follows;


To encourage walking and recreational facilities, where feasible and where development opportunities arise along riverbanks and lakes. In this regard land adjacent to river banks and lakes will be reserved, where possible, for linear parks for public access and where linear parks are designed and developed provision shall be made for walking and cycling routes.

Movement & Transport 6.4 Revise amendment 6.4 as follows;

NR10: To ensure that the county’s national roads system is planned for and managed in an integrated manner enabling sustainable economic development of the county and wider area while encouraging a shift towards more sustainable travel and transport in accordance with the Draft Spatial Planning & National Road Guidelines (DoEHLG, 2010) and as subsequently amended


PK 4: To review all parking standards, in consultation with relevant stakeholders and the general public, during the lifetime of this plan

6.10 To alter policy RP 15 of proposed amendment 6.10 as follows.

RP 15: To cooperate with the NRA and other local authorities in providing the Leinster Orbital Route (linking Drogheda, Navan, Trim and Naas) proposed in the ‘Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area and to protect zones along the key radial routes from Dublin where junctions with the proposed Leinster Orbital Route may be constructed in accordance with the NRA Corridor Protection Study and once a route

121

corridor has been identified to preserve this corridor free from development.

6.15 GA7: To consider, in conjunction with relevant agencies and bodies, the introduction of Public Safety Zones5 in the vicinity of aerodromes within or affecting Kildare by way of variation to this development plan.

6.16 To amend objective AO 1 as follows:

AO 1: To investigate the feasibility of providing an airport in the County, having regard to evolving Government policy relating to the development of an additional airport in the Region.

A number of issues shall be considered, including:

adequacy of public transport services,

adequacy of road infrastructure,

the Aerodrome Reference Code to which such a facility will operate,

extent of flight movements,

noise pollution,

protection of residential amenity

protection of natural and built heritage

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

122

protection of the bloodstock industry

Water, Drainage & Environmental Services 7.10 Revise amendment 7.10 as follows:

7.5. Water Services Investment Programme – Assessment of Needs 2010-2012

The Osberstown wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) has an existing design capacity of 80,000 population equivalent (P.E.) The Council is seeking to address the current capacity constraints at Osberstown Wastewater Treatment Plant as a priority to address current serious pollution issues and to facilitate stalled development particularly within the Naas and Newbridge growth towns and other areas served by the plant. The Council is seeking to address the capacity constraints at Osberstown WWTP as a priority to facilitate development particularly in the Naas area. It is envisaged that the earliest date for completion of Phase 1 (increase in capacity to cater to 100,000PE) would be 20112013 with Phase 2 (increase in capacity to 130,000 PE) by 2012 2014. There are a number of other projects on the council’s priority list including the Kildare Town Sewerage Scheme.

7.15, 7.16, 7.17, 7.18,7.19

To include the following text at the end of section 7.6.4.1.

The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment is a live document and any updates to it including the identification of flood zones will inform future planning decisions throughout the county.

7.22 Revise amendment 7.22 as follows:



123


(ii) An area of at least 10m by 4m in size

(iii) Truck access and clearance heights

(iv) A hard standing area

(v) A vehicle set down area only with no permanent parking provision.

(vi) Suitable lighting screening and/or landscaping as considered necessary by the council

Energy & Communications 8.3 Revise amendment 8.3 as follows;

Section 8.8 Planning applications involving the siting of overhead cables, should seek to minimise visual impact seeking to avoid areas of high landscape sensitivity, sites and areas of nature conservation and / or archaeological interest. The route of the lines should also follow natural features of the environment, with preference given to undergrounding services where appropriate. All high voltage lines of 38kV and over, should comply with all internationally recognised standards with regard to proximity to dwellings and other inhabited structures. The removal of significant lengths of hedgerow should be avoided where possible. However, if hedgerows /trees are removed during construction they shall be replaced with native species that reflect the species occurring in the surrounding area.

8.5 Revise amendment 8.5 as follows:

EN 8: To support and encourage the sustainable development of renewable energy auto production units (the production of energy primarily for on site usage) for existing and proposed developments in line with relevant design criteria, amenity and heritage considerations and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Retail 9.1 Omit the proposed amendment (Amendment 9.1 refers) in the County Development Plan.

124

9.2 Further revise amendment 9.2 as follows;

‘To prepare a Masterplan for the lands at Collinstown in accordance with the details outlined in the Collinstown LAP 2010. The development of these lands shall be phased over a 20-year period. The Masterplan shall be prepared prior to the commencement of any development and shall have regard to the strategic retail policies for the towns within the Metropolitan area as outlined in this Plan and the specific objectives relating to retail development within the Local Area Plans for Leixlip, Maynooth, Kilcock and Celbridge. In the interests of sustainability and as part of this Masterplan, a new railway station to link Maynooth and Kilcock centres to the area shall be delivered as part of Phase 1 of the overall development of the lands at Collinstown and a Transport Hub shall be located adjacent to the train station to ensure sustainable integrated planning.’

9.3 To reinstate policy R14 as it appears in the Draft CDP which reads as follows;

‘It is the policy of the Council to promote and progress the delivery of the integrated expansion of Celbridge Town Centre on the Donaghcumper lands and town centre consolidation through the re-use and regeneration of backlands and other key lands and buildings around the town centre’.


R39: ‘To protect and enhance the amenities and character of town centres in accordance with the principles of proper planning and sustainable development. The Council will encourage the further improvement and development of commercial, service, social and cultural functions which town centres perform while ensuring the protection of architectural quality of streetscapes. This will apply to skyline, shop fronts and advertising structures’.

Rural Development 10.4 Revise amendment 10.4 as follows;

125

BG 5: To seek a Hydrological Report which will also incorporate a Flood Risk Assessment in accordance with the Planning Guidelines "The Planning System and Flood Risk Management (2009)" for significant developments within boglands so as to ensure that the impact of developments on ground water and surface water is assessed and mitigation measures identified. This assessment should address the issue of ground and slope stability.

Architectural & Archaeological Heritage 12.4 Revise amendment 12.4 as follows;

“PS 2: To protect the curtilage of protected structures or proposed protected structures and to prohibit to refuse planning permission for inappropriate development within the curtilage or attendant grounds of a protected structure which would adversely impact on the special character of the protected structure including cause loss of or damage to the special character of the protected structure and loss of or damage to, any structures of architectural heritage value merit within the curtilage of the protected structure. Any proposed development within the curtilage and/or attendant grounds must demonstrate that it is part of an overall strategy for the future conservation of the entire complex built heritage complex and contributes positively to that aim”.


AH 8: To encourage, where practicable, the provision of public access to sites identified in the Record of Monuments and Places under the direct ownership or control of the Council and and/or the State.


“3. To discourage development that would lead to loss of, or cause damage to, the

126

character or the setting of parks, gardens, demesnes or special historic interest”. To encourage conservation, renewal, and improvement which enhances the character and the setting of parks, gardens, and demesnes of historic interest within the county”.

“4. To cooperate with owners in the protection, promotion and enhancement of heritage gardens and parks in the County, to support public awareness, enjoyment of and access to these sites and to seek the cooperation and assistance of other interested parties, including DoEHLG and state agencies, in this regard.

12.10 Omit the wording as proposed by Amendment 12.10 in the County Development Plan.

12.13 & 12.14 Revise Map 12.10 of the Draft CDP to only include lands that were zoned ‘New Residential’ in the Celbridge LAP 2010 within the ‘boundary of area to be protected’.

12.15 Reinstate B22-46 (Fitzpatrick’s Auctioneers, Kildare) and B35-14 (Moat Lodge, Ardscull) on the Record of Protected Structures

Natural Heritage & Biodiversity 13.4 Revise amendment 13.4 as follows;

NH 4: To seek require compliance with Article 10 of the Habitats Directive with regard to encouraging the management of features in the landscape which are of major importance for wild fauna and flora. Such features are those which, by virtue of their linear and continuous structure (such as rivers with their banks or the traditional systems for marking field boundaries) or their function as stepping stones (such as ponds or small woods), are essential for the migration, dispersal and genetic exchange of wild species.


NHO10: To carry out habitat mapping on a phased basis (including wetlands) within the plan area. This habitat mapping will identify Local Important Biodiversity areas in co-

127

operation with NPWS, DoEHLG and Regional Fisheries Board. Inland Fisheries Ireland.

Landscape, Recreation & Amenities 14.1 Omit the historic designed landscape of Castletown- Donaghcumper- St. Wolstans as a landscape character area

14.8 Include policy in section 14.11.1

“To seek to provide car parks for walkers at appropriate access points to amenities, where feasible and subject to compliance with the requirements arising from the Habitats Directive”


Change title of section 14.11.2 Public Rights of Way

Urban Design Guidance 15.2 Amend 7th bullet point of Section 15.7.12 (Building Language and Finishes) to read as follows;

‘External wall finishes may include render, dry dash and brick. Timber cladding will be considered in exceptional circumstances where it is proven to be in the interest of environmental sustainability and as part of a design concept’.

Village & Settlement Plans 17.5, 17.8. 17.13, 17.20, 17.22, 17.23, 17.26, 17.26, 17.28, 17.29, 17.31, 17.33, 17.35, 17.37, 17.38,

It is considered appropriate to amend the wording of the objectives as follows:

FL 1 To ensure that all proposed developments are carried out in accordance with have regard to the requirements of Chapter 7 of the County Development Plan and Planning System and Flood Risk Management - Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009).

128

17.13 Include additional objective to Chapter 17, Section 5.3 of the draft County Development Plan as follows:

To carry out an assessment of surface water drainage infrastructure in Ballymore Eustace for the purpose of identifying areas where the hydraulic capacity is inadequate and to carry out improvement works accordingly.

Environs Plans 18.4 To revert the lands to unzoned agricultural lands as per the draft development plan.

18.5 To revert the subject lands back to land use zoning ‘Industrial & Warehousing’ as per the draft development plan.

Development Management Standards 19.25 Amend text:

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


And replace with:

“Proposed development which might have an adverse impact on the setting of a protected structure, including its curtilage and attendant grounds, will not be encouraged.


Development shall not be permitted where it adversely affects or would adversely

129

interfere with the setting of protected structures;


Where relevant, outward and inward views from key points within the curtilage, demesne lands and attendant grounds are to be protected;


The likely impact of any proposed development on the protected structure and its setting, including its curtilage and attendant grounds, in terms of design, scale, massing, height, plot, width, roof treatment, materials, landscaping, mix and intensity of use proposed is to be indicated in any planning proposal.”

130

Date post:	07-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	5 times
Download:	0 times

TABLE OF CONTENTS - County Kildarekildare.ie › CountyCouncil › Planning › DevelopmentPlans ›...

Documents