Table of Contents s423

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 6th 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 Manager’s Report prepared on Pre-Draft submissions received. 2009 The report summarised the views expressed by

individuals and bodies both in written submissions and at

the public consultation meetings.

12th October and 2nd Manager’s Report adopted by Council and directions given to November 2009 staff to prepare a Proposed Draft Development Plan.

4th February – 31st March Proposed Draft Plan considered by Members 2010

20th April 2010-28th June Draft Development Plan on public display for 10 weeks. 2010

29th June 2010 – 15th Manager prepared Report on submissions/observations September 2010 received during the Draft Plan consultation period and submitted this report to the Members for their consideration.

16th September 2010 – 8th The Members considered the Draft Plan, the Manager’s Report December 2010 and all accompanying documents including the Environmental Report, the Appropriate Assessment Screening Report and all accompanying maps.

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

2 3rd February 2011 – 2nd Preparation of Manager’s Report on submissions received in March 2011 relation to the Amendments Report

3rd March 2011 – 13th April Consideration by the members of the Manager’s Report 2011

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.

4 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. 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

Submi Name Company ssion No. 1 Dr. Eric Firth 2 Carmel Conaty Department of Communications, Energy & Natural Resources 3 James Fagan & Associates The Dunne Family 4 Maura Tutty-Deay 5 Kathleen Smullen 6 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 National Roads Authority (NRA) Advisor (Planning) 11 Edmond Fogarty 12 Aine Deay 13 Patricia Potter, Director Dublin Regional Authority 14 Sean O’Flaherty 15 Thomas Maguire Maguire & Associates 16 Roger Garland Keep Ireland Open 17 David Egar Kildare-West/Wicklow IFA

5 18 Donrina Shorunke (Manager) Bright Sparks Childcare Centre, 19 Carole Fenton (Principal) Allenwood BNS 20 Annette Coyne (Honorary Allenwood GFC Secretary) 21 Michael Fitzpatrick TD 22 Padraig McEvoy 23 Arthur Cox Tony Doyle 24 Fearghal Regan 25 Ken Regan 26 Emmanuel Hughes 27 Annie Hughes 28 David Zebedee 29 RPS Devondale Ltd. 30 Sean Cleary 31 Grace O’Neill 32 Spatial Planning Solutions Bartley O’Regan 33 Brady Shipman Martin O’Flynn Construction 34 Keara Dunne 35 John O’Callaghan 36 Margaret Harney 37 Ger Coyne 38 Des & Colette Henry 39 Manus Curran 40 Tom Phillips Bord na Mona 41 Cllr Martin Heydon 42 Liam & Anna Morrin 43 Patrick Hooper Mr. A. Manning 44 Cllr Suzanne Doyle 45 Vincent Kenny 46 Meath County Council 47 John Spain & Assocs Castlekeel Ltd. & Treasury Holdings 48 John Spain & Assocs Origin Enterprises Plc. 49 Dublin Airport Authority Head Office, Dublin Airport 50 Hampton Properties 51 Hampton Properties 52 Patrick Hennessy 53 Anthony Quinn 54 OPW 55 James Fagan & Assocs Paddy White & Joe Flanagan (Ballyshannon) 56 James Fagan & Assocs Paddy White & Joe Flanagan (Calverstown) 57 John Spain Aldi 58 Petronella Curran 59 Bernadette Judge 60 GVA Planning Tesco 61 DOEHLG 62 CIF 63 Irish Wind Energy Assoc. 64 Seamas Kennedy 65 Theresa Harney 66 Larry Dawson 67 Clare Dawson 68 Terence Martin 69 Elianna Martin

6 70 Ruairi Dawson 71 Aisling Dunney 72 Pj wyer 73 Michael Joyce 74 Lucie dawson 75 National Transport Authority (NTA) 76 An Taisce 77 Liz O’Donohoe Byrne 78 Kevin O’Shea 79 Robert Groman 80 Mary Aungier 81 Noel Aungier 82 Emma Cross 83 Deborah Gorman 84 Michael Cross (Snr) 85 Michael Cross (Jnr) 86 Margaret Cross 87 Lorraine Cross 88 Pat Gorey (Snr) 89 Sandra Heavey 90 Danny Heavey 91 James Fagan 92 Christopher Ward 93 Linda Ward 94 David McCabe 95 William Tuite (Jnr) 96 Henry O’Neill 97 Joe Doyle 98 Brian Doyle 99 Mary Doyle 100 Patricia Ivers 101 Ciaran Fields 102 William Tuite 103 Christopher Ward 104 Dean Ward 105 Clare O’Reilly 106 Keith Ward 107 Ann Ward 108 Nuala Heavey 109 Bella Aungier 110 Mary Donnelly 111 Dawn Fitzgerald 112 John Fitzgerald 113 Brendan Fitzgerald 114 Patrick Dunney 115 Bridie Dunney 116 Anthony Stynes, 117 Breda Stynes 118 Yvonne Stynes 119 Nina Stynes 120 Brendan Stynes 121 David Stynes

7 122 Sara Dunny 123 Patrick Dunny 124 Caroline Dunny 125 Emily Dunny 126 Michael Roycroft 127 B Roycroft 128 Pauline Roycroft 129 E P Roycroft 130 Julia Montague 131 Eilish Kehoe 132 Trevor Montague 133 Mary Montague 134 Alfie Montague 135 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 Government The Secretary, An Bord Pleanala The Minister, Department of Agriculture, Food & Rural Development The Minister, Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht & The Islands The Minister, Department of Defence The Minister, Department of Education & Science The Minister, Department of the Marine & Natural Resources The Minister, Department of Public Enterprise The Chief Executive, Aer Rianta The Chief Executive, Fáilte Ireland The Chief Executive, Central Fisheries Board The Chief Executive, An Comhairle Ealaoin The Chief Executive, Office of Public Works The Chief Executive, Dublin Transportation Office The Chief Executive, Electricity Supply Board The Chief Executive, Forfas The Chief Executive, Health Service Executive Ms. Martina Queally, Area Chief Executive, Kildare West Wicklow The Chief Executive, National Heritage Council The Chief Executive, National Authority for Occupational The Chief Executive, National Roads Authority The Chief Executive, Eastern Regional Fisheries Board The Chief Executive, The Southern Regional Fisheries Board The Chief Executive, An Taisce Director of Planning, South Dublin County Council Director of Planning, Fingal County Council Director of Planning, Wicklow County Council Director of Planning, Carlow County Council Director of Planning, Meath County Council The Chief Executive, Southern & Regional Assembly Director of Planning, Laois County Council Director of Planning, Offaly County Council The Town Clerk, Naas Town Council The Town Clerk, Athy Town Council Newbridge Town Council Leixlip Town Council The Chief Executive, Mid-East Regional Authority The Chief Executive, Dublin Regional Authority The Chief Executive, Midlands Regional Authority The Chief Executive, South East Regional Authority Kildare County Development Board The Secretary, EPA National 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 Manager’s Response

Refers to Section 1.3 of the Draft Plan “Key Agreed with modification Challenges of the Plan Period”. Requests that Manager’s Recommendation consideration be given to including the following into Section 1.3 "Key Challenges of the Plan Period": To add the following text to Section 1.3 (Key Challenges for the Plan Ensuring the integration of the recommendations of Period): any Appropriate Assessment carried out (at all levels of the planning hierarchy) as relevant and appropriate. (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 Amendment 2.5 Manager’s Response Association The submission welcomes the proposed amendment Noted which includes reference to renewable energy Manager’s Recommendation production. No change

61 DoEHLG Amendment 2.8 Manager’s Response

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

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 & Amendment 3.1 Manager’s Response Environment on (Sequential Approach) Request that this proposed Noted behalf of amendment is included in the adopted Development Devondale Ltd Manager’s Recommendation Plan for Kildare. Agreed

75 NTA Amendment 3.1 Manager’s Response

Welcomes the addition of the need for the sequential Section 3.7 (Infrastructural Deficiencies and Environmental Constraints) of development of lands within towns, villages, the Draft Plan states that ‘the development targets set out for each settlements and rural nodes. Recommends that the designated settlement are subject to the capacity of necessary physical development plan also emphasises the role of infrastructure and the ability of receiving environments to accommodate any sequential planning in the prioritisation of, and access proposed growth. All potential developments will be subject to adequate to, services in the county with prioritisation to higher physical services being available in terms of transportation infrastructure, order settlements. potable water, wastewater and surface water drainage.’ Furthermore, the prioritisation of infrastructure for larger settlements is set out in Chapters 6 The submission notes that no criteria have been set (Movement & Transport) and Chapter 7 (Water, Drainage & Environmental out in relation to the phasing of development land and Services). reiterates the importance of linking the location and sequencing of new development to public transport Amendment 3.1 makes reference to the sequential approach being linked to accessibility at a strategic level and walking and public transport accessibility: cycling accessibility at a local level, to employment 3.4.6 Sequential Approach education and services (at the appropriate level of locality). All towns, villages, settlements, rural nodes (as appropriate) shall be developed in a sequential manner, with suitable undeveloped lands closest

13 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

Manager’s Recommendation

Revise amendment 3.1as follows:

3.4.6 Sequential Approach

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 Manager’s Response

Tables 3.3 and 3.4 provide information regarding The title of Table 3.3 states the time period for the population and housing population targets and the housing potential on zoned unit allocations is 2006-2017. To further clarify this, the title of the 4th column residential lands, however, it is not always clear which will be amended to read as follows: ‘2006-2017 Housing Units Target’ time periods are being referred to and also there is no It is proposed to add a new table to section 3.6 (Development Capacity) column indicating in the surplus or deficit of zoned showing the surplus/deficit of units for the larger towns and villages when

14 lands for each settlement. 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. It is suggested that the Planning Authority review and Manager’s Recommendation clarify the tables to indicate the level of surplus/deficit of each settlement. 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 Amendment 3.2 Manager’s Response Education and Notes that the only proposed change to Table 3.3 Noted. The Draft CDP already identifies the need to co-operate with the Science population targets refer to rural dwellers with an Department of Education and Science in the future provision of school increase of 565 persons leading to 68 primary school facilities: places (3 classrooms) and 48 post primary school Refer Section 11.14.7 School Facilities and Policy ED 1 which states that: places. As the remainder of the proposed amendments have no implications for education It is the policy of the Council; To co-operate with the Department of provision, the Department has no further comment to Education and Science, the Vocational Educational Committee for County make at this stage. Kildare and School Management Boards in the identification of appropriate sites for school facilities.

No change

32 Bartley O’ Regan Amendment 3.2 Manager’s Response

Population and Housing Unit Allocations- From an As noted in the Manager’s Report on submissions received on the Draft CDP analyses of the Draft CDP housing allocations for rural (refer to p.54), the changes to Table 3.3 (Settlement Hierarchy – Population dwellers and smaller settlements (Table 3.3), it and Unit Allocation 2006-2017) were made to correct minor mathematical appears there is an inadequate allocation made to discrepancies in the published draft plan. No changes were proposed in the Villages, Rural Settlements and Rural Nodes. amendments that impact on the overall implementation of the strategy in

15 Suggest the following changes: relation to the following:

 Include in section 3.5 (housing and Population  35% of the projected growth set out in the RPGs being allocated to Allocation), text which will indicate that in the four metropolitan towns certain parts of the county (e.g. in Rural  65% of the projected growth set out in the RPGs being allocated to Housing Policy Zone 1) that housing the remainder of the county allocations to the Rural dwellers may in certain cases be used to facilitate sustainable  The principle of proportionate growth for the remaining designated growth of rural settlements and nodes. settlements in the county as follows: 25% growth in villages, 20% growth in rural settlements and 10-15% growth in rural nodes.  In the following text in section 3.5: “residential proposals in rural settlements where it can be The corrected population figure resulted in c.1% of the population target established that development on lands (565 persons) not being accounted for within these figures. This was adjacent to the settlement core would be in allocated to the rural area for the following reasons: general conformance to the settlement strategy and core strategy of the plan and  The targeted levels for the 78 designated settlements, as outlined where adequate services and infrastructure above, accord with the RPGs can be provided will be considered for the  The targeted figure set out in Table 3.3 still aims to achieve a 20% development on a case by case basis. “ reduction in the number of one-off dwellings granted over the period (ii) The Development Strategy for Milltown (Map of this Plan (refer to section 4.11.1 of the Draft CDP). However, this 17.28) identifies landholdings of c. 1.2 Ha and 0.2 Ha target can only be achieved through the application of a stricter rural are for settlement expansion areas. The provisions of housing policy as proposed in amendment 4.12. table 4.2 of the draft Plan (~15 units per Ha)  The unit allocation figures for rural dwellers or any other element of (amendment 4.2) suggest a certain scale of the settlement hierarchy have not been changed. development. However, this provision overlooks certain key features of the town, in particular the It is considered that amendment 3.2 does not represent a material change to absence of adequate waste water treatment but also the overall settlement strategy / hierarchy for the County agreed at the the nature of the grain of housing plots in the village Special Council Meeting of 06/12/2010 . and Milltown’s location in relation to the larger (ii) The only amendment relating to lands in Milltown relate to the adjacent towns of Kildare and Newbridge. We identification of lands which will be subject to site specific flood risk consider that achieving development of the scale

16 suggested in the development plan for Milltown may assessment, accordingly no change can be introduced for potential not be possible as there are insufficient lands catered development areas for Milltown at this stage of the Development Plan for in the development strategy. process.

No change

55 James Fagan & Amendment 3.2 Manager’s Response Associates Population and Housing Unit Allocations- As per response to 32 above. C/O Paddy White & States that there appear to be discrepancies with Manager’s Recommendation Joe Flanagan regard to the housing allocations for rural dwellings (Ballyshannon) As per recommendation to 32 above 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.

56 James Fagan & Amendment 3.2 Manager’s Response Associates Population and Housing Unit Allocations- As per response to 32 above. C/O Paddy White & States that there appear to be discrepancies with Manager’s Recommendation Joe Flanagan regard to the housing allocations for rural dwellings (Calverstown) As per recommendation to 32 above and smaller settlements in the county. State that inadequate allocations have been made to the Villages, Rural Settlement and Rural Nodes of the

17 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 Manager’s Response

Population and Housing Unit Allocations- The overall housing provision has been informed by the Regional Planning Guidelines. In accordance with planning legislation the development In relation to the allocation of the RPG population and plan must be consistent with the RPGs. A short term view has not been growth targets for the plan period, it is stated that the adopted regarding housing supply / provision. Council should acknowledge that construction activity has practically ceased and the existing supply of Manager’s Recommendation housing (identified in the DoEHLG’s survey of housing No change 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.

46 Meath County Amendments 3.3 & 3.6 Manager’s Response Council Proposed Strategic Land Use and Transportation Preliminary work on the Strategic Land Use and Transportation Study has Study of North East Kildare- Meath Co Co are now commenced. The study Kildare County Council will involve the interested in obtaining further information regarding participation of all the strategic stakeholders including Meath County Council. the intended nature of the North East Study, its status Regard shall also be had to any plans prepared for the area outside of but considering the delivery of other statutory land use adjacent to Kildare including those plans prepared by Meath County Council plans for this area and how implementation of the for Kilcock and Maynooth. The proximity of the north east of Kildare to RPGs will impact on the study. Reference is made to Dunboyne is also noted. The north east strategic study will be conducted the LAPs that have been prepared within Meath, within the strategic framework of the RPGs.

18 which are located adjacent to Kildare i.e. Kilcock and Manager’s Recommendation Maynooth and the proximity of the north east of No change Kildare to Dunboyne, a designated growth centre in the RPGs.

75 NTA Amendments 3.3 & 3.6 Manager’s Response

Proposed Strategic Land Use and Transportation Agreed Study of North East Kildare- It is submitted that the Manager’s Recommendation National Transport Authority be directly referred to in the wording of objective SO10. Revise amendment 3.6 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 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.

The inclusion of Policy SO10 Strategic Land Use and Any statutory requirements governing the strategic study which may include Transportation Study is noted. Consideration should the undertaking of SEA and AA will be carried out as appropriate. be given to clarifying whether the requirements of the Manager’s Recommendation SEA, Habitats and EIA Directives will be incorporated No change into the Land Use and Transportation Study as relevant and appropriate.

33 John Kehoe c/o Amendment 3.6 Manager’s Response Brady, Shipman, SO10: Strategic Land Use and Transportation Study. Preliminary work on the north east strategic study has now commenced. It is Martin on behalf of

19 O’Flynn The preparation of this study in advance of the review a priority of Kildare County Council to ensure the speedy delivery of this Construction Co. of the LAPs for the area would lead to a further delay study in order to inform the review of the north Kildare LAPs. Ltd in delivering the necessary additional zoned lands. In SO10 states that it is an objective of the Council “To zone additional lands in order to comply with the RPG’s there is a requirement the Metropolitan towns to meet the requirements of the population for the immediate delivery of the required level of allocations set out in this plan. Such zoning shall be in line with the additional zoned lands in the north east towns. settlement hierarchy set out in table 3.3”. Requests change to amendment 3.6 to read as The Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2010 requires an follows: amendment of an LAP not later than one year following the making of the ‘To carry out a strategic Land Use and Transportation development plan where any objective of an LAP is no longer consistent with Study of north east Kildare including the Metropolitan the objectives of the development plan for the area. The 2010 legislative area towns of Leixlip, Maynooth, Celbridge and framework therefore provides the relevant timeframe for amendments to the Kilcock. The preparation of the study will involve the relevant LAPs. If necessary the preparation of the North East study can be participation of all the strategic stakeholders, including combined with the initial stages of the review of the LAP’s for this area. adjoining local authorities (i.e. Meath, Fingal and Manager’s Recommendation South Dublin County Councils), transportation providers, Waterways Ireland, Government No change 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.

3 James Fagan & Request that, having regard to Ballyshannon’s Manager’s Response

20 Associates for the designation as a rural settlement in the County Dunne Family Development Plan 2005-2011, that this designation be This submission does not relate to any proposed amendment and cannot be carried through to the development plan for the period considered at this stage of the plan making process. 2011-2017. Manager’s Recommendation

No change

44 Cllr. Suzanne (i) Requests that the figures in the settlement strategy (i) Manager’s Response Doyle hierarchy as outlined in figure 3.3 be consistent with As per response to 32 above. the projected distribution of growth for the County as outlined in the Core Strategy. Concerned that not The figures in the settlement strategy are consistent with the Core Strategy enough regard has been taken to the social and have been informed by the Regional Planning Guidelines. The consequences of concentrating such high volumes of overall settlement strategy has been agreed at the Special Council growth to population centres that have already been Meeting on 6/12/2010. the recipients of significant growth over the period of the current plan. (ii) Manager’s Recommendation

(ii) Restricting the growth of smaller communities can No change too have serious social consequences, where the (ii) Manager’s Response critical mass required to sustain valuable social and commercial supports for these rich communities is not As noted in the Managers Report on submission received on the Draft CDP sustained. Calls for a consultative process that (refer to p.54), the changes to Table 3.3 (Settlement Hierarchy – Population engages directly with the communities affected by the and Unit Allocation 2006-2017) were made to correct minor mathematical changes, through this process designations of discrepancies from the published draft. As such there is no material change strategic sustainable settlements would be made that to the overall settlement strategy / hierarchy. The overall settlement strategy are in line with the overall growth strategy for the for the County was agreed at the special council meeting of 06/12/2010 and County. In the interim the settlements could be is not subject to an amendment. considered on a sequential approach from settlement As there is no material change to the settlement strategy it is deemed that centre. the submission does not relate to any proposed amendment and cannot be

21 considered at this stage of the plan making process.

(ii) Manager’s Recommendation

No change

64 (ii) Seamus Kennedy Request a consultation process for settlements. Manager’s Response

States that the current settlement strategy are As per response to 44 (ii) above disproportionately biased against growth in the rural Manager’s Recommendation area and are predicated on increasing population of urban areas without due regard to the social As per recommendation to 44 (ii) above 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.

22 4 Maura Tutty-Deay Request a consultation process for settlements. Manager’s Response

9 Brian Doyle1 That a consultation process should occur from which As per response to 44 (ii) above a list of settlements will be designated for priority. This 12 Aine Deay Manager’s Recommendation process should encompass public meetings in each of 24 Fearghal Regan the settlements, where Council officials would attend As per recommendation to 44 (ii) above to inform communities of the opportunities and 25 Ken Regan constraints within each settlement. The prescribed 26 Emmanuel Hughes growth for the rural areas would remain the same and as such would comply with the Regional Planning 27 Annie Hughes Guidelines but the details and decisions with regard to 28 David Zebedee selecting particular areas for growth or otherwise would be determined through a consultative process. 31 Grace O’ Neill

34 Keara Dunne

37 Ger Coyne

45 Vincent Kenny

52 Patrick Hennesy

53 Anthony Quinn

68 Terence Martin

69 Elianna Martin

71 Aisling Dunney

77 Liz O’Donnell- Byrne 78

1 Chairperson, Allenwood Community Development Assoc. Ltd.

23 79 Kevin O’Shea

80 Robert Groman

81 Mary Aungier

82 Noel Aungier

83 Emma Cross

84 Deborah Gorman

85 Michael Cross (Snr) 86 Michael Cross 87 (Jnr) 88 Margaret Cross 89 Lorraine Cross 90 Pat Gorey (Snr) 91 Sandra Heavey 92 Danny Heavey 93 James Fagan 94 Christopher Ward 95 Linda Ward 96 David McCabe 97 William Tuite (Jnr) 98

24 99 Henry O’Neill

100 Joe Doyle

101 Brian Doyle

102 Mary Doyle

103 Patricia Ivers

104 Ciaran Fileds

105 William Tuite

106 Christopher Ward

107 Dean Ward

108 Clare O’Reilly

109 Keith Ward

110 Ann Ward

111 Nuala Heavey

112 Bella Aungier

113 Mary Donnelly

114 Dawn Fitzgerald

115 John Fitzgerald

116 Brendan Fitzgerald

117 Patrick Dunney

118 Bridie Dunney

25 119 Anthony Stynes,

120 Breda Stynes

121 Yvonne Stynes

122 Nina Stynes

123 Brendan Stynes

124 David Stynes

125 Sara Dunny

126 Patrick Dunny

127 Caroline Dunny

128 Emily Dunny

129 Michael Roycroft

130 B Roycroft

131 Pauline Roycroft

132 E P Roycroft

133 Julia Montague

134 Eilish Kehoe

Trevor Montague

Mary Montague

Alfie Montague

44 Cllr Suzanne Doyle The concentration of growth is overwhelmingly Manager’s Response

26 focused on the Metropolitan areas and large towns on the M7 spine, all of which North of Kildare town have The issues raised in the submission do not relate materially to a proposed a dependence on the Liffey, which is a shared amendment and therefore cannot be considered. resource with Dublin. This leaves Kildare in a very vulnerable position with regard to water supply, clearly It should be noted however that the County is not solely reliant on the River demonstrated in the recent bad weather, without an Liffey with supply provided through a number of groundwater abstraction agreed solution to this problem. A more cautious programmes, the River Barrow and potential for further provision through the approach to the development of the County is River Shannon scheme. required where we do not create an over dependency to a resource that is clearly limited without any Manager’s Recommendation foreseeable means of resolving this important issue. No change

64 Seamus Kennedy The concentration of growth is overwhelmingly Manager’s Response focused on the Metropolitan areas and large towns on The issues raised in the submission do not relate materially to a proposed the M7 spine, all of which North of Kildare town have amendment and therefore cannot be considered. a dependence on the Liffey, which is a shared resource with Dublin. This leaves Kildare in a very Manager’s Recommendation vulnerable position with regard to water supply, clearly demonstrated in the recent bad weather, without an No change 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

27 TABLE 3.5: AN ASEESMENT OF THE CURRENT SURPLUS/DEFICIT FOR TARGETED UNIT GROWTH IN DESIGNATED TOWNS 2006-20172

Development Plans and LAPs for New Units Potential Units Target Target Units Surplus/Deficit Designated Towns 2006-2017 Deliverable

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

2 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 Manager’s Response & Recommendation

That the map ref. 4.1 identifying areas of medium or See response and recommendation at end of section 4. lower sensitivity should be removed as it is an inequitable and crude approach to planning.

5 Kathleen Smullen Amendment 4.12 Manager’s Response & Recommendation

Requests that the rural housing guidelines and See response and recommendation at end of section 4. policies outlined in the current CDP 2005-2011 should remain and that Map 4.1 in the Draft CDP is removed.

6 John Hubbard Amendment 4.12 (i) Manager’s Response

Kildare South (i) Request that where applicants for a rural dwelling Section 4.11.4 (Local Need Criteria) of the CDP, set out under proposed Labour Party, c/o. that are located in Rural Housing Policy Zone 1 can amendment 4.12, clearly states the rural policy zones shown on Map 4.1 Jack Wall T.D. demonstrate the development will not adversely affect have been identified on the basis of a number of key considerations and the high sensitivity landscape of the area (as outlined that these comprise not only landscape sensitivities but also environmental in Ch 14), then the application should be evaluated sensitivities and the concentrations of one-off dwellings in the county under the local need criteria of Policy Zone 2. 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

No change

29 (ii) Manager’s Response

(ii) Requests that the schedule for Rural Housing Having regard to DoEHLG Circular Letter SP5/08, in relation to local need Policy Zone 1 (Table 4.3) include the following criteria: and occupancy conditions, it is considered appropriate that the proposed policy (which already set out for rural housing policy zone 2) be included Persons who can satisfy the Planning Authority of for both schedules of local need set out in table 4.3 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 (ii) Manager’s Recommendation the rural community and that the nature of such business/employment is more appropriate to a rural Add the following to Amendment 4.12 schedule for Rural Housing Policy location. Zone 1 (Table 4.3):

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 (iii) Manager’s Response another, less than 1 mile away, is in Rural Housing Both settlements have been defined as villages with land use plans and Policy Zone 2 (e.g. Moone and Timolin). 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

No change

30 9 (i) Brian Doyle, Amendment 4.12 Manager’s Response & Recommendation Chairperson Requests that the rural housing guidelines and See response and recommendation at end of section 4 Allenwood policies outlined in the current CDP 2005-2011 should Community remain and that Map 4.1 and Table 4.3 in the Draft Development CDP be removed. States that the current rural Assoc. Ltd. 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.

11 Edmond Fogarty Amendment 4.12 Manager’s Response

Objects to the Rural Housing Zoning Proposal and the Both schedules of rural housing policy (zone 1/zone 2) allows conditions pertaining there to. It is submitted that this consideration for persons who have grown up and spent substantial policy looks like a less than subtle attempt to trigger periods of their lives in rural areas in Kildare (18 years/12 years), who wish population movement from Zone 1 to Zone 2. As the to return to live beside other immediate family members. policy currently stands it means that persons forced Manager’s Recommendation abroad to seek employment in the short to medium term through no fault of their own, will not be able to No change return to the part of the county in which they have lived .

12 (i) Aine Deay Amendment 4.12 Manager’s Response & Recommendation

That the map ref. 4.1 that identifies areas of medium See response and recommendation at end of section 4. or lower sensitivity should be removed as it is an inequitable and crude approach to planning.

17 David Edgar, Amendment 4.12 Manager’s Response & Recommendation

Kildare – West Objects to the proposed RHP which would sterilise See response and recommendation at end of section 4

31 Wicklow IFA 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 Amendment 4.12 Manager’s Response (Principal) States that the school is an integral part of a close knit See response and recommendation at end of section 4 Allenwood Boys community and provides much needed employment in In addition to children going to Allenwood school from its rural hinterland National School the area. States that should the current policy criteria the Allenwood Village Plan also provides for 18.4ha of land for residential of eligibility for rural housing be abolished this would development with potential to deliver in excess of 400 units over the period have a very detrimental effect on the school and could of the plan. cause a drop in school numbers with the knock on effect of the loss of teachers and a ripple effect for The CDP also recognises the importance of sustaining a viable and active many local businesses that the school currently rural community reflected in the range of objectives and policies set out in patronises. States that it is important to have in place Chapter 10 (Rural Development). 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 Manager’s Recommendation open. No change

20 Annette Coyne Amendment 4.12 Manager’s Response & Recommendation (Honorary Request not to change the existing criteria of eligibility See response and recommendation at end of section 4 Secretary) for rural housing. State that the proposed policy Allenwood GFC changes are discriminatory and will ultimately result in de-population of this area that will see a further decline in numbers in schools and playing members.

21 Michael Fitzpatrick Amendment 4.12 Manager’s Response & Recommendation

32 TD States that the proposed changes to the existing RHP See response and recommendation at end of section 4 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 Manager’s Response & Recommendation

Requests that the rural housing guidelines and See response and recommendation at end of section 4 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 Manager’s Response

States that the proposed RHP is unfair. The line Both schedules of rural housing policy (zone 1/zone 2) allow for persons drawn dividing the county into zone 1 and zone 2 is who have grown up and spent substantial periods of their lives in rural inequitable way to decide planning for housing in the areas in Kildare (18 years/12 years), who wish to return to live beside county, each planning application should be granted other immediate family members. on its merits and refused on its inadequacies. Manager’s Recommendation Secondly, Ireland is currently in a recession and many young people are forced to emigrate to find work, No change many of these may return to Ireland in the future to work and rear their families, however, if they cannot

33 build a house in their local area this will deter them from returning.

37 Ger Coyne Amendment 4.12 Manager’s Response & Recommendation

Requests that the map ref 4.1 identifying areas of See response and recommendation at end of section 4 medium or lower sensitivity should be removed as it is an inequitable and crude approach to planning.

38 Des & Colette Amendment 4.12 Manager’s Response & Recommendation Henry Regarding the draft rural housing policy, indicates that See response and recommendation at end of section 4 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 Manager’s Response & Recommendation

Requests that the proposed plan be scrapped as it is See response and recommendation at end of section 4 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.

39 Manus Curran Amendment 4.12 Manager’s Response & Recommendation

34 Requests that the proposed plan be scrapped as it is See response and recommendation at end of section 4 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 Manager’s Response

1. In light of the very close linkages between the 1. Both settlements have been defined as villages with land use plans and villages of Moone and Timolin that map 4.1 would be associated policies and objectives set out for each in chapter 17. The rural changed to extend the area of rural housing policy housing policy therefore only relates to lands outside these development Zone 2 to include the greater Timolin area, to avoid boundaries. Section 4.11.4 (Local Need Criteria) of the CDP, set out under the present situation where both villages are in proposed amendment 4.12, clearly states the rural policy zones shown on separate zones. 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.

No change 2. In relation to rural housing policy zone 1 and 2 (map reference 4.1) that the period of time that a 2. Both relevant schedules for policy zones 1 and 2 caters for ‘persons person spends in college would be accepted as living who have grown up or spent substantial periods of their lives (18/12 years) at home. 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

35 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.

3. That the rural housing policy zone 1 (map reference No change 4.1) would be amended to reduce the 'substantial 3. Such a change would not accord with the DoEHLG Planning Guidelines period of their lives' from 18 years to 12 years. 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).

4. That the rural housing policy zone 1 and 2 (map Manager’s Recommendation reference 4.1) would take account of a farmers child who wishes to build on an out farm that is part of the No change family holding. 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 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

36 an out farm on the family holding.

No change

44 Cllr. Suzanne Amendment 4.12 Manager’s Response & Recommendation Doyle That the policy in the current County Dev Plan that See response and recommendation at end of section 4 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 Manager’s Response & Recommendation

(i) Objects to the changes to the RHP in (i) See response and recommendation at end of section 4. terms of an increase from 12 to 18 years (ii) Regarding the local need policy as set out in Table 4.3 this does not for applicants in Rural Housing Policy relate to developments of housing schemes in towns, villages or rural Zone 1. settlements. A separate ‘local demand’ policy applies to residential (ii) Requests that this local need policy development in designated villages and rural settlements (please ref to should be removed where it relates to any amendment 17.2): development or housing scheme and Section 17.4 Villages and Rural Settlement Policies reduced where it relates to one-off houses. It is the policy of the Council:

37 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 Manager’s Response & Recommendation

These increased requirements for applicant in Rural See response and recommendation at end of section 4 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 applicants and developers.

64 (i) Seamus Kennedy Amendment 4.12 Manager’s Response & Recommendation

That the policy in the current County Development See response and recommendation at end of section 4 Plan that determines eligibility for Rural Housing be adopted as the policy for the proposed CDP. The

38 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 Manager’s Response

Observations in relation to the proposed plan include: (i) The proposed RHP allows ‘persons who have grown up or spent substantial periods of their lives (18/12 years) living in the (i) Children who may have to emigrate due to the area, who have left the area and now wish to return to reside economic situation will not be able to obtain near or care for immediate family members.’ As such an planning permission on their return. emigrant who fits this category will be considered under the proposed schedule of local need, subject to all other planning considerations.

No change (ii) What will the situation be regarding planning for small business for family members. (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 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.

(iii) What will the situation be regarding planning No change

39 for (iii) Section 10.5.2 (Agriculture) of the Draft CDP sets out the Councils policies in relation to agriculture, with one of the primary animal housing sheds, larger silage pit and objectives being: new/modernise our milking parlour if the Development Plan is agreed as is proposed. 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 Manager’s Response & Recommendation

Requests that the rural housing guidelines and See response and recommendation at end of section 4 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- Amendment 4.12 Manager’s Response & Recommendation Byrne The proposed plan will have a serious effect on See response and recommendation at end of section 4 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 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

40 in two different policy zones (e.g. Timolin and Moone, Calverstown and Colbinstown).

18 Donrina Shorunke Amendment 4.12 Manager’s Response & Recommendation

24 Fearghal Regan Requests that the rural housing guidelines and See response and recommendation at end of section 4 policies outlined in the current CDP 2005-2011 should 25 Ken Regan remain and that Map 4.1 and Table 4.3 in the Draft 26 Emmanuel Hughes CDP be removed. States that the current rural housing policy set out in the CDP 2005-2011 is 27 Annie Hughes sufficiently constraining and a more accurate and 28 David Zebedee effective approach to have each individual site assessed on its merits through the planning process. 31 Grace O’ Neill

34 Keara Dunne

45 Vincent Kenny

52 Patrick Hennesy

53 Anthony Quinn

68 Terence Martin

69 Elianna Martin

71 Aisling Dunney

78 Kevin O’Shea

79 Robert Groman

80 Mary Aungier

81 Noel Aungier

41 82 Emma Cross

83 Deborah Gorman

84 Michael Cross (Snr) 85 Michael Cross 86 (Jnr) 87 Margaret Cross 88 Lorraine Cross 89 Pat Gorey (Snr) 90 Sandra Heavey 91 Danny Heavey 92 James Fagan 93 Christopher Ward 94 Linda Ward 95 David McCabe 96 William Tuite (Jnr) 97 Henry O’Neill 98 Joe Doyle 99 Brian Doyle 100 Mary Doyle 101

42 102 Patricia Ivers

103 Ciaran Fileds

104 William Tuite

105 Christopher Ward

106 Dean Ward

107 Clare O’Reilly

108 Keith Ward

109 Ann Ward

110 Nuala Heavey

111 Bella Aungier

112 Mary Donnelly

113 Dawn Fitzgerald

114 John Fitzgerald

115 Brendan Fitzgerald

116 Patrick Dunney

117 Bridie Dunney

118 Anthony Stynes,

119 Breda Stynes

120 Yvonne Stynes

121 Nina Stynes

43 122 Brendan Stynes

123 David Stynes

124 Sara Dunny

125 Patrick Dunny

126 Caroline Dunny

127 Emily Dunny

128 Michael Roycroft

129 B Roycroft

130 Pauline Roycroft

131 E P Roycroft

132 Julia Montague

133 Eilish Kehoe

134 Trevor Montague

Mary Montague

Alfie Montague

61 DoEHLG (a) The Authority identifies two types of rural housing (a) Manager’s Response & Recommendation zones. Zone 1 may be regarded as areas under See response and recommendation at end of section 4 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

44 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 (b) Manager’s Response meeting local need in each of the two Zones. In a It is considered that the terms used in Table 4.3 (Schedule of needs) are number of cases there is a lack of clarity regarding largely explained within the relevant schedule. “Near to” is already terms. For example ‘living in the area’, ‘near to’, ‘in defined in the schedule as being either a 5km (for RHP Zone 1) or an 8km the vicinity of’, ‘essential to the local community’ and (for RHP 2) distance from the applicants family home. “Living in the area“ other terms and phrases are not defined. refers to the applicants permanent place of residency in the rural area.

(b) Manager’s Recommendation

It is suggested that the Planning Authority review the No change Table and where appropriate provide further clarification on the various terms and phrases which, as currently set out, are subject to wide interpretation.

45 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 One off houses as % of total houses 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%

46 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

47 (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

48 CHAPTER 5 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Consideration should be given to amending the new Agreed. policy in Section 5.9.1 to refer to the ‘sustainable Manager’s Recommendation development’ of tourism. 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 Noted. Section 13.4.2 references Candidate Special Areas of specifically mention the river Barrow. The river Barrow Conservation. is a designated candidate Special Area of Manager’s Recommendation Conservation. No change

16 Roger Garland Amendment 5.11 Manager’s Response

Inland Waterways Tourism Policy – Supports these Agreed new policies. However it is suggested that the 1st and Manager’s Recommendation 3rd are combined. Revise amendment 5.11 as follows: (i) To encourage walking and recreational facilities, where development opportunities arise along It is the policy of the Council:

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

13 Regional Planning Pressure for new employment zoned lands adjacent Manager’s Response Authority to the edges of settlements has the potential to Noted. This submission does not relate to any amendment. undermine the important regional role of the designated economic growth areas in servicing large Manager’s Recommendation urban and rural catchments in terms of employment and the provision of services. It is recommended that No change 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.

50 CHAPTER 6 MOVEMENT AND TRANSPORT

10 NRA Amendment 6.2 Manager’s Response

The NRA welcomes the inclusion of the reference to Noted the Spatial Planning and National Roads (Draft) Manager’s Recommendation Guidelines for Planning Authorities. No change

6.4.1 General Transport Policy – TP 7 -regarding Noted street lighting is supported. Manager’s Recommendation

No change

Consideration should also be given to amending Agreed Policy NR10 to refer to "...enabling sustainable Manager’s Recommendation economic development..." 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

51 amended

60 GVA for Tesco Amendment 6.6 Manager’s Response

As many different uses rely on car parking, it is A public consultation process may be undertaken to facilitate input from important that stakeholders in such uses are provided relevant stakeholders and the general public. the opportunity to comment on any possible changes Manager’s Recommendation to the standards. It is for this reason that the following modification to policy PK 4 is proposed. Revise amendment 6.6 as follows:

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

The authority welcomes the proposed amendment, PK 4 provides for a review of the car parking standards during the lifetime of however it is recommended to include a specific the plan. This review will be informed by the NTA Transport Strategy. objective to incorporate the maximum regional parking Manager’s Recommendation standards and related measures which will be specified when available in the forthcoming NTA Revise amendment 6.6 as follows: Transport Strategy for the GDA. 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 Amendment 6.7 Manager’s Response Authority The authority welcomes the proposed amendment Noted relating to a freight strategy and bus parking in towns. Manager’s Recommendation

No change

52 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 Both chapters incorporate policies which support walking and cycling.

Recommends that this section be crossed referenced Manager’s Recommendation with Section 14 – Landscape, Recreation and No change Amenities where many sections deal with recreational aspects of walking and cycling.

ST 17 We would point out that DTO has now ceased The reference in this policy relates to a document published by the former to exist and has been replaced by the NTA. DTO office and as such the reference is correct.

No change.

It is noted that in Policy RP9, a commitment is given All relevant environmental legislation to include EIA /AA will be recognised to building a Southern Distributor Road. It should be and the requirements of same taken into account and addressed in the ensured that the requirements of the EIA / Habitats planning and development of the Southern Distributor Road around Athy. Directives are integrated as appropriate into any such Manager’s Recommendation development. No change

53 10 NRA Amendment 6.10 Manager’s Response

It is requested that amendment 6.10 objective RP 15 Agreed is slightly altered as follows to acknowledge the LOR Manager’s Recommendation Corridor Protection Study ; To alter policy RP 15 of proposed amendment 6.10 as follows. RP 15: To cooperate with the NRA and other local authorities to provide the Leinster Orbital Route RP 15: To cooperate with the NRA and other local authorities in providing (linking Drogheda, Navan, Trim and Naas) proposed the Leinster Orbital Route (linking Drogheda, Navan, Trim and Naas) in the ‘Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater proposed in the ‘Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area Dublin Area and to protect zones along the key radial and to protect zones along the key radial routes from Dublin where junctions routes from Dublin where junctions with the proposed with the proposed Leinster Orbital Route may be constructed in accordance Leinster Orbital Route may be constructed in with the NRA Corridor Protection Study and once a route corridor has been accordance with the NRA Corridor Protection Study identified to preserve this corridor free from development. and once a route corridor has been identified to preserve this corridor free from development.

23 Arthur Cox for Amendment 6.15 Manager’s Response Tony Doyle GA 7 : Public Safety Zones - The submissions The removal of policies regarding the possible introduction of Public Safety suggests that the imposition of a public safety zone Zones for any aerodromes in or affecting Kildare would be unwise from the around Weston airport will impinge upon the property points of view of good aviation planning, and public safety. Public Safety rights and value of adjoining lands, including a stud Zones provide a logical and safe means of guiding development in the farm owned and operated by the person who made vicinity of aerodromes. the submission It is not considered necessary to reject the proposed draft note associated The following changes to policy GA7 are requested: 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/ (i) To reject the addition of the draft note in reference aerodromes where they are deemed necessary. to defining Public Safety Zones to be added to policy GA 7 It is however considered appropriate to alter proposed policy GA7 as follows

54 (ii) To amend policy GA 7 to read as follows to give a clearer indication of the Council’s decision making procedures. (requested changes are underlined): Manager’s Recommendation “GA7: To consider, in conjunction with relevant GA7: To consider, in conjunction with relevant agencies and bodies, the agencies and bodies, the introduction of Public Safety introduction of Public Safety Zones3 in the vicinity of aerodromes within or Zones in the vicinity of aerodromes within or affecting affecting Kildare by way of variation to this development plan. Kildare by way of variation to this development plan.

16 Roger Garland 6.4.6 Parking(Motion 4) – There is an ambiguity in the Manager’s Response Minutes in that on one hand it is stated: It is Include additional policy in amendment 14.8 Countryside Recreation Policy considered acceptable to include the proposed policy PK 5, on the other hand the Manager’s Manager’s Recommendation Recommendation is: No change. Include policy in section 14.11.1 “To seek to provide car parks for walkers at We would ask you to look at this and to bear in mind appropriate access points to amenities, where feasible and subject to the provisions of GT4 do not adequately address our compliance with the requirements arising from the Habitats Directive”. concerns about the lack of car parking in rural areas which would give access to natural amenities and walkways.

49 Dublin Airport Amendment 6.16 Manager’s Response Auhtority It does not appear that there is additional government It is considered appropriate to alter proposed objective AO 1 of Amendment policy to support the development of an additional 6.16 to have regard to evolving national and regional policy in relation to

3 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.

55 airport in the Greater Dublin Area. The provision of a additional airports in the region. new airport should be consistent with national and Manager’s Recommendation regional planning policy and should be plan led. The DAA believes that existing national and regional To amend objective AO 1 as follows: planning policy does not supports the development of a new airport within the GDA. The DAA seeks clarity AO 1: To investigate the feasibility of providing an airport in the County, on the Government Policy that has been referred to in having regard to evolving Government policy relating to the Amendment 6.16 and in the absence of such policy development of an additional airport in the Region. this objective must be reviewed. 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 Manager’s Response included: This does not relate directly to an amendment however it is noted that it is a To review and set out an implementation plan, for statutory requirement under separate legislation. proposed road schemes as part of a local traffic plan Manager’s Recommendation to be prepared following the publication of the NTA Transport Strategy for the GDA and the completion of

56 the NTA integrated Implementation Plan. No change

57 CHAPTER 7 WATER, DRAINAGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

46 Meath County Amendment 7.11 Manager’s Response Council Supports the inclusion of the proposed additional Noted policy WS9 (co-operation with adjoining authorities Manager’s Recommendation regarding servicing) in the CDP. No change

40 Tom Philips on Amendments 7.2, 7.10 Manager’s Response behalf of Bord na In relation to the proposed amendments that relate to It is not considered appropriate to include reference to the Dublin and Mona water infrastructure BnM recommend the inclusion of Midlands Region Water Supply Scheme in the Water Services Investment an additional reference to the Dublin & Midlands Programme – Assessment of Needs 2010 – 2012 as this scheme is a Region Water Supply Project. The proposed project is regional matter. The Dublin and Midlands Region Water Supply Project is at intended to provide a reservoir to store River Shannon preliminary report stage and if progressed further in the future it may be winter Flood Waters which can be treated and piped appropriate to include reference to it in future plans or as a variation to the to Greater Dublin and Midland communities. In this Plan as deemed appropriate. regard the following text is suggested at the end of Manager’s Recommendation section 7.2.1 of the Draft Plan No change “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

58 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 Amendment 7.10 Manager’s Response McEvoy Section 7.5 refers to the nominal design capacities of The Upper Liffey Valley Sewerage Scheme is licensed by the EPA , license Osberstown and outlines plans for staged upgrades. number D0002-01 and the Council will comply with same. This should be further amended to; 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. 1. Reference the new EPA licence which regulates the current and future assimilative levels and; Manager’s Recommendation

Revise amendment 7.10 as follows:

2. Revise the projected timescales for the planned 7.5. Water Services Investment Programme – Assessment of Needs investments 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

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

Policy WS 8 To have regard to the requirements of Noted the Habitats Directive, in all proposed projects or Manager’s Recommendation plans is welcomed. No change

32 Bartley O’ Regan Amendment 7.14 Manager’s Response

The inclusion of WW10 acknowledges the willingness The 2.42 ha site in question is outside the rural settlement boundary set out of the Planning Authority to facilitate the expansion in Map 17.28 of the Draft Plan. Section 17.6 states Development Strategies and upgrading of the waste water infrastructure in have been prepared to guide the population growth designated for each rural settlements in the county. As no waste water settlement with potential sites for settlement expansion identified in a treatment plant facilities are provided for in Milltown, sequential manner. Map 17.28 has identified the preferred sites for states that the Council can meet this development settlement expansion in Milltown. As stated in section 3.7 development of objective through co-operation with their client, who is these sites will also be ‘subject to the capacity of necessary physical prepared to develop a pumping station and pipe infrastructure and the ability of receiving environments to accommodate any network to Osberstown WWTP in circumstances proposed growth.’ where his lands can be developed. Manager’s Recommendation

No change

46 Meath County Amendment 7.14 Manager’s Response Council Supports the inclusion of the proposed additional Noted policy WW7 (co-operation with adjoining authorities Manager’s Recommendation regarding servicing) in the CDP. No change

60 Opposed to reduction in the set back distance from This policy relates to set backs to facilitate channel clearing and 20 meters to at least 10 metres in policy SW 13: To maintenance which is considered reasonable. The reference to distances in ensure that development adjacent to watercourses is the RPGs (GDA section 7.7 Box 11) is in the context of actions for the set back from the edge of the watercourse to allow provision of Green Infrastructure which is a separate matter. access for channel clearing/ maintenance. A set back It is considered that WV 4 provides a strategic policy for consideration in the of at least 10 metres is generally required depending context of appropriate set backs in LAPs. on the width of the watercourse unless otherwise specified. 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 It is submitted that this reduction is inconsistent with development should be avoided. GDA/RPG – 7.7 Box 11 – pt 3.

No change.

54 OPW Amendments 7.15, 7.16, 7.17, 7.18,7.19 Manager’s Response

The OPW welcome the inclusion of a Strategic Flood Noted Risk Assessment (SFRA) in the Draft Plan, and the Manager’s Recommendation identification of lands requiring Site Specific Flood Risk Assessments. No change 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.

54 OPW Amendments 7.15, 7.16, 7.17, 7.18,7.19 Manager’s Response

61 We would recommend that in the near future the Noted revise amendment 7.16 with the inclusion of additional text at the end SFRA should be updated, to show Flood Zones A and of the section. B (as defined in the Flood Risk Management (FRM) Manager’s Recommendation Guidelines) throughout the County. These Flood Zones should be shown overlaid on the zoning in the To include the following text at the end of section 7.6.4.1. Plan. The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment is a live document and any updates to Once the flood zones have been identified for the it including the identification of flood zones will inform future planning County, we would then recommend that the decisions throughout the county. 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).

The submission welcomes policy SW 10 (requirement Noted. The Planning Authority will comply with the statutory planning for SFRA) as per amendment 7.19. Also the Council is guidelines “The Planning System and Flood Risk Management - Guidelines encouraged to ensure that comprehensive flood risk for Planning Authorities” in the performance of its forward planning functions. assessments are carried out for settlements where Manager’s Recommendation required as part of the Local Area Plan framework and the findings of these assessments should directly No change. inform the zoning of lands within these settlements.

62 Tesco is the country’s largest provider of Bring Centre Recycling banks however the amendment to policy Agreed. This modification provides for each application to be considered on WM 5 will severely restrict Tesco’s ability to provide a case by case basis. such facilities in future in particular the inclusion that such facilities shall not be located within 50 metres of Manager’s Recommendation any residential unit. Therefore the following amendment to policy WM5 is proposed. Revise amendment 7.22 as follows: WM 5: To encourage recycling facilities (i.e. bottle banks, bring centres etc) in close proximity to large scale residential developments to facilitate WM 5: To encourage recycling facilities (i.e. bottle domestic recycling. banks, bring centres etc) in close proximity to large scale residential developments to facilitate domestic Any bring bank facility shall include receptacles for glass, cans and textiles. recycling. 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 Any bring bank facility shall include receptacles for will be assessed on a case by case basis having regard to the following: glass, cans and textiles. All applications for Any bring bank facility shall not be located within 50 metres of (i) Proximity to residential areas any residential unit(s) and shall provide for the (ii) An area of at least 10m by 4m in size following: facilities will be assessed on a case by case basis having regard to the following: (iii) Truck access and clearance heights

(i) Proximity to residential areas (iv) A hard standing area

(i) An area of at least 10m by 4m in size (v) A vehicle set down area only with no permanent parking provision. (ii) Truck access and clearance heights (vi) Suitable lighting, screening and/or landscaping as (iii) A hard standing area considered necessary by the council (iv) A vehicle set down area only with no permanent parking provision.

(v) Suitable screening and/or landscaping as

63 considered necessary by the council

2 Carmel Conaty Amendments 7.18 -7.19 Manager’s Response Department of The Department of Communications, Energy and Noted Communications, Natural Resources and Inland Fisheries Ireland have Energy & Natural Manager’s Recommendation no comments / observations to make. Resources No change

64 CHAPTER 8 ENERGY AND COMMUNICATIONS

22 Padraig McEvoy Amendment 8.3 Manager’s Response

Section 8.8 should refer to the preferred ecological Agreed replacement requirements where hedgerows are Manager’s Recommendation removed to facilitate transmission lines. Revise amendment 8.3 as follows:

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.

22 Cllr Padraig Amendment 8.5: Manager’s Response McEvoy 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) Section 8.11.1 – is the term renewable energy “auto adequately describes the function of on site renewable energy auto production” sufficiently clear to describe whatever it is production units. trying to describe?

65 Manager’s Recommendation

No change

Consideration should be given to amending the new Agreed policy EN8 as follows "...to support and encourage the Manager’s Recommendation sustainable development..." 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.

63 Irish Wind Energy Amendment 8.5 Manager’s Response Association The submission welcomes the proposed amendment. Noted

EN 8: To support and encourage the development Manager’s Recommendation of renewable energy auto production units (the No change 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.

63 Irish Wind Energy Amendment 8.6 Manager’s Response Association

66 The submission welcomes the proposed amendment. Noted

TN 3: To recognise the development of secure and Manager’s Recommendation reliable electricity transmission infrastructure as a key No change 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.

63 Irish Wind Energy Amendment 8.8 Manager’s Response Association The submission welcomes the proposed amendment. Noted

TP 12 To require all telecommunications services to Manager’s Recommendation be placed underground and that any works carried out No change on footpaths make provision for future services.

67 CHAPTER 9 RETAIL

57 John Spain Amendment 9.1 Manager’s Response Associates on Re proposed inclusion of the following policy; Agreed. It is the role of LAPs to identify appropriate locations for particular behalf of Aldi land uses. It is not considered appropriate to zone lands specifically for Stores (Ireland) ‘It is the policy of the Council to consider including a ‘multiples’ as to do so would not facilitate proper retail planning and Limited specific zoning for Multiple Retailers, for individual development and would eliminate ‘multiples’ from other sites that are retail stores in excess of 1,100 sqm net retail deemed suitable for retail development in principle. In such instances, floorspace. Where appropriate, application of this ‘multiples’, even on a smaller scale, may also be considered inappropriate on policy will be considered as part of the LAP process. town centre sites, which would not be in compliance with the principles of the This policy will assist in locating new multiple ‘Sequential Approach’ as identified in the Retail Planning Guidelines. developments on appropriate sites that will optimise Furthermore the prohibition of ‘multiples’ on sites zoned for town centre / their significant power to direct retail activity into commercial use would result in an anti-competitive environment and this may locations that achieve town strengthening objectives’. ultimately detract from the overall retail attractiveness of towns throughout County Kildare.

It is submitted that the policies set out in the retail There is also an onus on the Planning Authority to ensure that sufficient land section of the CDP and the RPG’s are more than is zoned for particular land uses, and this is best achieved through the adequate to address this issue. It is noted however zoning of lands for town centre / commercial uses. The consideration of that the RPGs do not include any definition of multiple planning applications under the assessment criteria for retail developments retailers. 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 It is submitted that the Council in the preparation of town centre as well as issues of trade diversion and retail impact. This LAPs may identify particular sites that may be reflects the priority given to town centres/Core Retail Areas under the considered opportunity sites for retail development Sequential Approach. including sites that are particularly suitable to larger

68 retail formats thus the option to provide suitable sites for larger retail formats is available to the Council Manager’s Recommendation regardless of the proposed amendment. Omit the proposed amendment (Amendment 9.1 refers) in the County Development Plan.

Clarification should be given whether the proposed A Local Area Plan was adopted for Collinstown in January 2010 for which Masterplan for Collinstown will be subject to screening both screening for SEA and AA was carried out. In the interests of clarity this of SEA and AA. LAP is not currently undergoing SEA.

The Agency notes also that a Local Area Plan for The LAP for Collinstown requires that a Masterplan be prepared for the Collinstown is currently undergoing SEA. In this entirety of the lands at Collinstown prior to the development of these lands. context, the relationship of the Masterplan to the LAP As part of the preparation of this Masterplan any statutory requirements should be clarified regarding the role and nature of the which may include the undertaking of SEA and AA shall be carried out as Masterplan. appropriate.

No change

47 John Spain Amendment 9.2 Manager’s Response Associates on Collinstown - Request the omission of proposed new In response to a submission received from the Department of the behalf of policy after R9 which states Environment, Heritage and Local Government in relation to the Draft CDP, it Castlekeel Ltd & was considered appropriate to insert a new policy after R9 as proposed. The Treasury Holdings ‘To prepare a Masterplan for the lands at Collinstown Department considered that while the draft plan was generally very closely prior to the development of these lands. The details aligned with the retail policy, the draft plan did not indicate, as stated in the for this Masterplan are outlined in the Collinstown retail strategy, that the development of Collinstown should be associated Local Area Plan 2010. In the interests of sustainability with the opening of a new train station to link Maynooth and Kilcock centres and as part of this Masterplan, a new railway station to the Collinstown area, to ensure sustainable integrated planning. In this shall be delivered as part of Phase 1 of the overall regard objective R9 should either be expanded or a new objective inserted to

69 development of the lands at Collinstown and a reflect this more sustainable and integrated approach to the development of Transport Hub shall be located adjacent to the train Collinstown. station’. 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 Opposed to the inclusion of further policies relating to serves as a reminder that a Masterplan shall be prepared for the entirety of Collinstown in the CDP as these would only serve to the lands prior to the development of any part of these lands and that a conflict with the stated objectives of the Collinstown railway station shall be delivered as part of Phase 1 of the overall LAP 2010. 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 It is submitted that it is inappropriate for the CDP to development of the lands at Collinstown. pre-empt the phasing plan for the delivery of development and infrastructure in Collinstown. This is Manager’s Recommendation a role of the Masterplan and the proposed No change 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

70 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 Amendment 9.2 Manager’s Response Environment, Collinstown- In its current format this does not fully The footnote to Table 6.1 of the Retail Strategy refers to the development of Heritage and Local reflect the approach taken in the Retail Strategy for Leixlip and Collinstown over a 20 year time period. While it is not intended Government the GDA as set out in the footnote to Table 6.1 of the that the County Development Plan sets out details of the Masterplan as Strategy. these are set out in the Collinstown Local Area Plan 2010 it is considered reasonable to amend the proposed policy..

Manager’s Recommendation It is suggested that the Planning Authority insert the relevant text from the footnote into the policy in To further revise Amendment 9.2 as follows; Section 9.5.3. ‘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

71 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 Amendment 9.2 Manager’s Response Authority It is recommended that amendment 9.2 is amended to Agreed take account of the impact on adjoining settlements Manager’s Recommendation and sustainable transport, as follows; Revise amendment 9.2 as follows;

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

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

Amendment 9.3 Manager’s Response

29 RPS Planning & The amendment to Policy R14 reads as follows: Agreed. The Donaghcumper Town Centre Extension Area has been an Environment on objective of the Council since 2002. It responds to the recognition that, for a ‘It is the policy of the Council to promote and progress behalf of centre of its size and potential, Celbridge was underperforming in terms of the delivery of the integrated expansion of Celbridge Devondale Ltd retail floorspace with proximity and accessibility to the higher order centres of Town Centre on the Donaghcumper lands and to Dublin City Centre, Liffey Valley and Blanchardstown being the key reasons facilitate town centre consolidation through the re-use for its underperformance. The recently adopted Celbridge LAP 2010 also and regeneration of backlands and other key lands attempts to redress this. At the County Development Plan, Town and buildings around the town centre’. Development Plan/ LAP and AAP levels there has always been a strong It is indicated that to amend Policy R14 in the manner recognition and commitment to ensuring that the development of the Town proposed would be contrary to the role of Celbridge as Centre Extension Area will pay the highest attention and respect to the identified in the Retail Planning Guidelines for the unique natural, built and archaeological heritage of the area, and that of the GDA, the Draft Kildare Retail Strategy and the town as a whole. Celbridge LAP 2010. The Donaghcumper Town Centre Expansion would be an integrated part of Request that policy R14 as it appears in the Draft Celbridge Town Centre. Policy R14 as stated in the Draft CDP recognises CDP remains. 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 The following assessment criteria in the RPG’s are of in the Celbridge LAP which seek to achieve the overall functional and particular note, where, in submitting evidence in environmental improvement of the town centre. relation to retail impact the applicant shall address the following criteria and demonstrate whether or not the Manager’s Recommendation proposal would; To reinstate policy R14 as it appears in the Draft CDP which reads as (i) support a long term strategy for town follows; centres as established in the ‘It is the policy of the Council to promote and progress the delivery of the development plan and not materially integrated expansion of Celbridge Town Centre on the Donaghcumper lands

73 diminish the prospect of attracting private and town centre consolidation through the re-use and regeneration of sector investment into one or more town backlands and other key lands and buildings around the town centre’. 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

74 Consideration should be given to amending R39 to Agreed. refer to ‘sustainable development’. Manager’s Recommendation

Revise amendment 9.5 as follows;

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 Amendment 9.6 Manager’s Response behalf of Tesco It is submitted that policy R56 be amended to read as The proposed amendment for policy R56 currently reads as follows; Ireland Ltd follows: ‘Applicants for retail planning consents will be required to confirm their ‘Applicants for retail planning consents will be proposed hours of opening and 24 hour opening of shops will only be required to indicate their proposed hours of opening permitted where it can be clearly demonstrated that there will be no negative which will be assessed on a case by case basis, impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring areas. Proposed hours of having regard to the residential amenity of opening for various uses may also be prescribed in LAPs. neighbouring areas’. 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

75 CHAPTER 10 RURAL DEVELOPMENT

40 Bord na Mona Amendment 10.1 Manager’s Response

To add the following text to section 10.4.6 Boglands “ Chapter 8 of the Draft County Development Plan addresses Energy and There still remains potential for various other uses Communications. This chapter supports the development of indigenous including large scale alternative and renewable renewable energy resources and the maximisation of electricity production in energy production in the form of wind farms due to the a manner that is in accordance with the principles of proper planning and lands wind regime and their relative isolation” 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

76 Amendment 10.4, In relation to Policy BG5 BG1 and RO4 cover biodiversity issues and bog land habitat protection. It is consideration should also be given to protection of proposed to amend policy BG 5 and reference slope stability. bog land habitat and related biodiversity and issues Manager’s Recommendation such as slope stability. Revise amendment 10.4 as follows: BG 5: To seek a Hydrological Report which will also incorporate a Flood Risk Assessment in accordance BG 5: To seek a Hydrological Report which will also incorporate a Flood with the Planning Guidelines "The Planning System Risk Assessment in accordance with the Planning Guidelines "The Planning and Flood Risk Management (2009)" for significant System and Flood Risk Management (2009)" for significant developments developments within boglands so as to ensure that within boglands so as to ensure that the impact of developments on ground the quality of ground or surface water is not impaired. water and surface water is assessed and mitigation measures identified. This assessment should address the issue of ground and slope stability.

77 CHAPTER 12 ARCHITECTURE AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE

Recommends changes to Policy PS 2: Agreed

“PS 2: To protect the curtilage of protected Manager’s Recommendation structures or proposed protected structures and to Revise amendment 12.4 as follows: prohibit inappropriate development within the curtilage or attendant grounds of a protected “PS 2: To protect the curtilage of protected structures or proposed protected structure which would cause loss of or damage to structures and to prohibit to refuse planning permission for inappropriate the special character of the protected structure development within the curtilage or attendant grounds of a protected structure and loss of or damage to, any structures of which would adversely impact on the special character of the protected heritage value within the curtilage of the protected structure including cause loss of or damage to the special character of the structure. Any proposed development within the protected structure and loss of or damage to, any structures of architectural curtilage and/or attendant grounds must heritage value merit within the curtilage of the protected structure. Any proposed demonstrate that it is part of an overall strategy for development within the curtilage and/or attendant grounds must demonstrate the future conservation of the entire complex” 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”. 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

78 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.”

Agreed

12.8.4 Archaeological Heritage – AH8 – It is Manager’s Recommendation pointed out that this wording is identical to that in Revise amendment 12.6 as follows: the Draft. It is submitted that the intention may be to substitute or for and. This would remove the AH 8: To encourage, where practicable, the provision of public access to sites possibility of it being argued that this policy would identified in the Record of Monuments and Places under the direct ownership or only apply to sites under the joint ownership of the control of the Council and and/or the State. Council and the State.

22 Clr. Pádraig Amendment 12.6 Manager’s Response McEvoy Consider amending Section 12.8.4 from; See response to submission 16 above.

AH 8: To encourage, where practicable, the Manager’s Recommendation provision of public access to sites identified in the See recommendation for submission 16 above. Record of Monuments and Places under the direct ownership, guardianship or control of the Council and the State.

79 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. Noted

AH 9: It is the policy of the Council to encourage Manager’s Recommendation the provision of signage to publicly accessible No change recorded monuments.

Amend text in Section 12.8.5, County Houses and Agreed Demesnes which states – Manager’s Recommendation “3. To discourage development that would lead to Revise amendment 12.8 as follows: loss of, or cause damage to, the character or the setting of parks, gardens, demesnes or special “3. To discourage development that would lead to loss of, or cause damage to, historic interest”. the character or the setting of parks, gardens, demesnes or special historic interest”. To encourage conservation, renewal, and improvement which And replace with: enhances the character and the setting of parks, gardens, and demesnes of “3. To encourage conservation, renewal, and historic interest within the county”. improvement which enhances the character and “4. To cooperate with owners in the protection, promotion and enhancement of the setting of parks, gardens, and demesnes of heritage gardens and parks in the County, to support public awareness, historic interest within the county”. enjoyment of and access to these sites and to seek the cooperation and In consequence of amending the text of Item 3, the assistance of other interested parties, including DoEHLG and state agencies, in text of Item 4 might be amended to read – this regard.

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

29 RPS Planning & Amendment 12.10 Manager’s Response Environment on Opposed to and seeking the removal of proposed Amendment 14.4 recommends that policy SR2 be inserted in the County behalf of amendment 12.10 Development Plan. SR2 reads as follows; Devondale Ltd 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)’. Amendment 12.10 (addition of following text to Objective HO4) Also, amendment 14.6 should be noted whereby it is recommended to amend objective LO6 of the Draft CDP as follows; ‘To protect the views at Castletown House ‘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 - views across the river and to the linked identified on Map 14.3’. demesnes of Donaghcumper and St. Wolstans’. 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.

29 RPS Planning & Amendment 12.13 Manager’s Response Environment on In principle, the walkway objective on the subject This development plan does not affect the zoning of the subject lands which are behalf of lands is welcomed however it is inconceivable how zoned as part of the Celbridge LAP. It is considered reasonable to include Devondale Ltd such an objective may be delivered with the a walkway along the River Liffey.

81 effective sterilization of the remainder of the Manager’s Recommendation subject lands. No change to walkway objective on Map 12.10

29 RPS Planning & Amendment 12.14 Manager’s Response Environment on Opposed to and seeking the removal of proposed At a Special Council Meeting on the 6th December the Manager recommended behalf of amendment 12.14 extension of ‘boundary of the that the lands which were subject to an appeal to An Bord Pleanala under Devondale Ltd area to be protected’ as identified on (amended) reference 08/439 (i.e relating to a residential development) be included within Map 12.10. the area to be protected

The Development Plan Guidelines state ‘a With regard to lands within Donaghcumper that are zoned ‘Retail/Commercial’ it development plan should ensure that enough land is not considered appropriate to include these lands within the ‘boundary of area will be available to meet anticipated development to be protected’ for the following reasons; requirements and will be developed in a sequential These lands are located in the vicinity of the existing bridge over the Liffey and and co-ordinated manner’. are directly across from the rear of Main Street. The ‘Development Plan In deciding on the contents of development plans, Guidelines for Planning Authorities’ (June 2007) state the following with regard the members must consider the proper planning to zoning; and sustainable development of the area ‘In order to maximise the utility of existing and future infrastructure provision concerned. and promote the achievement of sustainability, a logical sequential approach No valid planning rationale for inclusion of the should be taken to the zoning of land for development: subject lands within the ‘area to be protected’ (i) Zoning should extend outwards from the centre of an urban area, The strategic location of the subject lands with undeveloped lands closest to the core and public transport represent a significant development opportunity for routes being given preference (i.e. ‘leapfrogging’ to more remote Celbridge and will support the role of Celbridge as areas should be avoided); both a Moderate Growth Town and as a Level 3 (ii) A strong emphasis should be placed on encouraging infill Town Centre. opportunities and better use of under-utilised lands; and The proposed amendment is contrary to the CDP’s (i) Areas to be zoned should be contiguous to existing zoned Core Strategy as it would impinge on the future

82 development of these lands which, if developed development lands. would provide a more compact urban form. As Only in exceptional circumstances should the above principles be contravened, such the proposals are directly contravening the for example, where a barrier to development is involved such as a lake close to following objectives of the CDP: a town.’ CS 2 – To direct appropriate levels of growth into The Draft Kildare Retail Strategy recognises the limitations of providing for retail the designated growth centres and moderate development in Celbridge and notes, that in order to enhance its retail offer and sustainable growth towns. importance then a number of issues need to be addressed, including the CS 4 – To deliver sustainable compact urban delivery of the Donaghcumper Town Centre Expansion Area. areas through a plan-led approach Having regard to the above, it is considered that the lands to the west of CS 9 – To promote and facilitate the development Donaghcumper, which were zoned ‘Retail/Commercial’ in the Celbridge LAP of sustainable communities through land use 2010 appropriately located to provide for development and should remain so planning, by providing for land uses capable of zoned as they form a logical extension/ expansion area for the town centre and, accommodating employment, community, leisure, if not promoted for development, would undermine Council policy to facilitate the recreational and cultural facilities having regard to delivery of town centre development/ uses. the quality of the environment including the natural Manager’s Recommendation environment, landscape character and the archaeological and architectural built heritage’. 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 The proposed amendments would be contrary to protected’. the zoning provisions of the Celbridge LAP 2010.

12.9 Architectural and Archaeological Objectives – See response to submission 29 Amendment to Map 12.10 supported Manager’s Recommendation

See recommendation for submission 29

83 61 DoEHLG Amendment 12.15 Manager’s Response

RPS deletions - It is recommended that structures 10 no. structures were proposed for removal from the RPS in the Amendments are not removed from the Record of Protected Report. These comprised 8 structures proposed by the Manager and the reason Structures unless they have lost the category or for their removal is as follows; categories of special interest which caused them 1. B06-02 Donaghmore Early Field System - reason: sub soil archaeology to be included in the first instance. 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

84 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

85 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

The proposed removal Protected Structure B35-14 As per 61 above.

86 Moat Lodge - Ardscull should be reversed. Manager’s Recommendation

As per 61 above

30 Sean Cleary Objection to the addition of RPS No. B36-24 Manager’s Response Timolin Corn and Saw Mill to the County RPS as This submission does not relate to an amendment and therefore cannot be it is based on incorrect NIAH survey information considered.

No change

135 Peadar OCeallaigh (i) Rejection of “Conservation Plan”- submission Manager’s Response to draft County Development Plan. This submission relates to a document submitted at the draft stage at which point (ii) What do we mean by conservation, it was considered. This submission does not relate to any proposed amendment. preservation and restoration and what legislation Manager’s Recommendation do you cite to undertake these tasks No change (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.

87 CHAPTER 13 NATURAL HERITAGE AND BIODIVERSITY

13.8.2 Natural Heritage Agreed

Consideration should be given to amending Policy Manager’s Recommendation NH4 to "require" compliance with Article 10 of the Revise amendment 13.4 as follows: Habitats Directive. 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 Not agreed. It is not always possible, or desirable from a conservation point of this we feel that perhaps you could delete where it view to provide access to all natural heritage. The policy allows for access to be is practicable. We accept and indeed support the provided where appropriate. caveat in the second part of the sentence. Manager’s Recommendation However as it stands, the policy is very weak. Alternatively, would you consider substituting No change provide for encourage and promote?

NH 6: To encourage and promote access to our natural heritage where it is practicable and does

88 not affect the integrity of protected sites or conflict with their conservation objectives.

Section : 13.8.9 Policy NH010 should be Agreed amended to remove the reference to "Regional Manager’s Recommendation Fisheries Board" to "Inland Fisheries Ireland". Revise amendment 13.10 as follows:

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 Amendments 13.1-13.10 Manager’s Response Department of The Department of Communications, Energy & Noted Communications, Natural Resources and Inland Fisheries Ireland Energy & Natural Manager’s Recommendation have no objections to amendments. Resources No change

89 CHAPTER 14 LANDSCAPE, RECREATION AND AMENITIES

29 RPS Planning & Amendment 14.1 Manager’s Response Environment on Seeking removal of reference to – the historic Agreed behalf of designed landscape of Castletown- Devondale Ltd It is not appropriate to include the area of Castletown- Donaghcumper- St. Donaghcumper- St. Wolstans in Landscape Wolstans as a Landscape Character Area. The purpose of the Landscape Character Areas. Character Assessment and the Landscape Character Areas identified through It is submitted that this proposed amendment the assessment process is to identify broad landscape character types within the would be contrary to the findings of the SEA county. which states that Celbridge including the subject In the identification/classification of landscape characters areas landscape lands at Donaghcumper are located within ‘the factors were assessed. These factors comprise physical, human and aesthetic most robust, most populated’ area of the county. environmental aspects that combine, among others, geology, landform, Furthermore it is stated that the Lindsay landcover and landscape history including cultural factors (archaeology and Conservation analysis highlights a number of settlement patterns). These factors assisted in the identification of the inconsistencies contained in the Olley & O’Kane boundaries of the Landscape Character areas and provided distinctiveness to 2006 study including the following: such areas.

(i) Evidence of historical linkage between the Landscape Character Areas are distinguished throughout the landscape where demesnes of Donaghcumper, St. Wolstans and there is a visual distinctiveness and identity through continuation of similar Castletown is weak and there is no physical characteristics (such as slope, landuse and vegetation) i.e the landscape linkage in the form of bridges. appearance with each character area is similar and distinctive.

(ii) The historical mapping evidence does not Historic designed landscapes form a component of a broader landscape indicate any physical link across the River Liffey character area and not a landscape character area in their own right and their between the Demesnes. inclusion in this section of text is inappropriate.

(iii) The boundary between St. Wolstans and Manager’s Recommendation Donaghcumper was unaltered from 1756. Omit reference to the historic designed landscape of Castletown-

90 Development on the subject lands would not have Donaghcumper- St. Wolstans as a landscape character area 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.

Policy WV4 supported. Noted

WV 4: To prevent inappropriate development Manager’s Recommendation along canal and river banks and to preserve these No change areas in the interests of biodiversity, built and natural heritage and amenity by creating or maintaining buffer zones, where development should be avoided.

CR10 – While we support this we wonder could It is appropriate that the issue be investigated as it may not always be you make more definite by substituting provide for appropriate to erect signage for walking/cycling routes in the county. This policy investigate the possibility of providing? will be addressed as part of the implementation of the plan having regard to budgetary / staff constraints and proper planning considerations. CR 10: To investigate the possibility of providing appropriately designed quality signage for walking Manager’s Recommendation and cycling routes throughout the county. No change

91 16 Roger Garland Amendment 14.8 Manager’s Response

Policies CR 11 (public access to uplands, rivers Noted etc) and CR 12 (facilitate walking route between Manager’s Recommendation Ballymore Eustace ….Barrettstown) supported. No change

Rights of Way – We suggest that the title be Agreed amended to Public Rights of Way. Manager’s Recommendation

Revise amendment 14.9 as follows:

Change title of section 14.11.2 Public Rights of Way

Policy RW3 (identification of rights of way) Noted supported Manager’s Recommendation . No change

29 RPS Planning & Amendment 14.13 Manager’s Response Environment on The purpose of the Liffey Valley Strategy is to The proposed policy seeks to pursue the creation of developing a Liffey Valley behalf of create a management framework for the whole Regional Park together with Fingal and South Dublin County Councils. This Devondale Ltd Liffey Valley and is not to create a public park would include implementation of any recommendations contained within along the entire extent of the River Liffey. It is “Towards a Liffey Valley Park’ (2008) including a management framework if argued that the town centre expansion of the appropriate. subject lands is fully in accordance with the Manager’s Recommendation objectives of the Liffey Valley Strategy and in this

92 regard the wording of Policy LV2 should be No change 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.

14.11.7 Liffey Valley Park – While we support this It is considered that reference to within the lifetime of the plan is appropriate . we wonder would you consider adopting a two The Council will seek to implement the objective having regard to budgetary and year time limit? staff constraints.

No change

14.12 Recreation and Amenity Objectives 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) Indicates that RAO9 –should be included in 14.11.2 – Rights of Way? 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 It is an objective of the Council: contained in Section 14.12. RAO 9: To provide for the preservation of public Manager’s Recommendation rights of way which give access to mountains, lakeshores, riverbanks or other places of natural No change 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.

94 CHAPTER 15 URBAN DESIGN GUIDANCE

Sub Name Summary of Issues Raised Response & Recommendation No

22 Cllr Padraig McEvoy Amendment 15.4 Manager’s Response

(SuDS): Section 15.8.9 should be further It is considered that this is a matter for Development Management inthe amended to indicate that suitable maintenance consideration of a planning application. standards and responsibilities should be agreed Manager’s Recommendation with the planning authorities. No change

60 GVA Planning on Amendment 15.2 Manager’s Response behalf of Tesco ‘External wall finishes may include timber Agreed with modifications Ireland Ltd cladding, render, dry dash and brick. Timber Manager’s Recommendation cladding may be used in exceptional cases where demonstrated to be a preferable Amend 7th bullet point of Section 15.7.12 (Building Language and Finishes) to exterior treatment’. read as follows;

It is indicated that the restriction on the use of ‘External wall finishes may include render, dry dash and brick. Timber cladding timber cladding would inhibit the provision of will be considered in exceptional circumstances where it is proven to be in the environmentally sustainable stores and energy interest of environmental sustainability and as part of a design concept’. 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

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

96 CHAPTER 17 SETTLEMENTS AND VILLAGE PLANS

62 (iii) CIF Amendment 17.2 Manager’s Response

Request that policy VRS 3, which sets out a Section 4.6 of the RPG’s defines the key elements of the settlement strategy for local demand requirement for villages and rural the GDA by defining the role of each of the settlement types. The RPG’s state that settlements should be removed where it relates villages with a population of up to 1,000 ‘need levels of growth to be managed so to any development or scheme of housing. that they cater for local need and do not expand rapidly, putting pressure on Local Demand is defined as a requirement for in services and the environment and creating the potential for higher levels of excess of 50% of the overall development to commuting.’ (p.94). Policy VRS3 is therefore included to reflect the need to cater for persons who have resided for a period manage the type of growth in the county’s villages and rural settlements reflects of 5 years within a 10km radius of the site. the policies of the RPGs. It is considered that the policy is clearly set out and States that such a policy is unnecessary in the avoids any ambiguity. current housing market and will only act as a Manager’s Recommendation deterrent to the future investment in and vitality of the rural settlements throughout Kildare. No change 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”

97 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 Manager's Response

Notes that a number of the settlement plans / Amendments 17.7 (Allenwood) , 17.32 (Kilmeague) and 17.34 (Moone) were village plans, as described, appear to have proposed as a result of grants of permission on these sites for residential sufficient existing zoned and largely developments. Amendment 17.18 (Ballymore Eustace) proposes the rezoning of undeveloped land available. In the context of lands identified for Community and Educational uses in the Draft Village Plan to ensuring sustainable development and the ‘New Residential’. This alteration will allow for a more innovative layout ability to provide adequate and appropriate incorporating residential and community uses as the new residential land use critical service infrastructure, justification should zoning stipulates that 0.9ha of the site should be for community facilities. be given for the further zoning of residential In relation to the other lands in villages and settlements it is considered that the lands. amount of available development land provided for in the Villages and Settlements Proposed development should be undertaken in is in line with the Kildare County Settlement Strategy outlined in Chapter 3. The a phased basis and subject to the ability to Settlement Strategy provides for 25% growth in the villages and 20% growth in the provide adequate and appropriate critical Settlements to cater primarily for local demands, in addition growth in a village / service infrastructure in advance of permission settlement will be restricted where necessary physical and social infrastructure being granted. 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

22 Cllr Padraig Amendments 17.5, 17.8. 17.13, 17.20, 17.22, Manager’s Response McEvoy 17.23, 17.26, 17.26, 17.28, 17.29, 17.31, 17.33, Agreed with modifications 17.35, 17.37, 17.38,

That in the Development Objectives for the It is considered appropriate to amend the wording of the objectives as follows: Village Plans, where there is a FL 1 To ensure that all proposed developments are carried out in accordance with requirement for planning proposals to “have have regard to the requirements of Chapter 7 of the County Development regard to” Chapter 7 of the CDP Plan and Planning System and Flood Risk Management - Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009). 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.

14 Sean O’ Flaherty Amendment 17.8 Manager’s Response

Crookstown Mill has never flooded and The SFRA informs strategic land-use decisions being made as part of the County floodmaps.ie show no record of flooding at this Development Plan. The assessment carried out as part of the SFRA for Ballitore location. It is submitted that Crooksttown Mill concluded that the area in question may be at risk of flooding but that the extent of should be excluded from the pink boundary this flooding would not be significant relative to the overall area and therefore shown in Map Ref 17.3 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 is at risk of flooding and if so, the precise extent of the flood risk zone. If, the area

99 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 Amendment 17.10 Manager’s Response on behalf of Supports zoning of land from agricultural to Noted Brendan Tallon enterprise and employment in Ballitore. Manager’s Recommendation

No change

1 Dr. Eric Firth, Amendment 17.13 Manager’s Response Mathew & (Section 17.5.3.11 Development The flooding referred to in the submission is the result of surface water run-off from Bernadette Objectives/Flooding Objectives/paragraph FL2); higher ground to the north of Ballymore Eustace, combined with inadequacies in Edgeworth and drainage channels and culverts, and leads to localised surcharging and flooding at Kathleen the locations referred to in the submission. The nature of this flooding does not Edgeworth It is indicated that it is a matter of record that affect the strategic land-use proposed for these areas. Being outside the Bishophill Road, Truce Road, and Scoil Mhuire floodplain of the River Liffey, it does not allow for the establishment of the flood are prone to flooding – particularly due to water zones which would be the objective of a site specific FRA. run-off from Bishophill. Please extend the lands identified by the dashed pink lines in Map 17.4A However, development of lands in this area will be required to comply with the to include lands within all the northern-most Objectives and Policies in the County Development Plan and those contained in limits of the 2009 Village Plan Boundary. 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 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

100 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 Amendment 17.13 Manager’s Response Mr. A. Manning That the lands identified in submission no 259 The lands identified in the submission do not relate to a specific amendment and on the Draft Plan is retained zoned as low therefore cannot be considered at this stage in the plan making process. 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 Manager’s Report is contrary to the Planning and Development Act 2000 as

101 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 The SFRA informs strategic land-use decisions being made as part of the County Flood Risk Assessment for the county (not an Development Plan. The assessment carried out as part of the SFRA for the lands amendment) finds that there is no entry for BME zoned C1, A1 and E1 concluded that part of the overall area comprising these on floodmaps.ie and that the local authority has lands may be at risk of flooding but that the extent of this flooding would not be identified no flooding issues in the village. The significant relative to the overall area and therefore would not affect the land-use following items regard flooding in BME, strategy. Ballymore Eustace Trout and Salmon Anglers Association entry recorded photographic evidence of floding along the river walk and at The designation to which the submission refers does not deem the area to be at Scoil Mhuire on the 28th, 29th November 2009, flood risk but instead requires that development within these lands be subject to a A video of flooding at BME, river walk washed site-specific FRA appropriate to the nature and scale of the development being away on the 13th January 2010, Kildare Flood proposed. The purpose of the site specific FRA, which would be in greater detail warning 29th November 2009 and ESB flood than the assessment carried out as part of the SFRA, is to determine the precise warnings. extent of the flood risk zone within the overall area and thus allow development of these lands to be designed accordingly.

No change

The submission refers to a 2.42 ha site in 32 Bartley O’ Regan Milltown outside the rural settlement boundary Manager’s Response set out in Map 17.28 of the Draft Plan. The As this submission does not relate to any proposed amendment it cannot be population of the village has been in decline considered as part of the plan making process. since the mid-1980’s but despite this the services in the village (primary school;, pubs, Manager’s Recommendation shop, church, etc) have been broadly maintained. The population of rural hinterland of No change 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 Expansion site are proposed for residential development, developers will be required to demonstrate how proposals will conform with

103 settlement policies on a case by case basis.”

104 CHAPTER 18 ENVIRONS PLANS

60 GVA Planning on Amendment 18.2 Manager’s Response behalf of Tesco The need to ensure the co-ordinated There has been No change to the matrix for the uses referenced in this submission Ireland Ltd development of the lands at the District Centre accordingly there is no amendment relating to same. at Monread Road was highlighted at draft stage. Manager’s Recommendation There is a need to permit in principle the No change following uses:

- shop convenience

- shop comparison

- petrol station

The authority recommends that when The site adjoins the existing zoned lands of the R445 Naas-Newbridge road at considering the zoning of any additional lands at Toughers Business Park, Lewistown/Clownings, Newbridge (Map 18.3). or beyond the edge of settlements, the The site is located approximately 5 km from the edge of both Naas and Newbridge development plan presents a clear supporting urban centres. Access to the site is located circa 2.5km from the entrance to the rationale in conjunction with the proposed existing Toughers Business Park and industrial and Warehousing zoned area. zoning objective setting out the specific economic rationale for such zoning and relating The Draft Naas Town Development Plan 2011-2017 (section 3.5) provides for it to the status of the town in the RPG Economic approximately 90 hectares of undeveloped lands zoned for employment use such Development Strategy and the Development as industrial, warehousing and commercial. This does not take into account lands Plan’s settlement hierarchy. zoned for town centre, retail, leisure and amenity uses or the “White Lands” at the

105 In this context the Authority highlights its Northwest Quadrant. Given the requirement for approximately 40 hectares of land concerns in respect of the zoning of industry to accommodate future employment needs in Naas, it is considered that there is and warehousing land to the west of Naas in currently sufficient land zoned for employment generation to meet job creation particular the additional zoning of lands as needs for the town up to 2017 and beyond. Furthermore significant lands are presented in Amendment 18.4. The rationale for zoned for employment purposes within Naas environs which remain undeveloped. additional zoned lands at this location does not Newbridge LAP 2003 also provides for a significant quantum of lands zoned for appear to be aligned with the RPG settlement or Industrial and warehousing uses, with c. 80 ha of the lands at Great Connell/Little economic policy or the requirements for the Connell zoned for this use being subject to a Masterplan that has been agreed with provision of sustainable transport as set out in the Planning Authority. the NTA Transport Strategy. Section 5.5.1 (availability of zoned lands) of the Draft CDP recognises the need to Therefore it is recommended that this zoning is zone employment lands at appropriate locations stating ‘It is particularly important omitted from the Development Plan. 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

106 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 Manager’s Response

This amendment should not proceed as the The response to Submission No 75 above applies in this instance zoning of additional employment land at this Manager’s Recommendation location remote from both Naas and Newbridge will serve to undermine the consolidation To revert the lands to zoned agricultural lands as per the draft development plan. strategy set out in the plan and exacerbate unsustainable car borne development.

42 Liam and Anna Amendment 18.4 Manager’s Response Morrin The submission supports the amendment The response to Submission No 75 above applies in this instance relating to the zoning of lands at Lewistown / Manager’s Recommendation Clownings. To revert the lands to zoned agricultural lands as per the draft development plan.

48 Origin Enterprises Amendment 18.5 Manager’s Response Plc & John Spain

107 Associates on Re: Lands at Newhall, Naas (22ha) It is an underlying theme of the Development Plan to continue to encourage behalf of Origin existing and create new employment opportunities throughout Kildare. The Request not to downzone lands (from Industry Enterprises Plc availability of zoned land for employment purposes is necessary so that & Warehousing to Agricultural as per Map 18.3) businesses and industrial parks can accommodate employment in a planned and at this location as proposed. strategic way. The client has not been in a position to develop Naas is identified as a Primary Economic Growth Town in the RPGGDA. The these lands but remains committed to their RPG’s state that both access and a strong agri-food sector presence contributes development. significantly to the locational advantages of the Naas Core Economic Area. It is submitted that the subject lands occupy a The NSS 2010-2022 supports the continued growth of Naas having regard to its suitable location for the promotion and delivery location within the GDA on public transport and road corridors and its capacity for of agri-business related development. growth. It is queried why the subject lands are proposed The subject lands are located contiguous to existing zoned development lands to to be dezoned while other sites in Naas and the west and north. These lands were zoned for ‘Industrial & Warehousing’ use in Environs which are sequentially less preferable the 2005 CDP. retain their NE1 land use zoning objective. The subject lands are located immediately adjacent Section (11) of the Planning and Development Act 2000-2010 states that ‘the to existing zoned lands and as such should be members shall be restricted to considering the proper planning and sustainable considered for zoning. 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 The zoning of the subject lands would be in planning rationale for the downzoning these lands at this stage. compliance with the Core Strategy of the CDP i.e. promoting economic development within Manager’s Recommendation defined economic clusters. There is no To revert the subject lands back to land use zoning ‘Industrial & Warehousing’ as reasoned justification for the downzoning of the per the draft development plan. 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;

108 ‘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.

10 NRA Amendment 18.5 Manager’s Response

Thee NRA notes amendment 18.5 to dezone The lands zoned in Naas Environs at the Maudlins and Newhall Interchanges lands at Newhall. The NRA does not consider reflect the employment and retail warehousing uses at these locations. There is that the proposed amendments on display also a quantum of Industrial lands available for development in line with the address the concerns expressed by the NRA in Council’s Economic Development Strategy (Section 5.4). Any proposed the initial submission on the Draft Plan and development will be required to comply with all the relevant transportation and therefore, the position of the Authority remains planning criteria as that set out in the earlier submission. In relation to Strategic Transport Assessments the following applies: The Initial concerns in summary: Transportation Department requires that all planning applications for significant

109 Proposed zonings adjacent to the Maudlins and developments are accompanied by Traffic Impact Assessments (TIA) that should Newhall Interchanges do not appear consistent be prepared by competent persons and in line with national guidance prepared by with policy NR 3 to identify areas at the NRA. On receipt of a TIA the Transportation Department reviews same to interchanges which may be required for future determine the veracity of the information contained within. upgrade and improvement in the medium to The council can examine the undertaking of Strategic Transport Assessments long term and when identified to restrict subject to funding for future Development Plans. development within these areas. A Strategic Transport Assessment is recommended to be Manager’s Recommendation undertaken for the area. No change

75 National Transport Amendment 18.10 Manager’s Response Authority The Authority would also question the zoning of The AE 1 Warehousing zoning located at Gallowshill Athy is not a proposed additional lands for Industry / Warehousing to amendment. These lands were previously zoned in the Kildare County the east of Athy (AE 1). The rationale for which Development Plan 2005 and were proposed to remain zoned in the Draft Kildare has not been clearly demonstrated particularly County Development Plan 2011-2017. Amendment 18.10 relates to text changes in the context of the current quantum of land to the Athy Environs section of the plan and zoning changes to the AE 2 New Low zoned for industrial / warehousing within the Density Residential and AE 3 Open Space and Amenity zonings at Bennetsbridge. Athy Council area. Therefore it is recommended Therefore the dezoning of the Gallowshill Warehousing lands cannot be that these lands be excluded from the considered at this stage. Development Plan. Manager’s Recommendation

No change

42 Liam and Anna This submission relates to land at Ladytown Manager’s Response Morrin which was subject to a previous submission no The lands identified in the submission do not relate to a specific amendment and 268 made on the Draft Plan requesting zoning therefore cannot be considered at this stage in the plan making process. for employment uses.

110 The Manager’s Report does not comply with the Manager’s Recommendation requirements of the Planning and Development No change 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.

111 CHAPTER 19 DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT STANDARDS

60 GVA Planning on Amendment 19.20 (Opening Hours) Manager’s Response behalf of Tesco An ‘across the board’ approach to opening Planning applications are assessed on a case by case basis having regard to the Ireland Ltd hours is inappropriate in certain circumstances stated objectives and policies of the Plan(s) in effect at the time. It is not where, by reason of the nature of the retail use considered necessary to amend Section 19.10.7 (identified under Amendment in question, variation in the opening hours 19.20) as proposed. would be required. The proposed amendment for policy R56 which currently reads as follows should It is also submitted that amendment 19.20 be also be noted; amended to read as follows: ‘Applicants for retail planning consents will be required to confirm their proposed ‘The hours of operation of shops and the use of hours of opening and 24 hour opening of shops will only be permitted where it can wall/window/door hatches for shop sales shall be clearly demonstrated that there will be no negative impact on the residential be assessed on a case by case basis, having amenity of neighbouring areas. Proposed hours of opening for various uses regard to the following…’ may also be prescribed in LAPs.

No change

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

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

112 structures and their settings, including curtilage, curtilage, attendant grounds and demesne as applicable shall have regard to the attendant grounds and demesne as applicable following: shall have regard to the following: Development shall not normally be permitted where it would interfere with the Development shall not normally be permitted setting of protected structures. The impact of any development on the buildings where it would interfere with the setting of and surrounding environment, in terms of design, scale, height, plot, width, roof protected structures. The impact of any treatment, materials, landscaping, mix and intensity of use proposed.” development on the buildings and surrounding And replace with: environment, in terms of design, scale, height, plot, width, roof treatment, materials, “Proposed development which might have an adverse impact on the setting of a landscaping, mix and intensity of use protected structure, including its curtilage and attendant grounds, will not be proposed.” encouraged.

And replace with: Proposed development within view of protected structures, including their curtilage, demesne lands and attendant grounds shall have regard to the following: “Proposed development which might have an adverse impact on the setting of a protected  Development shall not be permitted where it adversely affects or would structure, including its cartilage and attendant adversely interfere with the setting of protected structures; grounds, will not be encouraged.  Outward and inward views from the protected structure are to be Proposed development within view of protected protected; structures, including their curtilage, demesne lands and attendant grounds shall have regard  Where relevant, outward and inward views from key points within the to the following: curtilage, demesne lands and attendant grounds are to be protected;

 Development shall not be permitted  Development proposals must demonstrate that they are part of an overall where it adversely affects or would strategy for the conservation of the entire built heritage complex and adversely interfere with the setting of contribute positively to that aim; and protected structures; The likely impact of any proposed development on the protected structure and its  Outward and inward views from the setting, including its curtilage and attendant grounds, in terms of design, scale, protected structure are to be protected; massing, height, plot, width, roof treatment, materials, landscaping, mix and intensity of use proposed should be indicated in any planning proposal.”

113  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 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

114 MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS NOT RELATING TO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS IN ANY CHAPTER

50 Graham Kennedy, Re lands at Woodstock South, Athy Manager’s Response

Hampton Request to add a H3 Zoning Objective for these This submission relates to land within the functional area of Athy Town Council and Properties lands as follows; cannot be considered as part of the County Development Plan review process. The Athy Draft Plan will be on display in April 2011. ‘H3: This zone relates to the Athy Business Campus in Woodstock South. In order to Manager’s Recommendation consolidate the employment base in the town No change 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’.

51 Graham Kennedy, Re lands at Boheranouca Cross, Athy Manager’s Response

Hampton This submission relates to land within the functional area of Athy Town Council and Properties cannot be considered as part of the County Development Plan review process. Request that objective AE4 be applied to these The Athy Draft Plan will be on display in April 2011. lands as follows; Manager’s Recommendation ‘AE4 (Low to Medium Residential Density). This zoning provides for low density residential No change development. Low density (15-20 dwellings per hectare) is appropriate at urban-rural transitions

115 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 Manager’s Response it is unclear which proposed amendment(s) this As it is unclear which proposed amendment(s) this submission relates to, it cannot submission relates to. As such this submission be considered as part of the plan making process. cannot be considered at this time. Manager’s Recommendation

No change

67 Claire Dawson Objects to the proposed amendments however Manager’s Response it is unclear which proposed amendment(s) this As it is unclear which proposed amendment(s) this submission relates to, it cannot submission relates to. As such this submission be considered as part of the plan making process. cannot be considered at this time. Manager’s Recommendation

No change

70 Ruairi Dawson Objects to the proposed amendments however Manager’s Response it is unclear which proposed amendment(s) this As it is unclear which proposed amendment(s) this submission relates to, it cannot submission relates to. As such this submission be considered as part of the plan making process. cannot be considered at this time. Manager’s Recommendation

No change

72 P.J. Wyer Objects to the proposed amendments however Manager’s Response it is unclear which proposed amendment(s) this

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

No change

74 Lucie Dawson Objects to the proposed amendments however Manager’s Response it is unclear which proposed amendment(s) this As it is unclear which proposed amendment(s) this submission relates to, it cannot submission relates to. As such this submission be considered as part of the plan making process. cannot be considered at this time. Manager’s Recommendation

No change

117 9.0 Summary of Manager’s Recommendations

Topic Proposed Manager’s Recommendation 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:

3.4.6 Sequential Approach

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.

118 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):

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.

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.’

119 5.11 Revise amendment 5.11 as follows;

It is the policy of the Council:

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

6.6 Revise amendment 6.6 as follows;

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

120 6.15 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.

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

 protection of the bloodstock industry

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.

121 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, To include the following text at the end of section 7.6.4.1. 7.18,7.19 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:

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:

(i) Proximity to residential areas

122 (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.

123 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;

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

124 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 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”.

125 “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- 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

126 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, It is considered appropriate to amend the wording of the objectives as follows: 17.20, 17.22, FL 1 To ensure that all proposed developments are carried out in accordance with have 17.23, 17.26, regard to the requirements of Chapter 7 of the County Development Plan and 17.26, 17.28, Planning System and Flood Risk Management - Guidelines for Planning Authorities 17.29, 17.31, (2009). 17.33, 17.35, 17.37, 17.38,

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

127 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:

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

128  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 is to be indicated in any planning proposal.”