Reconvened Special in Committee Meeting, Chamber, Civic Offices, Dunshaughlin 14.15 Tuesday 1 April 2014
Cathaoirleach Cllr. Brian Fitzgerald presided.
Other Members Present:
Cllrs. Joe Bonner, Nick Killian, Noel Leonard, Niamh McGowan, Maria Murphy, Gerry O’Connor
Officials Present:
Kevin Stewart, DoS Planning; Pat Gallagher, Senior Planner; Bernard Greene, Senior Executive Planner; Michael Griffin, Senior Executive Officer; Deirdre Fallon, Executive Planner; Aoife Kennedy, Assistant Planner; Padraig O’Shea, Assistant Planner; Adrian Hobbs, Area Engineer; Paul Monahan, Area Administrator
1.0To consider the Manager’s Report on Proposed Variation No. 2 of the CountyDevelopment Plan 2013 – 2019 as it relates to the Dunshaughlin Electoral Area
Cllr. Fitzgerald requested a copy of the minutes of the Special Meeting held on Tuesday 25 March 2014. These were circulated and agreed.
The members requested an update from the Director of Services on legal submissions received by Meath Co Council in respect of lands at Dunboyne and Kilcock respectively.
Kevin Stewart confirmed that Meath Co Council is in receipt of a letter from Arthur Cox Solicitors in respect of lands at Dunboyne. He advised that the Council had consulted with its own legal advisors in that regard. He confirmed that the letter from Arthur Cox Solicitors had been received outside the statutory submission period and advised members that they may not have regard to it’s contents in exercising their reserved function in respect of Variation 2 to the Meath County Development plan. He advised the members that the manager had formally replied to Arthur Cox solicitors. A copy of advices from Regan McEntee Solicitors was circulated.
Members indicated that they wished to consider all relevant factors and were concerned that they may be held personally liable in the event that they disregard further submissions from the landowners’ representatives in this case.
Kevin Stewart reiterated his earlier advices and confirmed that the members in exercising their reserved function are best protected from personal liability by:
- Adhering to the requirements of the Planning and Development Acts
- Following the procedures and processes laid down in the Planning and Development Acts
- Having regard to submissions received within the statutory process
- Considering the report of the manager
- Having regard to the guidelines in force at the time of their decision
He requested that members in the exercise of their reserved functions weigh the merits of having regard to representations from 3rd parties acting on behalf of specific vested interests against the advices and processes enshrined in the statutory planning framework. He advised that the Council would rely on advices from its Senior Counsel and its law agent and would not be procuring a second legal opinion.
Cllr. Killian inquired whether or not a site specific flood risk assessment had been undertaken in respect of Mr. Boylan’s lands.
Bernard Greene indicated that no site specific flood risk assessment had been carried out for these lands but stressed that site specific flood risk assessments are not required at plan making stage. The level of assessment which has been undertaken is compliant with that required pursuant to the Guidelines. The lands have been identified in an area identified at risk of flooding and located within an area benefiting from defences which verifies this categorisation. The works which have been undertaken require maintenance in perpetuity and there are already issues of silting occurring downstream at an eye of a bridge which was noted by the Area Engineer. A plan making Justification Test for said lands was undertaken as part of the proposed variation and the outcome of this test was negative. It was not therefore possible to retain a vulnerable land use such as residential on said lands in accordance with the Flood Guidelines. It is only after successfully passing the plan making Justification Test could such a Site Specific Flood Risk Assessment be required as part of the next stage of assessment.
Cllr. Leonard inquired about the basis for the flood mapping in Dunboyne.
Bernard Greene outlined from the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment the basis of the mapping which was undertaken and which was a combination of the Tolka Flood Study, Eastern CFRAM Flood Risk Review (PFRA), JBA site visit and their J Flow modelling. The Members were referred to the submission received from the OPW in which no objections were raised to the level of assessment which was undertaken and which was considered appropriate for plan making stage. They indicated in their submission where there were certain issues in relation to uncertainty but not in relation to Dunboyne.
Cllr. Murphy queried the content of FR POL 3 as it related to Dunboyne and whether this could allow for the residential land use zoning to be retained on the Boylan lands.
Bernard Greene indicated that the Council are being provided with draft mapping from the OPW in relation to the CFRAM on a settlement by settlement basis. However, this is for discussion purposes only in advance of a formal draft being published later this year with the Management Plan to follow in 2015. The consultants who prepared the SFRA which informed Variation No. 2 had not sight of this information. Their mapping is based on best available information as outlined in their report and is considered adequate for the purposes of this exercise. When published, the CFRAM will provide additional clarity to flood mapping and management measures and will inform the review of the Dunboyne Clonee Pace LAP which is due to be completed next year. It is understood that there will be an opportunity for individuals to become involved through a public consultation process. However, it should not be construed that this mapping will result in significant lands which are identified as being vulnerable to flooding being removed and in instances may result in the extent of flood risk areas being extended.
.
The members were also advised that the legal opinion accompanying a valid submission by McGarrell Reilly and Alcove Ireland Two Ltd had also been considered by the Council’s legal advisors. A copy of an advice note from Regan McEntee Solicitors together with confirmation of earlier advices from JBA Consultants were circulated (attached). The members were advised that they should have regard to the submission from the landowners and the manager’s report on same.
The members concluded that they would fully inform themselves of all relevant matters and would make a balanced decision in the exercise of their reserved function, noting the requirement to give reasons for not accepting the recommendations of the manager’s report on submissions.
It was noted that the purpose of the variation is to implement the core strategy in the CountyDevelopment plan and to make sufficient lands available to meet the population targets therein.
It was agreed that the members would consider the Council’s legal advices circulated at the meeting prior to consideration of the manager’s recommendations for Dunboyne and Kilcock. It was agreed to receive a presentation on the manager’s report for other settlements and the members considered the following recommendations:
Dunshaughlin
Submission No. 1005. (Michael McKenna Architectural Services on behalf of Ken Leonard) On the proposal of Cllr. McGowan seconded by Cllr. O’Connor, the members agreed with the Manager’s recommendation.
Submission No. 1086. (Castlethorn Construction) On the proposal of Cllr. Leonard seconded by Cllr. McGowan, the members agreed with the Manager’s recommendation.
Submission No. 1101. (Downey Planning on behalf of Aiden Murphy Receiver for John O’ Meara – In Receivership) On the proposal of Cllr. O’Connor seconded by Cllr. Murphy, the members agreed with the Manager’s recommendation.
Ratoath
Submission No. 1058. (Fewer Harrington & Partners on behalf of Rybo Partnership) On the proposal of Cllr. McGowan seconded by Cllr. Killian, the members agreed with the Manager’s recommendation.
Whilst accepting the recommendation of the Manager, Cllrs. accepted that whilst the basis for the lands being zoned for G1 is accepted historically, the site in question although now fenced off is an area in which anti social behaviour continues. It was accepted that the uses identified in the original planning application for this area have since been provided elsewhere. The Cllrs. indicated their intention to reconsider this land use zoning objective during the next review of the Ratoath Local Area Plan.
Submission No. 1069. (Cllr Nicholas Killian) On the proposal of Cllr. McGowan seconded by Cllr. Murphy, the members agreed with the Manager’s recommendation. Cllr. Killian accepted the response on 1 and 2 and abstained on 3.
Submission No. 1076. (Oliver Nolan Architectural Technologist on behalf of George Williams) On the proposal of Cllr. McGowan seconded by Cllr. Murphy, the members agreed with the Manager’s recommendation.
Submission No. 1094. (PD Lane Associates on behalf of Luc Hemeryck) On the proposal of Cllr. Killian seconded by Cllr. Leonard the members disagreed with the Manager’s recommendation.
Cllr. Killian outlined the history behind the residential site been zoned previously and the land swap which occurred from a zoning perspective to facilitate the national school (St. Pauls) being built. Cllr. McGowan considered that the response of the Executive to include this site in Phase II and beyond 2019 penalised a landowner who has assisted in provision of a school sited. The Cllrs. in not accepting the recommendation of the Manger requested that the site be identified in Phase I and that the site opposite and adjoining Fox Lodge Manor, which was considered marginal from a sequential approach from the village centre, be included in Phase II lands. The Cllrs. considered that the history of the community gain, which has resulted from the landowner, previously was a valid consideration in reaching their recommendation.
Kilbride
Submission No. 1089. (Brook McClure Planning and Development Consultants on behalf of Robert Rennicks) On the proposal of Cllr. Murphy seconded by Cllr. Leonard, the members agreed with the Manager’s recommendation.
Submission Nos. 1096 & 1102. (McPeake Auctioneers & Brook McClure Planning & Development Consultants on behalf of Denis O’ Driscoll) On the proposal of Cllr. McGowan seconded by Cllr. Murphy, the members agreed with the Manager’s recommendation.
Kilcock
Submission No. 1056. (Patrick Burke, Chairman of Grounds Committee on behalf of Blackhall Gaels GAA Club) On the proposal of Cllr. Murphy seconded by Cllr. Leonard, the members agreed with the Manager’s recommendation.
Ashbourne
Submission No. 1065. (Stephen Little & Associates on behalf of Granbrind Ltd) On the proposal of Cllr. Killian seconded by Cllr. McGowan, the members agreed with the Manager’s recommendation.
Submission No. 1068. (Future Analytics Consulting on behalf of Sean Quinn & David Rogers) On the proposal of Cllr. McGowan seconded by Cllr. Bonner, the members agreed with the Manager’s recommendation.
Whilst accepting the recommendation of the Manger, Cllrs stressed that they did not concur with the view expressed by the Manger that Race Lanewas suitable for further development and that the Roads Department has confirmed this previously. It was not considered appropriate that a positive indication be provided to the landowner in question regarding the future rezoning of such lands.
Submission No. 1084. (The Planning Partnership on behalf of Eracase Ltd) On the proposal of Cllr. Bonner seconded by Cllr. McGowan, the members agreed with the Manager’s recommendation.
Submission No. 1085. (The Planning Partnership on behalf of Kingscroft Developments Ltd) On the proposal of Cllr. McGowan seconded by Cllr. Bonner the members agreed with the Manager’s recommendation.
Submission No. 1088. (Wherity Chartered Surveyors Limited on behalf of Mr. Thomas Gannon) On the proposal of Cllr. Killian seconded by Cllr. Leonard, the members agreed with the Manager’s recommendation.
Whilst accepting the recommendation of the Manger, Cllrs. raised concerns that the subject landholding could be landlocked if access is not permitted off the N2 in the event that the lands beside the Rath roundabout were not developed. It was indicated that a Masterplan had been prepared for these lands, which included the provision of access to all lands. The Cllrs. stressed that the Planning Authority should ensure that access be provided to the lands the subject matter of the submission in the event of no development occurring on the lands adjacent to the hotel.
Submission No. 1100. (McGill Planning Ltd on behalf of Frank Nowlan – Receiver) On the proposal of Cllr. Murphy seconded by Cllr. Leonard the members agreed with the Manager’s recommendation.
The members agreed to adjourn the meeting and reconvene at 10.00 on Friday 4 April in Dunshaughlin Chamber.
.
There being no other business the meeting ended at 18.10
1
Minutes Dunshaughlin AreaSpecial Meeting 01 April 2014
Meath County Council, Dunshaughlin Civic Offices, Drumree Road, Dunshaughlin, CountyMeath