[a]            CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 

1. Minutes of Meeting of the Council held on 27^th October, 2015
2. Minutes of Budget Meeting held on the 9^th of November 2015

Proposed and seconded.

  

[b]           VOTES OF SYMPATHY

2. Votes of Sympathy (if any) to the relatives of:

• members or employees of the Council,
• dignitaries of Church or State, or
• members of old I.R.A. and Cumann na mBan.

 

[c]            STATUTORY BUSINESS

3.  Disposal of Property
Section 183 of the Local Government Act, 2001: 

(a).          Amendment to Disposal of property at Copperhill, Broomfield, Midleton, by the substitution of 26, 27, 29, 31, 43, 45, 46 Cherry Orchard to 26, 27, 29, 31, 43, 45, 46 Copperhill, Broomfield, Midleton, being the area of said properties.

(b)           Amendment to Disposal of 27A Elm Grove, Gort an Oir, Castlemartyr, Co. Cork. from Rafal Fifipowicz & Ildiko to Lukasz Tycho

(c).       Disposal of property No.’s 9, 10, 21 & 22 Carrig Rua, Ballinagree, Co. Cork.

 

Cobh Municipal District Meeting: 15^th October, 2015

(d).          Disposal of 57 Inishmore Park, Cobh, Co. Cork.

 

Ballincollig Municipal District Meeting: 19^th October, 2015

(e).          Disposal of property at Dunworley, Laurel Hill, Rathanaker, Monkstown, Co. Cork.

 

Blarney Macroom Municipal District Meeting: 23^rd October, 2015

(f).       Disposal of land at Knocknagown, Rylane, Co.Cork

 

Kanturk Mallow Municipal District Meetings: 1^st October & 6^th November, 2015

(g).          Disposal of Hawthorn, Eden Hill, Gortnagross, Mallow, Co. Cork

(h).          Disposal of property at 21 The Beeches, Upper Ballydaheen, Mallow, Co. Cork 

 

All approved.

 

4.  Section 37E(5) of the Planning & Development (Strategic Infrastructure ) Act, 2006:

Application by ESB Wind Development Limited to an Bord Pleanála for Construction of Grousemount Wind Farm, comprising of 38 no. Wind Turbines and all associated works in townlands in County Kerry and County Cork – submission of the Chief Executive’s Report and seeking the views of members on the proposed development.

Cllr A Moynihan (FF): The local community is concerned abou tthis development. Wants information on the community fund. The local community is especially concerned about the exempted part of the development. Very few locals are going to make submissions to the Board. The principle of wind is established on the site because there is already a planning permission in place for the site. The rural communities are getting more and more dissatisfied with proliferation of wind farms. We need to be turning to solar and other forms of renewable energy. A community fund should be part of the plan. The flood study that is to be done should be a 100 year flood study.

Cllr D’Alton (Ind): Not my area but wants to raise a point in relation to the CE’s report. The CE’s report concludes that the development complies with the policies and objectives of the CDP 2014 and would constitute proper planning and sustainable development. But the CE includes in his report three substantial areas where the Heritage Officer indicates insufficient information has been provided to make adequate assessment of potential impact on the environment. The CDP 2014 has a specific objective, even in areas where wind energy is encouraged, that such development must comply with the requirements of the Habitats, Birds and EIA Directives. So you cannot conclude that the development is in compliance with the CDP when its failure to provide adequate information contradicts the CDP.

Paul Murphy (Senior Planner): If a temporary bridge is installed (it may or may not be needed), a 100 year flood study will be part of it.

Interesting comment from Cllr D’Alton. The Bord is the competent authority in this application. It is not up to us to decide whether the EIS is adequate. The Board decides this.

Cllr D’Alton (Ind): It is not up to the Board to say whether or not the development complies with the CDP. That is the CE’s role. And it does not, but we contradict the CDP by saying that it does.

PM: We are not assessing the wind farm, just the grid connection.

John O’Neill (Director of Services, Planning): The reports of the CE will got to the Board. The minutes of the meeting here will also go to the Board. The recommendations outlined by Cllr Moynihan will go to the Board.

Cllr B Moynihan (FF): Supports the comments made by Cllr A Moynihan in respect of the wind farm and particularly with regard to the community fund.   A strong point should be made on this that a substantial amount of money be provided for the community in and around the wind farm.

Cllr A Moynihan proposes that the points we have raised here will go to the Board as part of the CE’s report. Cllr B Moynihan seconds that.

Cllr A Moynihan proposes a wording for the points he raised. Cllr K Murphy (FG) is not happy. Wants to hear the CE’s view on the proposed wording.

CE: We always record the minutes of the meeting here and this will go as an appendix to the CE’s report to the Board. So that wording, including the response given by PM, can be included in the minutes of the meeting. That extract will go to the Board.

Cllr Hegarty (FG): Cllr Moynihan has said we should possibly be looking at alternatives. Not so sure that we can approve this. Thinks we are sending out different signals.

Cllr G Murphy (FG): If it is not regarded as a resolution of the Council and if the Senior Planner’s response is included, we don’t have a problem. But if that is not the case, we may.

Cllr O’Grady (SF): Agrees with what Cllr Moynihan says. Thinks it should go as a resolution of Council because it will be stronger. Thinks we need a motion on the community fund also.

Cllr Moynihan will reword his concerns and distribute for approval before close of the meeting.

 

5.  Section 221 of the Local Government Act 2001:  Annual Report 2014

Adoption of the Annual Report for 2014.

(I slipped out for a minute.)

 

[d]           REPORTS & RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMITTEES 

6.  Corporate Policy Group:

• Approval of attendance by Council members at Conferences on the Conference List for November, 2015 approved by the Corporate Policy Group at their meeting on 3^rd November 2015.

• Approval to Funding of €22,500 p.a. for 3 years for Foroige.

CE: This was a difficult situation because programmes previously run by Foroige could have been discontinued without our funding. In future, if Foroige wants to engage they should present their proposals through the municipal districts. These are good programmes so for a once-off situation it will allow Foroige to continue their work into 2016.

 

7.  Housing SPC:

Proposed Amendment to Appendix of the “Application to Cork County Council for Social Housing Support” – “Areas of Preference” (Approved by Housing SPC 16th October 2015)

Cllr McGrath (FF): The SPC is proposing these changes as a tidying up exercise. Some of the areas on the list were misleading housing applicants because the Council didn’t have properties in these areas.

Cllr O’Laoghaire (SF): Happy to second this proposed amendment. Had a motion on it during the summer. Lehanaghmore and Togher were, for example, the same area but were listed separately. Now it gives a greater range of choices in terms of the areas offered. Thanks the SPC officials for working on this.

Cllr O’Flynn (FF): Interested to see Araglin listed. Never knew there were houses in Araglin. Why is it on the list?

List is agreed.

 

8.  Social & Community SPC:

• Cork County Council Social Inclusion Statement
• Amendment to Letter of Offer for Grants under the Municipal District Amenity / Community Fund Schemes

Proposed and seconded.

 

9.  Cobh Municipal District:

“Given the central importance of Little Island as a residential, industrial and employment hub could Cork County Council please furnish the members with details of their general traffic management plans, emergency plans, and efforts to alleviate daily congestion on the Island so that the area can continue maintain its competitiveness and continue to attract corporate investment.”

Response to Little Island motion

Cllr O’Sullivan (FF): Have great respect for Peter and the work he does but very disappointed with aspects of the response provided. In 2006, Part 8 was approved for improvement of 7 junctions. In 2009, Cork County Council prepared a traffic management study. In all this time, only one junction has been improved. There have been no further improvements on the other 6 junctions to date. Is asking the Council what the business community in Little Island is asking him. These businesses pay heavily in rates, etc. but see little in return. The Little Island Business Association estimates the annual contribution from Little Island businesses to be approximately €30 million per annum. A large retail complex recently opened and large office blocks too. All this is to the detriment of the local residential population. There are approximately 2,000 residents in Little Island who are often forgotten about. Many jobs have been created in little island and all the time the people are left with a defunct road structure. Is asking the Council to please engage with TII to find a resolution. Have been contacted by so many people. Posted an on-line video that has been viewed and shared 50,000 times. Nowhere in the report furnished today was there a proposal to addres an emergency in Little Island, particualrly in peak traffic times.

Is asking for a new entrance onto Little Island from the N25. Little Island needs a third entrance. Dsiputes some of the detail in the report. Referencing the railway lines and the bus stations is a non-runner. SECAD recently tried to get a bus to ferry employees from the train station to the industries and that bus failed. The upgrading of the Dunkettle Interchange is not going to solve anything. The problem is local traffic.

Cllr Cullinane (Ind): Supports in full. Was at the Little Island Business Association awards on Friday and has been at several openings in Little Island. There are 1,000 businesses in Little Island with 15,000 people working there apart from the residents themselves. As a huge rate base, we have to take note of these people and what they want. This needs to be prioritised as Little Island is such an important part of our commercial infrastructure going forward.

Cllr Barry (FG): This is an issue we have raised many times at municipal district level. Has been raised here before – the volume of rates and level of funding going into the County from Little Island is significant. Traffic chaos is an impediment to future investment in Little Island. Doesn’t see the Dunkettle Interchange making any real difference. The rail line does not work for Little Island. It is only fair to the businesses that we do something about improving the infrastructure within the island. Hopes the Counci will get onto the NRA. Knows the NRA is not great for getting back to us.

Cllr Keohane (Ind): There was a 6am pile up again this morning. The emergency services couldn’t get in. A courier whom he knows won’t go near the island before 10am or after 4pm. When there is a radio announcement on an accident coming off the island, the traffic diverts into Glanmire. Then it creates havoc in Glanmire. Supports Cllr O’Sullivan’s proposal.

Cllr Rasmussen (Lab): Emergency plans are not commented on at all in the report. Knows funding and land acquisition are issues. But emergency plans must be addressed. Supports the motion.

Cllr K McCarthy (Ind): Supports for all the reasons already stated and is long overdue.

Cllr Sheppard (FG): Supports. This issue has come before us at municipal district level. Has seen the videos shared by Cllr O’Sullivan on social media. Scary to watch. There was a traffic issue 10 years ago. We have given planning for all these businesses to develop. We have helped cause the traffic chaos. We have a responsibility to ease some of this traffic.

Cllr O’Grady (SF): Aware of workers travelling from as far away as Macroom and Ballyvourney to Little Island. Traffic in Little Island makes the journey within the island slower than the journey from Macroom to Cork. Fully supports the motion.

CE: One of the major solutions to this is the upgrade of the Dunkettle Interchange. This will help to solve many of the issues. This project will progress to tender stage. We would like to ensure that the various projects approved in 2006 would be treated as a priority by the NTA and we will continue to push this. Perhaps funding might get more easily accessed over the coming years. There has been very little funding available in the last 10 years. Yes, Little Island has been a success in terms of rates, etc. It is very clear that the success of many areas in Metropolitan Cork have brought success to the rest of the county. Reiterates that the development contribution rate block contributes to the rest of the county. There is an inter-agency emergency plan in place for Little Island. Has no issue with this being debated in Council but thinks it could be debated at municipal district level.

Cllr O’Sullivan (FF): Brought this before full Council because Little Island is a unique case given the amount of rates or contributions it gives to full county. Asks if he could have a figure for the rates coming from Little Island. Even a figure for the municipal district would do. The Dunkettle Interchange will take the traffic coming from Dublin. The traffic going to Little Island will access the traffic from the motorway. The interchange will not help much.

CE suggests that Peter O’Donoghue would attend a municipal district meeting.

CE: We don’t record specific rates collected from specific areas. If council wants to decide to reallocate the rates income to enhance Little Island, we will have to take services from something else. We have adopted our budget. We can put the rates information together but it will take time and will be almost irrelevant. Agrees Little Island needs special attention. We are always trying to press the buttons of the national funding agencies.

Cllr Cullinane: This issue already was at municipal district level. We were asked to bring it to full Council. Where do we go from here?

CE: Peter O’Donoghue can go to the municipal district if you want further information on junctions.

 

10.  Development Committee:

“The members of Cork County Council call on the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to introduce as a matter of urgency legislation which would allow the nine former Town Council Town Development Plans in Cork (Cobh, Clonakilty, Fermoy, Kinsale, Macroom, Mallow, Midleton, Skibbereen and Youghal) to be superseded by Local Area Plans and on such basis it is proposed to include the former Town Council administrative areas within the Local Area Plan review which is currently underway”

Proposed and seconded.

Cllr O’Keeffe asks for clarification on where this has come from. Reminded that it came from a meeting of the Development Committee.

Cllr Murphy (FG): How have other counties dealt with this anomaly?

CE: The manner in which the legislation is written and the timing of the passing of the legislation is such that there are only a number of local authorities nationally that are affected by this. It is simply a timing issue.

Cllr O’Grady (SF): Will all the Town Council areas be included as villages and key settlements or will there be a special area plan for each former Town Council area within the LAP?

CE: All towns will be treated equally.

 

[e]          REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF OFFICERS 

11.  Chief Executive’s Report on Submissions Received to the Proposed Amendment No. 2 to the Midleton E.A. Local Area Plan 2011 – Carrigtwohill and Water-Rock Framework Masterplans

Cllr Hegarty (FG): Biggest concern is will these masterplans come to fruition? Will we see meaningful action on the ground. These plans have been there since 2005. Within the Local Area Plan (LAP), it is stated that additional lands must be identified to allow expansion of our towns, especially those on public transportation corridors. If we do not see meaningful action on the ground wtihin the timeframe of the LAP, wants us to seriously look at our approach.

Cllr Barry (FG): Is in favour of the broad outline of bringing masterplans in, but has huge concerns. Has serious concerns that the N25 upgrade has been put on the backburner but we are still proposing to put 5,000 units in these two areas. The N25 is a parking lot at rush hour. Accepts that it is in the masterplan documents that we would see thse upgrades being done. But sees other areas in Carrigtwohill in which promised railway infrastructure was not delivered. Has concerns about flooding. Has raised Slatty Pond many times. We are now proposing to bring more water down to Slatty Pond without any remedial works being done. We are proposing to give planning and it is incumbent on us to ensure the infrastructure will be in place in time. If these masterplans do not take off, we need land for housing that will take off … zoning is very important.

Cllr N Collins (Ind): Fully supports because it will help provide social housing.

Cllr O’Keeffe (FF): One of the biggest issues here is the co-operation of service providers: the OPW, NRA, Irish Rail. We need to bring them along. There is a demand for housing in East Cork but the big point is have the government agencies come on board?

CE: Housing supply is one of the most critical issue facing Metropolitan Cork at the moment. No other authority is as well advanced outisde of Dublin in terms of its own executive proving the case that Cork needs to be dealt with. We are engaging with all of the national agencies. We are talking to the NTMA in relation to the strategic investment fund. We are making the case that Cork is just as challenged as Dublin is. The success of that was demonstrated when measures were announced by government recently – specifically mentioning the Metropolitan Cork region – to unlock development land. We are awaiting further development of that. But if we weren’t doing our work here, you would not have heard Cork being mentioned in terms of this investment fund. For the first time ever, Cork was acknowledged as having the same magnitude of an issue as Dublin. The 9 Masterplan areas are located in the 9 areas we think are the most important and the most capable of beig serviced. We will be challenged to find alternative sites that are more suitable. If they don’t come onto the market, we will have a particualr problemthat will have to be tackled during the LAP process. We have said the same to the CIF.   We have asked them to bring us other lands if they think they are more appropriate for development. The work we hve done to date is the work we need to continue to do. The private equity funding model has still not been resolved so this is not just an issue about infrastructural provision. We need to keep this matter high on our agenda during the LAP process. Shares the concerns expressed but would not be giving up the ghost now.

Cllr Buckley (SF): There has been an extensive engagement between all bodies. We welcome the report. People in the locality were nervous that these masterplans could be pie in the sky. Hopes that they will come to fruition sooner rather than later.

Cllr K McCarthy (Ind): Welcomes the report. If these come on stream, the upgrade of the N25 is essential. In the Fota Rock estate there is only a wire boundary fence preventing children from running onto the N25. Nothing is happening to put better safety measuers in place. If these masterplans are going ahead in the future, we must look at little things like this and get our priorities right.

Cllr Hegarty wants confirmation that his concerns about delivery of the masterplans would be recorded.

 

12.  REPORT UNDER SECTION 179 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000

Signalisation of junction of R665 Kildorrery Road, Church Street and George’s Street, Mitchelstown.

(6 FF in chamber, 10 FG in chamber)

 

13.  Quarterly Report of the Chief Executive on Corporate – Library, Fire & Building Control.

Proposed and seconded.

 

[f]            CORRESPONDENCE FROM GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

14.  Department of Education and Skills:
Letter dated 21^st October, 2015, in response to motion dated 14^th September, 2015, regarding Cork Educate Together Secondary School.

Noted.

 

15.  Department of Environment, Community and Local Government:
Letter dated 4^th November, 2015, in response to motion dated 12^th October, 2015, regarding additional funding for provision of sheltered housing to non- profit Housing Associations for the elderly. 

Cllr N Collins (Ind): Welcomes the letter. Appeals to this Council to make proposals to the Department of the Environment under CAS for delivery of sheltered housing to East Cork and beyond.

 

[g]           NOTICES OF MOTION

16.  Councillor Gerard Murphy:

“Considering the recent changes to the Valuation Amendment Act 2015 exempting Community Childcare facilities from paying commercial rates and considering the Minister recent reply to the topical issues on arrears, I am calling on the Council to write off these arrears as a gesture of good will acknowledging the tremendous work being done by these community voluntary organisations.”

Cllr Murphy (FG): This motion speaks for itself. There was an amendment act passed to the valution acts recently exempting community childcare from paying commercial rates. The Minister says the arrears question is an issue for each individual council. All these organisations are non-profit, all voluntary and there has been an assumption that because they were non-profit they were not liable for rates anyway. The new valuation amendment act has recognised that they shouldn’t ever have been included. Volunteers put tremendous work into establishing community childcare facilities, running them and teaching in them. We should remember that the costs have to be kept low to ensure people can afford the services they are providing.

Cllr Lombard (FG): This is a very important proposal. It will bring benefit to local communities. These are non-profit making and they deliver something that no-one else can deliver on the ground. Unfortunate that they were ever included. Agrees that we should exempt them or the parents or commmunities will have to pay.

Cllr Doyle (FF): Supports the proposal. These are community based organisations run by community people. The rates arrears have been built up on the balance sheets. Quite worrying for the organisations.

(Was pulled aside for a few minutes.)

Cllr McGrath (FF): Comends the government for making this change. They should never have been included. Proposes that we set up a national fund to reimburse the community childcare facilities who have already paid their rates.

CE: Can’t see how writing off the arrears would be showing goodwill to the 80 – 85% who have paid up every year. That would not be fair. Won’t be writing off those debts but will give those who are outstanding every facility possible to write off the debt over a number of years. The issue of equity comes into play here.

Cllr Murphy (FG): Understand the CE’s position but we cannot condone where years of outstanding rates would force a childcare centre to close or to downgrade its services. Welcomes that any childcare facility that has arrears will be dealt with sympathetically. Must not affect the service that these facilities provide to families. As a Council, we only have power to make a recommendation to the CE.

CE: Welcomes the comments from Cllr Muprhy but is clear that impact on service delivery needs to be dealt with by those who runs the services as well. I am not the only player in this. That is an important message also.

 

17.  Councillor Noel Collins:

“That this Council call on the Department of the Environment & Local Government, for the establishment of a certification scheme under which landlords would have to prove their compliance with basic quality and safety standards before a property be rented, rather than depending on inspections by local authorities.” 

Cllr Collins (Ind): More than 1 in 5 properties inspected last year failed to meet basic requirements. That was an improvement on the previous year but not by much. Some properties are new but others are old. Many are occupied by individuals in need of state rent supplement. They are also in need of protection from greedy landlords. New standards for rental accommdation in 2011 seem to have changed nothing. The small number of prosecutions taken by local authorities against landlords does not mirror the extent of the problem. The State pays more than €500 million per year in rent supplement to needy tenants. This is often paid on substandard accommodation.   Despite the ghost estates all over the country, many young famiiles continue to live in old, substandard accommodation.

Cllr Linehan Foley (Ind): Seconds. Private rents are flying up and some of the accommodation offered have appalling conditions.

Cllr O’Grady (SF): Up until now, local authorities sent out private inspectors to inspect properties. Presumes the motion means that before a property is rented out, the landlord would have to get a certificate. In Cork, 93% of properties inspected failed minimum standards. The problem is getting progressively worse.

Cllr McCarthy (FG): Agrees with a certification scheme. Would hope that it can be carried out through the local authority.   Doesn’t see the merit in having another agency set up to do this. So agrees in principle but need to proceed with caution.

Cllr G Murphy (FG): We need to be careful. This was discussed recently at an AILG meeting. Many of the councillors were unhappy with the roll out of HAP in their counties. Knows it is ok here and is improving slowly. Two issues arose in other counties which we have overcome: the inspection can take place in 5 – 6 months and the landlord does not have to produce a tax clearance certificate for 6 months. The more complicated we make the HAP system, the more we will slow it down.   Landlords will not want to join it. Many counties have much to learn before we roll it out. Asks members to hold off for a bit until HAP is working.

Cllr K Murphy (FG): Agrees with Cllr Murphy. The proposal is premature and would slow down or stall entirely the HAP process. At this stage, we need more people on the HAP scheme.

Cllr Forde (FG): Would like to support Cllr Collins. Thinks certification is important. But is also concerned about timing. We don’t want to make it harder for people to find properties to rent. Asks Cllr Collins to take these messages of support on board but thinks the timing may not be right.

Cllr T Collins (Ind): Supports the motion. Knows of a situation where a tenant moved into a property. Rent subsidy had been paid for a while but there was no electricity. The tenant had to move back out because the landlord did not connect the electricity. Properties should be inspected first before the tenant moves in. Make sure the landlord complies. In this case, money was paid to the landlord and he would not even connect electricity.

Cllr O’Laoghaire (SF): Supports the motion. Recognises the sentiments behind the concerns. In Cork the issue with HAP is that the rental caps are not high enough. No amount of good administration is going to overcome that. There is also an issue with a lack of supply. We can’t allow bad landlords to allow people live in substandard accommodation. Knows some people who didn’t want inspectors to call around even though they were living in substandard accommodation in case they might be evicted.

Cllr Linehan-Foley (Ind): Doesn’t agree with some of the speakers. Even with social housing, we have such a high standard before we pass a house to anyone. Doesn’t understand why we leave it for 6 – 8 months to check a house. Anyone who is paying rent deserves the right to be in a property that is fit to be lived in. There are good and bad landlords but why would you leave it 6 – 8 months to certify a house before you move into it? Anyone who is renting a house, that landlord is being paid for his property and if the property is not fit to be lived in, no-one should live in it.

 

Motion is agreed. Cllr Collins thanks members for their support. Houses should be inspected before tenancy is signed and sealed.

Cllr G Murphy (FG): Asks for clarification on certification.

CE: Reading of the motion is that it can only be implemented by the Department if it funds local authorities to do the inspection or establishes an independent agency to do so.

 

18.  Councillor Susan McCarthy:

“That this Council, in an effort to alleviate the serious lack of available local authority housing in the short-term, investigate the possibility of installing modular housing at a suitably identified site or sites, preferably in the areas of the county where the numbers on the waiting list are most concentrated.” 

Cllr McCarthy (FG): East Cork is the only municipal district outside of Dublin and Cork that makes it into the top 10 areas with highest demand for social housing. There is a big issue here. The representative from the CIF outlined that the national need for social housing would be approx 25,000. Last year there were under 800 completions in Cork County. Modular houses are permanent structures. They appreciate the same as their on-site built counterparts. They are considered a form of green building. They are faster to build. The units provided by Dublin City Council comply in full with the buidling regulations and all statutory requirements with respect to fire safety, etc. Some people have concerns about anti-social behaviour. But these problems already exist and done tastefully and to a high specification, these units may become attractive starter homes for people who are on the witing ist for >5 years.

Time is of the essence. Public procurement competition for modular housing is not subject to the EU timelines. It may not be the ideal solution but these buildings have the same lifecycle as permanent homes. They fulfil short term needs and deliver long term benefits. Irish companies are involved in the construction of moduar houses although currently they are being imported. Nobody is proposing an alternative to these. Short term needs require short term solutions. Just asks that we investigate the feasibility of this project.

Cllr Mullane (SF): Would welcome the CE’s views on this. But has some questions. If Cork County Council were to put up modular housing, what land would be used?  Would it be short term?  Would modular housing applicants be considered adequately housed? Considers that it should be short term.

Cllr O’Laoghaire (SF): Proceed with caution, although it should indeed be investigated. The homelessness crisis is that severe that all options msut be considered. The use of modular housing should be very specific. Short term accommodation only. Doesn’t think the people in modular housing should be considered to have their housing need met. A long term stay in modular housing could be very negative. Very poor living conditions. What were erected as temporary houses in Togher and the Glen ended up being permanent. This cannot be repeated. These should have a very specific purpose and should be limited to that purpose.

Cllr N Collins (Ind): Seconds the motion. Anything is better than nothing or behind a ditch or under a bridge. It is a very good proposal which could help to alleviate homelessness. Some farmers have been very kind in siting caravans on their lands with provision of portaloos to help those made homeless. The occupants are happy but it is only temporary until a permanent solution becomes available. Every little helps.

Cllr Hayes (SF): Supports the motion. Hears area of concern and shares them. Short term basis only. Should not be a replacement for building permanent houses. Have to be careful not to create ghettos going into the future. Doesn’t want it to be the Irish concept of trailer trash.

Cllr Forde (FG): Wanted to second the motion. First proposed modular housing here many months ago. Delighted to see it is gaining traction. It is a response to the dire need of people out there. A few months ago we spoke of landlords renting properties that are not fit to live in. This is another way of providing clean, warm homes. Modular housing doesn’t need lots of space so it can fit anywhere. Thinks we should go look and examine them ourselves and see are they good enough.

Cllr K Murphy (FG): Fully supports. Excellent proposal. Modular housing is high class which can be erected quickly. Unaware that we need to exercise any caution. This should be part of the overall housing strategy. Goes without saying that they should be short-term. It will be at least end 2017 before any house will be built in this local authority. We should be looking at every option.

Cllr Sheppard (FG): Supports. Has been helping a family of 7 who have been made homeless. They are currently living in temporary accommodation. Every night they go from place to place. Anywhere that has self-catering – Vienna Woods, etc. The Council is paying €708/week to house this family in emergency accommodation. We have to act on this.

Cllr O’Flynn (FF): Supports with qualifications.

CE: Thinks we wil meet our targets through a range of options using standard housing types. Thinks we will not need to deliver modular housing.   But will keep it on the agenda as an option if we do not deliver our targets. In terms of Council examining the potential of this type of houing, we must always be aware that we are looking at different models internationally against a background which may not be aligned to our own culture of housing.

Cllr K Murphy asks that we keep this on the agenda. CE agrees. We report regularly on how we are working towards our targets and if modular housing needs to be introudced, then we would keep members briefed on this also.

Cllr McGrath (FF): Suggests that we get a Departmental view lest time should be lost in seeking same.

Cllr Forde (FG): Has spoken to a Department official and the Department is in favour.

Cllr McGrath (FF): Asks that we would get that officially.

CE: There are areas in Dublin where modular housing is being considered. This is great if it helps the Dublin local authorities to meet their targets. The same applies to Cork.   The Department will support if we cannot meet our targets otherwise. But we have projects in place that are utilising our lands for the delivery of housing. We will not revisit those properties because we believe they will deliver our targets. But we will still keep an eye on modular housing. Will ask that it be raised at Divisional Committee level also.

Cllr Cullinane (Ind): Supports anything that helps the housing crisis. But supports the CE’s stance and holds the CE responsible for what he is saying. Delighted to hear there is a strategic plan and would prefer to see this going forward rather than going for yet another short term solution. Thinks CE is being responsible in looking for a long term solution that he is telling us is within our control.

Cllr McCarthy: Asks that we notify the department of our interest in this. Thanks all for support – bar 1!

 

Grousemount Wind Farm:

Proposed wording is circulated and agreed: Moynihan’s wording on Grousemount

Cllr G Murphy (FG) asks for executive’s opinion on the wording. CE says it does not conflict with Council’s opinion and so Cllr G Murphy agrees to the wording.

 

Suspension of standing orders by Cllr O’Keeffe:

Letter from Department re valuations: DoE on valuations

O’Keeffe (FF): A global vauation of utilities has been taken by the valuation office. It affects the value of assets of service providers. It will have a major impact on our income for the coming year. The CE has given us a report. The impact of this revaluation on our local authority is €1.8m of a loss for 2016. The government has come on board and has provided €1.5m. It still leaves us with a shortfall. But the big issue is that we will have to adjust for this ourselves in future. Local government always takes the brunt of government cuts. We carry the brunt of having to raise extra money to proivde our services. Thinks it is time the government had a reform of the whole system by which we value our rates. Thinks we as a local authority are playing a yes minister type game. Why do we have to exhaust our reserves for an issue the government should be more responsible for?

Cllr McGrath (FF): This is a serious matter. Wants clarification: Are we now short €0.5 million?

Cllr O’Laoghaire (SF): Thinks it is daft that this level of rates reduction is being offered to big big companies at the expense of LA budgets. These companies are not the high street butcher. Has the same questions as regards clarification. Is not clear that sufficient attention was given to this in the budget book. The budget book did not indicate that we would be dealing with a shortfall. This should have been made clearer during the budgetary process.

Cllr O’Flynn (FF): These are mega-rich companies. Why are we carrying the weight of this? Why are we not offering the same relief to our small companies? Proposes we write to the Minister for Finance and the Environment and ask him to pick up the shortfall in future years. This will be have a savage impact on our budget in future years. As ever, the small man, small taxpayer will suffer.

Cllr G Murphy (FG): Thinks we need to look at the whole valuation process generally. Valuations in small towns are totally outdated. We need a faster revaluation of these properties so small businesses can survive in these towns. Assumes the companies involved are controlled by regulators and any savings they make will be passed on to the consumer and the underlying objective of this is to make the economy more competitive generally. The government is particularly good at this. Accepts the concern that this Council is losing income.

Cllr O’Grady (SF): Agrees this wasn’t clear enough in the budget process. How was funding found now? There was no funding available before.

CE: We didn’t expect 20% reduction at all. We expected far less – around 5-6%. But by our budget meeting, we were pretty sure that the government would pick up the shortfall. If this government funding hadn’t come through, the executive would be back to Council in March of next year indicating that we were challenged in respect of meeting our budgetary targets.

Cllr O’Keeffe (FF): These rates are the basis of our income in local authorities. It is not acceptable for local authorities to carry this can.

Cllr McGrath (FF): The bottom line is that we are down €0.5 million because of this valuation exercise. That is disgraceful. But next year it will be well more significant because we will be €1.8 million down. Asks that we contact the Department and request that this adjustment be made on a phased basis.

 

The remainder of the meeting is deferred.

 

19. Councillor Joe Harris:

“That this Council register it extreme concern at the targeting of young people by the Gambling industry through aggressive marketing both on and off line. Furthermore that this Council communicate to the government that urgent action must be taken to protect people from the massive onslaught through all forms of media advertising that promote gambling.”

 

20. Councillor Des O’Grady:

 “That this Council calls for the establishment of a Housing Co-Ordination Task Force for the supply of Social and Private Housing in Cork. The task force to comprise of representatives from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, the Department of Finance, both Cork Local Authorities, Irish Water, the National Transport Authority, NAMA and Voluntary Housing Agencies as well as elected members from both City and County Councils.”

 

21. Councillor Seamus McGrath:

“To seek a report outlining the number of Litter Wardens employed in each Division of Cork County Council.  Given the ongoing and widespread problem of illegal dumping and littering, to request that additional Litter Wardens be appointed across Cork County. ”

 

 

22. Councillor Deirdre Forde:

“That this Local Authority welcomes increased Government investment of €5 million in policing to tackle burglaries and related crime and calls on the Garda Commissioner to ensure that Cork is prioritised in her spend.” 

 

23. Councillor Kevin O’Keeffe:

“That Cork County Council calls on the Government to ensure that Irish Water does not renege on the Service Level Agreement already in place for its workforce. This is to guarantee there will be no immediate redundancies of staff given the current deficiencies in the existing water and sewerage infrastructure.”

 

 

 

24. Councillor Marcia D’Alton

“That a planning application to An Bord Pleanala made under the Strategic Infrastructure Act can be made no more than twice for the same nature of project on the same site.”

 

[j]             VOTES OF CONGRATULATIONS  

25. VOTES OF CONGRATULATIONS (if any)

 

26. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

1.  Confirmation of Minutes
To consider the confirmation and signing of the Minutes of the Draft Budgetary Meeting and Ordinary Meeting held on 19^th October 2015

Cllr D’Alton: Had asked for details of spending in the municipal district during 2015 so that we could compare it to what is proposed in the draft budget for 2016.

MDO said he has sent details of this on.  Cllr D’Alton said she would check again.

Cllr McGrath: Knows that it is only a month since it was requested, but is there any chance the trees on the Lower Kilmoney Road could be cut soon? Were there any further applications to the paint scheme?

Cllr Forde: Could we have an update on Pinecroft?

Area Engineer: The trees will be done as soon as possible and hopes for early next week. Works will be going on in Pinecroft which will be the first step in alleviating some of the pressure in the storm water system. There is a blockage close to the outfall. Will be starting work there early next week. Once the blockage is cleared we will have further scope to do more investigation in the surface water line. Weather is against us in the grasscutting. The fence will be dealt with as part of the storm water works. The graffiti will be dealt with this week or next week.

MDO: One or two people did make contact with regard to the paint scheme. Doesn’t know if there were any submissions.

Minutes were proposed and seconded.

 

2.  Consideration of Reports and Recommendations:

• Local Area Plan Review Briefing on the Ballincollig/Carrigaline Municipal District Preliminary Consultation Document

Padraig Moore (Planning Policy Unit):

• Planning policy unit is working on consultation documents. They are not finalised yet. They will be ready to go to preliminary public consultation on 14^th
• We will need to adjust growth targets for Ballinora and Waterfall because there is not adequate water infrastructure for what is planned.

Went through presentation: BCMD LAP Briefing

Cllr Forde: Thanks officials. Sending this it out for public consultation between December and January is somewhat pointless. All the areas have their own particular issues. Current proposals for upgrade of N28 need to be taken into account. The planning policy unit should see what the outcome of this public consultation is. These proposed changes will affect over 20,000 people on a daily basis.

Town centre vacancy in Douglas is a big problem. We need a strategic plan for it. There is no one person who is charged with pushing the agenda to fill vacancies in urban areas. This is vital. These reviews of LAPs are too far apart to have a meaningful impact on these issues at local level. Suggests MDO should have a role here in this. Perhaps the economic development unit could be involved. Call these urban areas strategic development zones and give them priority.

There is no reference to dereliction in relation to house building and the supply of houses. This has to find its way into LAP discussions on housing requirements.

South City Environs – stop referring to Douglas as this. Douglas gets lost if you use this term. There is then no focus on Douglas.

Cllr McGrath (FF): Thanks officials. This outline strategy appears to be far more detailed than it was the last time the LAPs were being drafted. Knows it is a non-statutory phase of consultation but welcomes this detail.

Carrigaline is a town divided between two municipal districts. It is a crazy sitaution but the approach to including the entire town in the LAPs for both Ballincollig-Carrigaline and Bandon-Kinsale is the only sensible one.

Passage West – zoning of several areas. This should be looked at. We need to carefully consider the southern area that is proposed for development. Welcomes proposals for urban design and public realm enhancement.

Shares concerns about the N28. Never saw a public consultation like it.

The desigation of Douglas should indeed be clear. Where does Ringaskiddy fit in? It is not listed as a village. Presumes Monkstown is coming in under Passage.

Cllr Collins: These preliminary documents are more focused and detailed than they were the last time. Surprised to see consideration being given to identifying lands on what is at present a green belt.

The town centre strategy for the village of Carrigaline: we have attempted this in the past. Lands to the west are on a flood plain. This has come against us in the past. So we must look carefully at the flood studies.

Cllr D’Alton: There is much to contribute for each settlement and will make these comments in a submission. But would like the LAP review to take cognisance of several overarching points.

Wants there to be a focus on dereliction throughout the LAPs. There is dereliction in all the urban centres. Needs to be coupled with infill development.

Wants there to be a focus on green modes of transport between all urban centres but in particular between Carrigaline and Ringaskiddy. Ironic that the briefing document mentions the need for more sustainable transport between Carrigaline and Ringaskiddy several times but when one asks Bus Eireann for a bus link between the two towns, we are told there is no demand.

Traffic congestion is massive in this municipal district. Wants there to be a focus in the LAP on how this congestion might be best managed and relieved. Agree with the former comments on the N28.

Wants the green belt to be regarded as sacrosanct. This is a very built up municipal district with massive population. The green belt is the only place where people can breathe.

Agrees with Cllr Forde about vacancy in Douglas but this is relevant to many of the urban centres. Wants LAP to have an over-arching strategy on vacancy which can then be implemented in each of the urban centres.

Wants clear aims for the Tramore Valley Park. We have a regional park in Ballincollig which serves an immediate population of 20,000 people. But between Douglas, Carrigaline, Togher, etc. we have a population of well more than that in the immediate vicinity of the Tramore Valley Park. It needs to be another regional park for the south side of this municipal district.

Finally, appreciates the LAP is a plan and appreciates that a lot of work goes into its preparation. But it needs to move from plan to reality. Reads some passages relating to Passage West from the 2011 LAP. All the same points we are talking about now are in the 2011 LAP but haven’t been implemented. Not a criticism but we need to make more of an effort in this LAP towards implementation.

Padraig Moore:  There may be a requirement for additional residential land in Carrigaline. We’re just putting it out there. We’ve done no analysis yet. There may not be any such requirement.

Cllr Collins: There was a farm sold last year which had been idle for the last few years. Was bought by a builder. Could provide 2,500 houses if it were developed. We already have the area at Shannonpark designated for development. My understanding was that Shannonpark would be sufficient. The idea of providing additional lands would put unbearable pressure on existing inadequate infrastructure. You will no doubt get submissions from owners of this land.

PM:  The flooding situation hasn’t changed. The town centre of Carrigaline is badly affected by flooding. We’ll see what the new flood data says. There are still lands and opportunity sites outside the area at risk of flooding.

Agrees dereliction is an important consideration. Agrees it is in every town centre.

It is a policy to consider green modes of travel everywhere. This is a national policy but trying to implement it across the board is more difficult.

Agrees that traffic congestion is a signficant issue. We’ll have to see what we can do. The LAP will be sent for consultation to the statutory bodies and hopefully they will have something to say about this.

Notes comments on the green belt. Will be getting submissions from all sides on this.

Agrees about Tramore Valley Park. Most of it is in the City! Acknowleges that the Vernon Mount side is in the county. Accessing Council lands of the park is an issue that could be examined.

Notes the request to move away from flowery language of the former plans.

Cllr D’Alton: Not the language that is the problem. It is the fact that the aims are all there but they never go past being a plan. If we could somehow put more emphasis on ways by which these aims could be implemented. We elected reps will help in whatever way we can.

Cllr Canty: There is a castle on the south side of Ballincollig town. It was previously agreed that 8 hectares around it would be sacrosanct. This was a commitment. Knows a lot of developers have been looking at it. Please retain these 8 hectares. They are sacrosanct to Ballincollig. In the town centre, knows the two derelict sites PM is speaking about. Both sites are ripe for development.

Chair: Employment/business/industry in Ballincollig. Please identify lands in Ovens to which you refer. Traffic and transport is also a concern. Agrees with Cllr D’Altojn about plans not always becomign a reality. There was a planned greenway through Ballincollig at one point. It hasn’t succeeded. We need to marry the old objectives with the new proposed here. Believes the NTA will be carrying out a survey on traffic/transport in Ballincollig. This could be incorporated into the new LAP and in this way, the old could be married with the new.

There is talk locally about a community centre. Educational facilities are inadequate. Colaiste Cholm is bursting at the seams. It is the second largest secondary school in the country.

PM:  The castle is within the X01 site and this will be subject to a framework masterplan which will feed into the LAP. Comments about needing to protect the castle will be incorporated into this.

Lands in Ovens will be identified on a map in the document.

The impact of traffic and transportation will be a key component of assessment of the X0 site. Consultants are being appointed to look at this.

Understands that a community hall is a key consideration. Will be looking forward to submissions on that. Similarly education facilities. We just want to propose things and encourage people to respond. We would hope the Department will come back and respond with the need for facilities too. The Department of Education is actually quite good as a statutory consultee.

Ross Palmer (Planning Policy Unit):  We are doing the Masterplan for the X01 site which includes the castle. Part of the Masterplan will include a regional model working with Peter O’Donoghue (Transportation Section). We are writing a terms of reference for slotting these masterplans into a regional model. We want to understand the traffic problems that wil be generated from these land uses that have a masterplan focus.

 

• Update on the Local Economic Community Plan (LECP) development process

Pio Condon (Planning Policy Unit):

• We will be presenting a draft of the LECP for consideration early in the new year. There will be another public consultation again.
• The LECP project came from guidelines that were issued by government in January. These arose from the Local Government Reform Act. These ask local authorities to coordinate the delivery of public policy at local level. Cork County Council finds itself in a multi-disciplinary partnership. Cork County Council is to give leadership. The Action Plan for Jobs had 255 actions but this is one small subset of this plan.
• We produced a background document to ask people what mattered to them. We asked members of the public, economic experts and stakeholders, community groups. Sent out >1200 invitations to consult. Undertook a quality of life survey. We don’t want the plan to be a literature review of existing plans. We want it to be a Cork narrative about what matters with respect to Cork and the direction we think we would like Cork to go.
• We want to give the voice to the people – the people that know best.
• From our consultation, 92% of people from Cork think Cork is great.
• Cork residents are very happy with what Cork has to offer as regards quality of life. There are obviously marginalised groups within that but the bigger picture is that Cork is doing well socially and economically. We don’t have comparable surveys to look at nationally but we would say that it is very good.
• But there are significant economic and social challenges to that quality of life coming down the line. We want to identify what these potential challenges are. So we need to debate population, income levels, the type of employemnt we attract, age dependency, infrastructure (physical and socia), family, community, health. We find ourselves in a very interesting space.
• As an organisation working with other organisations and public agencies, we want to align their focus around what we as an authority represent. We hope to present these findings and perhaps additional areas of focus, e.g. family, community, etc. and ask those questions.
• The Plan does distill down to one page – a list of priorities for the people. What matters to you economically, socially and personally? We then try to align the organisations that deliver these things to what matters to you.

Cllr Collins: Pity this didn’t happen much longer ago. Great to see other organisations engaging. Great for people to see that we are taking the lead in what matters to people.

Cllr Forde: Was at a meeting of the committee of the regions recently. There was a distinct concern at EU level that there will be so many people over 65 in our population. Our demographics are changing totally. The local enterprise office was offering training for >65’s. Thinks we could adapt that to this plan at Cork County Council level.

PC: We are preparing this LECP in the absence of a national planning framework. So this is a great opportunity for Cork to have the conversation regionally first and use the results of this conversation to influence national developments.

Demographics are incredibly important economically. The reason perhaps that we felt such a bang from the boom is that we had a younger population relative to the rest of Europe. Whatever money came in we didn’t sepnd it all on services, whereas other economies did, which in turn serviced the rest of society.

 

• Report on Tenders received to operate Douglas Pay Parking system

MDO: One tender was received. This was analysed. There was one query which has now been responded to. The contract is not awarded yet. Should be resolved in the next couple of weeks.

Cllr McGrath: Raised a query before about reducing the number of parking warden hours. There is no need for 60 hours of parking warden time. Have we flexibility on this? Raised this at the budget meeting and the CE indicated that he would take the point on board.

MDO: The number of hours is being looked at. Have circulated a briefing on the parking arrangements for Christmas. Will do similar arrangements this year to those of last year.

Douglas parking for Christmas

Cllr Desmond: The signs that are on the machines are tiny. Can we get better signage on the machines?

MDO: Agrees that bigger signs will be purchased.

 

3.  Casual Trading draft Bye-Laws:

South Cork Manager: Members looked for another month to consider this after the last meeting. This will be a schedule of potential casual trading areas put out for public consultation. It doesn’t meant that they will be the fiinal areas.

MDO: Only got one submission on the list and this related to Passage West.  Are members happy with the suggested list?

Cllr Collins: There are queries about the grant of these permits coming from the proposed use of the Owenabue car park as a casual trading area. Are they renewed every year? Who decides who gets the permits? Are they open ended, i.e. will the same space be available all the time? The walkway has had one operator for the last two years. Will this area no longer be functioning as a casual trading area? Will it allow for others to go in beside him?

Cllr McGrath (FF): We don’t know what the other municipal district is doing and that is a concern. Each side needs to be mindful of what the other is proposing. In general, has some concerns about the level of control we have in relation to the permits. Spoke before on potential chip van issues if we designate the Owenabue car park. They bring litter. Asks the Manager to describe what the role of the members is in terms of permits issued.

Manager: Permits issued depend on the number of spaces designated for casual trading. If two spaces are designated in the Owenabue car park, then only two permits will be issued. If the members’ intention is to designate spaces, it should be on the expectation that someone wants to trade there. Thinks we should not include a location if there is no current demand for trading there. On the walkway trade: envisages a single space being designated in the walkway car park. If a designation for a casual trading area is made, it should also be accompanied by a time and a day. For example, there is a market in Macroom. But market days are the only days for which the traders’ permits are issued.

Cllr D’Alton: Sent a submission about both Passage West and Ringaskiddy. Want to check that this was received. Trader on the Rochestown Road. Trades all over the city. We turn a blind eye during the summer although he is selling outside of the exempted regulations. These allow growers to sell new potatoes or berries – their own produce. But the trader was operating last week on the Rochestown Road. The Casual Trading Act allows him to operate between May and September inclusive. This is well outside of the Act. Also, we can’t grow new potatoes and berries in Ireland in November. So he is not selling his own produce either. If we can’t control this sort of activity, what is the point in Casual Trading By-laws at all?

Manager: This sort of sale goes on all during the summer. We havne’t the resources to come down the heavy on these sellers. But when we introduce the Casual Trading By-Laws, it will allow us to control sellers that operate outside of the law.

Cllr Canty: We have similar problems in Ballincollig with someone who has been trading in the same car parking spot for the past 20 years. We have a country market also coming on to the plaza of the shopping centre. This trader sells fish also and now the traders say the fish smell is coming through the doors of their shops. Thinks this will be an issue.

Manager: If there is no objection to someone trading for 20 years in Ballincollig without the benefit of a licence, then it should be done with the benefit of a licence. Recommends that this space the trader uses would be designated with certain hours. If members think this is not the appropriate place, then suggest somewhere else.

Cllr Collins: Thinks there may be no demand in Carrigaline for trading spots. The only time a trader has come into the main street is a chipper van after New Year. Leaves a load of rubbish. Has no trouble with the coffee dock that is operating on the walkway.

Manager: Don’t designate any casual trading area in Carrigaline if that is what you think is right.

MDO: Licences are issued annually. The municipal district has to be tax-compliant, etc. We have to report to Revenue annually on casual trading licences.

Cllr McGrath (FF): We need to hear back from the Bandon-Kinsale Municipal District. If they include the circus field, we do not need to include the Owenabue Car Park. But if they don’t, then we might. If there is a Christmas market proposed and we have onlytwo spaces designated, is there a one-off provision for special events? What about the regular Lions Club car boot sale in the circus field. Will this be affected?

Manager: Yes. Permits can be issued on a one-off basis for special events. Not sure that casual trading includes car boot sales. Doesn’t think the casual trading would hinder car boot sales.

Cllr Canty: But traders come down and join in car boot sales.

Manager: Thinks that we should go to consultation with what we have. This will be published as a countywide draft bye-law with schedules for each municipal district. So all the municipal district designations will all be published together.

Agreed that we go ahead with publication of the draft by-law on this basis.

 

4.  General Municipal Allocation/Town Development Fund

MDO: There are some funds remaining that were not allocated. Any funds remaining will go to the Area Office for footpath works, etc.

 

5.  Disposal of Property
To consider the Grant of Wayleave at Bramble Hill, Castletreasure, Co Cork to Century Point Estates Ltd for the consideration of €2,500 plus Council’s legal costs.

There were no problems with this.

 

6.  Chun na Ruin so leanas ón gComhairleoir a mheas:
To consider the following Notices of Motion in the name of:  

Cllr. J Harris
1.  “That a light be put up outside Douglas Hall AFC pitch in Moneygourney. The entrance is very busy and it’s pitch black at night.”

2.  “That a zebra crossing be put in place between Tesco and Douglas community park. Huge volume of pedestrians use this area to cross the road, also that the Bollards be replaced as a matter of urgency.”

3.  “That Galways lane be added to cleaning roster in Douglas”.

 Response to Harris’s motions

Cllr Harris not present.

 

Cllr. MR Desmond:

Response to Desmond’s motions

1.  “In respect of the recently announced Carr’s Hill Interchange proposal, that Cork County Council calls on Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) to hold a town hall style public meeting in addition to the public briefing they have planned. This is necessary to allow residents and commuters affected by the M28 proposal a fair opportunity to voice their concerns. Also that Cork County Council seek an extension of the TII’s initial feedback submission deadline of the 20^th November next.”

Cllr Desmond: This is the biggest infrastructural issue that will hit our municipal district. A huge number of people attended the pubic consultation last Monday. All members of council staff and staff from the Roads Design Office were under pressure. There was Intense questioning from the public. Unfortunately to an extent, the consultation has probably raised more concerns than it has answered them. This is a quality of life issue. Pio was speaking about priorities for the people. This is the ultimate example. We have allowed these people to set up their homes and now this proposal completely ignores them. Maryborough Ridge residents have access to a motorway through their park. Newlyn Vale residents will have a motorway on top of them. And there is the issue of the closure of the two slip roads. Many of the questions posed by residents could not be answered. Many could not be answered sufficiently. There was a clear lack of thinking with regard to knock-on effects. The residents are not objecting to the motorway being upgraded. They are aware of the needs with respect to Ringaskiddy. But the motorway is almost like the road to nowhere. It stops at the Bloomfield interchange. Traffic issues are supposed to stop there. No-one could answer questions beyond the Bloomfield interchange because the project remit ends there. The alternative routes (Clarke’s Hill) are totally inadequate. We had a Douglas LUTS briefing a month ago and just after tha, the N28 announcements were made. I asked whether they would have an impact on the Douglas LUTS plans. I was told that they would have no impact. They will. They will have a major impact on Douglas infrastructure. Is fearful that the TII will hide behind the route selection and planning process. Believes that residents are entitled to have a town hall style meeting. Thinks TII should at least be meeting councillors. The residents have formed a steering group. They are being constructive but they are being told that no changes are possible.

The residents are looking for flexibility. Can the motorway stop sooner? This is what is done in Dublin. There needs to be thought given to this. The TII did not anticipate this reaction.

 

Cllr McGrath’s motion (taken out of sequence):
“This Committee requests that the National Roads Design Office and TII revisit the design proposals for the Carr’s Hill Interchange as part of the M28 project and provide for the retention of the Mount Oval off ramp and Maryborough Hill on ramp. Also, that the Public Consultation period be extended and that Officials from the TII and National Roads Office attend a meeting of this Municipal District.”

Cllr McGrath: Won’t repeat everything Cllr Desmond has said. Was never at a consultation at which so many people came through. Motion asks that the plan be revisited. We all agree with that. We need some feedback from the officials on the consultation last Monday. This hasn’t been handled well from the outset. They weren’t even holding that public information session when they came to our Development meeting. Welcomes that the deadline is being extended.

Thinks it is not acceptable that the NRDO won’t come back into us here again. That is unacceptable. We don’t know any more than the residents but we are getting queries every day. Hopes they are going to look at a resdesign but we don’t know.

Cllr Forde: Understands that the NRDO will collate all submissions and will come back to us. Understands also that a meeting has been requested for the Steering Committee and is sure that the public representatives will be invited to that.

Agreed we would formally ask TII to come to the Chamber to talk to us.

(4 members in Chamber at this stage)

 

 Cllr. D Forde:
1.  “That the relevant engineer gives a written report and update and timeline completion on the section of ground on Maryborough Hill just above the Paddocks.”

Response to Forde’s motion

Cllr Forde: Thanks the executive for the response.

 

Cllr. S McGrath:

Response to McGrath’s motion

1.  “This Committee requests that the National Roads Design Office and TII revisit the design proposals for the Carr’s Hill Interchange as part of the M28 project and provide for the retention of the Mount Oval off ramp and Maryborough Hill on ramp. Also, that the Public Consultation period be extended and that Officials from the TII and National Roads Office attend a meeting of this Municipal District.”

Motion taken above.

 

2.  “To seek a written update on previous requests to provide a safe Crossing on Maryborough Hill at the location of the Broadale Bus stop.”
Cllr McGrath: This is a busy road and busy bus-stop. This motion was raised primarily for safety reasons. Other public representatives have raised it in the past. If there is no money there now, how do we get it? In light of the N28 discussions, the residents could do with a goodwill gesture towards improving safety on the hill.

Area Engineer: There is no available funding that could be put aside for that scheme. Is not aware of any specific issues that would say it is dangerous as we speak. If there are such issues, mention them because they would add more weight to the request. Are people looking for a controlled crossing with lights? Advice generally is to go away from the zebra crossing approach but it costs €40 – €50k for crossing with lights. You have a situation where in the immediate future the Maryborough Ridge estate will be finished and opened. In terms of an interim measure until that time comes, what is in place is the most cost-effective one can do. Understands that negotiations have been going on between the developer and the Council with regard to Maryborough Ridge.

Wants more information on specifically what the concern is. This is a narrow road. It is sufficiently well lit. We might be able to do short-term measures around road markings, signage, etc.

Cllr McGrath: Will try to get more feedback. Residents speak about risks to children crossing in the morning. Understands that Maryborough Ridge’s advancing is an issue. It would be helpful if we could relay this conversation to the parties negotiating with the developers.

 

3.  “To ask the Public Lighting Section to consider a scheme on the R610 between Hop Island and Passage West in the Public Lighting Programme for 2016.”

Cllr McGrath: This request has come from some residents. They believe that lighting the road would increase its safety. Appreciate it is a long stretch of lights but we must start somewhere.

Cllr D’Alton: This is an issue that was raised several times at Town Council level over the years. If the road is lit from Hop Island, the lights must be paid for. The only way to pay for the lights is to open up the land for development. This is green belt and if Passage West is to stay a discrete town, then the green belt must not be developed. So the conclusion at Town Council level was always that this stretch should not be lit. But there is a real need to light from Eurospar to Roberts Bridge. Made a submission to the 2015 public lighting allocations on this but there were other priorities. The walkway is lit and the town is lit but there is a very dark, very dangerous stretch in between. If we could agree to prioritise lighting this stretch out of the 2016 public lighting allocations, it would be of major benefit to safety for the people of Passage West.

Cllr McGrath: Doesn’t necessarily agree that the lighting must have development alongside it to justify it but agrees to prioritise the Eurospar to Robert’s Bridge stretch for lighting next year.

 

 

Cllr. D O’Donnabhain:
That this Municipal District is extremely concerned at the recent Bord Pleanala decision concerning the Science and Technology Park situated at Curraheen. Given the importance of this park for future development in the Ballincollig/Carrigaline Municipal District, that this meeting:

1. “Requests a report from the planning department of Cork County Council on the Science and Technology Park. Such Report to set out the entry criteria and requirements and processes to enable a prospective company set up in the park. Such Report should also include comment on whether the location of the Global HQ for Tyco, located in Cork City, would qualify for entry to the Park.”
2. “Has Cork County Council carried out any liaison or research with IDA Ireland as which of their job announcements over the last 24 months would have satisfied the entry criteria.”
3. “That this Municipal District would invite the head of the Science and Technology park to address this municipal District on the workings of such a park.” 

Chair: The key thrust here is in relation to employment. City Gate in Mahon and 1 Albert Quay in town are major employment generators. A site in Wilton has now been redesignated in the same way. The Science and Technology Park is the largest site designated for this purpose in the county and it hasn’t developed in terms of bricks and mortar. Particularly contrasts with the city area. It is not a competition. It is a like for like. But enterprises in the city’s areas appear to be going ahead.

Would like someone from the Science and Technology Park in Belfast to come and talk to us.

Cllr Forde: Supports. It is a genuine concern of all of ours that there would be some action on this site.

Cllr McGrath: Also supports. Had a motion about this at full Council recently. This is a project that has huge potential but seems to be somewhat stuck at present.

Pio Condon: A Masterplan was done for the lands. It was informed by best practice across Europe. When the Masterplan was complete, it was presented to Council for consideration and agreement. That was 2012. Immediately following that, the Council set about designing the infrastructure to deliver the park and Masterplan. In 2013, the water services were connected up. We have consent for the infrastructure from An Bord Pleanala as from the beginning of this year. An Bord Pleanala was very supportive of the Masterplan approach and these documents are on public record.

Cork County Council got partial funding from the Department of Transport for the design of the roads infrastructure. There were also letters of support from the key public bodies delivering infrastructure.

An application was lodged towards end of 2014. It was refused by Cork County Council and An Bord Pleanala. The primary rationale was that the application/quantum of development applied for was in excess of the allocation for that portion of lands. The non-compliance of that application with the Masterplan was why it was refused. Understands that another application from a 3^rd party is to be lodged in the coming weeks. Can see no reason why it will not be approved. Can see no reason why the previous application would not get approval if it complies with the Masterplan.

Phase 1 of the Masterplan identifies for the southern portion of the site (22,000 m²) which can be tapped into., This has road access.

From 2010 when the Advisory Board was established, to now. We have been successful in every step along the way. There is no barrier to development commencing.

(I had to go out for a minute.)

The An Bord Pleanala Inspector’s Report clarified that the floorspace development of the refused application exceeded the Masterplan.  Not sure if there was a quantum of development or a use issue at stake but it was certainly one or the other.

Cllr Desmond: Are we sure the NRA won’t throw a spanner in the works? They did before.

Cllr Forde: Agreed. Can’t understand how when there are high-level pre-planning talks going on up until the last minute and then the NRA’s issues come up and throw a spanner in the works.

PC: We spoke to a number of potential tenants in the preparation of the Masterplan and this project was conceived with those conversations in mind. We spoke to significant international players with regard to what they needed to operate here. They said they wanted what we were designing and preparing.

 

Cllr. M D’Alton:

Response to D’Alton’s motions

1.  “That the NRA would undertake a representative survey of pedestrian movements at the uncontrolled crossing at Ringaskiddy adjacent to the new playground in accordance with the advice outlined in its Pedestrian Crossing Specification and Guidance and with a view to providing a signalised pedestrian crossing at this location. That this survey would be conducted at a representative time of the year and that it would take cognisance of the particularly vulnerable nature of the profile of pedestrians using the playground facility. That the NRA would take particular note of guidance from the National Transport Authority/Department of Transport which encourages justification for pedestrian facilities to be considered more in terms of the needs of pedestrians than in always maximising traffic flows.”

Cllr D’Alton: Raised a motion at the July meeting asking that the NRA would install a pelican crossing at the uncontrolled crossing adjacent to the playground in Ringaskiddy. The response – don’t know who it was from because it wasn’t on headed paper – said that they had done a survey which showed that the pedestrian crossing volumes didn’t and don’t warrant a controlled crossing.

Because there are procedures for taking these decisions and these had not been described to us, in October, I raised another motion to ask the details of these procedures. The response to the October motion said that the survey was undertaken BEFORE the playground went in. What good is this when the purpose of the pedestrian crossing is to serve the playground?

This time, the motion was to ask the NRA to carry out a survey during the summer so that they can really get a handle on the number of children crossing to use the playground. Glad to see from the response that they have agreed to do so. But thinks it is particularly sad that we have to go to these lengths to get a pedestrian crossing on an uncontrolled crossing already ducted for lights, to serve a playground on a national road through a village in one of the biggest industrial estates in the country. We’re supposed to be serving the public here. This is really sad.

Cllr Forde: Agrees.

Cllr McGrath: Also agrees. When the traffic calming was being installed, we asked for lights at this uncontrolled crossing. We were told no because it was a national road. But then a few months later they proposed lights at Shanbally and Shannonpark. So they are quite willing to put lights on national roads to suit their own purposes.

 

2.  “That Cork County Council, Cork City Council and the National Transport Authority would give consideration to designing the N40 overbridge as a green crossing which would permit pedestrians, cyclists and wildlife alike to cross the N40 in safety.”

Cllr D’Alton: Thanks the executive for notifying us of the commencement of preliminary investigations for the overpass over the N40. We are talking about the Tramore Valley Park and the overpass being a landmark development and this is an ideal opportunity to consider provision of a green bridge.

A green bridge is a wildlife crossing. (Passes around some photographs of green bridges worldwide. Green bridges images) It is intended to help animals and other biodiversity to cross buy transport routes. Human transportation routes, especially roads, fragment habitats. A green bridge is the most successful way of:

• creating safe crossing points for wildlife movement
• joining up habitats and colonies
• creating a crossing point for people
• benefiting bees and other pollinators
• integrating human transportation features into the surrounding landscape.

There are all sorts of different wildlife crossings. But we are building a pedestrian and cycle link bridge over the N40 and that which is recommended most strongly for this purpose is a multi-use overpass.

Multi-use overpasses are designed for mixed wildlife-human use. They are generally the smallest of the wildlife overpasses, they are best suited to human disturbed environments and they best benefit species which are adapted to human activity and disturbance. If they are designed to look like part of the landscape, they really work for invertebrates (spiders, beetles), small animals and big animals.

Natural England, the nature conservation agency of the British government, has recently completed a collation of scientific and cost evidence from 56 examples of green bridges across the world. Their work found that green bridges could be an important part of the sustainability of future transport projects.

The UK doesn’t have many green bridges. The two that are best well known are the one over the A21 at Scotney Castle in Kent and the 25 mile wide Mile End green bridge built in London which spans five lanes of the A11. In the Mile End bridge, rainwater runs off the bridge into tanks on either side and is then recycled to maintain the water content of the soil.

Green bridges are far more widely used in Europe. In the Netherlands, where they were first conceived, 48 eco-crossings are either built or planned since 1988. One of the earliest ecoducts was the Terlet overpass which is planted with trees. Within six years three species of deer were recorded using it, along with wild boar, red fox, badger, wood mice, common shrew and common vole.

Sweden, Switzerland

There are plenty more examples of green bridges in the US and Canada.

We have a landmark project in the Tramore Valley Park. Not just here but generally, we need to start thinking outside the box in terms of our engineering. Green engineering supports a massive range of different EU and nationally driven policies. The EU has a document specifically supporting the concept and application of green engineering. We need to start thinking outside the box in terms of traditional engineering. Appreciate the response but noting that wildlife will be “considered” in the course of the design is just not good enough. Wants this Municipal District to send a message to RPS as consultants and to the agencies that are supporting them in this work that they must seriously consider designing this overpass as a green bridge.

Support given for this.

 

7.  Votes of Congratulations

Cllr Desmond: Congratulations to NEMO

 

8.  Any Other Business

Chair: Received a letter addressed to another councillor. Veiled threats were contained in this letter. It was written in a personal capacity. It included copy of extracts from newspapers. It referred to aspects of debate raised in consideration of planning permission defects on the ground and the way in which these should be addressed. To receive a letter from a person referring to the use of slander and defamation and not to set out the case properly nor to follow it on with legal correspondence …

Doesn’t know much about this company – O’Brien & O’Flynn – and doesn’t know how a company may feel itself slandered but if residents have raised a concern with reps and those reps seek to raise the issue in the Chamber, that is their right.

Takes the content of the letter really seriously and thinks it goes to the heart of the democracy we try to represent every day. These are bully boy tactics in the extreme.

Feel very strongly about this and regrets that the press is no longer present.

MDO: An issue was brought to our attention in relation to parking by-laws in Ballincollig. When they were adopted at the time, they incorporated fines. An SI was adopted then. We were asked whether one could legally challenge these. The 3 hour parking limit in the long-stay car parks isn’t being enforced and this is becoming a problem for the traders.

We proposed to bring the parking times in line with the Douglas hours in a new by-law. We will have these drafted tomorrow, will circulate them to members and will advertise them on Friday. That will give a public submission date up to the start of January. Will allow discussion at the next municipal district meeting and we will then be able to implement them by February.

Cllr D’Alton: Tom Fahy Park in Passage West was recently redesigned by the County Council. It is surrounded by box planters. The specification on the drawing was that these were to be filled with good quality soil. I have a sample of good quality soil here and a sample of the soil that was put into the planters. Nothing could grow in this. We get this time and time again when the County Council gets contractors to do landscaping works and it takes months and months of amendment and replacement before we can plant anything in it. The County Council decided not to plant Tom Fahy Park, although the planting was part of the specifications. It decided to leave it to the Tidy Towns in Passage West. We have 6 people out on a good day and there is just no way we can cope with removing all this soil, replacing it with something that plants can grow in and then planting it up. We had said we would like to plant Fr. O’Flynn Park because we have existing planting in it and we want to match the new plants to that. But we can’t improve on the planting that was proposed for Tom Fahy Park.

MDO: Only issue with Tom Fahy Park was that the two downlighters were vandalised.

Cllr D’Alton: Not condoning vandalism, but those lights were not in the drawings that we discussed and they were totally unsuited to the application. They were only thin light metal.

MDO: We hadn’t decided on the style of light. We had said that the steps must be lit.

Cllr D’Alton: That is true. But the uplighters to the tree were removed from the final drawing that we did not see also. But this soil that was put in is nothing we can plant in. It is not good quality as the specifications required.

Area Engineer: There must have been a misunderstanding. We will remove the soil and get it replaced with good quality soil. We will talk to the architects about doing the planting in the park.

Cllr McGrath: Had a motion about traffic calming measures on the Ballinrea Road. Has a speed survey been done as part of the Ballinrea campus application? Would the Area Office do it if it hasn’t been done to date?

Also the sound barrier on the N40. Can we communicate with TII that the proposals they put forward were not satisfactory from the residents’ point of view.

Area Engineer: Is not sure that a speed survey was done as part of the planning application.

MDO:   Wrote to TII and attached copies of some of the emails which were received. Asked them if they would revert but they have not to date. We will follow up again.

Cllr McGrath: Dereliction in the convent in Passage West. The Council spent funding on that in the past. Are we going to recoup that money from the new owner?

MDO: Yes. We will be looking to recoup our costs. We don’t know if the proposed acquisition will be subject to planning.

Cllr Murphy: Cllr O’Laoghaire sends his apologies for not being present. Thanks for the signs for Marmullane Park. Wonders if we could we get a sign saying no dogs only guide dogs. Asked for update on Pinecroft.

MDO: We have such signs in cemetries because this restriction is covered under the cemeteries byelaws.   We cannot apply the same restrictions in public parks.

Area Engineer updated on Pinecroft again.

 

This concluded the meeting.

 

[a]            CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
1.  Minutes of Meeting of the Council held on 28^th September, 2015.

Cllrs Lombard and Hurley proposed and seconded.

 

[b]           VOTES OF SYMPATHY
2.  Votes of Sympathy (if any) to the relatives of:

• members or employees of the Council,
• dignitaries of Church or State, or
• members of old I.R.A. and Cumann na mBan.

Cllrs expressed their sympathies for Cllr Cullinane on the death of her mother.

Cllrs expressed their sympathies for those who were affected by the Carrickmines tragedy and for the family of Garda Tony Golden.

 

[c]            STATUTORY BUSINESS

3.  Disposal of Property
Section 183 of the Local Government Act, 2001:

(a).  Disposal of 28 Pairc Na Greine, Dromahane, Mallow, Co. Cork.

Blarney Macroom Municipal District: 24^th September, 2015:

(b).  Disposal of 23 Barretts Place, Macroom, Co. Cork.
(c).  Disposal of land at Milleeny, Coolea, Macroom, Co. Cork.
(d).  Disposal of 1 St. Mary’s Terrace, Coolduff, Kilmurray, Lissarda, Co. Cork.

Proposed and seconded.

East Cork Municipal District: 6^th July, 2015:

(f).  Disposal of serviced site at 66 Knockaverry, Youghal, Co. Cork.

Proposed and seconded.

East Cork Municipal District: 2^nd June, 2015:

(g).  Disposal of Lands at Knockgriffin, Midleton to Blackpool Developments Ltd.

Proposed and seconded.

 

[d]           REPORTS & RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMITTEES

 

4. Corporate Policy Group: 

October Conference List
Approval of attendance by Council members at Conferences on the Conference List for October, 2015 approved by the Corporate Policy Group at their meeting on the 6^th of October, 2015.

Proposed and seconded.

 

European Affairs Committee
Approval to Cllr Deirdre Forde becoming a member of the European Affairs Committee.

Proposed and seconded.

 

Civic Receptions Protocol
Approval to revised Civic Receptions Protocol

Proposed and seconded.

 

5. West Cork Municipal District:
   “Following the extensive damage to the road network of West Cork, as a result of the recent bad weather events, that emergency funding would be made available to carry out necessary repairs and resurfacing work”.

Response to Western Committee motion
Estimate of damage cost for Western Committee

Cllr Carroll (FF): Motion as written is wrong. We are dealing with 5 engineers in West Cork. The roads in rural West Cork are now at crisis level. The engineers are straight and honourable people. But they say they don’t have the money to remedy a road in bad repair. Local Property Tax won’t fill potholes. The roads contribution from the government has been cut by up to 50% in the last 5 years. 6 or 7 months ago we got a presentation from the IFA about how they were going to expand milk production in Cork County by 50%. This will entail major rural traffic. The roads are not fit to take this extra traffic. They are not fit to take even traffic as it stands now. Mostly those who say the roads are not fit are those who drive trucks to the factories. Am proposing that this Council writes immediately to the Minister to seek extra funding for the roads in West Cork. If we got only a small section of road tax back it would help.

Cllr M Collins (Ind): Supports the motion. The motion as worded is very much in relation to recent storms and devastation to the roads. The report received from the Council relates to the peninsulas. Two roads on the Mizen peninsula have been closed since the storm and haven’t reopened. When other counties seek emergency funding they get it. Sadly West Cork doesn’t seem to be on the map. There was an announcement by Minister Harris over the last few days about extra funding for roads. The Council has totted up the cost of the damage. It came to €2.3m. There is a massive shortfall. When are the two roads on the Mizen going to reopen?

Cllr Murphy O’Mahony (FF): Concurs with the motion. It comes down to lack of money. The engineers’ hands are tied. Even the postmen say they can’t deliver on some roads. Milk lorries say they will stop collecting soon. At crisis point now. We are on the Wild Atlantic Way. Roads are hindering tourism in the area. Government needs to step up and provide funding.

Cllr R McCarthy (SF): The roads are not fit for purpose in West Cork. Heavy rainfall is said to be unprecedented. Don’t think we can say this any more. We live in a country where there is heavy rain often. We need proactive funding, not reactive. The Wild Atlantic Way – no point in erecting signs if there are no roads to travel on.

Cllr A Moynihan (FF): Supports call for funding. But these issues there well before the recent flooding. There is a clear need for additional funding. Wants to ensure that any funding that is received will also go to roads that are in South Cork area that were damaged after this flooding. Also flood defence works that are not being progresssed in places like Ballyvourney, Inchigeela. Planning has been advanced but it is not happening on the ground. The recent flooding highlighted this also.

Cllr Coleman (Ind): Supports. Of the €2.3m worth of damage, €1.9m occurred in the Western region. Imperative that we get this money as soon as possible to have the roads ready for the winter. County roads are the Cinderella of funding. Hopes budget will deliver large increase in funding to county roads.

Cllr Hurley (Ind): Supports. But we are still dealing with another issue that goes back to 2009 when the county was then also ravaged by floods. Our waterways are completely choked up. They haven’t got the capacity they had 20 years ago. There are bridges around the county a man in his 80s could walk under when he was young. Now they are so full of silt he no longer can. The OPW, Inland Fisheries and Parks and Wildlife need to maintain the waterways.

Cllr Creed (FG): Thanks the engineer in the Macroom area for getting the estimate of costs together. On the flood defence in Macroom – is sure work will go ahead.

Cllr K Murphy (FG): Yes, huge damage was done in West and South Cork by the torrential rain. Drainage has been static over 20 years. No drainage works worth talking about have taken place. Drainage is critical to ensure water drains properly and falls off the public road. Councillors here who were complaining this morning about availability of funding. Last year, 10% of LPT was cut. This year, 5% was cut. FF was looking for a 15% reduction.

CE: The situation is so grave that we require funding from the Department. Some of the coastal protection works should be funded by the OPW. There is a shortfall in relation to storm damage of €2.1m. €475k was spent ourselves on immediate cleanups. Our capacity to go beyond this is severely restricted. We got national government assistance after the storms in 2014. Hope for the same now. In relation to the two specific roads that are closed, can’t say when the works will be complete. We are progressing designs so that we can go to tender as soon as the funding becomes available. But you are looking at a couple of months.

Agreed that we will write to the Department.

  

[e]           CORRESPONDENCE FROM GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS 

6.  Department of Social Protection:
Letter dated 18^th September, 2015, in response to Council’s letter dated 16^th September, 2015, regarding the Rural and Urban Works Scheme.

 Noted.

 

[f]            NOTICES OF MOTION

7.  Councillor Deirdre Forde:
“The CE give a written comprehensive report on why the Roundabout entrance to Maryborough Ridge  Maryborough Hill has not yet been commissioned.  What is the current status of the planning, the date of the original planning for this site, outline any discussions between Nama or its agents in relation to the current situation, and any potential School site, or through road.  Further clarify which agency has recently carried out investigations on the site and on whose behalf.”

Response to Forde’s motion

Cllr Forde (FG): Thanks the Mayor and CE for keeping this on the agenda. This issue must go down in the top ten of Cork County Council as failing spectacularly in a number of ways. Doesn’t blame the Council, but the Council must be seen to act on it. Planning permission was granted in 2006. Conditions laid down were not completed. Disgrace to the planning system. Economic circumstances brought a halt to construction in the last decade. Aware that Coucil officials said their hands were tied and they had to grant an extension to permission. What about bonds that are in place? Has Andrew Hind met with the receiver? Wants this file to go to the Minister if there has been no movement on this. A school is to go on this site. But while we wait, 48 new pupils were taken on this year in prefabs. Options are expected to be formalised in relation to access to the N28. Wants copy of this to go to PAC because believes it is such an example of bad planning.

Cllr McGrath (FF): Supports. This is an issue that has been debated over the years. Represents a failure of the planning process. Conditions of planning were not adhered to. 200 units in the estate are occupied. Many residents living there bought into a vision which has not been delivered. The roundabout is partially delivered. There is no indication of when it will be complete.

Cllr D’Alton (Ind): Strongly supports. Not wishing to take from the seriousness of the Maryborough Ridge situation but there is an estate in Passage West in an identical situation. Harbour Heights was built by the same developer, it is also only partially built and the promised roundabout at its entrance has never been constructed. The roundabout was in the plans. It was clear the developer was to deliver. But the developer said so much had been given in planning contributions towards roads that it was the job of the Council to deliver the roundabout. It is an indictment of the planning process that Council could not force this issue. Agrees that the issue should be referred to the PAC.

CE: This is not a failure of the planning process. Cork County Council has done what it could. We have stuck with what we could. The developer did not comply with the planning conditions. Economic circumstances brought a halt to construction. The site is under the contol of a receiver. The Planning Department is in contact with the receiver and is trying to finalise the roundabout. The roundabout is on private land. The receiver has responsibility for construction of this. We will progress it as far as we can through our planning legislation to ensure it is completed. Doesn’t agree that it should go to the PAC. They don’t have a role in this. But it is high on our agenda and is relevant to other estates also. We will do everything we can to ensure that it is completed. We need the receivers and those in control of the site to do the works. It is on private land.

Cllr Forde: Very disappointed with the response. Doesn’t give any comfort to us. Still insists that a note should go to the Departments. The PAC seems to be able to get publicity around particular issues. Is open to suggestions in relation to that. There is no bond. Did the reciver came into this building to meet with the local representatives of the Municipal District? Could the reciver meet with the local councillors? We need to move this further. Have been hearing the same story for the last 10 years. Understands that it is not necessarily the Council’s fault.

CE: Glad to hear that is recognised. Will write to the receiver asking that they would meet with the Municipal District if that is required. Still not sure about the relevance of the PAC. Can write to the Ministers expressing concern of Council in relation to non-compliance with the works by a reciever.

Agreed that we would do this.

 

8.  Councillor Des O’Grady:
“To request a written report on the current situation regarding the number of private landlords receiving extra payments from  Housing Assistance Payment recipients  in County Cork. This report to also focus on the number of HAP recipients ‘Topping Up’ rent by payments from their own incomes due to the difference in rent demanded and the Local Authority payment limit allowed for HAP. The number of HAP recipients ‘Topping Up’ and the areas of the County where they live to be given by Municipal District. The Report to also provide the background to the introduction of the system of permitting and recording ‘Top Up’ payments, a change from the DoECLG position of not allowing these payments at the time of the introduction of the HAP scheme.” 

Response to O’Grady’s motion

Cllr O’Grady (SF): There are only 5 units in Ballincollig to rent at present. There is a massive shortage of rental properties. The maximum rent supplement is €750. The top up payment is €350 per month on top of rent they are paying to the Council. So the landlord is scoring on the double. Under the rent supplement scheme, Threshold found 44% of rent supplement tenants were topping up payments. This affects their ability to provide home heating and clothing. It means the tenants fall into rent arrears. This was never announced as being permitted by the Minister. The Minister is himself a landlord. The government must acknowledge that the only way to solve the housing crisis is to build social houses, limit future rent increases, target rent increase in rent supplement.

Cllr O’Laoghaire (SF): The problem with the HAP scheme is the caps which do not reflect the reality at all. There is a housing crisis in Metropolitan Cork which is not being recognised by Dublin based TDs. Notes that the number of HAP sign ups is very low in the Ballincollig-Carrigaline Municipal District. People are choosing between topping up and living. Represented one family that moved from Carrigaline to Kealkil. Another that moved from Ballincollig to Ballyvourney. We need to write to the Department seeking the flexibility that is provided in Dublin.

Cllr Mullane (SF): The report from the executive is indefensible. Alan Kelly is giving us €80m not so long ago. Knows the figure for tenants topping up is more than 6 in the Kanturk area. Out of the 669, how many were inspected to date? Are these 669 people are living in substandard accommodation?

Cllr Creed (FG): There are many good landlords out there and if we haven’t good landlords we will have big trouble. Accepts that there are some that are not up to scratch. Explains HAP. The local authority simply administers the scheme and makes the payment to the landlord. The HAP scheme provides people with more dignity and a better standard of living than does rent supplement.

Cllr K McCarthy (Ind): Agrees with Cllr O’Grady about report being damning. A house building programme is the only way to address this. People are terrified they will be put on the street unless they top up the rents. In doing so, their children are going hungry, their bills are not being paid. Not surprised that Minister Kelly is a landlord.

Cllr O’Keeffe (FF): Thinks there should be more time for implementation of HAP.  There is a shortage of houses in the Mitchelstown area. There are many landlords who don’t look after their properties. Tenants are taking the substandard houses because they have nowhere else to go. Thinks we should allow for transition period for implementation of HAP until decent properties are available.

Cllr R McCarthy (SF): The report is an admission that the HAP scheme isn’t working. Tbere is huge demand for rental property. Friend went to view a house recently. 20+ families at an open viewing. If you need HAP, you can’t compete. The rental market is becoming a bidding war. Rental caps that are set are not adequate. We need a rent review with urgency.

CE: The report is extensive. There is a challenge in continuing the success of the HAP scheme when we don’t have flexibility in relation to rental levels. That flexibility was extended to South Dublin County Council. We are making the same case for the flexiblity to be extended to Metropolitan Cork. Expects the flexibility will extend countrywide in due course but doesn’t know when.

Cllr O’Grady (SF): Wasn’t critical of the local authority. This is government policy coming home to roost. Didn’t speak disparagingly of landlords. The only way to address this is to put the local authority back in charge of the capital scheme of building houses. We need rent certainty. Topping up used to be illegal; it has now been made a certainty.

 

9.  Councillor Seamus McGrath:
“To seek a written report outlining the timeframe and process for the next Countywide Speed Limit review.” 

Response to McGrath’s motion

Cllr McGrath (FF): Thanks the executive for the report. Wanted an update on the speed limit review because 2017 seems very far away.

Cllr A Moynihan (FF): Seconds the motion. The review is well overdue. The recent pilot was a good start but its only a pilot. It shouldn’t be confused with the countywide review. The public is asking about the lower speed limits, especially outside schools, etc. Absence of training should not become a road block. We have to clarify where the at-risk locations are. We know where these are from our Municipal Districts. Can the CE clarify about the 7m wide issue? That is a situation where potentially a pinch point for a bridge could affect an entire stretch of road. Common sense should prevail.

Cllr O’Flynn (FF): The road safety authority needs to get the message across that one must drive in accordance with the conditions which the road offers. Tourists coming to Ireland may not be aware of local road conditions. The period for the change is far too long.

Cllr K Murphy (FG): Local speed limit review should be more flexible giving allowance to areas where there are serious issues. Too long to wait until 2017. Thinks we should have this autonomy.

CE: The guidelines came out earlier this year. There are some interpretation issues to be sorted out first. Interpretation relates to the guidelines. The guidelines require a blanket limit of 80km to be attached to roads with any 7m width. So we need to clarify all this. We will start the process with informal notification to the agencies that are involved. This will give Members an opportunity to get involved. We have to deal with any changes as part of our byelaws and this takes time. Also not addressed is that a strict interpretation of the byelaws takes significant resources which will reuqire funding. Will start by notifying Members of this process on 23^rd October.

Cllr McGrath (FF): Welcomes that the process is to start in the coming weeks. This gives us an opportunity to highlight the issue.

 

10.  Councillor Ian Doyle:
“In view of the 2015 Graduate Recruitment Campaign for the Irish Civil Service, that Cork County Council would seek to lift the employment embargo in order that they could employ front line staff to help administer the many services provided and required by our Municipal Districts.”

Cllr Doyle (FF): We are a year and half into the Municipal District organisation. Is very proud of the Municipal Districts and thinks they are working. But they need to have the tools to make sure that as a result of our meetings we can see the work on the ground. We have a town development fund and knows the CE has a proposal to enhance the entrances to the county towns in our area. All this requires men and work. The water leakage programme is subcontracted from Irish Water. All this is being administered by staff who are so stretched on the ground. Commends the staff and the executive for doing what they do. The TUS and Gateway schemes are critical. Speaks of one road in Charleville serving 3 schools. Needs a traffic warden but is told cannot have one because of recruitment embargo. Believes in the Municipal District approach but we need to be seen to do the work on the ground.

Cllr O’Flynn (FF): Supports. The velocity patcher recently had to stop at 2pm because the driver had to go to a family funeral. There was no relief driver available to take over from him. Crazy. We need to put a programme in place to address this. What number of outside staff are available to us in our Municipal Districts and what does the CE think is the correct number we should have? The graduate programme is critical to success. Kerry Co-op was doing this 20 – 30 years ago for the good of the company. Delighted we have one.

Cllr Dawson (FG): We have selective memory as to where the policy came from. FF brought in the moratorium in March 2009. In budget 2015 the moratorium will be lifted and it will at the discretion of our CE to assign the staff he needs.

Cllr Cullinane (Ind): Supports. In the current climate where we are working out the representation of our people, the work of the staff should be within certain parameters. Doesn’t think the outdoor staff get the credit that they do, especially in delivering for Tidy Towns results.

Cllr O’Keeffe (FF): There is a bounce in the economy but when the recruitment embargo was brought in, we needed it.   Recalls general operatives on the floor of the Galtee factory in Mitchelstown. When things got busy, Galtee brought in cheap labour force from abroad. This is what is happening with the County Council. People are being used under the pretence of TUS, FAS, Gateway. Time we gave people like this dignity and a proper wage.

Cllr Lombard (FG): Would be positive if the embargo was lifted. But must remember why it was brought in. Local authorities are now basically self funded by property tax, rates. Welcomes the proposal that we should have more staff on the ground but a call for the Department to come up with the money to provide them is bizarre. We need to make the money available here in this Chamber. We need to make the proper choices on the ground.

CE: We have a very successful graduate programme. We have taken on 12 graduates ourselves in area of Enterprise and Business Development, human resources and marketing. The moratorium is technically in place. There is discussion going on at national level in relation to possible relaxation of that. But this will take place in the context of what financial capacity we have. There are limited opportunities for local government to raise funds itself and central government funds are largely gone. We are and always will be constrained about the number of staff we can take on. Any recruitment we undertake will have to be done on a prudent basis.

Cllr Doyle (FF): I am not looking back. We need to look forward. We are all proud members of our Municipal Districts. We need to see them working. Councils won’t work otherwise. Was at an AILG meeting a few weeks ago. We need resources and staff on the ground. We can’t just talk about the work we intend to do. Existing staff on the ground do a fabulous job but if this embargo is lifted, asks that we look on it favourably.

 

11.  Councillor Noel Collins:
“That this Council requests the Department of Environment and Local Government to make additional funding available for the provision of sheltered housing, to non-profit Housing Associations for the elderly.” 

Cllr Collins (Ind): Housing for the elderly is a real problem. Demand is great and houses are few. Nonprofit housing organisations manage over 4000 units for the elderly. Sheltered housing is a source of security for the elderly with safety factors in place. In recent years there has been a drastic fall-off in provision of housing for the elderly. Will continue to fall without government intervention. This needs to happen at once or newly planned sheltered projects will not start. Sheltered housing provides good value for money.

Cllr K Murphy (FG): Timely motion and annual problem. Supports and seconds motion. Worth knowing that part of our growing housing list is the elderly and the single one-off as well. When we are looking at the housing list, it is important that we look very seriously at our non-profit housing associations. Funding has dried up for sheltered and social housing agencies in recent years. Glad to see a financial commitment to them recently. So there is a positive side to this as well. Our voluntary housing agencies are not taking up the slack for what they should be taking up. They used to come up with 95% of the capital fund for housing. That funding has almost dried up completely. What are we as a Council are doing to help these organisations to develop shovel-ready projects?

Cllr Doyle (FF): Elderly single men are a category that are not top of the priority list. Supports the motion.

Cllr Keohane (SF): Supports. In the voluntary sector that I deal with, the hostels need support as well. They are overflowing with elderly men. Breaks your heart when an old man has to leave the hostel with nowhere to go. There is a building next to Simon on Andersons Quay that has been derelict for 10 years. It was Reliance Bearing. Now it is owned NAMA. Can we do something with this?

CE: The more fundng we have, the better. There is a housing strategy in place and we are one of the most advanced and proactive councils with respect to our relationship with voluntary housing associations. That is recognised nationally. We meet every 2 months with the Irish Council for Social Housing and a steering group. We will work with anyone who can provide solutions.

Cllr Collins (Ind): Have a voluntary housing agency in Midleton ready to build if they had the money. Thanks CE and councillors for their support. Hopes government will deliver funding soon.

 

12.  Councillor Mary Linehan-Foley:
“Calling on Cork County Council to write to Mr James Reilly Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, to assign a Youth Officer to the Youghal area bearing in mind that Youghal unlike surrounding towns such as Midleton, Cobh, Carrigtwohill and Glanmire have a youth worker in their areas.”

Cllr Linehan-Foley (Ind): Not all youth have a desire to play sports and get involved in organised groups. A youth worker would offer kids alternative options, would deliver organised activities. We have a community based drugs worker. We have a garda youth co-ordinator. They liaise well but the youth worker would provide opportunities for personal and social developments.  There should be the same help available for those who aren’t getting into trouble as there is for those who are about to.

Cllr McCarthy (FG): Supports. We opened a new facility in Midleton recently. We have a youth worker. With the new facility, the numbers of youth in attendance have increased hugely. Youghal has been designated a RAPID town. Provision of a youth worker is a logical step.

Cllr Dawson (FG): Have been involved in the Youth Café in Mitchelstown for the last 5 years. Sees the massive benefit of it. Please include Mitchelstown in the letter to the Minister because we have the same challenge and difficulty.

Cllr Hegarty (FG): Great sporting organisations but need something for those who are not into sport. This government clearly acknowleges the needs of children and fully endorses the motion.

Cllr O’Flynn (FF): Agrees with worthy motion. Youth officers work very well.

Cllr N Collins (Ind): Fully supports. Young people are the salt of the earth; the men and women of tomorrow. We must prepare them for the road ahead. More leaders and helpers are needed. Asks the Minister to deliver in accordance with the request. Supports addendum from Cllr Dawson.

Cllr Cullinane (Ind): Supports. Cobh is lucky because it has excellent services and officers. The youth deserve our support for social and personal development. This will teach them to take their place in our commmunities. This needs to be equalised across the county.

Cllr Murphy (Ind): Asks that Charleville would be added to this also. Has previously made representation on this. We put so much emphasis on minding our mental health, if we are serious about this, we need people like Youth Officers coming into the area helping to facilitate that. We just need to find funding to do it.

Agreed that we would write to the Minister.

 

13.  Councillor Marcia D’Alton:
“That the State would acknowledge its responsibility to people who in attempting to buy their own homes, now find themselves with hazardous properties not constructed in compliance with the building regulations.

And that Cork County Council asks the Department of Environment, Community & Local Government to move away from the current system of self-regulation in the design and construction of buildings and to replace it with an independent Approved Inspector system similar to that operating in the UK.”

Cllr D’Alton (Ind):  Intro to motion

Cllr O’Laoghaire (SF): Supports and commends the motion. It is a huge issue that people have had to leave their homes. These are new buildings. What will we be dealing with in 20 years time when these buildings age? Aside from the fire issue, pyrite is another obvious issue. It is a widespread problem.

Cllr O’Keeffe (FF): Understands the thrust of the motion but wonders are we being too restrictive. A developer has to provide proper construction and supervision. One-off builders can now build again and is delighted about this. All developers are getting a bad name and are we giving the wrong message. Sees where Cllr D’Alton is coming from. If we put in government red tape we won’t see things happening here.

Cllr Canty (FG): Agrees with some aspects of the motion. Worked as a painter on building sites for 20 years. We always had site meetings on Monday mornings. When we bought a house, the mortage lender would get an engineer’s report on the house. We all had to do it. This would solve the problem. There are cowboy builders and this is what we are paying the price for. Agrees with some of the implications.

Cllr K Murphy (FG): Doesn’t agree with all of the motion. Doesn’t understand how some of the buildings have been developed and been signed off on. Someone must be liable for this. There are cowboy builders in lots of places around the country. Someone must be exposed and brought before the courts. Until this happens, we will have H&S issues. Doesn’t agree wholeheartedly with self-regulation’s replacement with Approved Inspectors. What are the changes brought about in 2014?

Cllr Lombard (FG): New legislation brought in in 2014 was significant. Previous regulations weren’t up to it. Are the new legislation too onerous? Time will tell. Amendment to one-off houses are positive. There is now a liability on the certifying engineer arising from the 2014 regulations.

Cllr Hegarty (FG): This is an important motion. Doesn’t know how far we are going to go with it but has to be looked at. One off houses are not a problem. The problem is with larger developments. Maybe link up with H&S? Spoke of entrance piers to a house in a housing estate in Midleton. Estate had been taken in charge. To the naked eye it looked perfect. When a truck backed into the pillars, they collapsed. Revealed major structural issue. We have to make provision for this in our estimates going forward.

Cllr O’Flynn (FF): Motion is timely. Shouldn’t rush this. The people here that are suffering are the misfortunate families. The largest investment they’ll ever make in their life is their home. Who is reponsible? Who signed off on it? Most of these companies are still in business. Agrees with recent changes for one-off houses. Most people who are on top of building their own house will make sure it is just so. The 2014 changes were pricing the one-off houses out of the market. But the present system is not working. The mortgage provider will send out an independent inspector out to check a house. We need to write to the Minister.

Cllr D’Alton (Ind): Clarifies that there are indeed good developers and it is most unfortunate that the bad ones are tainting the image of all developers. An engineer’s certificate is still almost always got either because the house purchaser wants it or because the mortgage provider requires it. But I am an engineer. If an engineer inspects a finished property, he cannot see the condition of the foundation. And he is not going to dig holes in the plasterboard to see the condition of the wiring and plumbing behind it. The only way to guarantee proper construction is to have independent checking of each step of the construction process. The changes brought in in 2014 are so onerous that they may put builders off building. How are we then going to deliver the housing we so badly need? And despite that, they still require that only 15% of new builds are independently inspected. That means 85% of construction projects will still go unchecked. We need 100% inspection.

It was agreed to write to the Minister.

 

[g]           VOTES OF CONGRATULATIONS

14.  VOTES OF CONGRATULATIONS (if any)

 Mayor O’Shea, Cllrs Cullinane (Ind), Hurley (Ind), Murphy (FG), O’Grady (SF) and Lombard (FG) all had votes of congratulations. Mayor O’Shea said that the County Council would be holding a civic reception to congratulate Tidy Towns awards winners.

 

15.  ANY OTHER BUSINESS

 

The meeting was concluded.

 

[a]            CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

1.  Minutes of Special Meeting of the Council held on 9^th September, 2015.

Proposed and seconded.

 

2.  Minutes of Meeting of the Council held on 14^th September, 2015. 

Cllr O’Grady (SF): Wants a suspension of standing orders to discuss recent developments with respect to the Local Government Review Committee report.

Agreed for 1pm.

Minutes of the meeting proposed and seconded.

 

[b]           VOTES OF SYMPATHY 

3.  Votes of Sympathy (if any) to the relatives of:

• members or employees of the Council,
• dignitaries of Church or State, or
• members of old I.R.A. and Cumann na mBan.

Cllr O’Flynn (FF) and the Mayor have sympathies.

 

[c]            STATUTORY BUSINESS

4.  Disposal of Property – Section 183 of the Local Government Act, 2001:

(a) Disposal of Nos. 3,7,12,16,22 & 24 Daniel O’Brien Terrace, Buttevant, Co. Cork.
(b) Disposal of No. 2 St. Cainir’s Place, Bantry, Co. Co. Cork.

Proposed and seconded.

 

Cobh Municipal District, 8^th September, 2015:

(d) Disposal of Cobh Library by way of lease to Cobh Chamber.
(e) Disposal of 27 Philip O’Neill Place, Cobh, Co. Cork.

Cllr Sheppard (FG): Cobh Library has a lease of €5,000/year. Who gets the money? Is it Cork County Council or the Cobh Municipal District?

CE: The lease is taken into Cork County Council’s annual budget. It is distributed to the Municipal District through the GMA and other budgetary plans.

Proposed and seconded.

 

Kanturk Mallow Municipal District, 4^th September, 2015:

(f) Disposal of Freehold Interest in house and plot at Church View, Dromagh, Co. Cork.

Proposed and seconded.

 

Fermoy Municipal District, 15^th September, 2015:

(g) Disposal of Sites No. 5 and 6, Coolnanave Industrial Park, Mitchelstown, Co. Cork
(h) Disposal of site at Uplands, Fermoy, Co. to ESB Networks.

 Proposed and seconded.

 

 

[d]           FINANCIAL BUSINESS

5.  Consideration of report on the financial impact of the LPT variation under section 20 of the Finance (Local Property Tax) Act 2012, as amended by Section 5 of the Finance (Local Property Tax) Act 2013.

CE: Document circulated setting out different scenarios around different levels of variation. Council decided to reduce LPT by 10% in 2015. That was for 2015 only. Now we need to decide for 2016. Have briefed CPG in relation to a number of scenarios. Presented these in summary here. Significant implications surrounding a 15% and 10% reduction. There are opportunities for the Council at a 5% reduction. Clearly more opportunities for no reduction. This is a matter for the councillors to decide.

€2.5m reduction in services over last year with 15% reduction.

€300,000 reduction in services over last year with 10% reduction.

Additional spending with 5% reduction.

The budget benefits from the fact that we have gone through significant cost saving measures and efficiency reviews. We have reprocured many of our services. This scenario presented today is the bottom line scenario. We have just completed service reviews across more areas, especially area offices and arising from the abolition of town councils. Expect this to provide more productivity in 2015 and beyond. The budget is largely completed at this stage. The decision here today will impact on this. If you decide today for a reduction in LPT, the Corporate Policy Group will help me to decide where reductions in spending should be made.

[As an aside, tenders are being opened in the Chamber. They are for fire fighting equipment, parking warden service contract (1 tender), rehabilitation of a church in North Cork and 1 other]

Cllr Murphy (FG): Would love to introduce a reduction but think we should hold LPT without any reduction.
Reasons: A 5% reduction will give back €4.50 per year to an individual, i.e. 8c per week or 1c per day. For people who are wealthy, it will give back €88 per year or 22c per day. We are looking after the wealthy if we cut this tax, not helping those who really need it. Exactly the same for the 10% reduction. 49c per day saving for an individual with this scenario. But the extra increase in income to the Council from a zero variation would be very helpful to roads, footpath, lighting, etc. for everyone. It is not our right to deny that. FG proposes no reduction in LPT.

Seconded by Cllr G Murphy (FG): The insignificance to the household of the reductions being proposed here today have been well explained. We propose that the Council adopts a county-wide hedge cutting programme with no reduction. Why should we do this because legislation says nationally that it is the job of the landowner. But it is a huge job to identify each landowner and force them through the courts to do it. Enforcement would cost more than actually doing the work. Uniform hedgecutting throughout the county would benefit everyone: tourism, the Wild Atlantic Way. Farmers have more than enough beaurcracy and cost already. They will not be able to carry out this work themselves. Urban dwellers and all vehicle owners take holidays in Ireland. They are constantly complaining about wing mirrors being broken and their cars being scratched. Many councillors have received representations from hauliers, etc. Their disadvantage on county roads is pushing up costs for all consumers. FG’s proposed approach to property tax would be more transparent. Each householder would know that their money is being used for a specific purpose around the county. We could explain to the people of Cork how much of the LPT is spent on community grants, amenity grants, disabled grants, etc. Think that we would be offering a very specific benefit to the people of this county. First time in a LPT situation that we can say the people of the county are getting something back in return. School buses have difficulty travelling some of our roads because of the hedgecutting. Children are at risk because of the hedges. If we decide today that we do universal hedge cutting throughout the county, we will be doing the people a service.

Cllr McGrath (FF): Bringing the LPT decision forward to today means that we have to take this decision at a very early stage. Thanks Finance Department for their open approach to the FF party questions. People were misled by the government about LPT from day one. They were always told it would lead to improvement in local services. That is not the case. Most local authorities are only marginally better off as a result of the LPT. It is an unfair and regressive tax. Doesn’t take into account people’s ability to pay. FF proposed 10% reduction last year. Believe that was a balanced approach. Key decision was to introduce the rates relief scheme which gave much relief to small and medium sized businesses. This year’s decision – we are furious with the government to reduce the allocation of LPT to this Council. They have reduced it by €1.6m, significant reduction over what we received last year. Additional insult to householders in Cork. We want to improve services in local authorities but we do not want to perpuate a tax which we think is unfair. Disappointed with the stark choices we have been presented with in this Council. Very narrow debate. €290m revenue budget does not include the capital budget. The variation in property tax is very small in this context. Not everything depends on the LPT variation. Some of the key functions which we are being told will be affected by our decision today are core functions of a local authority. We believe we need a debate as a local authority about our choices going forward. FF is proposing 10% reduction to keep things the same as last year. Reminds FG that their government set up this tax. FF would love more flexibility but does not have this opportunity because of the way the tax was set up by their former minister. €1.4m from general reserve should be used to maintain services provided last year. Also believe that we can provide the extra €1m spending proposed by the CE under the 5% scenario with a 10% reduction.

Believes the figure put forward in 2016 budget for commercial rates is conservative. It provides for a lesser figure for commercial rates next year than we did this year. Believes we will have an increase in commercial rates in the year coming. This is a most reasonable assumption in a growing economy. Challenges anyone to say there is not scope for further savings. Think we should have an efficiency committee – party leaders with executive – to set up those efficiencies.

We at least need to maintain people’s tax bills where they were next year. So FF is proposing a 10% reduction. We believe we can do this and maintain and improve services over last year.

Cllr Carroll (FF): This government has reduced local government road funding by 52%. If someone thinks the LPT is to replace that, they are in cloud cuckoo land. Go look for that money back and then we can cut the ditches. We are all being asked to cut LPT. It was never welcomed.

Cllr O’Grady (SF): SF proposes 15% reduction in LPT. For 2016, government cut of €1.5m in LPT to Cork County Council. €7.9m is being retained by the government. Government’s first option is always to cut local funding. It is playing games with the local governmetn fund. LGF previously came from motor tax, etc. The take from this is expected to rise across the state but the government is stil cutting funding to local authorities. This is a regressive tax that is especially hard on low and middle income earners. €5.9m going back into people’s pockets throughout the county if we cut the LPT by 15%. This is a small step towards the abolition of LPT which SF plans to do if it is in government. Arrears €53m Jan 2015. Bottlehill cost €35m. €4.3m spent each year on landfill care and maintenance. €3.5m is to be given to LCDCs in this year’s budget; it was not in last year’s budget. Interest is paid every year on land lying idle. We are proposing that €5.9m would be given to the local economy. This is one of the few powers allowed to councillors. We ask for support.

Cllr Hayes (SF): This is money taken out of the local economy which affects local businesses, etc. It is a stealth tax on people. Tells of a lady in Dunmanway on a widows pension who goes to bed at 6pm most evenings because she can’t afford to heat her house. Stealth charges have led to this. The menu laid out by the CEO looks appetising. But these are core services. This is what the Council should be about. They should be able to be accommodated in the budget of the Council. Our roads budget has been halved in recent years. We receive less than the national average per km to keep them up to scratch. We all pay our taxes which should be allocated to local authorities for public services. Property tax is a scam which was introduced to pay back the banks. Supports 15% reduction.

Cllr Hurley (Ind): It is an easy score attitude to propose putting money back into hedgecutting. The Council is addressing this. The decision today is reaching far beyond hedgecutting. Reminds Cllr McGrath that the 10% reduction last year was brought in with the suport of the Independents. We can either plus or minus the variation in LPT. This is a good place to be. The current day government has derogated on its responsibility to local authorities. It has handcuffed them – we have to go back to the general public to look to them to bail us out again. Not fair when government should be providing funding. SF has asked for extra money to deal with housing stock over the last 12 months. Now they are looking for 15% reduction. Figures speak for themselves. People are experiencing hardship. As a compromise, we are proposing 5% reduction.

Cllr Conway (Ind): Agrees with many of the sentiments expressed by Cllr McGrath with respect to the tax. Does not do what it says on the tin. It was portrayed as a tax that would provide extra services for those who paid it. What we are proposing is a 5% reduction as a minimum. But the services that can be gained from it would be major for the people involved. We know that the people in social housing do not pay LPT. In a way, those who do pay LPT do have the money. We are in favour in a 5% reduction for those people but we are also in favour of increasing services.

Cllr Collins (FG): Hedgecutting – by way of rebalancing the facilities we are providing on a county-wide basis, the portion of what is left could be used for the subsidisation of services in urban areas for the cutting of open spaces which has to date been done by residents themselves.

Cllr K McCarthy (SF): Wants to kill the myth that all the Independents are for 5% reduction. This one is for 15%. What this boils down to is whether one disagrees or agrees with LPT. We can’t abolish it so we can only give the people a break and given them the maximum reduction.

Cllr T Collins (Ind): Hedgecutting has been a problem for years. But have never heard a member of FG say heretofore say they will fund it. Now there’s an election coming and they say they will fund it. The 25% that was taken off the road funding by government would cut a lot of hedges in this county. We were elected to represent and to help the people. One way of doing this is to reduce their expenses. People have property tax, water rates and many other taxes they didn’t have before. There are poor people out there who cannot afford those two extra charges. Knows a 5% cut is not a lot but it is at least going in the right direction. Would ask the government to provide hedgecutting money throughout the county.

Cllr N O’Donovan (FG): This is one of the most important decisions we will make throughout the county. Cork County Council never got its share of roads funding even when the country was going well. It was thanks to research done by UCC that we got more. Made a plea last year to all the new Council who got in. Said that they would be told no funding available over the course of the year. We are here as local councillors and have the power to put money behind the things that people want. €14 of saving for people on the lowest band and €246 saving for those on the highest band. Ridiculous for SF to support this. The Council did propose a hedgecutting scheme in West Cork but a similar scheme did not work in County Clare. People do want to see benefit for the tax they want to pay. They want services on the ground.

Cllr Buckley (SF): LPT is an extra tax on people. You are paying twice for nothing. Government expects the ordinary Joe Soap on the ground to pay twice for everything and get nothing back.

Roisin (executive): Reduction as outlined in rates is coming from the Irish Water element of it. It is classified as grants in this year’s budget. So it is not missing – just reclassified. Will come off our valuation base but will come in as a grant. So the €126m figure has been reduced but is showing up as a grant. We are saying the same level of rates will be received in 2016.

Loan funding – we are covering this but much is recoupable. €44m of debt was recouped from Irish Water in July. More is recoverable under our social leasing programme.

Cllr Cullinane (Ind): What do we pay in LPT on our own housing stock? Thinks we should look for a tax relief on this. It is only a game. We pay out 100% and get 80% back. Also wants clarification on what the extra money should be spend on. Wants executive to clarify that we are discussing the percentage variation today and what the financial structure is. Not what any saving should be spent on. The Minister said publicly that there would be no change in our allocation this year but there has been. This needs to be discussed publicly. The figures that we paid for LPT last year were the same as the year before even though we gave a 10% reduction. Does this mean that we did not take account of the 10% reduction when doing our return?

Roisin: €600k was Council’s payment in LPT last year. It was just buy chance that the figure was the same as the year before. Council’s housing stock changes all the time. Council’s own housing stock is also affected by any LPT variation given by Council.

Cllr McGrath (FF): The sequence of proposals in the voting on this is important.

Mayor suggested a short recess.

On return:
Argument about standing orders. Mayor insists on enforcing them and in particular Standing Order Rule 33. The proposal is not to reduce LPT. The first amendment is to reduce it by 10%. If that is passed, then there are no further amendments. Maurice Manning (executive) explains.

Cllr O’Laoghaire (SF): Cannot see how Standing Orders can be read like that. The first vote is an amendment to a motion. If that is passed, it becomes a motion on which any other amendments can be taken.

Mayor says this is not the case and management has explained Standing Orders. He is proceeding with a vote on the amendments proposed.

Amendment 1:
Vote on 10% variation in property tax: (SF refuses to participate.)   For 13 – against 29 – abstain 8

Amendment 2:
Vote on 15% variation in property tax: (SF participates.) For 21 – against 28

Amendment 3:
Vote on 5% variation in property tax: (SF participates.) For 32 – against 15

5% variation has become a resolution of Council.

 

[e]           NOTICES OF MOTION 

6.  Councillor Deirdre Forde:
“The CE give a written comprehensive report on why the Roundabout entrance to Maryborough Ridge  Maryborough Hill has not yet been commissioned.  What is the current status of the planning, the date of the original planning for this site, outline any discussions between Nama or its agents in relation to the current situation, and any potential School site, or through road.  Further clarify which agency has recently carried out investigations on the site and on whose behalf.” 

As Cllr Forde is not present, this is deferred.

 

7.  Councillor Alan Coleman
“That management give the members an update on the flood relief schemes for Bandon and Skibbereen”

Cllr Colman (FF): There has been a huge level of delay in progressing these schemes. In 2009, we had serious flooding in Bandon. It was hugely debilitating to the town. We jave been promised by all governments that funds were in place for flood relief but we have had incredible unexplained delays. We as a Council must demand answers as to why these schemes are not progressing. The flood relief scheme in Bandon was managed by the OPW, was put out to tender in February 2014 and was withdrawn because of a threatened legal challenge. It went to tender again just a few days ago. Why did the documents, already prepared, have to wait this long to go out again to tender? The delay can be explained only by the funding not being in place.

Cork County Council is the lead agency in the flood relief scheme in Skibberreen. Cork County Council had a nominated tender. It went out to tender in July. We told the OPW that the tender was nominated. Then the OPW came back saying that Minister Howlin’s department is to do deeper investigation on the environmental assessment done on this project. This department is holding the scheme up. There has been no timeline given.

Can only assume that these two vital projects for West Cork are held up because funding is not in place.

Cllr Carroll (FF): One has to presume that there has been political interference in the process in Skibbereen. The final questions were asked in July. Everything was in place. The contractor was ready to be notified. We were told nothing could go wrong and that the next step in the process was for the Minister to sign off. We know the Minister would like to pick a choice time for himself. But now shocked to hear it has gone off the table. No proposed date for when something may happen. People of Skibbereen have suffered devastation year after year with their premises being flooded, cannot get insurance for their houses. People want to know who is codding who. Is it an election gimmick or what? People are very annoyed.

Cllr Murphy O’Mahony (FF): We got an update on the Bandon scheme this day last week at the Western Committee meeting from the County Engineer. We need to demand facts and figures from the OPW. We need a timeframe. Businesses are being held to ransom. They are unable to get insurance. The flood relief schemes are on hold for the 6^th or 7^th time for each of them. Would go stronger on the motion. Bring the OPW in. Set up a meeting or whatever. Just can’t carry on the way it is.

Cllr Hayes (SF): The OPW has moved the goal posts. This is calling for an assessment of an existing assessment. To be cynical, questions if the funding is actually secured. These are projects that are very badly needed. Roads in Bandon are like the surface of the moon. They are in appalling shape. They cannot be resurfaced while the drainage works are outstanding. Need clarification – what is the position with the OPW ?

Cllr J O’Donovan (FG): The businesses and the locals are in disarray. They want answers. We want to be able to relay those answers to them. The roads are appalling. Is concerned for both projects.

Cllr N O’Donovan (FG): The County Engineer’s update was very worrying. Spoke of a case in Claregalway where they are a year down the road and no progress. Requests letter from the Chamber to the OPW. Clonakilty is wondering whether there will be a similar delay.

Cllr Keohane (SF): We have been told that the Glanmire flood relief scheme will be delayed by 3 years. At the beginning of the year, we were told it would be starting this year. So can we add this also to our queries?

CE: Both these schemes are being dealt with under OPW powers. In Skibbereen, the County Council is acting as agents of the OPW and still needs their approval. In the Bandon scheme, the tender documentation was issued on 25^th September and tenders are to be submtted by end November 2015. Tenders are to go back to the OPW who will then process them. But there is no indication of how soon construction will start on the ground. In the case of Skibbereen, we received tenders on 17^th April. Opened 20^th April. Assessment completed by middle June. Went to OPW for approval in August. We need OPW’s approval, OPW needs Department of Expenditure and Reform’s approval. An independent review of the EIS is now required under new legislation before the department will approve anything.

Cllr Colman (Ind): Proposes we write to both Howlin and the OPW.

(3 FF in Chamber at present)

 

Suspension of standing orders proposed by Sinn Fein to discuss the outcome of the Local Government Review Boundary Committee report. 

Cllr O’Grady (SF): Sinn Féin wants to see two authorities, one in the city and one in the county.

Cllr O’Laoghaire (SF): There has been huge discussion of the merger in the public. They are saying that Cork County Council did not debate the Boundary Committee’s report in public. Sinn Féin have been consistent in our approach. There are financial issues with the extension of the boundary. We should have started with identifying what is the best way to deliver services in County and then how to fund that. The challenges facing Cork City and County Councils are very different. Doesn’t believe a merged council will be in the same position to speak on the housing crisis, etc. Puts it to the Council that Cork County Council does not support the merger of the two Councils.

Cllr McGrath (FF): This is the first opportunity we have had in public to debate this issue. The public debate has been damaging to Cork as a whole. The split decision of the group didn’t help in that regard. Fianna Fail supported the merger. Thinks that this is something on which the pause button should be pressed. It is an issue that should be taken up by government. People should vote on this and it is something the local authorities should not be afraid of.

Cllr McGrath’s statement was seconded by Cllr Murphy O’Mahony.

Cllr Murphy (FG): Thought we as a Council were supporting the merger. The split decision of the Boundary Committee was unfortunate. There should a unanimous decision for any kind of a task like this. A major boundary extension to the city would have a detrimental effect on the county. We will have only €40m to run the county. That would not be possible. Equalisation was proposed for the first couple of years and after that there would be none. The Western Division feels that it will lose out very seriously with a merger. But yet the alternative is worse.

Cllr Colman (Ind): Thinks the minority report was a good thing because it showed everyone what the alternative to a merger was. It showed how little regard there was for the people in the remaining part of the county. It was good to have this placed starkly before us. The proposed merger would be positive in terms of representation for some areas of the county. We didn’t have a good divide of Municipal Districts. Believes it will be positive for rural parts of the county. Eight members in West Cork represent a huge tract of land. The implementation group should be let run its course. A new government will decide what will happen at that stage. There is much more detail to be got yet. Any future minister will decide based on the facts from the implementation group. The final decision can be made then but the process should be allowed continue in the interim. The negative comment is unfortunate. Much of it is ill-informed and not helpful.

Cllr Collins (FG): Understood that we did have a debate in the council. Not in favour of stopping the process. Maybe more indepth investigation of how it might work would be no harm. The implementation group is worthwhile. Thinks Cork City as an entity is an integral part of the county but as a functioning local authority we are responsible for more people. In spite of what they might like, we are part of Cork and the City is part of the County They cannot work on their own. Their population is dwindling. Their rate base is diminishing. But the city could not survive without the county. Development around the perimeter has caused damage to the heart of the city. One way to equalise this is to join forces. Cork City Councillors may be trying to mind their council seats. Deputies seem to be taking political lines in their support. County TDs are supporting a merger, City TDs are not.

Cllr N O’Donovan (FG): This is the first time we have discussed this since the review group came back with their report. It is unfortunate that some of the headlines have been as they are. We are not overly happy with all the recommendations either and think an implementation group can iron much of this out. Minority report proposes equalisation to be in place for 10 years – major shortcoming. Important that this report does not sit on the shelf. Important that representatives of the City and Council come together and iron out their differences.

Cllr B Moynihan (FF): Represents a rural political area. Very difficult to get funding there. We are in with Mallow at present. Has to assure his constituents that this merger will not reduce the services they already get. They experience rural depopulation, schools struggling, etc. Not easy. Needs assurances in his area that funding will not be reduced to his local area. Concerned that his area will be forgotten if the merger goes ahead.

Cllr Hegarty (FG): Much has been said about this but much of it is political point scoring. If there wasn’t a general election looming, would the headlines still be there? Everyone has issues and concerns but the implementation group should be set up and allow to do their work. We have been more than 50 years trying to come up with a change to the boundary and nothing has worked. Here is a suggestion. Hopefully it will let the people of Cork do their business.

Cllr O’Keeffe (FF): Always maintained that the city was a fourth division of the county at large.

Cllr Ryan (FF): The bickering that has happened publicly is very regrettable and very damaging. Some form of local government organisation has to be put in place to make the workings of the city and county feasible. Agrees a plebiscite would be fair and democratic. Put it before the people. We’re looking for a local government that works.

Mayor: Has been a lot of comment on the Local Government Review report. We are all on the one when we say we want the best outcome for Cork as a whole. It is unfortunate that much public commentary has been in my view over the top. Cork County Council already caters for 59% of the metropolitan area of Cork. We do this well. But we also represent a significant rural part of the county too. We as an organisation can stand out as being able to represent both. We have complex development zones and we do this well. It is important for us to stick by the decision we made. Let us let the implmemnetation team do their work and work with them to create a local government structure for Cork that works. Looking for change for 50 years. Report is now published. Proposes that we don’t take any of these motions today and just work with the implementation team.

Cllr Doyle (FF): Pit about the negativity from the city. We had meetings here about the merger/otherwise and we felt, having listened to all advice that it is the best way forward for Cork as a county. Much of what we have been hearing is negative and this is opposite to what we agreed on. We have the Municipal Districts set up. It is up to us as elected representatives to make sure that these work.

Cllr O’Laoghaire (SF): Wants us to take the motion.

Mayor wants us to rule it out on the basis of standing orders and because there is not an adequate compliment of councillors in the Chamber.

 

8.  Councillor Seamus McGrath:
“To request a written report from the CEO outlining a full update on plans for the Cork Science and Innovation Park.” 

Response to motion: Response to McGrath’s motion on Curraheen Masterplan

Cllr McGrath (FF): Fully supports the development of this. Put the motion down prior to the decision of An Bord Pleanala in relation to the planning application. The decision by the Board is a severe blow to the masterplan. The Science and Innovation Park is badly needed for jobs. Cork County Council supported the planning application but the board refused it because they said it was against the masterplan. Why weren’t discussions held at pre-planning stage so that we didn’t have to refuse it initially and then come on side and support it? It has dealt a blow to the project and the jobs that could potentially have been created for Cork. The other question is the degree of frustration at the slow pace at which the Masterplan is developing. We approved it in 2011. This was a leap of faith. How is the infrastructural development to put it in place going to be progressed? Suggests we have a meeting to brief local members on this masterplan.

Cllr O’Laoghaire (SF): The potential that existed was significant and it was very disappointing that it the development was refused. Supports Cllr McGrath’s suggestion in relation to a meeting. Wants this park to reach its full potential.

CE: A decision was issued by An Bord Pleanala last Thursday. The masterplan is robust and should be adhered to. There has been significant progress with permits, etc. The EIS is approved. There will clearly be a challenge in relation to long term funding for access roads, etc. There is nothing fundamental that undermines the masterplan or the phasing or the proposed usage. But we will review the Board’s decision in detail and if there are amendments required, they will come through as part of the Local Area Plans which are up for review next year.

Cllr McGrath (FF): Thinks we should set up a meeting to include the Blarney-Macroom area. We have had meetings like this in the past. This is a vital masterplan for Cork.

CE: Has no difficulty with providing a briefing on this. Will organise joint meeting between the two Municipal Districts.

Cllr Collins (FG): It is most disappointing that we are back where we started again. Who jumps first? Do we wait for UCC or CIT to come up with the funding for this proposal or do we wait for a brave developer? This project is of a scale of the Cork Airport Business Park and bigger. Can’t understand why An Bord Pleanala rejected it.

 

9.  Councillor Noel Collins:
“That this Council call on the Government in its 2015 Budget to scrap the VAT on school uniforms, reverse the hikes in college registration fees while restoring grants to their previous levels.”

Cllr Collins (Ind) introduced the motion saying that “Education is a right and not a privilege”.

Motion was seconded by Cllr Linehan-Foley.

Cllr Harris (Ind): Registration fees for kids going to secondary school seem to vary from €100 to €600 for schools only a small distance apart. This is not free education. It causes class distinction in schools.

All agreed that we would write to the Minister.

 

10.  Councillor Joe Harris:
“That this Council request a report from the Department of Finance into the investment strategy of pension and savings fund managers in our insurance companies over the past 15 years. In particular to ascertain why thousands of pension funds both defined benefits and defined contributions collapsed, leaving hundreds of thousands of people penniless and totally dependent on the state”.  

Cllr Harris (Ind): Every year these insurance companies get hefty fees from these fund. The insurance companies are largely based in Cork and Dublin. This money should be invested in government guilds. The fees are based on the size of the fund so risk-taking is encouraged. These funds are taken out by people to pay for university, etc. and all have had similarly disastrous results. Putting your money under the mattress would have a better return. These insurance companies are now paying huge money in advertising their pension funds again. When they return to profit will these people who lost out heretofore be compensated?

Seconded by Cllr Hurley.

We will write to the Department of Finance.

 

11.  Councillor Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire:
“To ask for a report on the operation of the Motor Tax Office, which is operated by Cork County Council, on behalf of the Department of Transport, including the breakdown of costs to Cork County Council, outlining the net cost, and to outline what costs incurred by Cork County Council can be recouped by the Council.” 

Response to motion: Response to O’Laoghaire’s motion on motor tax office

Cllr O’Laoghaire (SF): €49.3m was collected in motor tax in 2014 to input into the local government fund. Cork County Council retains €2.95m from the local government fund. This is a tax that is collected locally but has no benefit for Cork. It is also doubling up because Cork County Council is also collecting the property tax. It cost €4.442m in 2014 to operate the motor tax office. This is a cost that is borne entirely by the Council. None can be recouped. National government should not expect Cork County Council to carry this burden of collecting central taxes. It puts funding around local government into context.

CE: We are incurring a cost which incurs money for the state and which is distributed around the country. At one stage there was a suggestion that when the local government funding coming to Cork County Council was €30 – 40m, the cost of collecting motor tax was included. This is not the case any more.

Cllr O’Laoghaire (SF): Recognises the CE can not do anything about it but suggests that we write and put it to the department.

Cllr Murphy (FG): This has come up over and over again in the chamber and agrees that it is not right.

We will write to the Department.

 

12.  Councillor Paul Hayes:
“That this Council calls on the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, and Minister of State for Housing to urgently revisit the current restrictions on the refurbishment of vacant council houses, or voids, in light of the serious crisis in housing at present. In order to expedite the turn-around time between council houses being left vacant by one tenant and re-allocated to another tenant, we propose that potential tenants be given the option to be allocated houses and to then take responsibility for refurbishment of the house, carry-out any light structural works, cleaning, painting and redecorating to bring the house up to standard. This would not apply to all allocations. Specified electrical and/or plumbing works on the property could only be carried out by council approved personnel or certified tradesmen at the request of the tenant. The concept of a disclaimer indemnifying the Council and their officials from any legal action or insurance claim by the tenant, should an accident occur while they are carrying out these works on the council house should also be considered.” 

Cllr Hayes (SF): Money from government to fix up houses is just being drip fed. It is not anywhere near enough to cope with the housing needs. Why can’t tenants be allowed to paint their own houses? We are being tied up with red tape and beaucracy. We are always told that Council officials cannot sign off on a house until it is finished to a set standard. Suggests that a disclaimer would be looked at for Council officials.

Cllr Mullane (SF): Supports. Knows of homes that are left by former tenants in fantastic condition but are left boarded up by the County Council. In Mallow Town Council they allowed tenants to purchase their own doors, etc. and pay back the cost in the rent. This practice is stopped now. It was regarded as an additional cost to collect. We have too many voids.

Cllr Buckley (SF): Vital that turnarounds would be accelerated. There is always an issue with health & safety. Dad lived in a perfect Council house. It still hasn’t been given out a year later. If it was good enough for someone to live in up to the day they died, surely it is good enough for someone in need to take over. A family who has the good fortune to get a council house will have more respect for it if they are allowed to have a hand in doing it up.

Cllr McGrath (FF): Supports. Disgraceful decision of the Department last week to not fund 55 of our vacant units. Entirely illogical decision from a government which says they are putting the housing crisis at the top of the agenda.

Cllr Carroll (FF): This is a good motion. This happens over and over and needs to be looked at. The Council should also be stronger and heavier on people who walk away from social housing and leave it in dreadful condition.

Cllr Murphy (FG): Look at our framework document. The HSA is a ferocious problem here. We cannot go in unless we rip out top class built ins and replace them all. This is daft. We need to employ more contractors and look in a common sense way at the refurbishment of houses.

CE: Perhaps we could discuss this at SPC level? It is a very complex area. We have a duty that is specified. Every property must be brought up to an acceptable standard. There are times when there are works to be done. We have to ensure the house is right beause we have a duty in law to ensure that these works are done before the house is reallocated. These are the rental accommodation standards. We have to be able to stand over all the works done in a house we rent out.

Cllr Hayes (SF): It is all about urgency. We do need to come up with a policy.

 

13.  Councillor Margaret Murphy-O’Mahony:
“That this Council asks the HSE why the allocated Home Help Hours for West Cork for the period January/April 2015 were not fully utilised. Target YTD 104,000 Utilised YTD 98,500 hours.” 

Cllr Murphy O’Mahony (FF): Allocated home help hours are not being used. They are 5.3% below target in West Cork. These hours would make a huge difference to people in West Cork. The home help system is of huge benefit to vulnerable people and supports them to maintain independent living. Proposes that we write to the HSE to ask them why the hours were not fully utilised.

Cllr N Collins (Ind): The home help scheme is a national disgrace in a Christian country. Thousands of euro are approved for nursing home care but home care must make do with the scrapings of the bucket. He has written to the department about this. A full investigation into the home help scheme is long overdue. It needs to be brought up to date to meet the needs of today.

Cllr Hayes (SF): This is a very big problem in West Cork at the moment. The concept of home help is very straightforward. It is very shortsighted to be underfunded by the government. The cost of people staying in hospitals is multiples more.

Cllr Hurley (Ind): Believes that if someone with allocated hours dies, those hours are banked up and not reallocated. If they notify the HSE that the person has passed away, they continue to be billed.

Cllr O’Laoghaire (SF): It is a false economy in terms of the cost to taxpayer. It is unfair on people in need of home help and unfair on the workers.   The situation described by Cllr Hurley is grotesque.

Agreed that we will write to the HSE about these unallocated hours.

 

14.  Councillor Joe Carroll:
“That this Council would, as a matter of urgency, call on the Minister for the Environment Alan Kelly, to completely review the rates payment system, as the present system of payment is completely outdated. Many of the county’s small and medium businesses are struggling to stay operating and their rates bill is the most likely one to close them down.”

Cllr Carroll: The people in West Cork are clinging on to their businesses with their finger nails. Knows the Council’s hands are tied but wants the whole system looked at from the government down. The current rates system came in way back in the 19^th century. At the time, the size of the building was important. Now you could take a computer into a room the size of a small kitchen and earn over €1m a year. Rates have to be connected to turnover. Knows of one woman in a village who opens her bar for the sake of the community even though the bar itself makes very little money. Wants some approach made to the Minister. The rates office in County Hall says there is very little they can do about it.

Cllr McGrath (FF): Seconded. The way the valuation is considered by the valuation office has been discussed here over and over. We have to move to a system where businesses are paying based on their performance.

 

 

[f]            VOTES OF CONGRATULATIONS  

15.  VOTES OF CONGRATULATIONS (if any)

Mayor – Congratulations on the All Ireland win
Cllr Hayes (SF) – Congratulations to Cork Airport on the transatlantic flights which are a game-changer for Cork
Cllr Carroll (FF) – Congratulations to Clonakilty GAA on maintaining senior status
Cllr O’Laoghaire – Congratulations to Togher Youth who won the Youth award at the Tidy Towns competition today.
Cllr Harris – Congratulations to Douglas Minor Hurling

 

16.  ANY OTHER BUSINESS

 

The meeting was concluded.

“That Cork County Council would encourage all roadside traders to observe the requirements of SI 191 of 2004 with regard to the selling of strawberries, raspberries, blueberries, gooseberries, blackberries, loganberries, tayberries, currants and new potatoes during May to September inclusive.  Equally, that Cork County Council would encourage the selling of a greater range of fruit and vegetable produce than those specified in the Regulations in designated market areas and in accordance with a Casual Trading Licence.  All opportunities for genuine growers to maximise the sale of their produce are welcome insofar as they do not place rate-paying shopkeepers at unfair disadvantage.”

[a]            CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

[b]           VOTES OF SYMPATHY 

[c]            STATUTORY BUSINESS