Tenders are being opened in the Chamber. They relate to the fitting out of the motor tax office.
Mayor proposes a suspension of standing orders at 1pm for discussion of issues in the Local Area Plan.
1. Confirmation of Minutes
Will be done at 1pm.
2. Votes of Sympathy
Cllr Frank O’Flynn had a vote of sympathy.
3. Disposal of Property
Bandon – Kinsale Municipal District Meeting, 27th January, 2017:(a) Disposal of property at Camden Fort Meagher, Crosshaven.
4. Section 19 of the Local reenwayovernment Act, 2001:
Filling of Vacancies on Housing SPC, Arts Culture & Languages SPC and LCDC West Committees
Cllr K Murphy proposes Cllr John O’Sullivan. Seconded by Cllr M Hegarty. For all three committees.
Head of Finance:
- The budget is divided into two: contractual and non-contractual.
- The ongoing programme of works is contractual. These include housing, roads, water, recreation, municipal districts. There is a further €129m which is based on business need. These are schemes we want to progress but we have to go through statutory processes. We have to make sure that funding is in place before we can progress at all.
- This programme doesn’t require Council approval.
- We’ll get as much grant funding as we can.
- ICR = internal capital receipts. Comes from tenant purchase of houses. We reinvest this.
- Social housing is the biggest area of proposed investment. Ties in with commitments under Rebuilding Ireland. Includes €131m contractually committed. Part V is included in this, turnkey developments, energy efficiency, social housing construction (Clonakilty, Fermoy, Ballincollig, Bantry, Kanturk). €29m not contractually committed is for single house and land acquisition.
- The schemes we hope to bring forward are contained in here.
- Footpaths – looking at over €1m per year.
- National roads is the biggest area of expenditure – includes provision for Ringskiddy, Macroom, Dunkettle. Most will be dealt with by TII but the initial elements are included in our programme. Also includes some other projects like the pavement at Lissarda.
- “Other” is things like the Science Park, Carrigaline.
- “Regional and local roads” is improvement works across the County.
- LIHAF – a lot of the works required for this will be roads based. Ballincollig, Glanmire, Midleton, Carrigaline.
- Burial grounds – we have an ambitious programme to extend and develop. At the moment we have funding of only €0.5m. We have intentions to develop this further.
- Non-contractual programme in “environment” includes for capping of landfills. Air monitoring included there also (?).
- Provision in “fire” for three fire stations.
- We will need to source funding for the libraries.
- Public realm is something we discussed as part of the revenue budget. We want to try and improve the public realm in our towns. We are committed to this and to sourcing funding for it.
- Tourism includes Camden. We have applied for the Fáilte Ireland grant for Dursey.
- If we need to buy land for housing, we will be borrowing.
CE: We are required to bring a capital report showing proposed expenditure. It isn’t setting out a whole range of projects. We all know there are lots of things we’d like to progress. This simply captures the entirety of what we’d like to do if we had funding.
Cllr O’Shea (Ind): Lots to be welcomed in this. Particularly recreation and amenity. Discuss playground improvement programme please. Worthwhile seeing that reinstated. Hopes we might get a briefing at Municipal District level about how this will be implemented. Also welcomes footpaths; thinks the commitment to footpaths should be more. It works out at only about €120k per Municipal District per year. Kanturk Mallow is subventing footpaths at Municipal District level. Thinks we need to look at this again at budget time.
Cllr G Murphy (FG): Welcomes. €2.6bn extra was mentioned from the Southern Assembly between 2018 – 2021. Cooperation between 3 cities in the southern region, which is critical. In the report, they mentioned that some of the €2.6bn should be spent at the discretion of local authorities. Asks that the priority would be put on rural towns and rural villages. Have we made that application in conjunction with the Southern Assembly? Have we backed up the Southern Assembly’s primary objective about the M20?
Cllr Hegarty (FG): Thanks Lorraine. Very encouraging. Thought we were now renting/leasing our fleet. So what is fleet investment about? The €4.2m on the 2nd slide. What is that about?
Cllr O’Grady (SF): Huge increase on previous programme. Rolling programme is to be welcomed. Overall figure transferred from the revenue budget to the capital budget? Any money to be transferred from the capital budget to revenue? Housing – in the last 3 year programme there was €15.1m put into affordable housing. Has that come to an end? Also the DPG grants, there was €700k committed before. Doesn’t see it committed now? Housing programme – in 2015 we were given figures of 469 units provided in the county. 168 were under social leasing. But the national oversight and audit committee report says it is 52 short of the figure we were given last year. Why? 98 local authority builds and acquisitions – we were told this last year. But more recent report said 90. Voids numbers are different too giving a shortage of 29 houses. Can these be explained. Delivery of 429 units is to be very much welcomed. LIHAF – €27.3 is contractually committed but we’ve received funding for €15m and we have to come up with €5m. That’s €20m. So where is the €27.3 coming from?
Cllr D’Alton (Ind): Thanks Lorraine. Footpaths and roads are both included under the “roads” category. Cyclepaths and facilities for bikes are always included in “recreation and amenity” or in something else. Could they please be included under roads also because unless we start the mindset of planning for them from the outset, they will never be a real alternative to the car. Also we are very anxious to improve the appearance of our town centres. Many are blighted by dereliction which we can put right using compulsory purchase. It would be good to see provision for CPO in the capital budget. Last year’s capital budget was for a spend of €165k, with €50k of required funding to be found through grants and other means. Would like to know how much of that €50k we succeeded in getting.
Cllr O’Flynn (FF): Welcomes long term planning for quality of life. Voids are taking too long to turn around. CBL is working very well. There is nothing worse than a Council house lying idle. Parking in estates, especially older estates, is a big issue. People have to have cars; there are no buses and no trains. When I ask, the answer is “no funding”. Regional and local roads – I understand our funding is back 10%. We have to look after these. Playground programme is very welcome. There was serious damage done again to the playground in Fermoy recently. A disgrace. Perhaps there should be CCTV put in. On Mallow Relief Road and M20 – thanks Michael Lynch who did a lot of work on this. Asks the Mayor is there any update on when we can meet the Minister. Now there is rumour about a new line for the road going through Cahir and Mitchelstown. This is crazy; it must go through Mallow.
Cllr Carroll (FF): Thanks all. Very encouraging budget. Makes a strong case for the state of the roads. They are away behind the standards that you find around the rest of the county. The southern region and the €2.6bn is not to be sneezed at. Hopes the Council has a submission made for a slice of that money. There are a lot of villages and towns losing out because of the lack of LEADER money. This is a golden opportunity to replace that and bring life back into those villages and towns again. Hopes the Council has made a submission.
Cllr O’Cadhla (Ind): Thanks for report. Asks that we clarify the housing element. You said we would look at borrowing for land purchase. Is it built in that the Council would borrow for construction of houses also? There are good sources of borrowed funds available now. Welcomes the number of projected housing completions but think it is completely inadequate in terms of the need. It is one of the biggest crises in our society. If it means borrowing money to deliver houses, thinks we should.
Cllr Doyle (FF): welcomes the MD funding in particular. Especially public realm, footpath, parks and playgrounds improvements. Mid term review of the roads programme is up during the summer. Highlights the need for the M20 and the route of the M20. Maybe some of the €2.6bn could be used in the short term to provide relief roads to the likes of Charleville and Mallow?
Cllr K Murphy (FG): Ambitious programme and welcome. Maintenance and upgrade of national secondary routes is never mentioned. €680k for the county is invested in this as a whole. A disgrace: they are the forgotten routes. Thinks this should increase to several million. Wonders if we can look for an opening to fund these.
Cllr T Collins (Ind): Importance of the M20. It should not go through Mitchelstown. Huge bad bends there where people have been killed before. If the M20 is put in place, this would solve the problem there. Should go from Cork to Mallow to Limerick. Would improve Buttevant and Charleville. The Mallow Relief Road cannot be forgotten.
Cllr S McCarthy (FG): Thanks Lorraine. National roads budget is €86m. Regional and local roads is €9m. Understands TII is the national roads authority but wonders why while there is huge investment needed in national roads, the smaller roads are suffering drastically. Is this allocation to national roads because it is locked in money from TII? Maybe it is more a national issue that we need to look at this breakdown and disparity?
Head of Finance:
- Fleet investment – we are progressing to leasing smaller vehicles but not the bigger ones like velocity patchers and bigger trucks. We have to maintain the fleet. A lot of it is over 10 years old.
- Capital transferred from revenue account – we transferred about €13.6m from revenue to capital over the 2014 – 2017 period. That goes across areas from coastal protection, tourism, housing, etc. Our capacity to be able to do that is based on what we provide in the budget, the variation in LPT, etc. If money isn’t spent in the capital account, we post it back through the revenue account but this rarely happens.
- We have a provision in capital programme for DPGs of about €4m.
- Figures as regards housing will have to be clarified with housing. Will revert.
- Cycleways – will be included under greenways and NTA schemes. Traffic and transport sits within roads directorate so it is more nomenclature really.
- Dereliction and funding was part of the revenue budget.
- Borrowings – any we take on has to get Council approval and then departmental approval. Perhaps some of the LIHAF will come from borrowing.
- Non-national roads grant allocation would be included in the revenue budget. So the imbalance is perceived but it is actually included in the revenue budget.
- €517m is the intent from taking on board what the directorates have said and taking on board what came through the MDs. We may not reach the €517m over 3 years
- We still have €50m unfunded. It just moves on and on and on. There are €50m for identified projects unfunded this year too.
- We haven’t made a submission to the €2.6bn. Will follow this up.
Cllr O’Grady (SF): Wants year on year figures for transfer from revenue to capital over 3 years. Asks more about LIHAF.
Lorraine: Has them and will send out. 3 housing schemes which haven’t progressed would be in Kanturk, Cobh and Mogeely. There are not included in 2017. But there are others coming in under social leasing.
CE: We have to fund 25% of the €20m – LIHAF. The LIHAF doesn’t fund land purchase around spine roads so we will have to do that.
Cllr G Murphy (FG): On the Southern Assembly. We have a problem with LEADER funding. Is a particular problem in Cork.
Cllr O’Cadhla (Ind): Are our hands tied that the Council can’t put together a programme for investment in housing to respond to the housing crisis?
CE: What we do on housing is governed by 6 year housing strategy. Covers a whole range of housing options. Our funding comes directly from the department and we try to achieve the targets set by that 6 year programme. That’s the way it works.
Cllr O’Cadhla (Ind): Knows this. But Council has its own revenue. Is it ok for us to put together a far more ambitious programme?
CE: I would have to bring that programme to Council for approval. When there is a funded government strategy in place, I can’t bring another proposal to Council for borrowing. Government has account of our need and requirement and will fund that through the various forms of social housing support.
Cllr O’Cadhla (Ind): Can we as a Council bring forward a proposal?
CE: To bring a proposal for borrowing, I have to be satisfied that we can secure it for a particular purpose to respond to Council’s investment programmes. I am told by government that they will deliver on what we need so I see no need to outside of that.
Cllr Doyle (FF): LIHAF – this is for infrastructure. In a town like Charleville which is zoned for 800 houses or so, we will never have the infrastructure. Is it possible to get some of that funding towards infrastructure of this nature.
CE: We will have to come back to the Council for support to borrow for this. We got good funding from LIHAF in the context of allocations nationally. Borrowing to pay for the infrastructural deficits in towns like Charleville, etc. would be based on our capacity to borrow. I would borrow if I were sure that number of houses were going to be delivered by a developer to support the borrowing so I could get it paid back. At the moment, I don’t see that happening.
Cllr G Murphy (FG): There is a separate capital fund in the housing department to build roads to facilitate development. If there are 750 plannings in Charleville, there should be funding from the housing department because there is general acceptance that those 750 houses cannot be built until the traffic problem in Charleville is solved.
CE: The funding was the LIHAF funds. We weren’t successful that the level of investment there would not deliver that number of houses. If there is another round of LIHAF, we will go back in and look for more for Charleville and other towns like it.
Mayor: This year’s capital budget represents a good sum of money and a nice increase in last year. We have a provisional date with Minister Ross towards the end of June. Request was in since last October. We have asked that it would be brought forward. Confirmed that it would be cross party.
Reports and Recommendations
6. Ballincollig-Carrigaline Municipal District
MANAGER’S REPORT UNDER SECTION 179, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT, 2000: Proposed Development of Pedestrian and Cycle Greenway and Ancillary Works from Glenbrook to Raffeen Bridge.
To be deferred. It will be on the next full Council meeting.
7. Bandon-Kinsale Municipal District
MANAGER’S REPORT UNDER SECTION 179, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT, 2000: L6506 Ferney Road Improvement Scheme, Carrigaline, Co. Cork
8. Reports from the International and EU Affairs Committee
(a) Report on proposed Sister Agreement with Miami Dade County.
Cllr Coleman (Ind): It is 20 years since we last signed a sister agreement. That was with Cook County and it has been very successful. The most critical thing Miami Dade brings is the cruise industry. It is the heart of the cruise industry and we will see 7 cruises coming to Cork this year. That is as a result of the hard work of the County Council. Food ingredients is a big area too as is agriculture. Hopes this Council will endorse the signing of a sister agreement and hopes if it progresses well, it will move forward to a formal twinning.
Cllr M Hegarty (FG): If it was only a quarter as successful as what we have with Cook County, it will be phenomenal. We have many similarities and will give us lots of opportunities to grow our links. Formally seconds.
Cllr Mary Hegarty (FG): Welcomes and speaks on the importance of these visits. From West Cork’s point of view, we welcome the 7 cruise liner visits. The work of the Council often goes unrecognised in these areas. Would like to see more relationships with Port of Cork developed too.
The sister agreement was approved.
(b) Tourism and Trade Mission to the U.S.
Mayor: This is on the agenda for information.
Correspondence from Government Departments
9. Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine
Letter dated 16th March, 2017, in response to Council’s motion of 27th February, 2017, regarding bird flu virus.
Response to Cllr Collins’ motion: ‘Bird Flu Virus.pdf’
Cllr N Collins (Ind): Pleased to note requirement to keep birds confined. Thanks the Department and Michael Creed, TD.
10. Department of Justice and Equality
Letter dated 16th March, 2017, in response to Council’s motion of 13th February, 2017, regarding amendment of the Valuation Act 2001
Response to Cllr D’Alton’s motion: ‘Correspondence from Dept of Justice & Equality.pdf’
Cllr D’Alton (Ind): Extraordinary irony that the issue the Oireachtas is concerned with is ensuring there is no discrimination between Members of the Oireachtas. They are utterly forgetting about the discrimination between Members of the Oireachtas and the public. If they want parity and not to support discrimination, rates should be payable on all constituency offices whether within the Oireachtas or not.
Cllr O’Grady (SF): We received a letter from Minister Coveney saying he would be bringing forward legislation on rates. Has the Council made a submission on this. May give us an opportunity to work something?
Cllr O’Shea (Ind): Cllrs have to pay rates if they have constituency offices. That was brought up when the motion was discussed. That is discriminating to us too. Suggests that if we are writing back we would ask that this is noted.
Cllr O’Flynn: Thinks we should treat all public representatives the same.
CE: The proposed legislation from Minister Coveney is being drafted to strengthen local authorities’ powers in relation to rates. Hasn’t seen the draft legislation. Once it is legislation, is sure it will become part of our discussions.
We agreed that we would write back.
Cllr D’Alton (Ind): Ask that the legislation would be relooked at so that it doesn’t support discrimination between Members of the Oireachtas and the public. In other words, rates should be imposed on all constituency offices regardless of where they are located, whether in the Dáil or otherwise. But if they are adamant they won’t relook at the legislation then the least they can do is to produce legislation which is equally supportive of all public reps.
11. Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment:
Letter dated 24th March, 2017, in response to Council’s motion of 20th February, 2017, regarding a moratorium on solar energy power plants in County Cork
Response to Cllr Murphy’s motion: ‘Correspondence from Dept of Communications
Cllr K Murphy (FG): Is disgusted with the response. Doesn’t agree that planning code is sufficiently robust. Have spoken to Minister Coveney. He said he would look at guidelines going forward. They should be included in the framework. Otherwise there will always be a question. They should be in place early on.
Cllr R McCarthy (SF): The Minister says his function is to encourage renewable energy. We’re not discouraging this; we just want to control development within the sector. Guidelines would provide greater clarity. The court case imminent on wind farms shows what happens when there are no guidelines in place. In Cork, there appears to be a high concentration of solar planning applications within the county. Thinks we should write back to the Minister. Wonders should the Environment SPC look at this? Up to last October there were 22 planning applications lodged for solar farms.
Cllr Doyle (FF): Agrees with Cllr Murphy. Solar farms are new to our planning department. They are various sizes, scale and we have no understanding of the effect they may have on our rural areas, runoff, visual impact, construction, etc. It is an unacceptable response. We have seen what has happened to wind farms and the distance between wind farms and houses Europe-wide has now changed.
Cllr Coleman (Ind): Cork County Council was the first to come up with pilot guidelines on windfarms. Thinks the PPU could do pilot guidelines on solar farming too.
Agreed that we would write back. Cllr O’Grady supports that the PPU would help us develop our own.
CE: Assures the members that these applications are always assessed against the various policies. Any level of development that is approved will be appropriate. Doesn’t see that this organisation should develop guidelines when there are no national guidelines.
12. Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government:
Letter dated 29th March, 2017, in response to Council’s motion of 27th February, 2017, regarding designation of the southern side of Carrigaline as a Rent Pressure Zone.
Response to Cllr Jeffers’ motion: ‘DOE Rent Pressure Zone.pdf’
Cllr Jeffers (SF): Thanks the department for writing back. Is not happy. The response doesn’t support the people on the south side of Carrigaline. Can’t understand how the Minister could let this happen within his own town. SF does not agree with the mechanism of rent pressure zones. We want to link them to the CPI. But we have to work with what we have and on the southern side of Carrigaline, a 4 bed is priced on Daft at €1500.month. On the northern side of Carrigaline, it is at €900.month. Is it down to this? Home ownership is at its lowest since 1971. The Housing Agency may, in conjunction with a local authority, make a proposal to the Minister for an area to be a rent pressure zone. Asks that we as a local authority would make that submission to the Minister. Asks that we would write to the Minister and ask that the criteria for rent pressure zones would be changed so that other areas in County Cork could be included.
Cllr R McCarthy (SF): Supports and seconds.
Cllr Lombard (FG): Thinks the price disparity is caused more because we have an electoral area dividing the town. The market will correct a lot of this; you can’t just compare prices on one side of a boundary with the other like that.
Mayor: Supports calls to raise this issue further. It does stem back to the town being divided but no town should have an area left out. We should write to the Housing Agency asking that we would together jointly make the request.
Cllr Jeffers: Agrees. Thinks it would have to come from the Chamber that we request the Housing Agency to follow up on this issue and include the southern side of Carrigaline.
Cllr K Murphy (FG): Suggests that we start the letter by supporting the scheme in general.
Cllr Jeffers (SF): My own political views would be not be supportive of the scheme.
13. Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government:
Letter dated 29th March, 2017, in response to Council’s motion of 27th February, 2017, regarding a resolution of the Council in relation to Affordable Housing Purchase schemes
Response to Cllr Coleman’s motion: ‘DOE Affordable Housing.pdf’
Cllr Coleman (Ind): Very disappointing response that we will have no affordable housing scheme. We were told at SPC that an affordable housing scheme would be imminent.
Cllr Hayes (SF): Thinks the Minister has missed the point. There was a good scheme run up until 2011. People are in a gap at the moment; they can’t afford to buy privately and don’t fit the criteria for a Council house. There is confusion as to the message we’re getting; thinks we should write back.
Cllr Mary Hegarty (FG): We discussed this at Western Division. It is important to have a scheme for couples who are falling through the hoops. Thinks we should seek more clarity. Is disappointed with the response.
Cllr Barry (FG): Support previous speakers. Is a huge supporter of the affordable scheme. It maybe had too many hoops to jump through but definitely filled a gap in the market. We have to look at how we house people. The gap between social housing and people drawing mortgages from financial institutions is huge. We have to see if there is a way people on the minimum wage can purchase their own homes.
Cllr G Murphy (FG): The Minster has to either make affordable housing available or raise the threshold for social housing. There are people caught in the middle.
Cllr K Murphy (FG): We should seek for this to be clarified. Affordable housing and affordable sites – neither was really addressed. There is a welcome for an affordable scheme for people who are caught in the middle.
Cllr R McCarthy (SF): Is disappointed. In my own estate, the affordable houses didn’t sell but it was the wrong time at that point. There is now much need for an affordable housing scheme. My motion looks for an increase in the threshold for social tenants. It will have to be one or the other.
Mayor supports too. Has long been an advocate for this. Has raised this issue when the Minister was with us last year. We have agreement that we will write back and ask for him to examine this issue.
Cllr McCarthy (SF): The response to my motion (yet to be heard) asks that we would write to seek an increase in threshold for social housing. Should we not tie the two together? We shouldn’t really be asking for both.
Mayor thinks that because we haven’t time to hear the motion now, we’ll have to go ahead and write separately on both issues.
14. Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government
Letter dated 29th March, 2017, in response to Council’s motion of 9th January, 2017, regarding the plight of older separated men and women with marital and relationship problems in their quest for social housing.
Response to Cllr Collins’ motion: ‘DOE Social Housing Leasing.pdf’
Cllr N Collins (Ind): Asks Council to consider relaxing the housing letting regulations. They are crazy.
15. Department of Health
Letter dated 11th April, 2017, in response to Council’s motion of 13th February, 2017, regarding an opt-out system of consent for organ donation
Response to Cllr Sheppard’s motion: ‘Correspondence from Dept of Health.pdf’
Cllr Sheppard was not present so the response was noted.
Suspension of Standing Orders
Mayor proposes a 5 minute recess to meet with party leaders with the CE, the Senior Planner and the Director of Services, Planning. Asks the proposers of the two amendments relating to Little Island and Passage West to be present also.
The meeting reconvened.
Senior Planner: The two proposed amendments under discussion are those for Little Island and Passage West. In the case of both these proposed amendments, the planning authority determined (S20.3(f)) pursuant to environmental reporting that an Appropriate Assessment (AA) was required for both of these amendments. The legislation says that where AA is required that the amendments don’t pass screening and would therefore fall to go forward for full AA. The Act provides that the Manager will specify what period is necessary for the passage of the resolution. We’re saying that should take between 12 and 18 months. The AA relates to the Cork Harbour SPA. We will probably need to procure specialist services. We can confirm that the amendments could not be published without AA and therefore we would not be in a position to publish those amendments in May or adopt the two relevant Local Area Plans until the AA was finished. The planning authority is required to publish a proposed material alteration, publish a determination and say that it will take that long. So the amendments will be published but will not be brought forward for adoption until the AA is completed and this will not be completed for 12 – 18 months.
CE: Where an amendment proposed is deemed to require Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), I must publish the amendments as proposed but I must also publish the date by which the AA will be undertaken. So when we publish the draft Local Area Plans next week, I will be specifying that SEA will be required for both of these amendments and that the period to undertake these wil be 12 – 18 months. So the full LAP for the Cobh Municipal District and the Ballincollig-Carrigaline Municipal District will not be coming back for adoption until the AAs are complete.
Mayor: I proposed one of these amendments. Is there an option to revoke? How does it happen?
Meetings administrator: A special meeting would have to be held. Notification would have to issue today. Intention to amend the resolution of Council would have to be given. One third of Members would have to sign this. Two thirds of the Members present at the Friday meeting would have to vote in favour of carrying the revocation.
Cllr P O’Sullivan (FF): I proposed the other amendment. Am willing to withdraw it.
Cllr Forde (FG) spoke. Think she asked about the cost of doing the AA for both amendments.
Cllr D’Alton (Ind): Don’t understand how when the site in question in the Little Island amendment is 450 metres from the SPA and the development that is proposed is 10 serviced sites that AA is being required, yet in other areas of Little Island and in Ringaskiddy in particular, we have a list of sites zoned for industrial development right down to the water’s edge, noted in the Local Area Plan as interacting with the SPA but they do not need AA.
ML: These are existing zoned land – the reports relating to those are publicly available. They would have been screened at draft stage and those reports are available.
Cllr D’Alton (Ind): Will the provisional screenings of the amendments also be made available?
ML confirmed that we can also see the screening reports on the two proposed amendments.
ML: We don’t have a cost for doing the AAs for the amendments.
CE: We may have to go to tender. There are two AA’s which would have to be undertaken. So we don’t know how much that will cost.
ML: These are existing zoned land – the reports relating to those are publicly available. They would have been screened at draft stage and those reports are available. We can also see the screening reports on the two proposed amendments.
Cllr G Murphy (FG) asked for clarity.
Cllr Canty (FG) also asked for clarity.
Cllr D’Alton (Ind): In two of the sites in Ringaskiddy listed as being industrially zoned, the draft Local Area Plan clearly states “this area may be used as a feeding ground by bird species for which Cork Harbour SPA is designated” and in another it says “this zone is adjacent to the Cork Harbour Special Protection Area”. Why is it not possible to include the two amendments in the same way, noting that there may be impacts on the SPA and assess those impacts subsequently through, as you would suggest yourself, development control?
ML: The amendments failed the screening. That’s what our ecologist says. That’s it.
31. Votes of Congratulations
Cllr O’Grady (SF) wished Cllr Danielle Twomey congratulations on the birth of her little girl.
(Think there was another vote of congratulations also.)
The rest of the meeting was adjourned.