[a] CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
- Minutes of Budget Meeting of the Council held on 24th November, 2014.
- Minutes of Meeting of the Council held on 25th November, 2014.
Minutes were proposed and seconded.
[b] VOTES OF SYMPATHY
3. Votes of Sympathy (if any) to the relatives of:
(i) members or employees of the Council,
(ii) dignitaries of Church or State, or
(iii) members of old I.R.A. and Cumann na mBan.
- Sympathies were extended to Jackie Healy Rae’s family. Lots of Members associated themselves with the vote of sympathy and spoke highly of Jackie.
- Archdeacon O’Brien. Others associated themselves with this too.
- Mick Barry
- Derry Alaistair, Cork County Council on the death of his sister.
[c] STATUTORY BUSINESS
4. Section 12(10) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000:
“That in accordance with Section 12(10) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, having considered the Draft County Development Plan, the submissions thereon, the material amendment made on foot of theses submissions at the Council Meeting on the 25th July 2014, the further submissions made thereon, the Strategic Environmental Assessment and Appropriate Assessment of the Material Amendment and submissions made thereon, and the modifications to the material amendments made at the meeting of Council held on 8th December 2014, Cork County Council hereby resolves to make the Cork County Development Plan 2014 which shall consist of;
The Draft County Development Plan agreed on 25th November 2013
The Proposed Amendments to the Draft Plan agreed on 25th July 2014
The Modifications to the Proposed Amendments agreed on 8th December 2014.”
Before we started, we were given a presentation on a new planning app going live today.
It is available to the general public and can be downloaded from the App Store. Search for “Planning Viewer Cork”. The app has approval from Apple and has been licenced.
Introduced and designed in-house with the code written by an external consultant. Significant addition to the customer service support.
Presentation given by Martin Crummy, IT Department:
Odyssey System (Internal Planning Workflow) – we are the only local authority in Ireland to have this. Was developed in 2010/2011. So every application in 2011 is online and available to see (with the exception of confidential files).
Can be got on Google PLAY or APP STORE. Has been tested on the iPAD 2 and up. It is an iPhone developed app but works also on the iPad.
Live from this morning.
Discussion of draft County Development Plan:
CE: Important to reflect on where we have come to. Guides th development of the County for tne next 6 years. Is a robust response to the challenges facing the Council particularly as we emerge froma period of economic uncertainty.
Over the last 2 years there has been a series of rounds of public consultations. Were stakeholder consultations, many submissions received, involved development and strategic planning committee meetings. Plan is ready for adoption and there has been significant consultation.
Even as late as last week we had an in-committee debate on the amendments.
Expresses appreciation to the mayor, members of this and previous Council and to the staff of the PPC and to those who made submissions.
Plan provides a strong framework for economic renewal.
Recent court decisions have interpreted that there can be only a very limited review of amendments at this stage. Recommends that they are adopted.
Mayor goes through Amendments:
Chapter 2
Cllr O’Keeffe (FF): Amendment 2-4 – worried about population restrictions in the Blackwater catchment with regard to the pearl mussel. Belives will have a dire consequence on development. The Department could have done the study on this by now if it wanted to. Will not be accepting the amendment.
Cllr O’Flynn (FF): Echoes the concern of O’Keeffe. Development is needed in these towns. There is not one single house available in these towns to rent or purchase. New housing is needed and it cannot happen because of a mussel. There is no proof that the mussel is in his area. There is a modern treatment plant in Fermoy and there should not be a problem with it. We have 26 acres of zoned land in Fermoy owned by Cork County Council; we know the list of social housing in Fermoy. Now we cannot respond to that need? Asking that we have a definite timeframe so that we know how long this will take. And give us flexible wording.
Cllr McCarthy (Lab): Agrees. Causing major concern in the Blackwater valley.
Cllr Hegarty (FG): There are serious worries around this. Need a time indication.
Cllr G Murphy (FG): Obviously a genuine concern that this clause is being included in the County Development Plan. Appreciates the County Council’s hands are tied somewhat because of the EU Directive. But that is not going to alleviate the problem that people have. Planners need to try to explain that this is an issue that deals with water quality and population density rather than development as a whole. Need to say that studies will go ahead quickly. Hopes the studies will show that development will not be restricted. We must look at what the best outcome here is today and we are constrained on what we can achieve legally. In that context we need clear direction. If we do not adopt the plan and revert to the original wording we will be putting the plan outside the control of the Council and we will be leaving it up to other agencies to set the pace of development. So we need to be very careful about how we proceed today.
Cllr Dawson (FG): If we are telling people we cannot build their houses because of a mussel, there will be major concern. We need to be able to give people clarity.
Cllr Fitzgerald (FF): Would like to hear guidance from management on what we can do wtihin the Plan. If we revert back to the original pPan, what are the implications of that? We want to be on the right side of legislation, but we don’t want to delay applications either.
Cllr B Moynihan (FF): There is a real need for development in some of these areas of North Cork to sustain schools, etc. Need clarity on this.
Cllr Mullane (SF): We do not want something like mussels to be coming against planning. Needs clarity.
Mayor: Very serious issue. This is something that has not been created by the County Development Plan, but by EU legislation. The County Development Plan must deal with it the best it can.
Cllr T Collins (Ind): In my area we’re doing a pilot scheme in Duhallow on the River Blackwater. We’re tidying up the channel and modern drinking stations are being put in for cattle. The river is being wired off. Would this be a help in other areas? We have an agreement with the landowners and there have never been any problem.
Senior Planner: Sensitive and difficult for the Development Plan and one of the bigger issues remaining to be resolved at this stage of the making of the Plan. The reason for this issue is that we have to do a Habitats Directive assessment in relation to the Plan. The effect of this amendment is that it is proposing a clause in the implementation of the population targets for the affected areas while a technical assessment of the freshwater pearl mussel is underway. Consultants were appointed on the 19th December. Preliminary report expected beginning of February. We hope to come to Council in February with a proposed variation of the Plan to deal with downstream. At that stage, we hope to conduct a second consultant’s report to make recommendations for upstream. If we revert back to the old Plan, the difficulty we face is in completing the Habitats Directive assessment of this Plan effectively. The Department has said that if we make this amendment as proposed today, we will satisfy the Habitats Directive requirement. If we do not, we will not.
Cllr O’Keeffe (FF): This is draconian. Major repercussions in Fermoy. No ghost estates, so clear demand for property.
Mayor: Deal with the issue, not with the consequences.
Cllr O’Keeffe (FF): Can we have a trade-off where there are areas where planning has been granted down through the years but not activated. Could this be used?
Cllr B Moynihan (FF): Very concerned about area west of Kanturk. We are hugely dependent on people to build houses, etc. to hold schools, etc. I cannot say that planning will be held up because of a mussel.
Cllr O’Grady (SF): Upstream of Mallow is a critical area? Then why will this will be the second part of the study? Why not the first part? Also not clear about what happens if we revert back to original document.
Senior Planner: Habitats Directive assessment of the draft Plan said the Plan was deficient because it didn’t deal with the conflict between the pouplation targets and water quality in the Blackwater. Yes, upstream of Mallow is critical but the conservation objective for the river includes the whole of the catchment, upstream and downstream of Mallow. So the Department thinks the upstream towns are critical but we think the whole catchment critical. So we haven’t commissioned the upstream study yet because we want to resolve this.
Cllr G Murphy (FG): My understanding is that small developmetns will not be affected.
CE: Your concern is shared by us. But believes we are approachingthis in the best manner we can to achieve the right outcome for the areas that may be affected. The variation refers to population targets, not development. So it doesn’t say that development should be put on hold. Development can proceed if it can be proven that there is no adverse impact. Population targets to 2022 provides for an increase in new units in Mallow and Fermoy. That doesn’t mean that the new units cannot go ahead. The Plan is supportive of minor development going ahead as long as it doesn’t have an adverse impact. Urges the Members to adopt the amendment as recommended. If we revert to the draft Plan, we will go against the recommendation of the Habitats Directive assessment. This County has always taken a strategic approach and to go against the amendment would not be to do that.
Cllr O’Flynn (FF): There is no proof that there are mussels in the Fermoy area. Takes some small consolation from the Manager’s words. If “needs to be put on hold” is in the Plan, it will have major repercussions for any planner who is looking at allowing further development in Fermoy. Asks that “needs to be put on hold” is taken out or that “subject to ongoing review” is inserted.
Cllr Moynihan (FF): Thanks the CE for the comments. Accepts the advice he gets from the top table but needs to clarify – one-off housing and small developments will not be impacted by this. Is that correct?
CE: As long as it doesn’t have an adverse impact. Can’t debate whether a single house will have adverse impact or not, but thinks it unlikely that it will.
Cllr Hegarty (FG): Minutes need to reflect that minor developments can proceed.
Cllr O’Laoghaire (SF): Reading between the lines of what is being said, it seems possible that we might be in breach of legislation were we not to adopt the amendment. Most councillors would be attracted to the original text but if we had a better idea of what hazard might be involved for the Council to adopt the original, then it might guide us more clearly towards the amendment.
Director of Planning: We have to acknowledge the EU Designation as part of the County Development Plan and if we revert back to the original, we will not be doing that.
Mayor: To ignore the legislation would be regarded badly by the Department and if a planning application went to the Board, we’d get another major rap on the knuckles. We need to put a system in place that will deal with it and Management is telling us that this is the best way we can deal with this. Reminds members that the management proposed the population figures. These are the figures they want. So what they are proposing now is the best possible way of dealing with the issue to get those figures.
Cllrs O’Keeffe (FF) and G Murphy (FG) – further comments. Still concerned about how Planning Policy Unit will pass leniency for small developments onto the planners on the ground. Equally concerned about the words “any development” in an appeal to An Bord Pleanala.
Cllr O’Flynn (FF): Thinks the wording is very restrictive.
Cllr J Murphy (SF): Also has same concerns. Study hasn’t started and we don’t know the outcome. What we do today will have a long-term effect in the communities that we represent. Hopes that whatever happens today will be the right thing for the people we represent.
Cllr T Collins (Ind): We badly need development because of the employment situations in towns such as Kanturk and Duhallow. If somebody wants to start a small business, is concerned that this amendment might affect them.
CE: Doesn’t think that this should be put to a vote.
Cllr Doyle (FF): Subject to this being reopened again in two months time resulting in a material variation, thinks the current proposal is reasonable.
CE: Cannot speculate on the outcome of the assessment. There may be a variation, there may not be, doesn’t know what the variation if any might be. But it will be rediscussed in 2 months time.
Cllr O’Keeffe (FF): It could be 2 years before we see a variation come through. The current Plan-making process has taken 2 years. We’ll have no fall-back in that time.
Cllr Moynihan (FF): The scientific report analysing downstream will be out in 2 months time.
Big debate on whether the word “may” could be substituted for the word “will”. Vote nearly taken. CE says vote not ok. It cannot be changed. Members argue that this has been a waste of time.
Cllrs Moynihan, Hegarty, T Collins all agree to wait until February. Slow general agreement to hold off.
Chapter 3 – ok
Chapter 4
CE: There is a provision for a statutory 2 year review on the achievement of the objectives of the County Development Plan. The report is brought to Council. Report will see whether amendments need to be taken at that time. If the objectives are not being achieved, this might lead to a variation of the plan.
Cllr Forde (FG): Wants to compliment the managenent on the intricacies of the County Development Plan. Has concerns in relation to rural housing controls. Wants management to minute these concerns. Gave examples. Is very important the management builds common sense and flexibility into this change. Especially where there is a social need. Has not found that flexibility even though we talked about it in the last County Development Plan.
Cllr Hegarty (FG): Glad that the CE mentioned a review process. We members feel that certain aspects of this Plan are not working, by the time the review starts in 2 years time and is done and we potentially bring changes in, it is too long away. We need to be able to bring an area of concern in the Plan to the appropriate authorities to get it amended. There must be other aspects of reviews that need to be carried out in advance of 2 years. So we need a vehicle where we can initiate change if we need it.
Cllr Creed (FG): Has serious concerns with this Plan – rural control zones coming into parts of my area. They’re like North Cork – they need development to maintain social services. Accepts there are no amendments in front of us with regard to that.
CE: Review starts after 4 years. Any member can bring an amendment to the County Development Plan to the Chamber or to an SPC as the need arises.
Chapter 9
Cllr Buckley (SF): Thinks wording “normally discouraged” is very diluted with regard to wind development. Concerns relate to amendments 9-1 – 9.6.
Cllr Murphy (FG): Have we any submission in our Plan in relation to wave energy?
Mayor: We can’t put it in now.
Senior Planner: 9-1 – the word “normally discouraged” is used because it is technically possible in these areas to have wind energy developmoent that does not have a detrimental effect on the acknowledged characteristics of importance in these areas. To say they are unsuitable is going too far. “Normally discouraged” sets the bar high but does not raise it so high that it is completely ruled out.
Cllr G Murphy (FG): Agrees with the text that is there now.
Cllr N Collins (Ind): We need consultation and not confrontation. Hopes greed and avarice will not come before the health and safety of our people. Our legislators must take the matter in hand at national level to ensure that justice prevails for all concerned.
Senior Planner: County Development Plan should provide the appropriate policy cotext for those submitting
Senior Planner: “Not acceptable for the County Development Plan to prejudge the outcome of a planning application.” Original text of 9-1 is worse than the amendment. The phrase “normally discourged” is used in the draft County Development Plan also. This objective is bringing the change in line with the map. The map can’t be changed.
Cllr D’Alton (Ind): Wherever there is wind energy development, a transmission network follows. Because the electricity that is generated must be got to the grid. So it is wrong to debate the wind energy amendments on their own. They need to be debated in conjunction with amendment 9-11 on the transmission network. The transmission network can change the face of a landscape and many have concerns about this.
Cllr G Murphy (FG): Wants planning permissions to be considered. Agrees that the grid does have a role. Availability of grid should be taken account of.
Cllr A Moynihan (FF): Why can’t the map be changed? We can change the proposed changes. The map is part of those proposed changes.
CE: Original plan went out without the river basin being shown and with the words “normally discouraged”. Then we had the Natura 2000 report which required us to highlight the river basin. The map wasn’t change but the river basin was put in. That cannot be changed now. Would be significant. Wording in the objective and the wording on the map must match.
Cllr A Moynihan (FF): Why not change the wording on the map? Then they’ll match. We’re not changing the map itself.
After lunch:
Senior Planner: Its not possible for Cork County Council to change the word “normally discouraged” for “unsuitable”. The proposed change was to bring the wording into alignment. To change back now creates a disconnect between the wording in the objective and the wording on the policy map. To do so is beyond the options of the Council.
Cllr K McCarthy (SF): You said last week we would have an opportunity to discuss this today. Debate appears today to be a foregone conclusion – the door is closed.
Mayor: Well summarised, Councillor!
Cllr Buckley (SF): So we cannot revert back to the original wording?
Mayor: The original draft was poor. It was open to interpretation. This is insuring that the plan has the same interpretation all the way through. If we don’t get it put in properly, the plan could be open to legal challenge in the future.
Cllr Hegarty (FG): Has sat through various County Development Plans. It appeared that before there was some flexibility and movement. It appears that there is none at all now. It appears that there is no point in discussing anything further from here on out. We cannot change anything. I will propose that.
Mayor: This is the only amendment where we don’t have the option of going back to the original.
Cllr K Murphy (FG): Then let’s adopt it and move on.
Cllr O’Flynn (FF): Amendment 9-11 on the transmission network must consider underground. Wants the word “must” to be put in.
CE: Last day, the Members decided to take out the word “will”. He is reasonably happy with that. But replacing “must” for “need” is open to legal challenge potentially because of the different meaning between the words.
Vote taken on it. Equal. Mayor votes against.
Conclusion – Taking out “will and leave “need”.
Chapter 10
Cllr Dawson (FG): Proposes that we adopt Amendments 10-8 and 10-9 on motorway services but asks the DoE to take cognisance of local business and asks that off-line services would not take from local business.
Cllr O’Keeffe (FF): 10-8 and 10-9 – proposes that we don’t adopt the amendments.
Cllr McCarthy (FG): The term “in close proximity”. What does that mean?
Senior Planner: Reasonably close to the junction.
Cllr O’Flynn (FF): What is before us today? Do we go back to the original if we don’t adopt this amendment?
Mayor: Yes
Senior Planner: The draft plan had no explanatory text. This amendment includes that.
CE: The guidelines say that facilities should be far enough so as not to become local facilities.
Cllr O’Keeffe (FF): We’re wasting our time here. We’re being told that no matter what we agree today, we’re going to adhere to what the NRA says. We advertised a different document from the current NRA one. Wants to go back to the original.
Cllr Dawson (FG): Wants to stick with the amendment.
Senior Planner: There are 3 versions of this text now proposed. Outlines them all. There are 2 versions of 10-8.
CE clarifies that we should reflect national policy in our County Development Plan but it is up to planning control to interpret that policy in relation to specific planning applications.
Cllr O’Keeffe (FF): The document that is being incorporated was not advertised to the public. We’re not allowed to include changes but this NRA guideline is being included without public consultation.
CE: It had public consultation. It has simply gone from draft to final stage.
Director of Planning: Cannot see where there is a legal issue in reflecting public policy in the County Development Plan. We are supposed to reflect public policy.
Cllr O’Keeffe (FF): Proposes that we do not adopt the amendment. Wants it noted that he is not happy with procedure.
No-one seconded the proposal but Cllr O’Keeffe’s comments were noted.
Cllr D’Alton (Ind): Not happy with Amendment TM 5-2 as noted the last day. The road upgrade is regarded as the crucial issue for port activities at Ringaskiddy while residential amenity, tourism and recreation are regarded as what is important at Marino Point. Both are important in both places. Cllr McGrath (FF) and I have proposed wording (already forwarded to the Mayor and CE).
CE: Happy to accept the text of the second proposal. Cannot accept the text of the first proposal because the road has not been linked to Marino Point in the original amendment.
Chapter 11
Cllr Cullinane (Ind): Amendments 11.2, 4 and 5 all refer to Irish Water. When I brought this issue up the other day, I was told these amendments referred to the concept of Irish Water. In fact, it is the company of Irish Water which they refer to. Has a serious problem with the heading “recognise the role of Irish Water”.
CE: Have to refer to Irish Water somehow. It is the utility we’re referring to.
Cllr O’Flynn (FF): This plan is about deliverance for the local people. Has real problem with the phrase “will work with Irish Water”. They’re not delivering what we want.
Chapter 12
Cllr Doyle (FF): Amendment 12-4 – both the Chamber and the Community Council got a review of the building. They do not want it on the Record of Protected Structures (RPS). It is on the main street and they can do nothing with it. They have a report done to indicate that the changes to the internals have been so material that it is of little architectural significance. It is within the Architectural Conservation Area (ACA) so any redevelopment will have to be approved by Cork County Council anyway.
Written resume of why this should be delisted was circulated. Therefore legal requirement answered.
Cllr G Murphy (FG): Supports Cllr Doyle’s motion.
All in agreement so formal resolution of the Council made – no need to go to a vote. Building will be taken off the RPS.
Cllr Mary Hegarty (FG): Recommends that Vickery’s Building, Bantry would be delisted.
Proposal seconded by Joe Carroll.
Executive has a written report as to why the building should be delisted.
All in agreement so formal resolution of the Council made – no need to go to a vote. Building will be taken off the RPS.
Mitchelstown ACA
Cllr O’Keeffe (FF): Gave a submission to the Mayor. Asking that the ACA be altered to omit a street.
Senior Planner: The value of an ACA is a lower level of protection. Cllr O’Keeffe is quoting from the RPS section of the Plan, not the ACA section. The value of an ACA is in the whole. Concerned that this proposal breaks the Mitchelstown ACA up and detracts from its value.
Cllr O’Keeffe (FF): All in favour of retaining character but it is the manner in which you are requesting that it is retained is the problem. We can retain the façade under new construction proposals and have the same street character but not have the extraordinary cost involved.
Cllr O’Flynn (FF) seconds.
Senior Planner explains the lower level of protection. When a building is on the RPS, the entire fabric of the building is protected. ACAs are much more directed to the general amenity of the street scene. So internal changes in an ACA do not encounter any difficulties at all.
Cllr O’Keeffe (FF): Listening to this, you’d think there are no problems. But the people who go about purchasing these buildings proposes maintaining the proper street façade but may have to demolish a wall. And he can’t do it.
No unanimous agreement. So put to a vote.
Chapter 13 – ok
Chapter 14
Cllr D’Alton (Ind): Very concerned about amendment 14-2. Sorry that she missed this the last day. Firstly, there is no such think as “thermal energy recovery”. It is is thermal treatment with energy recovery or waste to energy or incineration with energy recovery. And cannot understand why if large scale treatment facilities are to be acceptable in Strategic Employment Areas, any specific technology needs to be mentioned at all. Giving preference to incineration over other technologies and that is not ok. Wants to revert back to the original.
Cllr Desmond (FF): Agrees that this amendment is not acceptable and wants to revert to the original.
Cllr McGrath (FF): Also agrees. There is a massive change between the proposed original text and this amendment. Agrees that there is no need to single out thermal energy recovery as being acceptable form of large scale waste treatment. Wants to revert to the original.
Senior Planner: This term thermal energy recovery came from the Department. They are proposing this amendment because of submissions from the Department and from a private company. The Department of the Environment made a submission to say the County Development Plan wasn’t adequately prescriptive about what waste treatment technologies were acceptable and where.
(Reads from the private company’s submission.)
Senior Planner: The Minister for the Environment expresses concern about the Council’s approach to zoning. If waste management as a general area of activity as part of the industrial process, then the Plan should say which industrial land is suitable for all parts of the waste process.
Cllr D’Alton (Ind): But why be prescriptive about waste to energy? Why not put in in-vessel composting or centralised biogas or pyrolysis? It’s not fair to single out waste to energy.
Cllr McGrath (FF) agrees.
Senior Planner: It was put in because the Department said that we were displaying a bias against incineration and we need to show the Department that we are not. And we want to facilitate facilities in the R1 category. (Reads from the Departmental submission.) It speaks about diversity of waste treatment options and says that our plan is overly against landfill and incineration.
Cllr K Murphy (FG): What is the problem with this? Have to plan for incineration and if not in SEAs, then where?
Cllr D’Alton (Ind): If you want to support incineration, then you are doing it a disservice constraining it to the R1 category. Whether a facility is R1 or not is worked out using a complicated EU derived formula on the balance of calorific value of the material going in, the conversion efficiency and the amount of energy generated. So you won’t be able to put facilities that don’t qualify as R1 into SEAs at all. Besides, waste treatment technologies move along so fast that singling out one as is proposed will do innovation and the market a disservice.
Argument over this. (Cannot note take when I am arguing!)
CE: Whatever waste to energy facility comes before us, it can go into a SEA. That is what this is about. The industrial area that they go to has to be inside a SEA. Doesn’t think that’s an unreasonable position. This proposal was brought to his attention only this morning. Satisfied that having read the Departmental position on it, the original objective undermines and runs counter to government policy by proposing restrictions on particular technologies. So if we throw away the amendment, we will be against government policy. Recommends that the amendment should be approved in full and adopted today.
Cllr K Murphy (FG): Wants to move on.
Cllr Forde – their hands are tied.
Cllr McGrath: Why was the draft plan presented in the way it was if it was against national policy?
Suggestion that we leave out (b) and take the black text (“including thermal energy recovery”) out of (c).
CE: Doesn’t think we should be taking out the black text. Won’t stand over the exclusion of the words “waste to energy recovery”. Says we’re against Departmental advice if we revert to original.
Cllr McGrath (FF): Thinks this should be put to a vote. Wants to see it go back to original.
Cllr D’Alton (Ind): Agrees. The CE could compromise by leaving out the specific supportive reference to thermal energy recovery. Thinks this is a kneejerk reaction to the Department’s submission and that the Department doesn’t require us to mention support for any particular technolgoy.
Vote taken. 31 vs 11. County Development Plan goes back to original text.
Discussion of the County Development Plan is over. A vote is taken on whether to pass it or not. 42 for – 1 against. Therefore it is passed.
Mayor thanked everyone involved, including the Executive, staff, present Members and former Members. Remembers that this process has been ongoing for two years.
CE also thanked everyone for their support, assistance and input in the Plan’s preparation.
Cllr D’Alton (Ind): As the only Member who voted against, would also like to thank the Executive and staff for the work they have put into this. Voted against it because cannot support paragraphs 6.6.4 and 6.6.5. Believes they are unsustainable in the context of county development over the next 6 years. This text had been drafted before the local elections and so she had no opportunity to contribute to it.
Cllrs Fitzgerald (FF) and Murphy (FG) also spoke, thanking the Executive and Members for their work on the Plan.
5. Section 20(3) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000:
“That in accordance with Section 20(3) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, having considered the submissions thereon, Cork County Council hereby resolves to adopt the Proposed Amendments to the 10 Electoral Area Local Area Plans, 2011 as follows:
- Proposed Amendment to the 2011 Bandon Electoral Area Local Area Plan
Amendment No. 1: Housing Density Changes
- Proposed Amendment to the 2011 Bantry Electoral Area Local Area Plan
Amendment No. 1: Housing Density Changes
- Proposed Amendment to the 2011 Blarney Electoral Area Local Area Plan
Amendment No. 2: Housing Density Changes
- Proposed Amendment to the 2011 Carrigaline Electoral Area Local Area Plan
Amendment No. 3: Housing Density Changes - Proposed Amendment to the 2011 Fermoy Electoral Area Local Area Plan
Amendment No. 1: Housing Density Changes
- Proposed Amendment to the 2011 Kanturk Electoral Area Local Area Plan
Amendment No. 1: Housing Density Changes
- Proposed Amendment to the 2011 Macroom Electoral Area Local Area Plan
Amendment No. 2: Housing Density Changes
- Proposed Amendment to the 2011 Mallow Electoral Area Local Area Plan
Amendment No. 1: Housing Density Changes
- Proposed Amendment to the 2011 Midleton Electoral Area Local Area Plan
Amendment No. 1: Housing Density Changes
- Proposed Amendment to the 2011 Skibbereen Electoral Area Local Area Plan
Amendment No. 1: Housing Density Changes”
Members voted in favour of these amendments.
6. Section 20(3) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000:
“That in accordance with Section 20(3) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, having considered the submissions thereon, Cork County Council hereby resolves to adopt the Proposed Amendment to the Mallow Electoral Area Local Area Plan, 2011- Amendment No. 2: Mallow Environs.”
Members voted in favour of this amendment.
7. Disposal of Property
Section 183 of the Local Government Act, 2001:
(a). Disposal of land at Kilnagleary, Carrigaline, to the Department of Education and Skills.
(b). Disposal of land at Raffeen, Monkstown, Co. Cork.
(c). Disposal of land at Scrahanard, Clondrohid, Macroom, Co. Cork.
(d). Disposal of land at Dromleigh, Mitchelstown, Co. Cork.
(e). Disposal of 1 Tinley Park, Mallow, Co. Cork.
These were all agreed.
8. Section 8 of Statutory Instrument 244/2014 Local Government (Audit Committee) Regulation 2014:
Approval of Cork County Council Audit Committee Charter.
This was agreed.
[d] REPORTS & RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMITTEES
9. Corporate Policy Group:
Approval of attendance by Council members at Conferences on the Conference List for December, 2014 approved by the Corporate Policy Group at their meeting on the 2nd December 2014.
Agreed.
10. Kanturk/Mallow Municipal District:
REPORT UNDER SECTION 179 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT, 2000: N20 Annabella Roundabout Scheme
Agreed.
11. Southern Committee: Allocation of Amenity Grants for 2014.
Agreed.
[g] VOTES OF CONGRATULATIONS
24. VOTES OF CONGRATULATIONS (if any)
25. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
Cllr Forde (FG): Suggests that because Cork City Council won’t identify where the convention centre should go, we should send a letter to their management and suggest that we have plenty of land within the County area which we could offer.
The rest of the meeting was deferred.
[e] CORRESPONDENCE FROM GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
12. Department of Social Protection:
Letter received 14th November, 2014, in response to Council’s letter of 3rd November, 2014, regarding the Gateway Scheme.
[f] NOTICES OF MOTION
13. Councillor Rachel McCarthy:
“That this Council acknowledges the long waiting time for Local Authority Tenants in respect of housing adaptations and calls for the Government to allocate extra funding to local authorities for same.”
14. Councillor Deirdre Forde:
“Cork County Council supports The Carers Association call on the Minister for Social Protection to amend the Social Welfare Bill to make provision for the restoration of the Respite Care Grant.”
15. Councillor June Murphy:
“That this Council supports The Carers Association call on the Minister for Social Protection to amend the Social Welfare Bill to make provision for the restoration of the Respite Care Grant.”
16. Councillor Aindrias Moynihan:
“On this year, the year of the 100th Anniversary of Cumann Na mBan that this Council in cooperation with the City Council name the N40 southern link road the Cumann na mBan road. It is fitting and appropriate that the Council recognise the role of women in Irish life and those women of Cumann Na mBan who played such a vital role in the struggle for independence.”
17. Councillor Seamus McGrath:
“To request a detailed written report regarding Derelict Sites in Cork County. The report should outline the total number of derelict sites on file, the number included on the derelict sites register and the average length of time that sites have been on the register. Furthermore, to outline what powers are open to the Council to progress a file beyond inclusion on the register and the powers available to the Council to ascertain site ownership / locate the whereabouts of owners.”
18. Councillor Kevin O’Keeffe:
“Given the substantial amount of funding allocated by the Government towards the provision of Social Housing but the difficulties that may arise towards their immediate delivery, Cork County Council request that part of the funding be allocated towards the refurbishment of existing social housing stock on hand.”
19. Councillor Frank O’Flynn:
“That Cork County Council set up an All Party special committee representative of the Council on 1916 commemorations.”
20. Councillor Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire:
To request a report from Cork County Council
– detailing the actions & initiatives they are taking to tackle the issue of Homelessness in County Cork, either with other Local Authorities or themselves,
– outlining what if any data is in the possession of the Council as regards the number of Homeless people in Cork County, or from Cork County in the City area,
– and to detail in what way the Budget allocation for Homeless Services is to be allocated.”
21. Councillor Noel Collins:
“That this Council call on the Minister for Children to expedite the implementation of legislation reform governing the rights of all children many of whom, under current legislation, remain locked in legal limbo.”
22. Councillor Paul Hayes:
“That Cork County Council writes to the Minister for Transport and the Dublin Airport Authority outlining our support for the campaign to secure independent and debt-free status for Cork Airport.”
23. Councillor John Paul O’Shea:
“That Cork County Council write to the Minister for the Environment, Community & Local Government, Alan Kelly, TD and Minister of State with responsibility for Housing, Paudie Coffey, TD requesting a significantly increased allocation for the adaptation to council houses (DPG’s) in 2015 compare to 2014. The 2014 allocation was approx €360,000 (which included a 10% contribution from Cork County Council) and is only going some way to financing two extensions and 46 minor works which have been approved by the Housing Directorate to proceed. Cork County Council has a further 38 extensions and 55 minor works applications to hand, dating back as far back as 2009 approved and awaiting Government financing for same and substantial funding is required in order we can facilitate these adaptation for our tenants, which have all been medically assessed and approved to be in need of same.”