Category Archives: Motions 2015

My motion to Full Council on air quality monitoring in Cork Harbour

“That the Environmental Protection Agency would set up a permanent air quality monitoring station at a representative location in Cork Harbour.  That this air quality monitoring station would be capable of measuring concentrations of all the parameters for which limit values in ambient air have been set by Directive 2008/50/EC, including particulate matter.  Cork Harbour is one of the most important industrial areas in Ireland, significant at a worldwide level within the pharmaceutical industry and a major port.  Although Cork Harbour and its immediate environs is home to 44,000 people and an employment hub for over 10,000 people, there is currently no ambient air monitoring in Cork Harbour.”


 Cllr D’Alton’s introduction to the motion:

There are two European directives, one dating from 2001 and the other from 2008, which are designed to look after the quality of the air we breathe. Every time we breathe we are in direct contact with the external environment. The lung, in fact, is really the only one of our organs that is in direct contact with the environment. Continue reading My motion to Full Council on air quality monitoring in Cork Harbour

My motion to full Council on the Strategic Infrastructure Act, 14th December 2015

“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.”

Projects that are really big; projects like an incinerator, a landfill, an airport, a port, a refinery, a power station, a super-large wind farm don’t follow normal planning permission procedures. They follow the procedures outlined in the Strategic Infrastructure Act of 2006. Such projects have massive potential to impact on both humans and the environment. So companies proposing these projects can spend up to two years in pre-planning consultation with An Bord Pleanala and a further year and more preparing the necessary planning documentation.

When the planning application is advertised, the public – those most at risk of impact – have 6 weeks within which to make a submission. So they put aside their lives, spend every waking minute interpreting the technical data that it took specialised consultants and year and more to prepare and submit their expressions of fear to the Board with the requisite fee.

When the Board is ready, it calls an oral hearing. Again, the public – those who are most at risk of impact – put their lives on hold. Frantic recruiting of grannies and childminders, hasty booking of time off work, postponing business appointments, rescheduling plans. Panic-stricken seeking of experts who may back their concerns and fears with technical data. Research and preparation each night into the early hours of each morning.

An oral hearing can take anything from a few days to a few weeks. The company proposing the project does not have to be present. Their evidence is generally delivered by their consultants and managed by their legal representatives. The concerned public who were lucky enough to find childminders and get time off work attend all day every day. Those who were less lucky pop in and out during lunch hour and any time during the working day that they can. All go home in the evening, catch up on normal daily life and when that normal daily life is over, prepare for the following day’s hearing.

After the oral hearing is over and generally after several months of a wait, the Board delivers a verdict. If a project is refused permission to proceed, the concerned public is much relieved but their work is not done. They must now start fund-raising to pay for experts they may have employed to support them in the oral hearing. In some communities, this fund-raising can go on for years, so the legacy of a project stays with a community long after it has been refused.

But a company proposing a strategic infrastructure project invests heavily in a site and has tremendous hopes for the profits that project may bring. It will not let this investment go to waste. So some years later, the company tweaks the planning application and begins the process again.

The impact on the community is phenomenal. A community can rarely garner the same level of public support the second time round. People are tired and still in the process of recovering their lives years after the first application. But they rally, draining themselves of their energy and resources in the process.

Some communities in our county are enduring this merry go round, not for the second, but for the third time. They are fighting a third variation of the same project, on the same site, already refused twice by the Board. Can you even imagine the impact on those communities? The planning process was designed to be democratic. To repeatedly apply for permission for a development in this way is neither constructive nor democratic. It is simply bullying.

For the sake of democracy, fairness and communities, I ask this Council’s support to request of the Minister that the planning acts be amended so that a planning application to the board under the Strategic Infrastructure Act can be made no more than twice for the same nature of project on the same site.


That in view of its obligations under

  • Articles 49, 50 and 74 of the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations,
  • Article 56 of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000,
  • Article 8 of the Convention on Biological Diversity
  • Article 4 of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats
  • Target 8 of the National Biodiversity Plan 2011 – 2016


and particularly with regard to EU Regulation 1143/2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species which entered into force on 1st January 2015 and which lays down rules for the prevention and minimisation of the adverse impact of the spread of invasive alien species and requires a risk assessment within 18 months and a comprehensive control programme within 3 years,


  • Cork County Council would dedicate either new or existing staff resources to addressing the issue of Japanese knotweed and other invasive species
  • Cork County Council would devote some of the financial allocation to the Cork County Biodiversity Action Plan to:
    1. Improved training of on-the-ground staff, contractors and subcontractors in controlling the spread of Japanese knotweed
    2. Raising general public awareness of Japanese knotweed.



If I told you that a female alien had come down from space, was self-propagating and gradually invading the earth, what would you say?  That as it grew and multiplied, it would gradually kill off our grasses, ferns, buttercups, daisies, nettles.  It would kill off the butterflies, ladybirds and those familiar insects which depend on those plants.  It would knock walls, damage paving, cause erosion of riverbanks and flood defence structures, it would destroy archaeological sites and it would attack homes.  Would you stand idly by and watch it happen?  Would you say “there’s nothing we can do”?  Would you say “we don’t have adequate resources to control it.  We’ll just have to let this alien take over”? 


Because that is what is happening.  And as Mother Nature is being choked and smothered, we are being less than chivalrous. 


Japanese knotweed was brought to Europe in the mid-19th century by a German botanist who found it growing on the sides of volcanoes in Japan.  It was lauded and celebrated as a new ornamental plant and in 1850, the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew received its first shipment of knotweed.  Four years later, the plant was sold commercially in nurseries. 


In its native Japanese volcanic landscape, the climate, natural predators and regular deposits of ash kept knotweed plants small.   The plant survived because of the energy stores in its deep root system.  But in Western Europe, without these impediments, it grows unabated.


At its most prolific it can grow up to 20cm EVERY DAY.  That is 3 – 4 metres in just 10 weeks – the equivalent of two grown adults.  Underground, its roots can spread 7 metres horizontally and can go down up to 3 metres.


All the Japanese knotweed all over the UK and Ireland have grown from that one single female specimen shipped to Kew in 1850.  So because the plants are unfertilized by a male, they cannot produce flowers and hence, cannot produce seed.  For the vast majority of plants, this would mean extinction.  But not Japanese knotweed.  A new plant can grow from miniscule fragments of ANY part of the plant.


So in the case of Japanese knotweed, the absolute worst thing you can do is to flail, chip or strim it on a roadside.  Every tiny needle-sized fragment of the plant that flies out from under the chipper creates another new plant.  Every wheel of every tractor or van that passes over the flailed material spreads it further down the road.  Every cut stem left lying on the roadside verge will form another plant.


Knotweed costs the UK economy Stg£166 million per year for treatment and in home devaluations.  One London-based couple saw the bamboo-like stems growing through the floor of their home.  They were told it would be cheaper to knock down and rebuild their £300,000 home rather than try and treat their knotweed problem.  Mortgages have been refused on properties in the UK with a single 3cm stand of Japanese knotweed in their garden.  If a bank’s valuer finds evidence of it or if there is a history of it in the area, a specialist survey will be required.  At least three banking institutions in the UK will not lend, whilst others will consider with the advice of a surveyor but require guarantees or an indemnity to be in place.  Estimates now show at least one infestation of Japanese knotweed in every 10 sq kms in the UK.


And Ireland is rapidly following suit. 


Section 49 of the Birds and Natural Habitats Regulations says that any person who plants, spreads or allows Japanese knotweed to spread is guilty of an offence.  Yet last October I watched Cork County Council contractors flailing knotweed on the roadside verge of the R610 at Rochestown.  And every day now, I watch the brand new knotweed plants springing forth from where they were spread.  In this instance, Cork County Council was clearly guilty of an offence under the Birds and Natural Habitats Regulations. 


But the European Parliament and Council have passed a new regulation which came into force on the first day of 2015.  This regulation requires each Member State to carry out a risk assessment on all alien invasive species within 18 months and a comprehensive control programme within 3 years.  That is a control programme for ALL invasive species.  Not just Japanese knotweed.  Bearing in mind the current rate of its spread, the tackling of Japanese knotweed would be a very good place to start teeing up for compliance with this regulation.


One of the advantages of always being behind the curve is that we rarely have to reinvent the wheel.  There are many examples of interagency management of knotweed in the UK, of illustrative advice leaflets, of community forums.  Our own NRA lays out the clearest and briefest of guidelines for the management of Japanese knotweed on roadside verges:


Step 1: Undertake a detailed assessment

Step 2: Implement the appropriate control measures

Step 3: Undertake post control monitoring.


Right now we can’t even do Step 1 because we don’t know where the Japanese knotweed is.  And we can’t know where it is because most people don’t recognise it.


So I am asking that Cork County Council would allocate either new or existing staff resources to the Japanese knotweed issue.  This does not have to be a full time position but we need to begin the mapping of stands of Japanese knotweed in County Cork.  This work does not have to be done from scratch; we simply have to liaise with other mapping projects which are currently underway.  For example, the Cork Branch of the Irish Wildlife Trust has been funded by Cork City Council to run a mapping project of knotweed and other invasives.  This is ongoing at present.


And I am asking that Cork County Council would use some of the unspent financial allocation to the County’s Biodiversity Action Plan to raising awareness of Japanese knotweed.  Training ground staff and contractors to recognise the plant.  Developing methods of its control on roadside verges.  Starting a campaign of awareness.  Defining how ground staff and contractors should transport it.  Defining where they should transport it to for destruction.


I’m not asking for a widespread 4-year programme of glyphosate injection into every stand of Japanese knotweed in County Cork.  I’m asking for the most simple and common sense approach to getting a handle on our problem.  Because right now we are being invaded and we are standing idly by rather than defending our homeland.

My Notice of Motion to a meeting of full Council, 13 July 2015

Motion: That State job activation measures should be available to all who are unemployed, not only to those on the Live Register. That if passed, this motion would be circulated to all local authorities in the country.

Text of my introduction:

A person who is unemployed can be entered on the Live Register only if that person qualifies under a means test and is in receipt of social welfare payments. If an unemployed person fails the means test, he or she is not registered as unemployed with the Department of Social Protection. Continue reading My Notice of Motion to a meeting of full Council, 13 July 2015

Japanese knotweed

If I told you that a female alien had come down from space, was self-propagating and gradually invading the earth, what would you say?  That as it grew and multiplied, it would gradually kill off our grasses, ferns, buttercups, daisies, nettles.  It would kill off the butterflies, ladybirds and the familiar insects which depend on those plants.  It would knock walls, damage paving, cause erosion of riverbanks and flood defence structures, it would destroy archaeological sites and it would attack homes.  Would you say that I was losing the run of myself?

Because right now, that is what is happening! Continue reading Japanese knotweed


“That this Council acknowledges that those recognised as disabled under the Disability Act 2005 living within our community may have special needs which may be affected by adjacent planning decisions.  Consequently this Council asks that government would amend standard planning guidelines to include consideration of those special needs when they are supported by medical expertise”.



Local government is all about social inclusion.  A feature of social inclusion is that those with disabilities would be integrated as fully as possible into the community.  One key aspect in achieving social inclusion for those with disabilities is to have secure and appropriate housing.


That is why the overall objective of the building and planning codes is to ensure that an effective legislative framework is in place to make the built environment accessible to all.  Part M of the Building Regulations provides key design specifications to ensure people with disabilities can live comfortably in regular residential dwellings.


And local authorities further support that aim by requiring Disability Access Certificates for apartment blocks and by running the Mobility Aids Grant Scheme and the Housing Adaptation Grant for People with a Disability.


But in the context of the Building Regulations, Part M relates to physical disability and mobility issues.  Contrary to this, the Disability Act 2005 considers the term disability to have a far broader remit.  It defines disability as being a physical, sensory, mental health or intellectual impairment resulting in a significant difficulty in communication, learning, mobility or in significantly disordered cognitive processes giving rise to an ongoing need for supportive services.


In other words, disability does not solely relate to physical impairment.


To address this deficit in the Building Regulations, the government published a National Housing Strategy for People with a Disability in 2011.  This aim of this publication was to mainstream access to independent living for adults with physical, mental, sensory and intellectual disabilities and to direct the efforts of housing authorities and the HSE to support people with a disability of any nature to live independently in their own homes.


The concept of the Strategy is worthy and welcome.  But again, it is limited.  It focuses only on the provision of appropriate social housing to those with any kind of a disability.  There is neither legislation nor guidance from government to assist those with disabilities living in their own private homes.


The National Intellectual Disability Database Committee reported in 20094 that 74.4% of the population with an intellectual disability lives in private accommodation.  In 2014, they estimated that some 66.8% of those with an intellectual disability live at home with family.


All documentation discussing the mainstreaming of people with disabilities into society refers to the need for a secure environment.  What provides that essential security for people with an intellectual or mental disability living in their own private homes?


Security, whether able-bodied or otherwise, is important to all who live in their own homes.  But for those with a mental disability, it can be critical. 


A recent case in County Cork illustrates the current lack of support for those with intellectual disabilities living in their own homes.  A boy with severe autism lives with his family in a relatively tight suburban estate.  He presents with learning difficulties and acute sensory sensitivities.  He wears ear defenders in the home to protect against everyday noise.  Their home has been adapted to provide the safe spaces and environment he needs.  The mother is a full time carer.


A planning application is submitted for the house immediately next door.  The effect of the proposed works would be to materially alter the boy’s safe spaces.  The construction noise would be, for him, beyond intolerable.  The parents appealed to the planning authority, including letters of medical support from both their family doctor and specialised support services.  Planning permission was granted.  Why?  Because the assessment of social/medical issues fell outside the normal remit of a planning application. 


There is little point in a local government system providing secure social housing for those with mental disabilities when the planning system fails the appropriate housing needs of those living in their own homes


Those living with disabilities in our communities, whether alone or as part of a family, are some of the most vulnerable in our society.  Proper planning and sustainable development simply must consider the most vulnerable; otherwise how can it be sustainable?  It is therefore vital that planning guidelines must require de facto consideration of the disabled already living in the community.


This is not the massive step is sounds.  The structures are already in place.  The needs of those with special vulnerabilities are already recognised and generally supported by the Health Service Executive and other specialised services under Part 2 of the Disability Act.  The independent assessment of need legislated for in Part 2 will indicate the nature and extent of a person’s disability and their particular needs.


Guidance for planning considerations is already provided to planning authorities in a range of documents.


The best of advice towards providing fully integrated housing to those with disabilities repeatedly recommends the need for integration between the different services.  The National Housing Strategy for People with a Disability3 states that “effectively meeting the housing needs of people with a disability requires an integrated, flexible and responsive approach”.


If a planning application is under consideration and that planning application has the potential to impact negatively on the special, medically recognised needs of a disabled person living adjacent, it is natural that the next step would for a planning authority to consult with the health and social services to obtain the benefit of their expertise.  Only this way will a fair, holistic and sustainable decision be reached on that planning application.


We as a society owe a huge debt to those caring for the disabled in our communities.  They devote their lives to society’s most vulnerable, giving them the best opportunity for a quality of life, the best opportunity to respond to their individual needs and the best opportunity to avoid institutional care.  This is a stated objective of the government and of the HSE. 


But often those carers’ ability to cope is balanced on a knife-edge.  An adjacent planning decision which does not take their very often sensitive needs into consideration can topple that delicate balance, causing more distress and suffering than is humane.  This one change in our statutory planning considerations could change that for the better for all the disabled and their carers.

My introduction to my motion on dog fouling

“To request a report detailing Cork County Council’s current policy on dog fouling.  To include:

(i)  the facilities Cork County Council provides to support the responsible management of dog waste
(ii)  the practical and financial supports Cork County Council currently offers to assist communities in keeping streets free of dog waste
(iii)  the public awareness measures undertaken by Cork County Council highlighting the health risks associated with dog waste
(iv)  The number of on-the-spot fines issued for dog fouling in 2014.”

Cllr D’Alton: The reason I asked for a report on Council policy with regard to dog waste management because this is an issue that effects every community, every outdoor amenity in the county and one that a solitary warden is not going to eliminate.  I appreciate the report produced by the Executive in response to my motion but the fact that only two fines for dog fouling issued last year indicates that current Council policy is not working.  In Passage West, a survey done amongst the local community indicated the anti-social problem of greatest concern was abandoned dog waste.  And although the County Council got €1m of funding to upgrade the old railway line such that it is now one of the most popular walking routes in the country, it didn’t have a single dog waste receptacle of any kind until the Tidy Towns group was awarded a grant to install two which empties itself.

I know this is an issue that the Environment SPC was working on before.  I also know increased awareness of the need for better dog waste management was part of the Council’s Environmental Awareness Strategy 2010 – 2015.  But these efforts seems to have gone nowhere.

An effective programme of dog waste management involves a multi-faceted approach with emphasis on public education and increasing awareness.  Other councils around the country are making inroads into tackling this anti-social problem.

Clare County Council erected mobile programmable audio devices on the promenades of two of its most popular beaches that encourage dog owners to clean up after their pets.

Almost immediately there was a 50% reduction in dog fouling in both locations.

These audio devices have also been used by Fingal County Council.  They were erected on lampposts along the sea front and resulted in an 82% reduction in dog fouling.  The trial run was so successful that the other Dublin Councils are also going to try the audio devices.

The four Dublin councils have also recently signed up to the Green Dog Walkers Programme. Wicklow County Council, Meath County Council, Kilkenny County Council are committed to this programme too.  The Green Dog Walkers initiative encourages dog owners to sign up to a pledge whereby they agree to wear a green armband when walking their dog, clean up after their dog and be happy to carry an extra dog waste bag for those dog walkers who may have forgotten to bring one.

Roscommon County Council is trying clean advertising to raise awareness of the need to clean up dog waste.  Clean advertising involves stencils with an anti-dog fouling message which is sprayed onto the footpath and which lasts for only a few weeks.

Other more exciting initiatives include that in Mexico City, where parks have been equipped with special boxes where people can throw away their dog poop.  Free Wi-Fi is offered to all park users and the higher the weight of poop in the box, the more minutes of free Wi-Fi available to everyone in the park.

In Bristol, UK they have gone for the shock factor.  Their new posters feature toddlers picking up dog poop, smearing it all over themselves, and even eating it.

Keep Britain Tidy is working on a new campaign with 23 County and Borough Councils which has seen a reduction of 46% in the levels of dog fouling.  The campaign features ‘We’re watching you’ posters which glow in the dark at night.

Other councils in the UK have tried spraying abandoned dog waste a bright colour.

In West Yorkshire, British Waterways decorated a tree with dozens of bags of poo-filled plastic bags, to highlight the problem of owners picking the waste up – only to fling it into the foliage.  A 70% drop in the amount of mess found on the streets was reported.

Plain clothes officers, surveillance vans and wardens with night vision goggles were used by Hydburn Council, to enable the handing-out of £75 on-the-spot fines to irresponsible owners.

In Gwent, more than 2,000 fixed penalty notices were issued after a private firm was employed.

There are lots of initiatives, lots of bright ideas.  Irresponsible pet waste management is a scourge in our communities.  It is time the Council backed communities in helping them to deal with it.